Only if your UBS3 doesn't have the dictionary (some don't) but the UBS5 does.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sorenson's new book Neither Oldest Nor Best
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
All of my original language tools are part of the Logos package....Only if your UBS3 doesn't have the dictionary (some don't) but the UBS5 does.
Thanks to Doc and JoJ for the reference to Pickering's work on Family 35. I've been reading through God Has Preserved His Text! I admit to being lost much of the time in the specifics of the statistical analysis (but not the other arguments, i.e., geography, et al., which are pretty standard), but it appears to me (as Doc has said) that Pickering has identified 200 or so manuscripts that are the "pure line" of transmission and thus the Majority Text is a dead end and better than the Critical Text only relatively. That is, where the MT departs from Family 35, it is no more reliable than, say, Alexandrinus or Sinaiticus. But that's just my take.
Pickering's Family 35, if I understand correctly, is the same as Von Soden's K(r); the difference is that Pickering believes those MS are the original (or very near the original) texts while Von Soden believed they are a medieval recension, which is why Von Soden believes they were copied so consistently.
Pickering's Family 35, if I understand correctly, is the same as Von Soden's K(r); the difference is that Pickering believes those MS are the original (or very near the original) texts while Von Soden believed they are a medieval recension, which is why Von Soden believes they were copied so consistently.
Von Soden is correct regarding the late date of Kr and its family 35 subset; this accurately represents the view commonly held by virtually everyone except Pickering.
When no family 35 or Kr manuscript exists that dates before the 11th century, it becomes extremely difficult to claim "providential preservation" representing the "original" text for that group of manuscripts--as difficult as for those who otherwise claim the same for their late 19th-century printed Textus Receptus edition.
When no family 35 or Kr manuscript exists that dates before the 11th century, it becomes extremely difficult to claim "providential preservation" representing the "original" text for that group of manuscripts--as difficult as for those who otherwise claim the same for their late 19th-century printed Textus Receptus edition.
So ...
1. Pickering is correct in that Family 35 represents the original (I would say best available, but this not really Pickering's argument) text of the New Testament and the other readings, whether Byzantine or Alexandrian, or whatever text type you want to mention, should be largely ignored. So both the Critical Text and Majority Text proponents are left out in the cold.
Or ...
2. Pickering is wrong and Von Soden is correct in that Kr or Family 35 is a late recension and should be largely ignored in determining the Majority Text.
What are the practical results of either of those two positions?
1. Pickering is correct in that Family 35 represents the original (I would say best available, but this not really Pickering's argument) text of the New Testament and the other readings, whether Byzantine or Alexandrian, or whatever text type you want to mention, should be largely ignored. So both the Critical Text and Majority Text proponents are left out in the cold.
Or ...
2. Pickering is wrong and Von Soden is correct in that Kr or Family 35 is a late recension and should be largely ignored in determining the Majority Text.
What are the practical results of either of those two positions?
Last edited:
He may claim not to be KJV-only, but he is trying to make a distinction without a difference according to other of his own statements.
David H. Sorenson wrote: "The Traditional Text and the King James Version reflect the purified verbal transmission of God's very words. Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired, verbal preservation has carried the results of inspiration through to this hour in the King James Version. The results are inerrancy and infallibility. Though technically the King James Version is not inspired as a translation, we can still effectually say, 'I hold in my hands the inspired Word of God' because of God's providential work of preservation" (God's Perfect Book, p. 211).
I agree. I can hold in my hands the inspired word of God. My KJV is vested with derivative inspiration because it is translated from the inspired Greek and Hebrew which were vested with that same derivative inspiration right back to the autographs.
And I can say the same thing of my NKJV. My WEB. My ASV. My ESV. Etc. I prefer the first two, but still consider the others to be vested with derivative inspiration.
The History is inspired History.
The Prophecy is inspired Prophecy.
The Promises are inspired Promises.
The Originals: Given by Inspiration of God.
The Copies: Preserving the Inspired nature of the above.
The Translations: Transmitting the inspired nature of the history, prophecy, and promises of the above into the receptor language.
This all seems rather obvious to me. But then, what do I know?
>1. Pickering is correct in that Family 35 represents the original
If Pickering is correct on this first point, then _everyone_ else is wrong.
>2. Pickering is wrong and Von Soden is correct in that Kr or Family 35 is a late recension and should be largely ignored in determining the Majority Text.
And everyone else seems to hold this to be correct.
>What are the practical results of either of those two positions?
Since Kr or family 35 agree about 99% with the majority or Byzantine readings, not much for those who favor that type of text. For those who follow the critical text, the gap between that and all of the others remains about the same.
If Pickering is correct on this first point, then _everyone_ else is wrong.
>2. Pickering is wrong and Von Soden is correct in that Kr or Family 35 is a late recension and should be largely ignored in determining the Majority Text.
And everyone else seems to hold this to be correct.
>What are the practical results of either of those two positions?
Since Kr or family 35 agree about 99% with the majority or Byzantine readings, not much for those who favor that type of text. For those who follow the critical text, the gap between that and all of the others remains about the same.
David Sorenson wrote: “The simple truth is that God inspired the words of Scripture once when He spoke to or through holy men of old“ (God‘s Perfect Book, p. 44). Sorenson noted: “Inspiration took place when holy men of old penned the very words of Scripture, whether Moses, Ezra, David, Peter, or Paul. Inspiration did not take place again in the 17th century” (p. 45). Sorenson asserted: “Inspiration was a one-time act of God for each respective section of the Bible” (p. 93).
Does Sorenson clearly define the term inspiration in such a way that he can properly attempt to apply it also to the KJV?
How would the one-time act of God in giving the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles be transmitted or transferred to the different process of later translating?
Does Sorenson clearly define the term inspiration in such a way that he can properly attempt to apply it also to the KJV?
How would the one-time act of God in giving the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles be transmitted or transferred to the different process of later translating?
Last edited:
KJV-only author Lloyd Streeter asserted: "There is no lesser inspiration or lower degree of inspiration. Inspiration is inspiration. Either the King James Bible has the quality of God-breathedness, or it does not. Either it is inspired the way Scripture claims that the Bible is inspired or else it is not inspired at all" (Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist Seminary's Book The Bible Version Debate, p. 45).
Streeter claimed: "Inspiration is not in degrees, nor is it a higher or a lower level" (p. 47)
Streeter claimed: "Inspiration is not in degrees, nor is it a higher or a lower level" (p. 47)