Two philosophies

[Pastor_Bob]

By virtue of the fact that we are having this discussion on the BaptistBoard.com in a Baptist only forum, it almost goes without saying "what church" to which I refer. I believe that the Holy Spirit providentially preserved the true text of His Word, in part, by the believing churches since the first century.

We know what the truth is; the truth is the Word of God.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The Word of God makes it quite clear that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
I Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[robycop3]

Pastor Bob, there was no Baptist church with beliefs similar to ours until 1610 at the earliest, most likely, before 1641. Therefore the earliest genuine Baptists most likely used the Geneva Bible, or possibly the Bishop's Bible before switching to the AV for whatever reasons, the most likely being that the AV became the only readily-available version after the 1640s.

But at any rate, Sir, Scripture does NOT point to the KJV or any other one version. Tradition doesn't count one glompus with me.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Two philosophies: Tradition and the teaching of man for doctrines or Sola Scriptura. Which one are you?

I certainly believe and hold to the premise of Sola Scriptura, but not to the exclusion of God's use of man to teach His Word. The Bible is clear that God's agent here on earth to proclaim His Word is man.

Jesus didn't tell us to simply distribute Bibles and let the people figure it out.
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I do believe that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God, but I also believe that God has chosen to use men and women to proclaim these truths and to teach His doctrine.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

...there was no Baptist church with beliefs similar to ours until 1610 at the earliest, most likely, before 1641.

That is why I referred to the believing churches. I agree that the church was not named the Baptist church, but I disagree that their beliefs were dissimilar to ours. I believe in the perpetuity of the church. As such, I believe that the church preserved the Scriptures intact. I believe that the Bible I read and preach from is a reliable, accurate representation of what the early church used, many being the originals or first generation copies of the originals.

 

[Logos1560]

I, personally, believe that God's Word was preserved in the English language beginning with Tyndale's,and continued through Coverdale's, Matthew's, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, and to our modern day King James Version.
.

Do you take in account the fact that one or more of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have several renderings that KJV-only advocates strongly condemn when found in present-day translations?
Are you taking in account the facts of the clear influences of the Roman
Catholic Latin Vulgate on several of the earlier English Bibles including the
KJV and the fact of the influence of the 1582 Rheims New Testament on
the KJV? Some of the earlier English Bibles have readings or additions that came from the Latin Vulgate. The 1560 Geneva Bible has an advantage over the KJV in that it was not influenced by the 1582 Rheims.

The truth is consistent. The plain fact remains that arguments for a KJV-only view are applied very inconsistently.

 

[TCassidy]

Pastor Bob, there was no Baptist church with beliefs similar to ours until 1610 at the earliest, most likely, before 1641.

If you mean "Baptist" under that name and no other, you are correct. But if by "Baptist" you mean a doctrinal identity and not a denominational name, then you could not be more wrong. "The faith once delivered" has always been evident in the dissenting churches from the early 2nd century until now.

Also, If Pastor Bob's argument is that the type of textform used by those believing churches was the same as the textform which underlies the KJV (and a few other post 17th century versions) then I will have to agree with him. One of the canons of textual criticism is "historicity." The bible believing churches, historically, were more likely to use an accurate copy of the scriptures than they were to use an inaccurate copy.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I would also "fall into line" with Pastor Bob and others on the importance of preservation and historicity. This has been my reason for support of the texts underlying the KJV.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Do you take in account the fact that one or more of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have several renderings that KJV-only advocates strongly condemn when found in present-day translations?

As I'm sure you are aware, these Bibles were translated by fallible men. As such, they contain translator and printer errors. The Geneva Bible alone was issued in nearly 180 editions. "1560 to 1616, not a year passed without a new edition"* There are renderings in the earlier English Bibles and even in the earlier KJV editions that we would condemn as well; some have become infamous errors. Mistakes and inaccuracies must be corrected and not reprinted in later editions or translations.

Are you taking in account the facts of the clear influences of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate on several of the earlier English Bibles including the
KJV and the fact of the influence of the 1582 Rheims New Testament on the KJV?

The fact that these entities had influence on the KJV is really irrelevant. The Holy Spirit guided the church to preserve the accurate texts from which we have our Bible today. God, all through history, has used godless men to accomplish His divine purposes.

Some of the earlier English Bibles have readings or additions that came from the Latin Vulgate.

I am not opposed to this dogmatically, but that is why I excluded Wycliffe's Bible in my list above. I much prefer works that were produced from the Hebrew and Greek directly.

The 1560 Geneva Bible has an advantage over the KJV in that it was not influenced by the 1582 Rheims.

The KJV was not greatly influenced by the Rheims-Douay Bible of 1582 in that the KJV was primarily a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568 translated 14 years before the Rheims-Douay.




*The Bible in Translation - Ancient and English Versions by Bruce H. Metzger pg. 66

 

[Pastor Larry]

Briefly, those two philosophies can be summarized as follows: (1) The historic Received Textual position is based in belief. (2) The modern critical textual position is based in rationalism. Touch Not The Unclean Thing pg. 52 - David H. Sorenson

On this, as on many other things, Sorenson is wrong. The modern text critical position is based on belief as well. It holds a different set of underlying beliefs, namely that God providentially preserved his word in the multitude of manuscripts.

The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

All three of these aspects can be easily defended by Scripture, whereas, the critical text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity. It is clear to me which position has the Scriptural support.

These three reasons are why I and many other Bible believers hold to the modern text critical position. We believe in providential preservation, guidance by the Holy Spirit, and preservation in the church. These three issues line up perfectly with modern textual position.

The issue is the text that underlies the KJV. When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.

Perhaps in my absence something changed, and I missed it, so pardon my ignorance but which Scripture testifies to the text underlying the KJV?

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV was not greatly influenced by the Rheims-Douay Bible of 1582 in that the KJV was primarily a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568 translated 14 years before the Rheims-Douay.

Yes, the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible, but many of the places in the N. T. where the KJV differs from the Bishops' Bible comes thru influence of the Rheims.

Benson Bobrick also observed; "From the Rheims New Testament, the translators saw fit to borrow a number of Latinate words" (Wide as the Waters, p. 244). James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). In his book, Carleton gave charts or comparisons in which he gave the rendering of the early Bibles and then the different rendering of the Rheims and KJV.



W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Olga Opfell observed that the Westminster company (Romans through Jude) "borrowed many Latinate words" from the Rheims (KJB Translators, p. 97). Ward S. Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29).

 

[Deacon]

...the critical text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity. It is clear to me which position has the Scriptural support.

The “received” text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity.

Uncertainty… what version, which texts? there are differences in every one!
Human logic... TCassidy provides some convincing reasons for Byzantine Priority based upon reason or logic.
Subjectivity… these reasons can be applied to multiple versions.

As you stated:
God clearly promised to preserve His Word:

• Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. (NAS)
• Psalm 119:152 Of old I have known from Your testimonies That You have founded them forever. (NAS)
• Psalm 119:89 Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. (NAS)
• Psalm 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. (NAS)
• Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (NAS)

Rob

 

[TomVols]

Pastor Larry wrote:

The modern text critical position is based on belief as well. It holds a different set of underlying beliefs, namely that God providentially preserved his word in the multitude of manuscripts....These three reasons are why I and many other Bible believers hold to the modern text critical position. We believe in providential preservation, guidance by the Holy Spirit, and preservation in the church. These three issues line up perfectly with modern textual position.

Well said and worth saying.:thumbs: It is fallacy (perhaps, deception) to argue that belief in providential preservation, Holy Spirit guidance, and church guardianship precludes a Bible believer from accepting the earlier texts as the most accurate. It is also fallacy and perhaps deception to argue that rationalism (in a negative sense) is the MO of early text advocates. If reason trumps fidelity to the text in the minds and hearts of early text advocates, it would also stand to reason that it could do the same to traditional text advocates.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The modern text critical position is based on belief as well. It holds a different set of underlying beliefs, namely that God providentially preserved his word in the multitude of manuscripts.

It seems as if the modern textual critic believes that God providentially preserved His Word in the multitude of conflicting manuscripts and place the greater weight on the "earliest" extant manuscripts regardless of the fact that they disagree with the whole in most places.

The critical text position, in my opinion, is not based upon Scriptural or historical facts. It is based largely upon human logic.

Modern textual criticism accordingly has become the supreme court determining what is the Word of God and what is not. Little or no regard is paid to what the church has historically used, believed, and upheld as Scripture. Rather, the committees of modern textual critics issue their verdicts whether a given word, verse, or portion of a chapter should be a part of the Bible. (Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text pg. 10 - from Sorenson's Touch Not the Unclean Thing)

We believe in providential preservation, guidance by the Holy Spirit, and preservation in the church. These three issues line up perfectly with modern textual position.

Can you name any early church father that used a text that is represented by the modern critical text?

 

[David J]

I certainly believe and hold to the premise of Sola Scriptura, but not to the exclusion of God's use of man to teach His Word. The Bible is clear that God's agent here on earth to proclaim His Word is man.

Jesus didn't tell us to simply distribute Bibles and let the people figure it out.
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I do believe that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God, but I also believe that God has chosen to use men and women to proclaim these truths and to teach His doctrine.

So in other words use Sola Scriptura when it's serves your purpose. Other times you rely upon the traditions of man to prove your KJVO myths and when challenged for Scriptural support for this belief/teaching/doctrine you toss Sola Scriptura out the window.


You have yet to back up your claims with Scriptural support therefore they are false until proven by the Holy Scriptures. I reject KJVOism because KJVOism has no Scriptural proof and historically it is proven false.


God never said the KJV is the final English bible for the English speaking people. God never said they He would not use modern bibles and the CT bibles to spread His Word and save people. The NIV's fruit of saved souls is proof that God spreads His Word as He sees fit and it is by His power and His Word people are saved.


There is not need to put words in God's mouth that He never said. There is no need to force(or teach this as the gospel truth) a man made tradition or myths about the KJV as if God approves of these traditions and myths. God never said anything about the KJV and God did not work through the Holy Spirit to "move" over the KJV.


So if you believe in Sola Scriptura then back up you claims with Scripture that is only applicable to the KJV.


If you can not do this then your Sola Scriptura claims are false therefore you need to list your authority that is equal to Scriptural support for you claims about the KJV.

Some real answers to my questions would be nice. Remeber that I was a KJVO for over seven years. I know KJVO dogma. Now answer my questions and prove your Sola Scriptura claims or recant Sola Scriptura. You can't have it both ways. Either KJVOism is supported by Sola Scriptura or it is a man made tradition with zero Scriptural support that is exclusive to only the KJV.

The problem for KJVOism is that it rest upon tradition and not the rock of the Holy Scriptures therefore KJVOism's defenses are always on sifting sands of double standards.

As a conservative fundamentalist Baptist I reject KJVOism because it has zero Scriptural support.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It seems as if the modern textual critic believes that God providentially preserved His Word in the multitude of conflicting manuscripts and place the greater weight on the "earliest" extant manuscripts regardless of the fact that they disagree with the whole in most places.

Incorrect. They believe it is possible that it is such, but not guaranteed. Careful, Bob, not to misrepresent beliefs in hopes of making too simplistic of an argument. The fact is that there is no revealed way of knowing which texts are the most accurate, and given that they all contain differences, it is vital to have a reasonable way of text criticism.

The critical text position, in my opinion, is not based upon Scriptural or historical facts. It is based largely upon human logic.

In this your opinion is somewhat faulty. It is based on human logic, to be sure, to some degree. But that human logic is the gift of God, and it is based on years of concrete evidence regarding textual transmission. So it's not a shot in the dark. It is based on historical facts, contrary to your claim; and your position is based on human logic, contrary to your denial.

Modern textual criticism accordingly has become the supreme court determining what is the Word of God and what is not. Little or no regard is paid to what the church has historically used, believed, and upheld as Scripture. Rather, the committees of modern textual critics issue their verdicts whether a given word, verse, or portion of a chapter should be a part of the Bible. (Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text pg. 10 - from Sorenson's Touch Not the Unclean Thing)

Not a very good source for this discussion. Sorenson book and its contributors was not entirely accurate nor forthcoming in their presentation. Better sources would make for better discussions. The quote is factually inaccurate. All one needs to do is look at the textual apparatus of a modern Greek text, or the Textual Commentary to know that regard was paid to other manuscript families and traditions. In some cases, it was followed; it other cases it was not. But it is factually inaccurate to say that "little or no regard" was paid to it. The substantive difference between the TR and modern texts with respect to this issue who who the "supreme court" is. If you follow the TR, you have a supreme court made up of men beginning with Erasmus through to Scrivener. This supreme court is made of men with no supernatural gifts for text criticism. It is remarkably similar to the qualifications of the "supreme court" for modern texts: men with no supernatural gifts for text criticism. The difference is not in the committee, or the spiritual gifts necessary, but in the procedure used to determine the most likely reading.

Can you name any early church father that used a text that is represented by the modern critical text?

Please tell me that you are not arguing that text criticism is somehow tied to the scant evidence fo early fathers. You are now arguing against yourself. For you have previously argued that "older" doesn't mean "better." Now you are arguing that "older" would prove "better." That doesn't make logical or argumentative sense, Bob. You can't have it both ways. When you make this argument, you are admitting our position by saying that if we can find something older that substantiates a reading, it gives it greater weight.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Please tell me that you are not arguing that text criticism is somehow tied to the scant evidence fo early fathers. You are now arguing against yourself. For you have previously argued that "older" doesn't mean "better." Now you are arguing that "older" would prove "better." That doesn't make logical or argumentative sense, Bob. You can't have it both ways. When you make this argument, you are admitting our position by saying that if we can find something older that substantiates a reading, it gives it greater weight.

Not at all. You stated, "We believe in providential preservation, guidance by the Holy Spirit, and preservation in the church. These three issues line up perfectly with modern textual position." If God used the church to preserve the critical text, as we assert He did with the Received Text, then we should be able to find ample evidence in the writings of the early church fathers that would be represented in the modern critical text.

The fact is, the critical text is a synthetic text that did not exist anywhere in any form before it was produced by modern textual critics. I disagree that the critical text can claim preservation by the church.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Just as many want those who hold the KJV to be the preserved Word of God for the English speaking people to produce scripture that backs up KJVO, there is a far heavier weight in their court. And that is to prove that the early church fathers used the texts that are used by those who are believing their texts are the true texts handed down.

Pastor Bob, I am not a learned man when it comes to Greek and such, but I do know that God is God and God has spoken through His Word that He would preserve His Word.

We know He is faithful who promised. We know that the men who translated the KJV were faithful scholars who were skilled in Greek and other languages. I am persuaded by God's Holy Spirit that the KJV stands true, more true than any other Bible that has come in print in the last century.

 

[Linda64]

From Friday Church News Notes, June 2, 2006

MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM'S ROLE IN BART EHRMAN'S APOSTASY

Friday Church News Notes, June 2, 2006,http:// www.wayoflife.org
In his book Misquoting Jesus, influential modern textual critic Bart Ehrman
describes his conversion from belief to unbelief and explains the role that the field
of textual criticism played in that sad transition. After making a “born again”
profession of faith in Christ in high school he attended Moody Bible Institute,
where he discovered the field of textual criticism and began to have doubts about
the divine inspiration and preservation of the Bible, since “inerrancy depended on
having original texts, but all we possessed were copies ... and these were filled with
copyists' errors” (“Lapsed Evangelical Critic Bart Ehrman's Doubt,”
ChristianityToday.com, May 18). His doubts increased while studying the Greek
New Testament at Wheaton College and grew even stronger at Princeton
Theological Seminary where he studied under Bruce Metzger. Ehrman says: “In
short, my study of the Greek New Testament, and my investigations into the
manuscripts that contain it, led to a radical rethinking of my understanding of what
the Bible is.” Today Ehrman calls himself a “happy agnostic” and believes that
man simply ceases to exist at death, “like the mosquito you swatted yesterday.”

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/pdf/2006/20060602.pdf

 

[Pastor Larry]

If God used the church to preserve the critical text, as we assert He did with the Received Text, then we should be able to find ample evidence in the writings of the early church fathers that would be represented in the modern critical text.

Non sequitur.

The fact is, the critical text is a synthetic text that did not exist anywhere in any form before it was produced by modern textual critics. I disagree that the critical text can claim preservation by the church.

But you don't disagree on solid grounds. The fact that someone disagrees is not really the issue. Many have disagreed with truth before. We rather need to get to the underlying issues and remove from the realm of subjective personal opinion.

If you don't think the church was responsible for the preservation of the texts, then you must tell us who copied them and who accepts them today? The answer, in both cases, is the church. The early church copied the alexandrian manuscripts just as they did the Byzantine and Western texts. The church today widely accepts the modern texts. So by your standard, your own argument is again defeated. You want to limit the church to a particular period of history. That is not a good way to argue.

Like the modern text, the TR is a synthetic text that never existed anywhere before it was produced by modern textual critics (modern to 16th century). The only thing that has changed is 1) the method of text preservation believed in; 2) the number of manuscripts available for consideration; and 3) the time period refered to by "modern."

You have jumped to a conclusion that the TR is teh best text. That is fine. It is loaded with problems. Your position is not supported by Scripture, nor clearly supported by testimony of church history. Therefore, you cannot (or at least should not) overstate your case.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I do know that God is God and God has spoken through His Word that He would preserve His Word.

We know He is faithful who promised. We know that the men who translated the KJV were faithful scholars who were skilled in Greek and other languages. I am persuaded by God's Holy Spirit that the KJV stands true,

We believe that as well. This isn't the issue.