One Philosophy
Bible Versions/Translations
Two philosophies
Pastor Larry: //BTW, the original KJV included some
similar marginal comments if my memory serves me correctly.//
Above I list some such marginal comments found in the KJV1611 Edition.
These show that the translators of the AV 1611 thought that
it was HONEST to show that they had access to THE RECEIVED TEXT
S
and what those RECEIVED TEXT
S said.
Originally Posted by Pastor_Bob
//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.
//We need not have a verse that tells us specifically
that the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved
Word of God for English speaking people;
it is senseless to ask for such a Scripture.
The issue is the text that underlies the KJV.
When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.//
Unfortunately, the deliniation of the two postures,
by using pejortives "the critical text position
is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity".
is an invalid logical spliting.
In fact, I've shown above that the AV 1611 KJV Translators
used the critical text position with the received text
s
they had. They put in the text the most likely 'original text'
and put next the most likely, but present in
the received text
s, reading.
Starting from the same three points of logic listed in the
(and again above) and the the received text
s they had,
the translators practices the critical text position.
Likewise today, even those who follow these three beliefs
practice the critical text position.
So these two philosophies are used together both by the
AV 1611 KJV Translators and 19th century reviled/malined
Greek Editors (to wit, Westcott & Hort), and by modern
day received text
s preferred translators.
Whomever: " ... the underlying text is the issue."
Actually the false dichotomy in the OP (opening post) is
NOT "the underlying text is the issue". Here are the
issues:
1. The truth is established by mulitple witnesses.
NOT: 1. the truth is established by one and only one witness
2. The received text
s are documented in translator
notes so those who believe in the Priesthood of the Believer
can determine by themselves alone how to approach GOd
and God's truth.
*NOT: 2. the translator notes cause unbelief.
These are the issues.
* note, usually seen as: "I don't understand
the received text
s so i don't want anybody in
my church reading the translator margin notes
TC: //What about other Bibles that use
the same underlying texts as the KJV?
How come they are rejected by so many that claim
that the underlying text is the issue?
If that were the case, I think they would welcome
a modern English translation of those same texts.//
You won that point !!!
The other side of the debate has no counter argument.
The case is even worse, there is denial that there are
multiple King James Versions (KJVs).
I've seen the New King James Version (about 1985) from it's
start (it was news for me, not history).
The specification LAID DOWN BY THE KJV ONLYISTs
was "the underlying text is the issue".
The received text
s should be used as the
main source for the translation. It took TEN YEARS
after the produciton of the full nKJV translation before
the major attack against it from the KJV ONLYISTS was
mounted: against a publisher's symbol on a page the
nKJV translators hadn't translated, to wit, the title page.
So the issue isn't the source, the issue is DOCUMENTING
THE SOURCES USED. Yes, the translators of the nKJV had
Bible Witnesses that the translators of the KJV didn't have.
Not to deal with these Witnesses is to LIE TO THE PUBLIC -
a bad, bad Baptist no-no, eh?
IMHO, pastors who deny the Translators their footnotes are
of the same type as the middle age RCC priests who wouldn't
let their reading people read the Latin Vulgate Bible.