<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8382812700944261936', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

8.12.2008

Another Critical Text [edited, see below] makes an appearance on the PuritanBoard


It's one of those threads that appear every now and then on the PuritanBoard (JesuitBoard, whatever) where the defenders of the Word of God are actually being allowed by the Beast moderators to, um, defend the Word of God. They'll lock it down soon (and probably delete it quietly, which is what they did with every thread I was involved in where I was defending the Word of God), but until then here it is.

What's interesting is as the Critical Text morons get their ass handed to them once again a long time lurker (member since '04, only five posts) can't resist jumping in to the discussion, but look how he does it:

One of the defenders of the traditional text is a woman named Margaret. She is writing nothing different than about six or seven of the men in the thread. Here is the Critical Text pussy making his entrance:

Margaret,
I can't believe anyone actually takes you seriously.

Terry Morris
San Jose, Ca


Really. Now there's a man. Why not direct that to any number of men in the thread who are on the exact same page as Margaret? Because the Critical Text dupe a) can't make an argument in favor of his devil manuscripts, and b) he's a [edited by author because this post has been being used to discredit this fine blog. Thank you].

Let's see if any of the men on the board defend Margaret. Most likely the Beast moderators will use Terry Morris' comment as an excuse to shut the thread down. That is their main concern. The Beast loses when their Alexandrian 'bibles' are being exposed.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The format is a jumble, but there is the thread below in case it's deleted.


The PuritanBoard

Go Back The PuritanBoard > The Scriptures > Translations and Manuscripts
King James Only Movement King James Only Movement

User Name Remember Me?
Password
Register Blogs FAQ Donate Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search

Translations and Manuscripts Discussions regarding translations of the Bible and Bible manuscripts

Search Site / Google
PuritanBoard Google
Advanced Search
Find All Thanked Posts
Search Blogs
Advanced Search
Search Tags
Tag Search
Advanced Search
Go to Page...
» Site Navigation
° The Puritan Board
• Forum Rules
• The Ninth Commandment
• Signature/Profile Reqts
• Infractions
• Admins & Mods
° Why Reformed Theology?
° Reformed Confessions
° Links Manager
° Blogs
° Donate
° Quotes
° Arcade
° PBay
» Online Users: 132
30 members and 102 guests
Backwoods Presbyterian, Barnpreacher, Brad, caoclan, ChristianTrader, Christusregnat, Davidius, dcomin, DMcFadden, glorifyinggodinwv, Gomarus, Javilo, JM, Josh G, moselle, mossy, PactumServa72, Pergamum, Pilgrim72, Presbyterian Deacon, Reformingstudent, rjlynam, Robbie Schmidtberger, satz, shelly, TaylorOtwell, TimV
Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM.

Reply

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
#1 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 09:44 AM
JM's Avatar
JM JM is offline now.
Puritanboard Senior

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,023
Thanks: 251
Thanked 243 Times in 153 Posts
King James Only Movement
From Wikipedia :

Quote:
* "I Like the KJV Best" This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division. They have said, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."

* "The Textual Argument" - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.

* "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good.

* "The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.

* "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.

White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 5. ISBN 1556615752.
__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JM For This Useful Post:
Grymir (Yesterday)
#2 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 09:47 AM
Barnpreacher's Avatar
Barnpreacher Barnpreacher is offline now.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,447
Thanks: 316
Thanked 242 Times in 153 Posts
Honestly, from what I've heard I think that Ruckman has backed off his stance that the AV corrects the originals. I can't swear to that, but that is what I've heard from some guys that associate themselves with him.

He's still a staunch supporter of the AV, and he would call you an ugly name to your face if you told him you used any other version.
__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#3 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 09:55 AM
Reformed Baptist's Avatar
Reformed Baptist Reformed Baptist is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 284
Thanks: 25
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
Hey JM,

That comes from James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" Good book. I did a small work on the subject on my blog here Ergates Theologia: The King James Only Movement, Part 1

haven't gotten to part 2 yet though..
__________________
Geoff/Reformed Baptist
Acworth, GA
John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
http://oldshooters.blogspot.com/
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#4 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 12:32 PM
Grymir's Avatar
Grymir Grymir is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,190
Thanks: 200
Thanked 167 Times in 136 Posts
JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!

Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.
__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Grymir For This Useful Post:
Galatians220 (Yesterday), KMK (Yesterday)
#5 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 01:20 PM
Blueridge Baptist's Avatar
Blueridge Baptist Blueridge Baptist is offline.
Puritanboard Graduate

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RADFORD VA.
Posts: 3,980
Thanks: 747
Thanked 801 Times in 403 Posts
I'm between the textual and the received text only postions.
__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#6 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 02:00 PM
Reformed Baptist's Avatar
Reformed Baptist Reformed Baptist is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 284
Thanks: 25
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grymir View Post
JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!

Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.
It's not in the book. Is the reference to that idea not clear in my blog? If not, I will edit it to reference it better. I am pretty sure there is a link there.

Honestly, I leave the "history" open to scrutiny. I could not really find a history of the doctrine and admitted in my blog a reliance on that man's work. James White, I would agree, is more level headed in the debate. But I disagree with his views on the Greek texts. I am actually a KJVO kinda guy myself. I do favor the majority text position. I oppose the more radical forms of KJVO.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#7 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 02:59 PM
Jie-Huli's Avatar
Jie-Huli Jie-Huli is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 246
Thanks: 7
Thanked 47 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM View Post
From Wikipedia :

Quote:
* "I Like the KJV Best" This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division. They have said, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."

* "The Textual Argument" - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.

* "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good.

* "The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.

* "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.

White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 5. ISBN 1556615752.
I do not believe it is accurate to say that the Trinitarian Bible Society (which I support) simply prefers the KJV because of its style. While it certainly would hold that the KJV's style is superior, its main reasons for upholding the KJV as the best and most faithful translation are textual.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli
__________________
Jie-Huli
Metropolitan Tabernacle Church
London, England
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jie-Huli For This Useful Post:
armourbearer (Yesterday), Galatians220 (Yesterday), jaybird0827 (Today), KMK (Yesterday), VirginiaHuguenot (Yesterday)
#8 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 03:26 PM
Jerusalem Blade's Avatar
Jerusalem Blade Jerusalem Blade is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Middle East
Posts: 932
Thanks: 79
Thanked 317 Times in 152 Posts
RE Kutilek and his Seventh-Day Adventist theory

In a response to Dr. White's book, David Cloud has this paragraph:

WHITE LUMPS ALL KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS INTO THE RUCKMAN CAMP.

In the beginning of his book, White divides "KJV Only" into five categories: Those who like the KJV best, those who support the KJV textually, those who are Received Text only, those who believe the KJV is inspired and inerrant, those who believe the KJV is advanced or new revelation. In the body of the book, though, White almost exclusively applies his pet term, "KJV Only," to a Ruckman-type position. In the chapter entitled "The King James Only Camp," White claims that the scholars of the past (such as John Burgon and H.C. Hoskier) who defended the textual tradition underlying the KJV, cannot be included in the "KJV Only" camp. Thus he contradicts his own definition given in chapter one, by refusing to label men as "KJV Only" who are defenders of the textual tradition underlying the KJV.

Excerpted from, EXAMINING [James White's] THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY
__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jerusalem Blade For This Useful Post:
Blueridge Baptist (Yesterday), Grymir (Yesterday), KMK (Yesterday), SolaGratia (Yesterday), VirginiaHuguenot (Yesterday)
#9 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 04:55 PM
SolaGratia's Avatar
SolaGratia SolaGratia is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Encino, California
Posts: 597
Thanks: 205
Thanked 124 Times in 62 Posts
I like this from the same excerpt above:

The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).
__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA


"Indeed, one might say that as far as the doctrine of justification
is concerned, if you are not on the road to Wittenberg or Geneva, then the old proverb is indeed true: all roads lead to Rome." Carl Trueman
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to SolaGratia For This Useful Post:
armourbearer (Yesterday), Blueridge Baptist (Yesterday), Grymir (Yesterday), jaybird0827 (Today), Jerusalem Blade (Today), Jie-Huli (Today), JM (Yesterday), KMK (Yesterday), VirginiaHuguenot (Yesterday)
#10 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 06:06 PM
Galatians220 Galatians220 is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,101
Thanks: 601
Thanked 238 Times in 165 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia View Post
I like this from the same excerpt above:

The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).


Margaret
__________________
Margaret
Free Church of Scotland [Continuing]
Michigan

"He must increase, but I must decrease." - John 3:30
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Galatians220 For This Useful Post:
Ivan (Yesterday)
#11 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 06:50 PM
Peter H's Avatar
Peter H Peter H is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Taylors, SC, CSA
Posts: 188
Thanks: 84
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Theoretically, is it possible for a translation to be inspired or partially inspired? By that I mean, can translators have special guidance of the Holy Spirit?
__________________
Less than the least of all saints,
Peter
Reformed EC
Taylors, SC

·Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord
and whose hope the Lord is:
·For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters,
and that spreadeth out its roots by the river
and shall not see when heat cometh;
·But its leaf shall be green,
and shall not worry in the year of drought
neither shall stop from yielding fruit.
Jer. 17:8
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#12 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 10:19 PM
Grymir's Avatar
Grymir Grymir is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,190
Thanks: 200
Thanked 167 Times in 136 Posts
Hi Peter H! The translators can have the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, but inspired would apply to the originals.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#13 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 10:20 PM
Grymir's Avatar
Grymir Grymir is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,190
Thanks: 200
Thanked 167 Times in 136 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia View Post
I like this from the same excerpt above:

The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).
Mega Dittos and
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#14 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 10:23 PM
JohnGill's Avatar
JohnGill JohnGill is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 179
Thanks: 40
Thanked 42 Times in 31 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grymir View Post
JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!

Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.
It's not in the book. Is the reference to that idea not clear in my blog? If not, I will edit it to reference it better. I am pretty sure there is a link there.

Honestly, I leave the "history" open to scrutiny. I could not really find a history of the doctrine and admitted in my blog a reliance on that man's work. James White, I would agree, is more level headed in the debate. But I disagree with his views on the Greek texts. I am actually a KJVO kinda guy myself. I do favor the majority text position. I oppose the more radical forms of KJVO.
You should also read Letis' assessment of White and Riplinger's books. They're available here: Theodore P. Letis Resources Scroll down past the book pics. I've read White's book myself. I think Riplinger's book is better. It has a bigger bibliography. You just have to get past all that nonsense that comes before the bibliography.
__________________
Chris
SBC-Founders
Fairbanks, AK

Q. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?
A. Three, the first, how great my sins and miseries are, the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries, the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#15 (permalink)
Old Yesterday, 11:23 PM
SolaGratia's Avatar
SolaGratia SolaGratia is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Encino, California
Posts: 597
Thanks: 205
Thanked 124 Times in 62 Posts
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SolaGratia For This Useful Post:
Blueridge Baptist (Today), Galatians220 (Today), Grymir (Today), Jie-Huli (Today), JM (Today), KMK (Today)
#16 (permalink)
Old Today, 12:35 AM
jwithnell's Avatar
jwithnell jwithnell is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 166
Thanks: 24
Thanked 62 Times in 45 Posts
Ok, I'm probably leaping in way over my head here (I'm still chasing smoke in Northern California, so go figure ...) Anyway, are y'all making a link between the Alexandrian texts and a theology based in viewing that scriptures as less than inerrant?
__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#17 (permalink)
Old Today, 08:39 AM
mangum's Avatar
mangum mangum is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,223
Thanks: 96
Thanked 115 Times in 69 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia View Post
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!
I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

Quote:
"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mangum For This Useful Post:
Galatians220 (Today), Reformed Baptist (Today), SolaGratia (Today)
#18 (permalink)
Old Today, 10:39 AM
Peter H's Avatar
Peter H Peter H is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Taylors, SC, CSA
Posts: 188
Thanks: 84
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
I didn't see this link posted here yet, so I thought I would add it to the discussion: Bible Devotionals and the Greek Majority Text

See the sections under "Wilbur Pickering."

After reading this and Burgon, I wonder how Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland's NT gained so much weight. For example the textual "canon" of choosing a poor reading over a clear reading is wholly unconvincing and contradicts another canon that an older manuscript must always be used instead of a newer text. In the W-H method, there is a built in bias toward corrupt texts.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#19 (permalink)
Old Today, 11:05 AM
Galatians220 Galatians220 is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,101
Thanks: 601
Thanked 238 Times in 165 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter H View Post
I didn't see this link posted here yet, so I thought I would add it to the discussion: Bible Devotionals and the Greek Majority Text

See the sections under "Wilbur Pickering."

After reading this and Burgon, I wonder how Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland's NT gained so much weight. For example the textual "canon" of choosing a poor reading over a clear reading is wholly unconvincing and contradicts another canon that an older manuscript must always be used instead of a newer text. In the W-H method, there is a built in bias toward corrupt texts.
Just a guess: in the late 19th century, the occult was in vogue, and Westcott and Hort were "down" with that. People also wanted "a change" from the KJB; Catholics didn't want "that Protestant Bible" around, which is why parochial schools gained such ascendance. Other things factored in as well. Other people here on this board are much more schooled than I (although in my first degree, I majored in British history) and can give you a much more cogent and correct picture of exactly what happened to eclipse the Received Text to the degree that it has been so eclipsed.

I also offer this link: THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY -By Dr. Phil Stringer.

Margaret
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#20 (permalink)
Old Today, 11:19 AM
Blueridge Baptist's Avatar
Blueridge Baptist Blueridge Baptist is offline.
Puritanboard Graduate

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RADFORD VA.
Posts: 3,980
Thanks: 747
Thanked 801 Times in 403 Posts
While listening to a podcast from a familiar Baptist church last night, the speaker noted that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are not part of the scripture and were added at a later date by an unknown indiviual. I thought to myself,how does he know that? This is the kind of criticism, imo, that is destructive to peoples faith. When he said that, I stopped listening.
Pray for me. That kind of stuff grieves my spirit.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Blueridge Baptist For This Useful Post:
KMK (Today)
#21 (permalink)
Old Today, 11:20 AM
Reformed Baptist's Avatar
Reformed Baptist Reformed Baptist is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 284
Thanks: 25
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia View Post
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!
I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

Quote:
"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
I have Burgons' work. It is difficult to go through without some knowledge of Greek. But this should be remedied in a bit...lol
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#22 (permalink)
Old Today, 01:13 PM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Puritanboard Postgraduate

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 4,398
Thanks: 1,523
Thanked 357 Times in 214 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia View Post
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!
I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

Quote:
"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
Do you believe that it is every Christian's duty to decide for themselves which Bible most accurately represents the Word of God?
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#23 (permalink)
Old Today, 01:41 PM
mangum's Avatar
mangum mangum is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,223
Thanks: 96
Thanked 115 Times in 69 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia View Post
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!
I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

Quote:
"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
Do you believe that it is every Christian's duty to decide for themselves which Bible most accurately represents the Word of God?
No.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mangum For This Useful Post:
KMK (Today)
#24 (permalink)
Old Today, 02:00 PM
SolaGratia's Avatar
SolaGratia SolaGratia is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Encino, California
Posts: 597
Thanks: 205
Thanked 124 Times in 62 Posts
From the scriptures we have the following:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27).


For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ (2 Corinthians 2:17).


And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16).


I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

According to Paul NO, but "by the Lord" within the church/es the scriptures should be cause to be read. There is no such thing as a private Christian or a Lone Ranger Christian.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#25 (permalink)
Old Today, 02:15 PM
Peter H's Avatar
Peter H Peter H is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Taylors, SC, CSA
Posts: 188
Thanks: 84
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist View Post
While listening to a podcast from a familiar Baptist church last night, the speaker noted that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are not part of the scripture and were added at a later date by an unknown indiviual. I thought to myself,how does he know that? This is the kind of criticism, imo, that is destructive to peoples faith. When he said that, I stopped listening.
Pray for me. That kind of stuff grieves my spirit.
The vast majority of manuscripts have it but the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts favored by W & H and used in Nestle-Aland do not. Thus the only English translations that keep it unbracketed are the Authorised Version and the NKJV, both based on the Textus Receptus.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#26 (permalink)
Old Today, 02:30 PM
CharlieJ CharlieJ is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 53
Thanks: 5
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia View Post
According to Paul NO, but "by the Lord" within the church/es the scriptures should be cause to be read. There is no such thing as a private Christian or a Lone Ranger Christian.
If this is true, shouldn't we all use the UBS4, since the great majority of Christians and the great majority of knowledgeable critics have accepted it?
__________________
Charlie Johnson
Heritage Bible Church (non-denom)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#27 (permalink)
Old Today, 02:47 PM
SolaGratia's Avatar
SolaGratia SolaGratia is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Encino, California
Posts: 597
Thanks: 205
Thanked 124 Times in 62 Posts
Charlie,

Why the UBS4?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#28 (permalink)
Old Today, 02:52 PM
CharlieJ CharlieJ is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 53
Thanks: 5
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
I'm sorry, I read "Bible" and was still thinking Greek text, since that was the topic of most of the surrounding posts.

I'm trying to understand the import of answering "NO" to KMK's question. If a Christian does not, in some sense, decide for himself which version is the best to use, how does moving the responsibility to the corporate Church help?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#29 (permalink)
Old Today, 03:17 PM
Peter H's Avatar
Peter H Peter H is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Taylors, SC, CSA
Posts: 188
Thanks: 84
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
How does this relate to the discussion here?

Quote:
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#30 (permalink)
Old Today, 04:42 PM
CharlieJ CharlieJ is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 53
Thanks: 5
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
I'm not sure how much bearing that has upon the discussion. I assume the relevant phrase is "by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages."

But, the WCF does not address where or how they were preserved. All theories of text criticism acknowledge, as I assume the WCF framers would, that not all the manuscripts are identical. So... how do we determine which are the pure?

And, once again, how is this a corporate rather than individual choice?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#31 (permalink)
Old Today, 04:59 PM
jaybird0827's Avatar
jaybird0827 jaybird0827 is offline.
Puritanboard Graduate

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Indian Trail, NC
Posts: 3,244
Blog Entries: 11
Thanks: 694
Thanked 252 Times in 175 Posts
Now that I have been convinced of both the textual argument and the received text only, the only Bible I will read is the KJV.

With all this proliferation of Bible translations, paraphrases, versions, renditions, etc., etc. it's a wonder to me that the KJV hasn't been taken from us altogether. I thank God for his providential preservation of this faithful translation and for churches that still use it.
__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
Teacher Aide, Union County Public Schools, NC
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jaybird0827 For This Useful Post:
Blueridge Baptist (Today), Jie-Huli (Today), Peter H (Today)
#32 (permalink)
Old Today, 05:24 PM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Puritanboard Postgraduate

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 4,398
Thanks: 1,523
Thanked 357 Times in 214 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter H View Post
How does this relate to the discussion here?

Quote:
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KMK For This Useful Post:
Blueridge Baptist (Today), Peter H (Today), SolaGratia (Today)
#33 (permalink)
Old Today, 05:45 PM
SolaGratia's Avatar
SolaGratia SolaGratia is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Encino, California
Posts: 597
Thanks: 205
Thanked 124 Times in 62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaybird0827 View Post
Now that I have been convinced of both the textual argument and the received text only, the only Bible I will read is the KJV.

With all this proliferation of Bible translations, paraphrases, versions, renditions, etc., etc. it's a wonder to me that the KJV hasn't been taken from us altogether. I thank God for his providential preservation of this faithful translation and for churches that still use it.
Now all you have to do its to know is strengh and weaknesses of the KJV text. Mind you, they are mostly strenghts and very few weaknesses. But once you know how to differentiate them you will learn to appreciate it and you will read it more and more.


I usually recommend this KJV bible even though it was put together by Baptist Fundamentalist/Dispensationals, but it is a good bible to start.

Here: Reformation Heritage Books
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
#34 (permalink)
Old Today, 06:56 PM
Galatians220 Galatians220 is offline.
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,101
Thanks: 601
Thanked 238 Times in 165 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter H View Post
How does this relate to the discussion here?

Quote:
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.
Thank you! I've read that the CT was *not* unknown to the translators of the KJB, contrary to what some think. They studied it and discarded it as being non-canonical. (If I'm wrong about that, I'll stand gratefully corrected.) The "older and better manuscripts" argument flies for about five and a half seconds and then falls flat.

Manuscripts that were kept from the Reformers and from other godly men and women for almost 1,900 years, until two founding members of Britain's Ghost Guild dug 'em out of trashcans and other forgotten places in Egypt and the Vatican? God preserved His word that way?

No. The Westminster men had their Bible, and so do we.

Guess who it really is that wants Bible studies not to be studies of God's word and of the work of salvation that His precious Son did, but rather to consist mostly of discussions along the lines of, "the NASB says this..." and "the NIV renders the verse this way...", "but 'The Message' puts it this way...", etc., etc.? God is not the author of confusion, after all, but someone else is. Someone who should be rebuked at every opportunity (Jude 9).

Margaret
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Galatians220 For This Useful Post:
Blueridge Baptist (Today)
#35 (permalink)
Old Today, 07:05 PM
mossy mossy is offline now.
Puritanboard Freshman

Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Margaret,
I can't believe anyone actually takes you seriously.
__________________
Terry Morris
San Jose, Ca
Searching for a Reformed Church in San Jose.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

* Submit Thread to Digg Digg
* Submit Thread to del.icio.us del.icio.us
* Submit Thread to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
* Submit Thread to Google Google


« I deleted the KJV Poll by accident. | KJV poll - Which version do you prefer? »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Hybrid Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode
Threaded Mode Switch to Threaded Mode
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump
User Control PanelPrivate MessagesSubscriptionsWho's OnlineSearch ForumsForums Home Information and Introductions Updates & Information FAQ & Rules A Puritan's Mind Updates Puritan Publications Introduce Yourself Suggestion Box "The Wading Pool" - Questions from the Newly Reformed Tutorials and User Guides LOGIN Problems The Scriptures OT Historical Books OT Wisdom Literature OT Prophets The Gospels & Acts NT Epistles Revelation & Eschatology Exegetical Forum Translations and Manuscripts Theology The PuritanBoard Theological Journal Debate Forum Theological Forum Ecclesiology The Law of God Pneumatology Covenant Theology Dispensationalism Baptism Paedo-Baptism Answers Credo-Baptism Answers Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace Federal Vision/New Perspectives The Confession of Faith Natural Revelation and God's Creation The Church Worship Preaching Church Office Evangelism, Missions and the Persecuted Church Church Order Church History The Christian Walk Daily Devotional Forum The Honor Roll The Pilgrims Progress Family Forum Spiritual Warfare Apologetics Forum The PuritanBoard Apologetics Journal Apologetical Methods Defending the Faith Cults & World Religions Philosophy Educational Forums Book Reviews The Literary Forum Commentaries Recent Acquisitions Puritan Literature Quotes Forum Poetry and Song Seminaries, Colleges & Education General Forums General discussions Computers & Technology The Iron Chef Entertainment and Humor Movies Movie Reviews Music Sports

LinkBack
LinkBack URL LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks About LinkBacks
Bookmark & Share
Digg this Thread! Digg this Thread!
Add Thread to del.icio.us Add Thread to del.icio.us
Bookmark in Technorati Bookmark in Technorati
Furl this Thread! Furl this Thread!
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:51 PM.

-- vBulletin---- Puritanboard---- TvB Curves---- Dark Metal---- Tulip---- PB Black---- X-Factor---- Chestnut---- Kirsch-- PB iPhone-- PuritanBoard Mobile
Contact Us - The PuritanBoard - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

August 12, 2008 at 7:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home