Pristine Grace
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 109

Thread: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby View Post
    One additional point should be made that has not been made clear yet--the issue of TRANSLATION. According to the perfect manuscript theory, we have the clear and infallible Word of God in 66 books of inerrant manuscripts. Yet ONE mistranslation of those manuscripts into English would nullify that perfect Word of God, practically speaking. So now we have to establish which is the perfect translation.
    The more I think about it, the more naturalistic your statement seems...Mr. Higby, you can't even be sure of the mss the translation is based on. Not only do you have a problem of translation you also have an issue with mss.

    Is the next step some direct gnosis from God where the text contains the word and the mss contains the word but you can't be sure either is the word?

    I don't understand?

    jm

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    343
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    21
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by trav View Post
    I like the LITV and the NASB. I would be interested in hearing what everyone else prefers, and would like to know where various versions fall short from those who know more about translations, manuscripts,etc.. I am completely ignorant of textual criticism and all that goes along with it.
    I prefer the King James translation, but I am open to the NIV in terms of easy to understand terminology. I think most translations can be read with profit. The one I would avoid using would be the New Word Translation of the JWs, although I do have this in my possession, just to see how they interpret the same verses. I wouldn't use it for devotions.

  3. #63
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    JM:

    I cannot respect the position of those who claim there are not significant manuscript variations simply because the historical facts do not support it. Your statement suggests that it is simple to know which manuscript variant is correct for every NT text (I guess including those few that are not in any Greek manuscript but only in the Latin).

    My point about translation is simply that just as there are many manuscript variants, there are many translation variants. Like most non-skeptical students I believe the true revelation of God is preserved in the midst of all of these variants, however, I do not believe that this revelation can be stated in one plain English translation of all texts that has no variances.

    I have no idea of what you mean by 'naturalistic'. I agree with Calvin that true scripture has the witness of the Spirit, however, I also agree with Luther that the gospel witness testified to by the Spirit authenticates scripture. Without gospel authentication scripture is no more scripture. This is not the same position as Neo-orthodoxy; because the scriptures bearing the gospel are authenticated by the Spirit apart from the existential moment when any particular person comes to see the truth of them individually.

    For further study on this issue, I encourage all to read the following article by Wikipedia and all the associated links on the various manuscript traditions contained therein. I see no need to debate this further; each person needs to be aware of the historical facts involved though.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  4. #64
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    There has not been much discussion of the Old Testament variants. The issues are much the same as with the New Testament; the oldest manuscripts that have been recently discovered at Qumran are not trusted by the fundamentalists because they have variances from the newer ms traditions (4 extra Psalms, many textual variants, and the omission of Esther).

    The bottom line is, God preserved His revelation in the midst of all human differences in copying and translating it.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Thank you Mr. Higby for your thoughts but I remain unmoved. We are truly people of our time affected by the thought of our time...

    For further study, see

    Jerusalem Blade’s Posts

    They cover much of the already mention objections to the use of the TR from a non-KJVA position.

  6. #66
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    If I could resign my mind to believe this, I could resign my mind to believe any tradition that church apologists force upon the masses to continue their authority. In time, however, all falsehood is exposed. My experience has been that when the confidence of a person has been in a church doctrinal system (whether on doctrine, scripture, ethics, or anything else) their faith shatters ultimately if any part of that system is later examined and creates doubts to the mind. I have seen this happen to over a hundred former associates of mine, both in the SDA church and in evanjellyfish churches (many of them pastors).

    I cannot accept the testimony of Erasmus as authoritative on anything because his life was devoted to opposing the true gospel. But that is just a side note and an issue for me personally. The fact that I stick with is that God preserved the truth originally given in the scriptures in spite of all the variances (which, after all, are far less in number and meaning than many make them out to be--they don't alter the truth of revelation shining through at all).
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  7. #67
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    A Muslim recounting of the history of Christian 'controversy' over these things. This was written to educate Muslims against the claims of Christian missionaries. I just found it interesting because it will only convince those Muslims who assume that the 'Christian position' is that of Bible fundamentalism. It is so unfortunate that Christians have staked so much on their canon fundamentalism that the only alternative perceived if even one point is doubted is either skepticism or another religion.

    Btw--this history is erroneous on the fact that Luther eventually accepted the 66 book canon; that notion is copied from Protestants who falsify the facts. But Calvin's hopeless and illogical paradox synthesis is fully exposed. He held that 2 & 3 John and Revelation are both canonical and non-canonical. He also held that 2 Peter is both Petrine and authored by someone other than Peter!

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bib.../wilkgren.html
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Mr. Higby,

    I fail to see how your use of secular traditions, or histories if you prefer, exempts you from the very same criticisms you make of the TR position. You turn to unbelievers and Muslims in support of your idea about Luther but will not even consider the witness of the historical figure of Erasmus or his work?

    It is unfortunate believers, true Gospel centered believers, can accept secular and naturalistic modes of thinking instead of presupposing the truth of scripture.

    j

  9. #69
    Administrator Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by ~JM~ View Post
    It is unfortunate believers, true Gospel centered believers, can accept secular and naturalistic modes of thinking instead of presupposing the truth of scripture.
    What's unfortunate is that your views are so tainted by churchianity's so called orthodoxy, that you can't get outside of the box long enough to see that so many of their positions were decreed with the sole purpose to deceive the unregenerate.
    Isaiah 45:7, (KJV), I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  10. #70
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by highlyfavored View Post
    what's unfortunate is that your views are so tainted by churchianity's so called orthodoxy, that you can't get outside of the box long enough to see that so many of their positions were decreed with the sole purpose to deceive the unregenerate.
    +1
    This is my signature.

  11. #71
    Moderator Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby View Post
    Getting back to our issue, please read this recent material--very enlightening to me and I believe it puts a lot of these in historical perspective:

    http://catholicintl.com/articles/Pop...th%20Alone.pdf
    Thanks a lot for the link to this article. I actually printed it off as there was a ton of good stuff even in the footnotes. It was revealing of so much of Luther and his commitment to “Faith Alone’, some good info on his differences with Augustine, his reasoning’s on the book of James and even his inconsistencies that you have alluded to so often.

    I realized how what he called “certitude of faith’ (assurance, conviction, belief) can so easily come across as pride to many and I don’t mean by that that we don’t all struggle with pride. When you are so sure of your convictions by the Holy Spirit it is simply that you can’t waiver a degree just for the sake of another. It’s not a matter of exalting yourself in any way but a matter of being true to what you believe at any given moment and you can do nothing else. I have been led often by traditional ideas to think that compromise is better than conviction, perhaps thinking it is the more loving thing to do. That subject was touched upon in this article as well......'love'

    As Luther maintained “in matters of faith, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church”.

    Great article!
    Eileen~
    "To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel" Robert R. Higby

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wichita Falls, TX
    Posts
    415
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by trav View Post
    I like the LITV and the NASB. I would be interested in hearing what everyone else prefers
    I like the NASB NKJ and KJ. The LITV is good as well.

    The KJ only people say that the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English and that modern translations, like the NASB, are bogus Bibles. What did people, that had the Geneva Bible, say about the KJB when it came out in 1611? Did they call the KJB bogus, because God had preserved His word in English in the Geneva Bible?
    Rom 8:18-21, (NASB), For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

  13. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlyfavored View Post
    What's unfortunate is that your views are so tainted by churchianity's so called orthodoxy, that you can't get outside of the box long enough to see that so many of their positions were decreed with the sole purpose to deceive the unregenerate.
    That made me smile, thank you.

    If you consider my position before cheerleading the posts by Mr. Higby and Darth Gill you would have noticed it is they, Higby and Brandon's view concerning the New Testament scripture, that is in step with churchianity's so called orthodoxy. What I argue for is shunned by the scholar, the unbelieving world of academia, Roman Catholicism as well as Robert and Brandon.

    No, it is they who choose to follow
    the scholar, the unbelieving world of academia, Roman Catholicism, Hodge and the Chicago Statement of Faith not I.

    jm


  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Correction, I meant Warfield, not Hodge.

  15. #75
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Eileen: As Luther maintained “in matters of faith, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church”.

    YES and and a thousand amens to that! Others with God-given wisdom may help us in our walk but ultimately the task of searching and sorting out God's revelation is our own within the power of the Holy Spirit which is ALWAYS annexed to the true gospel.

    John: The KJV only people say that the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English and that modern translations, like the NASB, are bogus Bibles. What did people, that had the Geneva Bible, say about the KJV when it came out in 1611? Did they call the KJV bogus, because God had preserved His word in English in the Geneva Bible?

    When the KJV came out in 1611, though it was the 'authorized' version as a gift to the king, people would be hard pressed to support the claim that those who translated it claimed it was the only valid and perfect Word of God! It was not an issue.

    Fundamentalism is as destructive to faith as skepticism. The reason: it proposes that the very existence of confidence in the gospel DEPENDS on one particular manuscript tradition. If that tradition comes to be doubted based on historical evidence, faith itself is questioned.

    The NASB and many other translations are based on the assumption that the earlier manuscripts are more reliable. Something absolutely rejected by the KJV only proponents. NOTE: Erasmus himself did not make any of the claims for his composite manuscript that fundamentalists do.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  16. #76
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob
    YES and and a thousand amens to that! Others with God-given wisdom may help us in our walk but ultimately the task of searching and sorting out God's revelation is our own within the power of the Holy Spirit which is ALWAYS annexed to the true gospel.
    Amen to that. That's ultimately what this whole discussion is about.

    I have often thought that those who vehemently oppose us on this issue do so because it threatens their ENTIRE belief system. Their world would come shattering down if they discovered our position was true. Instead of running and embracing the truth however, they do everything they can to protect "the Word of God" (which they mistakenly refer to as the Bible rather than Christ - see how INSIDIOUS this is?) from radicals like us. Instead of running toward the truth, they do what they can to try and prevent it from being heard. Instead of Glorifying Christ and His Gospel, they glorify the canon of men, the formation of church assemblies, and the mindless acceptance of the fake authority of man. Instead of promoting liberty in Christ, they diligently work to bind the minds of men with the law as chains of misery with which they will one day perish.
    This is my signature.

  17. #77
    Administrator Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Quote Originally Posted by ~JM~ View Post
    If you consider my position before cheerleading the posts by Mr. Higby and Darth Gill...
    No cheerleading, just agreement.

    ...you would have noticed it is they, Higby and Brandon's view concerning the New Testament scripture, that is in step with churchianity's so called orthodoxy.
    This is an entirely false statement.


    What I argue for is shunned by the scholar, the unbelieving world of academia, Roman Catholicism as well as Robert and Brandon.
    Then if I have misunderstood you in regards to orthodoxy and the RCC, though your views on BK and RH are way off base.

    It does appear as though on many levels you do accept many of the reformed traditions that many of us would consider as churchianity. I don't say this as a slam, but as an observation.

    No, it is they who choose to follow the scholar, the unbelieving world of academia, Roman Catholicism, Hodge and the Chicago Statement of Faith not I.
    Again, I would disagree with your views of BK and RH.
    Isaiah 45:7, (KJV), I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  18. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    This is an entirely false statement.
    Show me how Brandon and Robert disagree with the modern RCC and churchianity's view please.

    Then if I have misunderstood you in regards to orthodoxy and the RCC, though your views on BK and RH are way off base.
    BK and RH are in step with the churchianity, adopting their view of naturalism in choosing the canon, I'm not off base.

    It does appear as though on many levels you do accept many of the reformed traditions that many of us would consider as churchianity. I don't say this as a slam, but as an observation.
    Fair enough statement but I would also like to point out traditions exist on this forum as well. The idea, for example, that older mss mean better mss is assumed. It's a tradition of post enlightenment humanism.

    Again, I would disagree with your views of BK and RH.


    I asked, "So we find some scripture but not all scripture?"

    RH replied, "Yes. No one can possibly be absolutely certain that he/she possesses every last scripture verse that God inspired in all of history and that none other can possibly exist or have ever existed. But we can certainly be sure that we have been given a homologoumena of authoritative scripture that teaches all truth necessary to our present and eternal welfare."


    Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.”

    Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.”

    G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that scepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage.”

    Article X of the Chicago Statement, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture
    , which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."

    The Roman view can be found here

    This modern rational approach falls prey to the fallacy of induction. The scholar begins with the manuscript evidence he has in his hands, the assumption being that only the originals are inspired and attempts to form an opinion on the validity of the readings by the manuscript evidence available to him. For example, if the scholar makes an assessment of 9 manuscripts he might observe that verse 5:7 of 1 John is not among them and may doubt the verse. This is called a hasty generalization. Was the scholar ever able to assess all the manuscripts that ever existed? Was he able to consider the phantom original, the one and only inspired copy of 1 John? No. If more manuscripts are found they may prove to be older then the first 9 he examined and contain the doubted passage. It may not contain the passages the scholar believes are legitimate. This leaves the modern Christian in a quandary. He has a New Testament that he is unsure of. The textual variants do not inspire confidence in the validity of a reading and the Christian is never able to quote from scripture as authoritative since he is not able to know for certain which verses are valid and which ones are not.

    j






  19. #79
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    We only have a NT that we are unsure of if we accept the 'one manuscript' notion. Each NT writing was originally an individual work. So there is no 'one manuscript'--all are compilations preserved (and interpolated) over time.

    BK and RH are in step with the churchianity, adopting their view of naturalism in choosing the canon, I'm not off base.

    Virtually no one in churchianity accepts the gospel hermeneutic. 99% follow either fundamentalism or skepticism, neither of which needs ANY axiom regarding the NT kerygma to establish their respective positions.

    Again, I fail to see how the gospel hermeneutic annexed to the Holy Spirit has ANY element of naturalism. This is ridiculous.

    With regard to doctrine, the hermeneutic of all fundamentalist church traditions is simply "I search the Bible to prove that my message is true." With regard to the one and only manuscript inspired by God, the hermeneutic of those who accept this notion as the only way to preserve belief in God's revelation is "I search the historical evidence to prove that my assumptions are true."
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  20. #80
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Which manuscripts constitute the scriptures?

    Another VERY important contribution to this discussion:

    http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=91
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •