HIGHER-FIRE digest 382 (WoF)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 21:30:55 -0800
>To: higher-fire@prairienet.org
>From: suprdave@lightspeed.net
>Subject: Re: HIGHER-FIRE digest 382 (WoF)
>
>Steven:
>
>I checked out the website you referred regarding the NKJV. I printed out
the entire presentation for reference. I'm sorry, but to be dogmatic about
the KJV is really going overboard. Please let me explain.
>
>First of all, let me say that there are no contradictions in the Bible. I
will illustrate briefly that the KJV has its problems just like any other
translation. However, the message is clear and simple to the point that we
can find the Truth. So rest assure that I think the KJV, NIV, NKJV, ASV,
etc. are basically saying the same thing.
>
>As pointed out by Andy earlier, there were translations *before* the 1611
King James Version of the Bible that you and I have today. In your KJV
Bible, is there words that are italicized in it? Are you aware that the
translators inserted those words in there for clarity because they weren't
in the manuscripts? (By the way, the original manuscripts are not around -
we only have about 5,000 manuscripts or copies today, i.e., the dead sea
scrolls, etc.)
>
>There is a term called "textus receptus" which means in Latin "text
received." This was the text of the Greek New Testament. However, the King
James translators did not use the textus receptus as the basis of their
translation. The Elzevir edition was not published until 13 years after the
date of the KJV. The Greek text on which the KJV was based was based on the
third edition of the Greek New Testament, issued by the Parisian publisher
Stephanus (Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550.
>
>The text of Stephanus on which the KJV was not identical with the latter
textus receptus. The two differed in 287 places. (Talking about changes).
There are no Greek manuscripts that agrees exactly with either of these.
Both of them are conflate texts. The scholars who prepared the KJV were not
totally convinced that their text was absolutely correct when translating.
They recognized the possibility of copyists' errors, and showed this by
making marginal notes to variant readings at 13 places. For instance, in
Luke 17:36 their marginal note reads: "The 36th verse is wanting in most of
the Greek copies." In Acts 25:6, where their text reads: "When he had
tarried among them more than ten days, " they inserted the following
marginal note: "Or, as some copies red, no more than eight or ten days."
>
>Most of the readings in both of these follow the edition of the Greek New
Testament prepared by Erasmus, the great enemy of Luther, and published in
1516, the year before the Reformation begun. There is no Greek manuscript
that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of
several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and
most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no
manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
>
>During the 3 1/2 centuries since the KJV was made dozens of manuscripts
have been found that were copies many centuries earlier than any manuscript
used by Erasmus. The manuscripts he used were copies of copies of copies of
copies of copies. When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra
words and phrases henerally find their way into the text in the course of
copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a
phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.
>
>The additions in the textus receptus do not contain any idea that is not
taught elsewhere in the New Testament in parts that agree with the earlier
manuscripts. The differences consist mainly of repetition of ideas already
contained elsewhere in the Scripture.
>
>God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original
writers. It is impossible to copy a book of any length without making some
mistakes. In the case of the New Testament we have more evidence for
determining the text of the original writers than for any other book from
ancient times. While there is rarely anything harmful in the later
manuscripts, it is desirable, if we truly wish to know God's Word, to base
our text, as far as possible, on early manuscripts.
>
>Matthew 5:18 says "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall
in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Also, in John 10:35,
Jesus says "...and the scriptures cannot be broken." Pleae note that Jesus
did not say that not a jot or tittle would pass from the law till every
tiniest part had been copied perfectly. What He said was that no tiny part
of the meaning of the Word of God as given to the original writers would
fail to be fulfilled in exactly the way that God intended. Man cannot break
what God has ordained. These verses refer to fulfillment, not to precise
copying.
>
>Dr. Allan A. MacRae, Bible scholar, pointed out that the KJV does not
exactly follow the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. For example,
1 John 5:7, found in the KJV and TR, occurs in only 4 (out of nearly 5,000)
Greek manuscripts. The reading "book of life" in Rev.22:19 is found in *no*
Greek manuscript! (I was surprised when I found this out) 95% of the known
Greek NT manuscripts were copied after A.D. 700, more than 6 centuries after
the NT was written. 
>
>Turn to Luke 14:26. Please be prepared for what Jesus said:
>"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple."
>
>Steven, do you hate your father, mother, wife, children, brethren, and
yourself? Jesus said you must in order to follow him or you cannot be His
disciple. My point: you must look up the word "hate" in the Greek (and thank
God for Strong's Concordance). The word "hate" means "to love less". In
other words, you love your family, but you love God more! You see, then it
makes sense. 
>
>I couldn't believe how picky the individuals were that critiqued the NKJV.
This is going overboard. One argument was that "new testament" was taken out
and "new covenant" was inserted. Guess what? "Testament" and "covenant" are
synonymous terms in the Greek. "Hell" or "Hades" are also synonymous.
>
>The Gospels always speak of our Lord as Jesus. The book of Acts uses the
name "Jesus" alone 35 times, "Jesus Christ" 10 times, and "the Lord Jesus
Christ" 6 times in the KJV. It would be quite erroneous to conclude from
this that the author of Acts does not like the word "Christ." Different
writers show different preferences in this regard. As scribes copied
manuscripts in century after century it was easy for a scribe
unintentionally to write a longer form even where a shorter one occured, so
the word Christ occurs more frequently in later manuscripts than in earlier
ones. Yet even in the latest manuscript we find that Jesus is often called
by shorter terms. The use of longer phrases in referring to the Lord does
not necessarily show greater piety or greater loyalty to Christ.
>
>Steven, I want to demonstrate the integrity of God's Word. Translations are
good, but remember, they are not manuscripts. However, you and I can trust
in the integrity of the Word of God. It contains truth.
>
>Dave <><
>