A
admin
Guest
You are welcome RSC2A
As to the concept of a so-called pure Bible, it is required of those KJVO types who espouse such terminology to explain WHY there should be a supposedly "perfect" Bible, in English, as of 1611 but not before, and this even though it incidentally required multiple subsequent revisions and editions (seven such, perhaps? 
) over the ensuing three centuries in order to become fully "perfect".
I would note that these same KJVOs typically lambaste the contributions of Westcott & Hort (W&H), yet nobody to my knowledge claims that W&H, or their GNT, were "perfect", only that they made signal contributions to NTTC, and that they quite properly helped to finally break the dominance of the Textus Receptus as being the most accurate representation of the GNT. (It's rather an anachronistic, not to mention Chauvinistic fuss, since no scholars in modern NTTC circles adhere to all of Hort's ideas or beliefs, anyway.)
OTOH, the "pure Bible" proponents are claiming something quite unusual for their chosen Bible translation; that is, the existence of a supposedly utterly "perfect" rendition of the Scriptures, in only a single elder English translation, and this down to the level of word spellings (e.g., making a supposedly-important distinction in meaning between such words as "built" vs. "builded") and punctuation (of which, incidentally, the uncial GNT had none!).
Surely such a truly unusual sort of claim should require strong and incontrovertible evidence for substantiation, but all we typically get is poor, weak assertions about the supposed genuineness of the Comma Johanneum (even though it is found in no GNT manuscript prior to the 15th century) or whinings over the originality of the "last twelve verses" of Mark's Gospel (which all agree in any case to be very early, and most accept as canonical), or the absolute necessity of reading "theos" rather than "os" at 1 Tim. 3:16 (even though the meaning of the verse is the same in both cases), not to mention Beza's emendation at Rev. 16:5 (found in no GNT manuscript) or Erasmus' back-translation from Latin of the last six verses of Revelation (also found in no GNT manuscript).
Hopefully discussions on this forum can move beyond such picayune, superstitious concerns, and address the real remaining issues in NTTC, such as GNT variants, or the best manner of translating certain ambiguous phrases and verses in the GNT.
) over the ensuing three centuries in order to become fully "perfect".I would note that these same KJVOs typically lambaste the contributions of Westcott & Hort (W&H), yet nobody to my knowledge claims that W&H, or their GNT, were "perfect", only that they made signal contributions to NTTC, and that they quite properly helped to finally break the dominance of the Textus Receptus as being the most accurate representation of the GNT. (It's rather an anachronistic, not to mention Chauvinistic fuss, since no scholars in modern NTTC circles adhere to all of Hort's ideas or beliefs, anyway.)
OTOH, the "pure Bible" proponents are claiming something quite unusual for their chosen Bible translation; that is, the existence of a supposedly utterly "perfect" rendition of the Scriptures, in only a single elder English translation, and this down to the level of word spellings (e.g., making a supposedly-important distinction in meaning between such words as "built" vs. "builded") and punctuation (of which, incidentally, the uncial GNT had none!).
Surely such a truly unusual sort of claim should require strong and incontrovertible evidence for substantiation, but all we typically get is poor, weak assertions about the supposed genuineness of the Comma Johanneum (even though it is found in no GNT manuscript prior to the 15th century) or whinings over the originality of the "last twelve verses" of Mark's Gospel (which all agree in any case to be very early, and most accept as canonical), or the absolute necessity of reading "theos" rather than "os" at 1 Tim. 3:16 (even though the meaning of the verse is the same in both cases), not to mention Beza's emendation at Rev. 16:5 (found in no GNT manuscript) or Erasmus' back-translation from Latin of the last six verses of Revelation (also found in no GNT manuscript).
Hopefully discussions on this forum can move beyond such picayune, superstitious concerns, and address the real remaining issues in NTTC, such as GNT variants, or the best manner of translating certain ambiguous phrases and verses in the GNT.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
The W&H crew repeatedly refer to their Westcott-Hort recension as pure. Simply based on the error of Vaticanus primacy, wrongly centering on one abbreviated compendium text full of errors. They were wrong, and created a grossly corrupt GNT text and then English editions loaded with many hard errors. The Critical Text today, and the resulting English modern versions, is essentially the same text, despite various protestations.
This is the fundamental underlying issue in the pure Bible discussion. A person can understand the basics, and discard the textus corruptus editions, without accepting the AV as anything more than one historic representation of the Received Text. In fact, I made that very move some years back.
Issues of AV majesty and excellence are auxiliary, and barely relevant to those who remain confused and uncertain ... buffeted on the underlying foundational and essential Bible textual issues.
If the modern versions are pure, all Received Text Bibles are grossly corrupt, and if Received Text Bibles are pure, the modern versions are grossly corrupt.
If you are trying to use oil and water versions together, sweet and bitter fountains, you should try to get that issue straightened out first.
Keep in mind, though, that many like the idea that they do not really know the pure word of God, since it makes them the arbiter of "God's word", section by section, verse by verse, word by word. A very heady power to those seduced.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven
SAWBONES said:
The W&H crew repeatedly refer to their Westcott-Hort recension as pure. Simply based on the error of Vaticanus primacy, wrongly centering on one abbreviated compendium text full of errors. They were wrong, and created a grossly corrupt GNT text and then English editions loaded with many hard errors. The Critical Text today, and the resulting English modern versions, is essentially the same text, despite various protestations.
This is the fundamental underlying issue in the pure Bible discussion. A person can understand the basics, and discard the textus corruptus editions, without accepting the AV as anything more than one historic representation of the Received Text. In fact, I made that very move some years back.
Issues of AV majesty and excellence are auxiliary, and barely relevant to those who remain confused and uncertain ... buffeted on the underlying foundational and essential Bible textual issues.
If the modern versions are pure, all Received Text Bibles are grossly corrupt, and if Received Text Bibles are pure, the modern versions are grossly corrupt.
If you are trying to use oil and water versions together, sweet and bitter fountains, you should try to get that issue straightened out first.
Keep in mind, though, that many like the idea that they do not really know the pure word of God, since it makes them the arbiter of "God's word", section by section, verse by verse, word by word. A very heady power to those seduced.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=Steven Avery]This is the fundamental underlying issue in the pure Bible discussion. A person can understand the basics, and discard the textus corruptus editions, without accepting the AV as anything more than one historic representation of the Received Text. In fact, I made that very move some years back.
Issues of AV majesty and excellence are auxiliary, and barely relevant to those who remain confused and uncertain ... buffeted on the underlying foundational and essential Bible textual issues.
If the modern versions are pure, all Received Text Bibles are grossly corrupt, and if Received Text Bibles are pure, the modern versions are grossly corrupt.
If you are trying to use oil and water versions together, sweet and bitter fountains, you should try to get that issue straightened out first. [/quote]
Unless the message is bigger than the particular words on a page...
[quote author=Steven Avery]Keep in mind, though, that many like the idea that they do not really know the pure word of God, since it makes them the arbiter of "God's word", section by section, verse by verse, word by word. A very heady power to those seduced.[/quote]
Another option: they respect the traditional teachings of the Church universal and test their own opinions against the weight of hermeneutic history. A much better option than the full blown idolatry I see from most of the KJVO crowd.
Issues of AV majesty and excellence are auxiliary, and barely relevant to those who remain confused and uncertain ... buffeted on the underlying foundational and essential Bible textual issues.
If the modern versions are pure, all Received Text Bibles are grossly corrupt, and if Received Text Bibles are pure, the modern versions are grossly corrupt.
If you are trying to use oil and water versions together, sweet and bitter fountains, you should try to get that issue straightened out first. [/quote]
Unless the message is bigger than the particular words on a page...
[quote author=Steven Avery]Keep in mind, though, that many like the idea that they do not really know the pure word of God, since it makes them the arbiter of "God's word", section by section, verse by verse, word by word. A very heady power to those seduced.[/quote]
Another option: they respect the traditional teachings of the Church universal and test their own opinions against the weight of hermeneutic history. A much better option than the full blown idolatry I see from most of the KJVO crowd.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
Since generally all the AV defender is saying is that I have God's tangible pure word in my hands, the inspired and preserved scripture, I believe that any opponent of the TR-AV position who uses such a description puts themselves in a very dicey position before God.
And virtually cut themselves off from examining the pure Bible issues in any type of constructive and edifying way.
(And notice how none of the basic issues of my post above were addressed.)
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
rsc2a said:
Since generally all the AV defender is saying is that I have God's tangible pure word in my hands, the inspired and preserved scripture, I believe that any opponent of the TR-AV position who uses such a description puts themselves in a very dicey position before God.
And virtually cut themselves off from examining the pure Bible issues in any type of constructive and edifying way.
(And notice how none of the basic issues of my post above were addressed.)
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Steven Avery said:
I've heard AV defenders equate the Bible to Jesus. I've heard AV defenders explicitly state that they would hang the Bible on a cross and worship it. I've heard AV defenders preach entire sermons on the KJV and not mention Jesus once. I've heard AV defenders claim the KJV is the Word in Heaven. I've heard AV defenders claim the Bible is what offers salvation. I've seen AV defenders' websites that mention King James more than Jesus. I've heard AV defenders (and other bibliolatrers) claim the Bible is all they need in life...
[quote author=Steven Avery]And virtually cut themselves off from examining the pure Bible issues in any type of constructive and edifying way.[/quote]
I have examined them. I've also heard ridiculous explanations to "address" obvious errors in the KJV.
[quote author=Steven Avery](And notice how none of the basic issues of my post above were addressed.)[/quote]
They were. Did you see the link?
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
Yep. Barely relevant.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven
rsc2a said:
Yep. Barely relevant.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
Only a dyed-in-the-wool modern versionist would try to judge and evaluate scripture accuracy and infallibility and, inerrancy and perfection, inspiration and preservation, through the mirror of the three little pigs.
Thanks for demonstrating the poverty of the modern version confusion. Chirp your crickets away
.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Only a dyed-in-the-wool modern versionist would try to judge and evaluate scripture accuracy and infallibility and, inerrancy and perfection, inspiration and preservation, through the mirror of the three little pigs.
Thanks for demonstrating the poverty of the modern version confusion. Chirp your crickets away
.Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Steven Avery said:Hi,
Only a dyed-in-the-wool modern versionist would try to judge and evaluate scripture accuracy and infallibility and, inerrancy and perfection, inspiration and preservation, through the mirror of the three little pigs.
Thanks for demonstrating the poverty of the modern version confusion. Chirp your crickets away
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
I noticed that you completely avoided answering the question. So, does it?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
rsc2a said:Steven Avery said:Hi,
Only a dyed-in-the-wool modern versionist would try to judge and evaluate scripture accuracy and infallibility and, inerrancy and perfection, inspiration and preservation, through the mirror of the three little pigs.
Thanks for demonstrating the poverty of the modern version confusion. Chirp your crickets away
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
I noticed that you completely avoided answering the question. So, does it?
*crickets*
Or are you avoiding the question because the obvious answer is damning to a KJVO position?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,393
- Reaction score
- 2,407
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Avery is wasting his time trying to defend a "pure Bible." Although he likes to use the term two or three times per post, I have yet to see a single instance (despite multiple requests from others) where he has deigned to even define what he means by "pure."
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
Are you really taking the three little pigs attempted "analogy" as something that is worthy of response ?
========================
The other part of your post is simply repetition of what was well answered on FFF years ago, and easily available for readers (since the archives there are back). Your normal politicking is expected, and of no interest.
And it takes a modern versionist to stumble over the meaning of a simple English word like pure.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
========================
Although you have already said that grossly contradictory versions are all pure, so it does seem like you do have a problem with basic English, logic and sense.
Why not try to explain your idea that the Received Text versions and modern versions (and presumably Vulgate versions and others) are all 100% pure? I am really curious how contradictory passages are simultaneously pure.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Are you really taking the three little pigs attempted "analogy" as something that is worthy of response ?
========================
The other part of your post is simply repetition of what was well answered on FFF years ago, and easily available for readers (since the archives there are back). Your normal politicking is expected, and of no interest.
And it takes a modern versionist to stumble over the meaning of a simple English word like pure.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
========================
Although you have already said that grossly contradictory versions are all pure, so it does seem like you do have a problem with basic English, logic and sense.
Why not try to explain your idea that the Received Text versions and modern versions (and presumably Vulgate versions and others) are all 100% pure? I am really curious how contradictory passages are simultaneously pure.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Steven Avery said:
Yes. And the fact that you still will not answer the question tells me you cannot answer the question in an honest way without diminishing your own very shaky argument.
[quote author=Steven Avery]The other part of your post is simply repetition of what was well answered on FFF years ago, and easily available for readers (since the archives there are back). Your normal politicking is expected, and of no interest.
And it takes a modern versionist to stumble over the meaning of a simple English word like pure.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.[/quote]
You are aware that pure has multiple meanings, depending on context, right?
[quote author=Steven Avery]Although you have already said that grossly contradictory versions are all pure, so it does seem like you do have a problem with basic English, logic and sense.
Why not try to explain your idea that the Received Text versions and modern versions (and presumably Vulgate versions and others) are all 100% pure? I am really curious how contradictory passages are simultaneously pure.[/quote]
Simple. The message is pure. The words don't matter provided you don't change the message.