# DA Carson and the Text



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2005)

I read the KJV Debate quite a few years ago. I guess the thing that disturbed me was that he didn't deal with a few texts of scripture that I had made pet verses. We all have pet verses. 

One of my verses was 1Timothy 3:16 where the word Theos is turned into He. 

His critique also didn't satisfy my understanding of manuscript evidence. The older manuscripts are the best because they are closer in age argument has wholes. If I remember he truly didn't cover the subject addressing the older reference quotes that where more along the lines of the Byzantine line. 

At least Dr. White acknowledged the 1 Timothy 3:16 passage and acknowledged the reading probably should read God was manifest in the flesh. 

Why did the other thread get locked down?

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 7, 2005)

Ah yes, pet verses. While I wouldn't expect Carson to persuade all those who hold the opposite opinion, I do think his treatment of the controversy is more fair than White's (by dealing with the KJV-only heavyweights rather than the kooks) and more authoritative (Carson exceeds White in his understanding of textual history and the Greek language). 



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Why did the other thread get locked down?


Strange. I have no idea.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2005)

_Originally posted by doulosChristou_
Ah yes, pet verses. While I wouldn't expect Carson to persuade all those who hold the opposite opinion, I do think his treatment of the controversy is more fair than White's (by dealing with the KJV-only heavyweights rather than the kooks) and more authoritative (Carson exceeds White in his understanding of textual history and the Greek language)


That is another problem I have with these books. They want to call people who like the Majority/Byzantine text KJV ONLY people. The KJV isn't even their argument. In other words, I believe they are making stawman arguments. I don't know if they are doing it consciously or not. I Just think it is happening. They may just be trying to generalize things.



[Edited on 1-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 7, 2005)

Carson makes a thorough distinction between the KJV/TR-only position (chapter seven deal methodically with assertions of the superiority of the TR over other manuscripts) and the MT position (a position he addresses in his lengthy appendix).


----------



## Radar (Jan 7, 2005)

The Dividing Line

Most Tuesday Mornings at 
11:00am MST and
Most Thursday Afternoons at 4:00 MST
(pre-feeds begin 30 minutes or so before start of program)

Dr. White welcomes your calls at:
(602) 973-4602 (Metro Phoenix)
1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Carson makes a thorough distinction between the KJV/TR-only position (chapter seven deal methodically with assertions of the superiority of the TR over other manuscripts) and the MT position (a position he addresses in his lengthy appendix).



Doulous

I will have to go back and look at Carson again. If I remember he still didn't answer the questions I had. I am not saying the TR is the best either. I think most everyone knows it has problems also. It is the line of the majority text that we lilke. 

The argument that I didn't feel was addressed was the subject addressing the older reference quotes that where more along the lines of the Byzantine line instead of the other line. You could probably tell me. Did he do that? I don't have the book. I read it years ago and truly don't remember it as well as I do the Controversey book. 

By the way that avatar is just so cool.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2005)

Greg,

It appears Carson did cover the topic I wanted to see covered. It was critiqued by the Trinitarian Society. I am not sure who they are. The critique sounds genuine and even applauds Carson in some of his attempts. I read through the last part of the article called Byzantine vs. Alexandrian. Check it out and tell me what you think. 

Critique of 'The King James Version Debate' 

Does anyone know about the Trinitarian Society? It appears to be in the UK and has ties to Tyndale.

oops. Looks like Tyndale is the name of the House not who they are associated with. Sorry

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 7, 2005)

The Trinitarian Bible Society is a good organization which promotes translations based on the Majority Text.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2005)

I am reading the critique of Carsons book and it seems balanced but I just don't remember the book. Maybe I was so shallow I was only concerned with the second part of the book. After all it has only been a mere 20 or 15 years ago. I am ashamed to admit it but I have read some books only scanning the parts I wasn't to interested in. I read books cover to cover now. I even read the notes. You miss a lot if you don't. Maybe that is maturity. I just want to know what is going on.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Ah yes, pet verses. While I wouldn't expect Carson to persuade all those who hold the opposite opinion, I do think his treatment of the controversy is more fair than White's (by dealing with the KJV-only heavyweights rather than the kooks) and more authoritative (Carson exceeds White in his understanding of textual history and the Greek language)
> 
> ...




White makes a distinction between MT/Byz folks and TR/KJV folks as well. In fact, he makes a distinction between different types of KJV folks (providential preservationists vs advanced revelation vs 'I like the KJV the best' and such). His presentation is actually VERY fair.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Yes I understand that it seems to be very fair. I don't think he is an unfair person. Check out the article I linked to above. It is pretty short but I think it is fair also. Randy

There is the Majority Text and then there is the TR. 

[Edited on 1-10-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 10, 2005)

There have been some very profound comments in this edifying thread, in my opinion.



> The older manuscripts are the best because they are closer in age argument has wholes



Obviously a carefully copied manuscript from the 9th century has more "weight," or should have, than a sloppy and carelessly copied manuscript from the 4th century or whenever. Does Carson honestly address the very poor quality of Sinaticus, as White does not? Entire lines missing, entire lines repeated twice, numerous scribal blunders of the most egregious type?

Tischendorf, in his own words, was excited by the antiquity of the manuscript before he even read it. He was convinced of its authenticity from the start and did not study it objectively.



> I do think his treatment of the controversy is more fair than White's (by dealing with the KJV-only heavyweights rather than the kooks) and more authoritative (Carson exceeds White in his understanding of textual history and the Greek language).





> They want to call people who like the Majority/Byzantine text KJV ONLY people. The KJV isn't even their argument. In other words, I believe they are making stawman arguments. I don't know if they are doing it consciously or not. I Just think it is happening. They may just be trying to generalize things.



Some of this is done unconsciously. Riplinger etc. have done a lot of damage here. Some of it is honest generalization. Some of it I think is deliberate deception and dishonesty.


Someone asked about the Trinitarian Bible Society. I believe they make the most serious and academic case against New Bible-ism that can be made, but have not seen all of their material. They distribute copies of the TR underlying the KJV.




> White makes a distinction between MT/Byz folks and TR/KJV folks as well. In fact, he makes a distinction between different types of KJV folks (providential preservationists vs advanced revelation vs 'I like the KJV the best' and such). His presentation is actually VERY fair.



I found White to be very unfair. I wonder if the author of this post would be interested in returning to the thread in this section about James White and making some sort of response to the objections I raised to his book. His criticisms of the KJV's Greek are all questionable. Every rendering he objects to can be defended from the dictionary and makes sense doctrinally.




> Why did the other thread get locked down?



Good question.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 10, 2005)

> doulosChristou's post of 1-7-2005:
> 
> Carson also has a mastery of the Greek which far surpasses White (who, though he teaches NT Greek, recently admitted on his blog that he is still tackling the Greek participle).
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8198



He criticizes the KJV for incorrectly translating the participle in Acts 19:2 and then admits he hasn't got the participle figured out?

I am really learning something by reading these threads - unfortunately I will have to give up debating as too much time on the computer has brought back my double vision.


----------

