rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
I could use some help understanding someone's position.
first, it comes from:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30119568&postcount=24
here is the context:
I don't wish to discuss the KJV-only movement. What i need help on is identifying where this person gets the set of ideas he identifies as:
the original discussion at CF was deleted it is still available for context at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...othic+bible&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8
it is obvious that he knows next to nothing about either textual criticism or the history of the English Bible. My immediate problem is to identify where or from whom he is getting this really funny (not as in ha ha) ideas.
thanks.
addendum:
the continuing saga of this poster, boy i need professional help to get involved in this *grin*
Second though, would be the TR and MT - but they weren't prompted by God to be written, they were probably motivated by the love of money.
from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30129393&postcount=35
first, it comes from:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30119568&postcount=24
Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
wow. i've never heard anyone claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts are not Scripture!!!
Like I said, without Powerpoint or some other tool, it's very hard to explain deep things. Let's make up a scenario:
OT = A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P
NT = Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z
96 AD --- Z is written, completing the Scriptures.
100 AD --- A through Z written in Koine Greek.
350 AD --- A through Z written in Gothic Language.
700 AD --- A through Z written in Anglo-Saxon.
c. 700 AD --- MT appears --- has A through Z with some of P & Q missing (but "pretty close") --- users of AV700 Anglo-Saxon ROFL.
1000 AD --- MT dies of old age --- no one really using it.
1389 AD --- A through Z written by John Wycliffe
c. 1516 --- Textus Receptus appears --- users of Wycliffe Version ROFL
Eventually the 1611 King James Version appears as a replacement to either the AV1587 Geneva Bible, or the AV1568 Bishops' Bible.
King James translators did use parts of TR, but only as a reference tool --- not as a source document. The source document itself would have been either the AV1587 Geneva, or the AV1568 Bishops' Bible - (God's choice for the Pilgrims to America).
here is the context:
The Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus are Scripture.
First of all --- it's not an "ideologue" --- it's plain blasphemy --- specifically, it's a form of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" --- by attributing an [inerrant] work of the Holy Ghost to the [errant] works of man.
Second of all --- that statement caught me off-guard. I've never met a person who considered the Masoretic Text and/or Textus Receptus as Scripture.
Thirdly --- I've gotten over it --- and now consider myself somewhat "anesthetized" to it. Christians are supposed to get upset --- but they have a duty to get over it, too.
wow. i've never heard anyone claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts are not Scripture!!!
i even quoted a 400 year old confession that forms the bases for Presbyterian theology in the US to illustrate this point. It is not only a common point but is the common basis for the inerrantist position in the US conservative churches. The original Greek and Hebrew autographs, the closest we have to these is the MT for the OT and the UBS Greek or TR depending on some other issues.
I suspect you are getting upset over nothing, KJV-o is a small movement with rather limited geographical and temporal extent, the majority of Protestants since the Reformation would assent to the statement "the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus are authentic Scripture".
i am not particularly happy to have disturbed you but as you can see from the quote from the WCF, this is the standard position of my church.
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;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] 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,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]
The KJV is a translation, if the underlying Hebrew and Greek did not exist then the translation can not exist. That appears to be logical and significant reasoning. God did not reveal the KJV to those translators, at the most He could have helped them translate the MT and the TR properly into English, but there is no evidence nor any claim that they got a supernatural text from God that they translated independently from the MT and TR.
I don't wish to discuss the KJV-only movement. What i need help on is identifying where this person gets the set of ideas he identifies as:
AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Version
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1587 Geneva Bible
AV1611 King James Version
The Septuagint, Vulgate, Luther, Gutenberg, Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, or my bible software were not supernaturally created.
the original discussion at CF was deleted it is still available for context at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...othic+bible&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8
it is obvious that he knows next to nothing about either textual criticism or the history of the English Bible. My immediate problem is to identify where or from whom he is getting this really funny (not as in ha ha) ideas.
thanks.
addendum:
the continuing saga of this poster, boy i need professional help to get involved in this *grin*
Second though, would be the TR and MT - but they weren't prompted by God to be written, they were probably motivated by the love of money.
from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30129393&postcount=35
Last edited: