This KJVO article has ruined the ESV for me :-(

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Ok then, what is necessary to the practice of textual criticism upon scripture?

Linguistic and textual analytical methods such as we would use on any other document to determine what it looked like originally. The Bible is as truly human, after all, as it is Divine and God-Breathed. If the TR is, as you say, the perfectly preserved version, then you should have nothing to fear.

You must overthrow from scripture the Reformed views of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation and then replace them with justification from scripture with the modern views of preservation and inspiration.

I don't have to---I believe this as you do. I disagree that a particular textual methodology is necessitated by this.

You start from the faulty premise that we have somehow lost what the text of scripture looked like originally. Furthermore, your "linguistic and textual analytic methods" answer is a non-answer. Define these so-called methods since you dismiss the modern textual criticism methodology. Provide a biblical warrant not only for these methods, but for your so-called "linguistic and textual analytic methods" theory.

As to your claim to believe as I do in Verbal Plenary Inspiration & Verbal Plenary Preservation, you have denied this view in all of your previous posts. Furthermore, such a view is not consistent with the CT or the method which produced the CT.
 
Last edited:

J. Dean

Puritan Board Junior
J. Dean,

The KJO preacher you heard “updating the language” I think would fall into the category of expositing or “unpacking” the language and text, making it relevant to folks who live in this day and age. When I preached from the AV I would often “modernize” the words so they would be understandable to the congregation, for many of whom English was a second language (the pew bibles were NKJV, a choice I had to make between the planting church’s offer of ESVs or that – in Africa I had seen the havoc the ESV was causing among some of the class I taught; I saw the NKJV as far superior).
Great, but again, why not simply update the language in translation instead of having to have a "middle man" redefine older English? Why make Bible understanding more difficult?

My view is one I am willing to “put on paper” (if one counts these discussion boards as “paper”). There are a few places where I prefer a modern version’s translation, and have put it in the margin of my Bible (I know this will give some KJVO folks the horrors). One of my favorite commentators on the NT is William Hendriksen, and he is a thorough-going CT person. I love his exegeses, and still retain my textual views. Remember, I call myself KJV priority, so as to acknowledge the legitimacy of other Bibles (I came to this position here at PB, interacting with godly men holding other views – and Bibles – and could not deny their integrity and devotion to the Lord and to His word). I make this clear in post #86 above.
For the record, my comments about KJVO people do not necessarily apply to you. Let that be clear. Again, if somebody loves the KJV, more power to them.

With regard to Daniel 3:25 and the AV’s rendering “like the Son of God”, while I realize it is by far a minority rendering of the Hebrew (I have found only Lamsa’s translation from the Syriac Peshitta that agrees), I think it is a defensible choice, as that is who it was. I, for one, though, would not call the other translation choices bad. I have confidence in no other Bible’s underlying original-language texts, and I trust the AV translators’ work. Their translation choices are not the only ones possible, but they are good. I would not object to a fair and true modernization of the AV, but I do not think it possible given the current state of men’s minds and hearts.
And see, another problem crops up here, because later on in that same passage, Nebuchadnezzer refers to this being as an "angel" delivering Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Do you see the potential problem here?

I am still working on your question re differing “versions” of the King James Bible. I thought it would be a breeze, but have discovered it is actually a complicated matter. I have a hardcopy of F.H.A. Scrivener’s, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives, which I am going through. He was not an AV man, but a Traditional Text (sort of Majority Text) man. I’ll have to report back to you on that shortly.

As I’ve said above, what I really want to do is start to work on the contra Bart Ehrman piece (I’ve loaned some of those books out to a pastor, and have just called them back in, giving a few weeks leeway).
Here's one of my sources, just FYI: Which King James Bible?

And thank you for taking the time to respond.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Define these so-called methods since you dismiss the modern textual criticism methodology.

I didn't dismiss the methodology---I dismissed the unbiblical attitudes which sometimes accompany it and which you have mistaken for a methodology.

Again, before I will provide a justification for such, I would ask that you establish what the methodological canons of "truly reformed" (whatever that means) textual criticism look like, and how they are derived from Scripture. Otherwise I must only assume that they are just as arbitrary as any other methodology.

As to your claim to believe as I do in Verbal Plenary Inspiration & Verbal Plenary Preservation, you have denied this view in all of your previous posts. Furthermore, such a view is not consistent with the CT or the method which produced the CT.

Why not?

I'm also still waiting for your reasoning as to why the Peshitta is not a valid transmission of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top