.JPG){kind=small}
Posts
Facebook debate: Are the New Translations of the Bible as Reliable as the KJV and Textus Receptus?~ (I named it as to make this thing sound important)
This is a conversation that I am currently having on Facebook with a gentleman, Simon Peter. I cannot share this conversation through Facebook and I want everyone that I know to have the benefit of this conversation.Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland How bad is it that the esv has missing verses?
Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland
KJV is still the most beautiful alongside the Geneva, Tyndale, Wycliffe translations
Yesterday at 2:45pm
Mark II
It's not bad at all. And when you say that the KJV is the most beautiful, do you mean linguistically?
Benjamin J. Hartley
that's an interesting study. I use the KJV primarily for that reason, that many verses are missing in the modern English translations. Different transcripts I suppose. Not a big fan of modern translations, but I am not into KJV onlynism. Have you done any in depth study of this subject?
Mark II
Ben, are you asking Peter or me? I've been studying this area for about a year now.
Mark II
I'm not a fan of the KJV because it adds verses...lol
Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland
Mark. 1) Why not bad at all? Do scholars have authority to add or take away from scripture? 2) Language style and beautiful because it just is...
Benjamin. 1) Not a kjv only either, I love the Geneva, Youngs, Tyndale, Wycliffe but greatly admire the av and regard it as authoritative. Many modern translations have good to offer but the kjv will ... Read Moreoutlast them all, has time not proven that?...I have studied this subject but studies based upon opinions are not final. I judge matters myself and find it best to just read the text and review it with the original hebrew and greek. But even the h & g is not final depending upon which manuscript we refer to...I admire the Textus Receptus and reject the Latin Lulgate, though I know the kjv refers to it...
Benjamin. 1) Not a kjv only either, I love the Geneva, Youngs, Tyndale, Wycliffe but greatly admire the av and regard it as authoritative. Many modern translations have good to offer but the kjv will ... Read Moreoutlast them all, has time not proven that?...I have studied this subject but studies based upon opinions are not final. I judge matters myself and find it best to just read the text and review it with the original hebrew and greek. But even the h & g is not final depending upon which manuscript we refer to...I admire the Textus Receptus and reject the Latin Lulgate, though I know the kjv refers to it...
Mark II
Ok, I'll try to answer you briefly. I don't have a lot of time right now. So maybe this will help the conversation. First, I do believe that every translation has its limitations and is fallable.
Second, I did not say nor would I say that scholars have the right to arbitrarily remove or add to the text. For that matter this would include scribes as well (this is important).... Read More
Third, I believe that it is a strawman, to claim, that those who hold to the oldest codices and papyri as more reliable, are simultaneously giving liberty to scholars to play light and loose with the English. For this would be a Non-Sequitur and a category error. The fact of it is, the KJV has translational issues (for example: Granville Sharp's Rule: Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1; Beza's Conjectural Emendation in Rev 16:5, the confusion between "os" and the Nomina Sacra in 1 Tim 3:16, etc.) and transcriptional issues (for example: The last twelve verses of Mark and the Comma Johanneum)
Fourth, I need to clarify, I do not hold that all modern translations are equal and reliable. I detest paraphrases and "liberal" translations.
I hope this gives you a good start. God bless. P.S. I'm glad you're not a KJVO.
Second, I did not say nor would I say that scholars have the right to arbitrarily remove or add to the text. For that matter this would include scribes as well (this is important).... Read More
Third, I believe that it is a strawman, to claim, that those who hold to the oldest codices and papyri as more reliable, are simultaneously giving liberty to scholars to play light and loose with the English. For this would be a Non-Sequitur and a category error. The fact of it is, the KJV has translational issues (for example: Granville Sharp's Rule: Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1; Beza's Conjectural Emendation in Rev 16:5, the confusion between "os" and the Nomina Sacra in 1 Tim 3:16, etc.) and transcriptional issues (for example: The last twelve verses of Mark and the Comma Johanneum)
Fourth, I need to clarify, I do not hold that all modern translations are equal and reliable. I detest paraphrases and "liberal" translations.
I hope this gives you a good start. God bless. P.S. I'm glad you're not a KJVO.
Mark II
is there any way I can share this post to my wall? it would make it easier for me to follow.
Benjamin J. Hartley
Aha a discussion is born, shall we carry this on by some other means?
Mark II
To be honest, I don't have a lot of time. So I'll only be able to respond when I have time. So this format is probably the best. I'm actually preparing a series of Sunday School lessons and the Reliability of the New Testament is one them. But it will only be at most 45 minutes long.
Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland
Manuscripts are an issue, but the problem is that the variants often only exist in a handful if not less of manuscripts. That majority agree and do not vary.
PS. When I mention something, I am not simply pointing the finger or suggesting that anyone has made a claim, I am simply bringing out what is actually there. If scholars remove texts from translations then they veiw themselves as having the authority to do so, and they do not. It is the word of God.
PS. When I mention something, I am not simply pointing the finger or suggesting that anyone has made a claim, I am simply bringing out what is actually there. If scholars remove texts from translations then they veiw themselves as having the authority to do so, and they do not. It is the word of God.
Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland The ESV translators have omitted the following verses from their translation. Matthew 17:21, 18: 11, 23: 14. Mark 7: 16, 9: 44, 9: 46, 10:21 (omits "take up cross") 11: 26, 15: 28. Luke 17:36, 23:17. John 5:4. Acts 8: 37, 15: 34, 28: 29. Romans 16:24. 1 John 5: 7. J I Packer has apparently crepted into the c...hurch, employed sound reformed doctrine and is slowing leading reformers away by using this translation?Read More
Juan A. Baquerizo-Gambini
If a translation is missing verses it should be thrown in the trash or better be burned
Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland
NIV, RSV, are all guilty of this...
Juan A. Baquerizo-Gambini
This explains the rise of hideous and preposterous heresies within the church
Mark II
For not being a KJV onlyist Peter, you're using a lot of their arguments. And Juan, your comment is misinformed. I would like you to substantiate your last claim. Fyi, most cultists use the KJV: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses (along with the NWT), Christian Scientists, Masons, etc. But this is not a good argument at all in determining which text is preferable. Also Juan, if you want to go down that line of argumentation... the individual who wrote the Textus Receptus, the primary text referenced for the AV translation, was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was a Roman Catholic Priest.
Peter, you've made this claim three times that the new versions omit texts. Please substantiate your claims by demonstrating that the earliest, most reliable texts that we have now contain these "alleged omissions".
First, The fact is, the AV was translated out of six MSS all dating later than the tenth century. We have a vast range of MSS at our disposal that date anywhere from the third to fourth century: C. Sinaiticus, C. Alexandrinus, C. Vaticanus, Codex Washingtonensis, 0162, 0171, 0189, 0220, P1, P2, P3, P4...through P115, etc. These are only the Greek MSS, this doesn't include other languages such as Coptic, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic, etc. So translations like the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. have a much greater MSS attestation supporting them.... Read More
Second, you're making a grave error. You're comparing the modern translations to the AV. To put it another way, you're using the AV as the standard by which you compare the modern versions. Unless you're prepared to say that all the godly men throughout history has utilized the KJV, then I would back away from your biases for a bit to examine what you are saying.
Third, as for your list of omissions, there's a reason most of the verses, that are omitted, are from the Gospels. This is important to note. I will deal with some of these texts briefly and some more at length.
Matthew 17:21 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 9:29, the same verse that's omitted in Matthew still appears in Mark.
Matthew 18:11 Accidental Harmonization cf. Luke 19:10. ibid
Matthew 23:14 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 12:10 or Luke 24:47. ibid
Mark 7:16 The WH, NA27, and USB do not include this text as the MSS: Aleph, B, L, Delta*, 0274, do not either. The extra verse was added by scribes, borrowing it directly from 4:23 (see also 4:9) to provide an ending to an otherwise very short pericope, This addition was included in the T.R. and made popular by the KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, etc. (Comfort, 2008, 121; shortened mine) But let it be noted that this verse still exists in Matt 11:15; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14: 35
Mark 9:44, 46 MSS: Aleph, B, C, L, W, Delta, Phi, 0274f1, 28, 565, itk, syrs, cop do not contain these verses. For various reasons it is believed that the repetition of this phrase was inserted by various scribes in order for readability for early church liturgy. However, this verse still remains in Is. 66:24 ESV.
Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") this phrase just lacks early attestation. However this verse still exists at 8:34 ESV.
Mark 11:26 This verse as well has no early attestation to it. It is an accidental duplication of the end of the previous verse. But again, this omitted verse exists in Matt. 6:15; 18:10, 35
Mark 15:28 The first time this verse appears in any MSS is in 083 (Luke 22:37 which is a citation of Is. 53:12), later scribes inserted this verse as a prophetic proof text to show Jesus' death to their Roman audience since this specific audience would have been largly OT illiterate.
Luke 17:36 Accidental Harmonization cf. Luke 17:35
Luke 23:17 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 15:6; Matt. 27:15;
John 5:4 See 1 John 5:7 below.
Acts 8:37 See 1 John 5:7 below.
Acts 15:34 This verse, is in contradiction to 15:33, was added to avoid the difficulty in 15:40. The reviser, trying to avoid one problem, created another. This verse doesn't even exist in the Byzantine(M) text type! Erasmus inserted this text from a marginal note in one of the manuscripts he was utilizing in putting together the TR.
Acts 28:29 See 1 John 5:7
Romans 16:24 this was borrowed from verse 20 on accident. It is not in any early MSS.
1 John 5: 7 - John 5:4; Acts 8:37; and The Comma Johanneum. Textual transmission tradition reveals explicitly that when a reading enters the line, it remains in the line. Early scribes and/or copyists when they wanted a copy of a book for themselves or their church would set themselves to hand copy the text. Early copyists were not professional scribes. Many of which risked their lives to copy these books as Christianity was illegal. So if a copyist realized that they missed a passage they would either right it in the margin or at the end of the book. However, various scribes, who knew something about Jewish traditions, would also add their own notes in the margins. So this creates a problem for us. How do we know what was a note and what is actually part of the text? We check the earlier MSS. For those who know anything about NT Textual Criticism this isn't as easy as I'm making it out to be. So, to OVER simplify, this is what happened.
So, if the ESV translators were trying to subversively remove passages of precious Scripture in order to manipulate the masses, they did a pathetic job. They missed identical verses that appear else where in the Bible. When it comes to interpolations, I can an exact contrary argument, specifically, that the KJV adds to the text of Holy Scripture, therefore is should be burned. But, I believe that is non-sense. The Geneva Bible, The KJV, NKJV, Tyndale, etc. are great texts but limited and fallable. God never promised to inspire a translation, scribe, or copyist.
Third, what's with the whole J.I. Packer thing? The ESV was done by a translation committee with Greek and Hebrew consultants. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that they just omitted texts out of some Theological bias? If they did, what would this Theological bias be? If they did, then it would be considered blasphemous. To say that the ESV omitted Scripture is just incorrect. Also, to accuse anyone that they're misleading Reformed Christians by using the ESV is just ignorant and a dangerous accusation on your part. Especially since you didn't substantiate it.
Last of all, on your other post you made the comment, "...the variants often only exist in a handful if not less of manuscripts. That majority agree and do not vary." This again, is not a studied statement. The truth is, there exist roughly six variants per chapter of the New Testament. And a total of roughly 400,000 variants. Yes, most of them insignificant. Now, let's assume that you were right. Then why do object to the new translations? They're all based upon these same MSS.
God bless
Peter, you've made this claim three times that the new versions omit texts. Please substantiate your claims by demonstrating that the earliest, most reliable texts that we have now contain these "alleged omissions".
First, The fact is, the AV was translated out of six MSS all dating later than the tenth century. We have a vast range of MSS at our disposal that date anywhere from the third to fourth century: C. Sinaiticus, C. Alexandrinus, C. Vaticanus, Codex Washingtonensis, 0162, 0171, 0189, 0220, P1, P2, P3, P4...through P115, etc. These are only the Greek MSS, this doesn't include other languages such as Coptic, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic, etc. So translations like the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. have a much greater MSS attestation supporting them.... Read More
Second, you're making a grave error. You're comparing the modern translations to the AV. To put it another way, you're using the AV as the standard by which you compare the modern versions. Unless you're prepared to say that all the godly men throughout history has utilized the KJV, then I would back away from your biases for a bit to examine what you are saying.
Third, as for your list of omissions, there's a reason most of the verses, that are omitted, are from the Gospels. This is important to note. I will deal with some of these texts briefly and some more at length.
Matthew 17:21 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 9:29, the same verse that's omitted in Matthew still appears in Mark.
Matthew 18:11 Accidental Harmonization cf. Luke 19:10. ibid
Matthew 23:14 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 12:10 or Luke 24:47. ibid
Mark 7:16 The WH, NA27, and USB do not include this text as the MSS: Aleph, B, L, Delta*, 0274, do not either. The extra verse was added by scribes, borrowing it directly from 4:23 (see also 4:9) to provide an ending to an otherwise very short pericope, This addition was included in the T.R. and made popular by the KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, etc. (Comfort, 2008, 121; shortened mine) But let it be noted that this verse still exists in Matt 11:15; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14: 35
Mark 9:44, 46 MSS: Aleph, B, C, L, W, Delta, Phi, 0274f1, 28, 565, itk, syrs, cop do not contain these verses. For various reasons it is believed that the repetition of this phrase was inserted by various scribes in order for readability for early church liturgy. However, this verse still remains in Is. 66:24 ESV.
Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") this phrase just lacks early attestation. However this verse still exists at 8:34 ESV.
Mark 11:26 This verse as well has no early attestation to it. It is an accidental duplication of the end of the previous verse. But again, this omitted verse exists in Matt. 6:15; 18:10, 35
Mark 15:28 The first time this verse appears in any MSS is in 083 (Luke 22:37 which is a citation of Is. 53:12), later scribes inserted this verse as a prophetic proof text to show Jesus' death to their Roman audience since this specific audience would have been largly OT illiterate.
Luke 17:36 Accidental Harmonization cf. Luke 17:35
Luke 23:17 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 15:6; Matt. 27:15;
John 5:4 See 1 John 5:7 below.
Acts 8:37 See 1 John 5:7 below.
Acts 15:34 This verse, is in contradiction to 15:33, was added to avoid the difficulty in 15:40. The reviser, trying to avoid one problem, created another. This verse doesn't even exist in the Byzantine(M) text type! Erasmus inserted this text from a marginal note in one of the manuscripts he was utilizing in putting together the TR.
Acts 28:29 See 1 John 5:7
Romans 16:24 this was borrowed from verse 20 on accident. It is not in any early MSS.
1 John 5: 7 - John 5:4; Acts 8:37; and The Comma Johanneum. Textual transmission tradition reveals explicitly that when a reading enters the line, it remains in the line. Early scribes and/or copyists when they wanted a copy of a book for themselves or their church would set themselves to hand copy the text. Early copyists were not professional scribes. Many of which risked their lives to copy these books as Christianity was illegal. So if a copyist realized that they missed a passage they would either right it in the margin or at the end of the book. However, various scribes, who knew something about Jewish traditions, would also add their own notes in the margins. So this creates a problem for us. How do we know what was a note and what is actually part of the text? We check the earlier MSS. For those who know anything about NT Textual Criticism this isn't as easy as I'm making it out to be. So, to OVER simplify, this is what happened.
So, if the ESV translators were trying to subversively remove passages of precious Scripture in order to manipulate the masses, they did a pathetic job. They missed identical verses that appear else where in the Bible. When it comes to interpolations, I can an exact contrary argument, specifically, that the KJV adds to the text of Holy Scripture, therefore is should be burned. But, I believe that is non-sense. The Geneva Bible, The KJV, NKJV, Tyndale, etc. are great texts but limited and fallable. God never promised to inspire a translation, scribe, or copyist.
Third, what's with the whole J.I. Packer thing? The ESV was done by a translation committee with Greek and Hebrew consultants. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that they just omitted texts out of some Theological bias? If they did, what would this Theological bias be? If they did, then it would be considered blasphemous. To say that the ESV omitted Scripture is just incorrect. Also, to accuse anyone that they're misleading Reformed Christians by using the ESV is just ignorant and a dangerous accusation on your part. Especially since you didn't substantiate it.
Last of all, on your other post you made the comment, "...the variants often only exist in a handful if not less of manuscripts. That majority agree and do not vary." This again, is not a studied statement. The truth is, there exist roughly six variants per chapter of the New Testament. And a total of roughly 400,000 variants. Yes, most of them insignificant. Now, let's assume that you were right. Then why do object to the new translations? They're all based upon these same MSS.
God bless
Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland
Let us deal with one issue at a time shall we.
a) I am not KJV only, never have I said so
b) Did Packer not sign up with Catholics in the 1990's, was he not general editor of the esv?
c) You are cutting and pasting from some writings which may or may not be your own. I can see this from the missing footnotes? Are these your own? If not I will dissmiss them and will not answer those points!
d) I am not using the av as a standard. What about the Vulgate, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva,... Read More
e) Do you read Hebrew/Greek?
f) I am arguing from the textus receptus not the av
g) The interpolations argument is textual criticism and not actual fact. Textual critics base their arguments upon an understanding and upon a handful of manuscipts
Please edit the cut and paste job and then I will reply to the points if you number/letter them and not just add a mass or claims that if each one were to be adressed, they would take thousands upon thousands of words...
a) I am not KJV only, never have I said so
b) Did Packer not sign up with Catholics in the 1990's, was he not general editor of the esv?
c) You are cutting and pasting from some writings which may or may not be your own. I can see this from the missing footnotes? Are these your own? If not I will dissmiss them and will not answer those points!
d) I am not using the av as a standard. What about the Vulgate, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva,... Read More
e) Do you read Hebrew/Greek?
f) I am arguing from the textus receptus not the av
g) The interpolations argument is textual criticism and not actual fact. Textual critics base their arguments upon an understanding and upon a handful of manuscipts
Please edit the cut and paste job and then I will reply to the points if you number/letter them and not just add a mass or claims that if each one were to be adressed, they would take thousands upon thousands of words...
Mark II
I do not have time this morning to answer you point by point again. My last post is all my own work. I wrote it out in WordPad first and then copied an pasted it from there. There are no footnotes necessary. So yes, this is all my own work. Except for the part where it says (comfort). That is merely a reference to Philip Comfort's work. Yes, I ... Read Moreunderstand that responses to claims take thousands of words. I spent two hours on my response to you. So for you to just dismiss it outright is quite rude. I am not calling you a KJVO. I am saying that you're using arguments similar to what they use. Again, you keep mentioning J.I. Packer, I do not agree with the work he is doing. Nontheless, I'm not going to spend my time if I don't have to with this kind of argument. Its misguided (ad hominem) to attack the work because of the man. I can do that too, and have demonstrated how. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic Priest so therefore we should reject the TR. This kind of argumentation is just not good form. The comment you made about interpolations and textual criticism. DUDE, where do you think you got your KJV Bible? Erasmus was a Lower New Testament Textual Critic. You have to be a textual critic in order to collate various New Testament MSS. So if you're not going to answer what I have said. Then I think this conversation is over. God bless.
Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland
I will gladly answer now I know the work to be your own. So permit me time to reply. Thank you
No comments:
Post a Comment