Thank you. I will have to take some time out to read them.

__________________
Andrew Cunningham
Casa Grande, AZ
Attending:Grace Covenant Church, ARBCA
Cross Centered Life

Matthew,

I'm sorry if you are offended at what i have said. It would be benifitial for me to do what you have asked. I will take some time out as well to see the process that the AV translators took.

I have still given out the facts, so how is it then, that the NASB and ESV translators, supposedly doing a translation of a translation(when in fact they used the old manuscripts... referring more to them then the english translation), makes them "the devil", yet, the KJ translators also took the older english texts and referred to them as well; does that not make them "the devil"? Calvin's argument was to make the NASB and ESV less credible by using the old "it's a translation of a translation" routine. When you actually have the facts, I understand it's hard to swallow(being sincere). I was just pointing out the obvious Matthew, I wasn't being predjudice.

I only got half way through this thread, but here's something I noticed. One of the arguements is that the text copied from was supposedly destroyed once a new one was made. and that the reason the Alexandrian texts exist is because they were ignored and not copied.

So why do we have any of these manuscripts? Shouldn't they all have been destroyed?

Someone made the arguement that that was a Jewish practice to destroy the original once a copy was made. I don't see that a Jewish practice would/could be imposed on Gentile Christians(it was stopped before reguarding circumcision).

Maybe I'm way off base. I know I'm in over my head on this discussion. Just a thought, not claiming its a good one.

shelly

__________________
Life is a journey; learn to enjoy it.
shelly {approved by admins for limited information in signature}
attending a reformed church

I would suggest that even the Jewish practice of destroying manuscripts after copied declined after time, that's why we do have Hebrew manuscripts from later dates (for instance the leningrad codes is from about 1008 AD).
So perhaps after time as the Church grew more and more away from its Jewish roots they started looking at the manuscripts differently and started holding on to them.

As far as circumcision, it's really not a comparable topic. OT circumcision and NT baptism are sacraments, how to handle old manuscripts is not.

__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/

Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net

-----------------------------------------------------
"The best Christian is still a poor Christian" - R.B. Kuiper

Hi Shelly,

Part of the reason we have certain manuscripts (MSS) -- I am thinking in particular of those from Egypt upon which the "Alexandrian" texttype is based -- is that a) they were written on velum, very expensive antelope skin finely prepared and far more durable than the parchment used for most MSS; b) the climate in Egypt was dry, and thus conducive to the preservation of MSS, unlike the damper climates of Europe and Asia Minor; the climate was such in Egypt that even some of the far more fragile papyri MSS survived; and c) it is a factor that much use wore out some MSS.

I recently purchased a new Bible; when I finish the long and tedious process of copying all my 40 years worth of notes/cross-references/etc from my two other Bibles into it, I will likely set the almost-worn-out one aside and use it very little. The pages are brittle and breaking.

In the 9th century all of a sudden appear a vast number of manuscripts in a new form, the smaller cursive Greek script as opposed to the uppercase uncials of the previous centuries -- and NO ancient uncials of the same texttype as the majority of these miniscules (mss), which happen to be of the Byzantine (or Majority, or Traditional) texttype. It has been noted by text critics that the likelihood is very high the scribes copying the old MSS into mss form destroyed the exemplars they used, much in the way I am going to set aside my old Bible when I am finished copying the annotations.

The things I am saying are a hypothetical reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the NT text from the various manuscripts. For certain periods we are lacking in much information regarding the history of the manuscripts, and according to our presuppositions (our foundational view of what is real and how we know what is real) we interpret the data we have to make the best sense of it. The link I give here opens on a post which discusses something about how these presuppostions determine our views of which texts are best:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...7&postcount=31

This matter of the texts is an area where one must delve deeply into the writings of those who propound the arguments for the various views. This "Translations and Manuscripts" board has a lot of information from differing viewpoints on the subject. Peruse it if it is an area of interest to you. We ALL start out "over our heads" when we approach any new field, so don't let that dismay you! I am in "over my head" on some topics here at PB, and so I just set myself to learn.

May the Lord guide you and give you light.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Forty years' worth of notes and cross-references? Can you still read the text in that old Bible?

How would you categorize the kinds of notes you've got, Steve?

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire and ice - there are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia. - Frank Zappa (1940-1993)

Hi shelly:

I think that you are partly on track here. Since I made the argument I guess it is my responsibility to clarify it a bit.

The first few centuries of the Church saw a huge number of Jews become converts to Christianity. Peter, in Acts chapter 2, was preaching in the Temple where only Jews were allowed, and 3,000 of them were converted. The Apostles "went to the Jews first" like Paul did when he would first preach in a synagogue as he entered a city. The persecution that many Jews would stir up in the 2rd and 4th Centuries was because the Christians were successful in converting the Jews to Christendom.

This was such a problem that Jewish ceremonial practices that were fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ started to be taught as law. You pointed out one of these in the practice of circumcision which was changed to baptism, c.f. Col. 2:11-12.

However, not all Jewish practices were considered wrong - the singing of Psalms, for example, was the exclusive practice of the Church for the next few centuries - even Gentiles. The Jewish art of transcribing the Scriptures was also not a part of the ceremonial law. There was nothing ungodly or unbiblical about it. In fact, we see examples of how accurate they were when we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 2nd Century BC) with our modern copies of the Old Testament.

The oldest copy we have of the entire Old Testament is about 1000 AD. Since the OT talks about matters that happened circa 4000 BC such a manuscript would be considered extremely late (according to the Critical Text theory). Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain only parts of the OT, would be considered late by this philosophy.

Yet, we have all the confidence in the world that the OT text that we read in our Bibles is the same text (translated) used by David, Isaiah, Daniel, and Jesus. Such is a testimony of the Providence of God in the transmitting of the Scriptures. There is little doubt that God continued to use the Jewish practice of transmitting the Scriptures through the first three centuries of the Church.

What evidence do we have of this?

What James White points out as "phantom manuscripts" actually proves that the Jewish practice was in place. We find no Greek manuscripts which uphold specifically Byzantine readings of the New Testament during the first few centuries. White argues that such readings never existed during this period in the first place. The problem with his argument is that we do have specifically Byzantine readings in various (non-Greek) translations of the Bible that date back to the early 2nd Century AD: the Old Italic (2nd century), The Old Syraic (3rd century), and Jerome's Vulgate (early 4th century), for example.

How do we reconcile this? Simple. The Greek copies of the New Testament were considered copies of the original Gospels and Letters of the Apostles. Consequently, they were subject to the Jewish rules of transmission: The "older" copies were destroyed while the younger ones were retained. This is why we do not have any "older" Greek texts that affirm the Byzantine manuscripts. The translations into Syraic and Latin were not considered "official" copies. Thus, they were not subject to the same rules of transmission that were used on the original Greek texts.

That we do find "older" Greek manuscripts that uphold the Critical Text indicates that these Greek manuscripts were never copied. In fact, we do not have any "younger" texts that uphold the Critical Text, and that is a very strong indicator that these "older" texts were considered by the Church to be corrupted - apart from the abundance of internal evidence that shows that they have been tampered/translated by Gnostics. These texts are referred to as the "Alexandrian Variants" and include such older texts as the "Sinaiticus" (reffered to as "Aleph") and the "Vaticanus" (also referred to as "B"). It is these texts that are the basis of the modern translations: RSV, ESV, and NIV.

After the 4th Century or so the Bible started to be copied more abundantly. The vast majority, if not all, of these copies followed the Byzantine manuscripts. The Church having received the Byzantine copies through history understood these copies to be the closest to the originals - and that is why they copied them.

So, to make this simple: The Byzantine manuscripts (which are the basis for the King James Version) have always been upheld by the Church as the true copies of the original writings of the Apostles. The Alexandrian Variants (which are the basis for the RSV, ESV, and NIV) have always been rejected by the Church throughout all of history.

Hope this clears things up a bit!

Blessings on your research on this matter,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

Excellent points, Robert W!

Richard, I would say 95% or more are simply extensive cross-references or chains of references on various topics (Election, Perseverance, OT prophecies of Gentiles coming to Christ, Waiting on God, NT attestations to itself, etc), and some references to other versions' renderings, pertinent commentaries on certain Scriptures, and misc. remarks.

I set aside half an hour each day when I can, and some days work on it an hour or more. I anticipate finishing, Lord willing, in another month or two or three (I'm almost finished Eccl. now).

Steve

I'll tell you why I like the ESV, reguardless of where it came from.

I grew up in a KJVO kind of church and also spent the first 8 years of marriage in either KJVO or very strongly preferred that every one in the pew comply. I'm still trying to get warped teachings out of my mind and I can't read or listen to KJV without hearing old tapes play. One of those tapes concerns all the other translations that existed at the time. I can't bring myself to read from a version of the Bible that had such things said about it, the programming is so strong I still feel extremely guilty if I read any of those versions or hear someone else read from them. The ESV didn't exist at the time so there's no tape playing in my mind about it.

I would like to learn what is truth and extricate the error. It's a slow process. Even if I come to be convinced that the sourcecode for the ESV is somehow corrupted, I don't think I'll be shelving my ESV. I don't have anything else I could use.

Thank you for the clear explanations, not easy, but clear. I have a lot to work with now and its really interesting. One more item to deprogram

shelly

Hey Steve:

Thanks! From a man who knows more about these things than myself that is quite a compliment!

Shelly:

That is truly a tragic thing to hear. If there is any thing that I can do for you, then simply ask - I will be praying for you.

You could use a worse Bible than the ESV - like the CEV, NIV, or the Living Bible! As I have calculated it the ESV is about 80% accurate.

As an alternative to the KJV you might want to check out the 1599 Geneva Bible:

http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva.php

In my humble opinion it is superior to the KJV, and the notes were written by Calvin, Beza, and other Reformed men. It is truly an excellent Bible to have.

Remember: The Life, Walk, and ultimate Triumph of the Christian is by Faith in Jesus the Son of the Living God.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

What I think is an interesting question in this whole critical text versus ecclesiastical text versus Byzantine text etc. discussion is this: what theological doctrines are at stake if we only use a certain text type.

For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?

Every blessing in Christ.

__________________
Marty

From Creation to New Creation via Redemption

I'll continue to use the AV, thanks.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

Greetings:

I think that one of the major doctrines at stake is the nature of the Church. The Bible tells us that the Church is founded upon the Word of God. If that foundation changes, then what does that mean about the Church?

Take a look at those churches that have embraced the NIV: their doctrine and practice have changed over the years. A baptist church I used to attend once had a Reformed pastor, and held to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The NIV was introduced as the official Bible. And, now, twenty years later, they are professing Arminians and subscribed to the Billy Graham crusade.

80% of the Bible is not enough. Sooner or later the "little leven" will leven the whole lump.

Grace,

-CH

Yes, I can see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work. One could find ESVers and KJVers who both sign the WCF. Hence they both agree that the church is founded on the Word, and the basic doctrines (the content of the word) they believe are substantially the same.

Unless you can point to specific doctrines that change then there is no substantial difference in ecclesiology.

This is the classic fallacy of post hoc non propter hoc. That is, what comes after must be the cause. In other words, the church takes on the NIV and then afterwards goes into error means it must be the NIV to blame. Not so. It could be the elders, teaching pastor, congregation who were the cause and the NIV is simply an arbitary change made along the way.

Then there's the empirical evidence from the other side that could be adduced: I could point out many reformed churches (in my neck of the woods) that are strong and growing who use the NIV. Moreover, I could also point out a whole raft of KJV / TR / Byzantine churches that are dead, dying, and unnecessarily argumentative.

Empirical arguments are very difficult to establish, and one church example is hardly enough to establish a point. It has to be a clear trend using a robust sample under right conditions.

So again I ask, if there's 20% difference, what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness? For example both ESVers and KJVers can sign the WCF. That's a lot in common.

Greetings:

Touche' I stand chastised and cover my head in ashes.

A person who signs the WCF may not actually mean it. The PCA subscribes to the WCF, and, yet, they trample all over the Regulative Principle of Worship as it is taught in chapter 21. I had a PCA pastor tell me that it was ok to go to a restaurant every week on Sunday, c.f. WCF 21:7,8. Yet, he professed to subscribe to the WCF.

Using a different Greek Text is contrary to WCF 1:8 in which the context is that of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine mss. The vast majority of those who hold to the Critical Text deny this statement in 1:8, "and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."

The arbitrary omitting of good and holy words from the Greek Text is against the Word of God, Rev. 22:19. Consider, for example, the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 in the KJV and the ESV - only one of these can be what God actually inspired.

I will not completely abandon what I wrote prior, but I will modify it a bit. It may be that the baptist church had liberalizing tendencies prior it its acceptance of the NIV. However, its acceptance of an "80% Bible" (if I can use that term) may be indicative of its slide into the gutter. A symptom, if you will, of a greater disease. Since it took years for this to happen one could talk all about its "strength in numbers," and, "the strong preaching."

Also, I think it right and sound to point out that the many defections from sound doctrine concerning worship, the Church, etc... can be laid at the feet of those who hold to the Critical Text. This is a matter of degree. Those churches that hold to the King James Version are far more likely to be sound in their theology than those who do not.

I am personally grieved when I hear about the arguments of the King James Only crowd - like Riplinger and Waite. Such people may (partially) speak the truth, but in an obnoxious and irreligious fashion, and they may turn people, like Shelly here, away from the truth. Paul dealt with such a person in Acts 16:16-18.

Hope this, at least in part, answers your questions.

Blessings,

-CH

Marty (aka JohnOwen007),

Those are good questions, i.e., "what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness?"

I would answer them like this: the primary doctrine that is obviated is the providential preservation of Scripture. Seeing as you teach church history you are likely aware that this doctrine was the foremost weapon of the post-Reformation theologians (John Owen, Francis Turretin) contra the Counter-Reformation assault of Rome against the fledgling Protestant (Reformed) churches. The doctrine of God's providential preservation of His word is summed up in a number of confessional statements, a primary one being the Westminster Confession of Faith's Chapter 1, Section 8,

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....

This, Marty, is a key doctrine that has been changed. This change began in the nineteenth century; here's a note on it excerpted from another post:

-------
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield “drew first blood,” as it were, in the text-critical controversies within the Reformed communions when he wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 26-27):

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seemed to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – almost single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.
-------
[end excerpt]

The second of your questions, Marty, regarding such a change in doctrine, "how does it affect people's godliness?", I would answer in this wise:

When I was a young believer around 39 years ago (I was 26 or 27 then), coming out of the 60's counter-culture with its drugs and occult spiritualities, I realized early on that in order to stand against my adversary the devil (& his cohorts) I needed absolute certainty in my mind as regards the trustworthiness of my God and His word.

When I told the demons to depart from me I needed to know exactly where such authority was granted to me in Scripture (chapter & verse), and that these Scriptures were reliable, and not just these, but all Scripture. It was a matter of being able to stand against spiritual opponents who had access to my mind -- relentless opponents, I might add -- and to resist them as directed by the Lord. I needed to know within myself with utmost certainty that the "sword of the Spirit" I wielded was sure...could not be broken.

If I did not have the complete assurance that my sword was sound, I could not stand in the combat. This being able to "withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand" (Eph 6:13), was prerequisite to my being able to live a godly life.

When I would look at the margin notes in some of the Bibles I had I knew that the text of Scripture was contested in some quarters. I needed to get to the bottom of that. It was a matter of life and death to me. Coming from the depths of darkness the Savior rescued me from, I had to develop the wherewithal -- by His Spirit and Word -- to repel the denizens of the spirit-world I (and all my generation with me) had opened my being to. Certainty of mind is essential to stability of mind. And this certainty had to be based on God's word.

I find God has met this need. I am able to stand in Him, and to live godly (given the remaining corruption I must seek His help in constantly keeping crucified; when I fail, I have cleansing by His precious blood).

Perhaps the warfare is not so immediate or intense for some, nor their awareness of need so great. There are some of us who are Christ's desperados; in the instant we cleave to Him or fall. We need a word such as this,

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)

In His sure word, and in Him, is perfect rest.

Steve

P.S. Regarding the origin of my username,

In John Bunyan's classic, Pilgrim's Progress, Mr. Great-heart is questioning newly-met Mr. Valiant-for-truth concerning his adventures, and asks why he did not cry out for help when overwhelmed. Valiant answers, "So I did to my King, who I knew could hear, and afford invisible help, and that was sufficient for me." Then said Great-heart to Mr. Valiant-for-truth, "Thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy Sword;" so he shewed it him.

When he had taken it in his hand, and looked thereon a while, he said, "Ha! It is a right Jerusalem blade." And Valiant, "It is so. Let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it, and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an Angel with it. He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edges will never blunt. It will cut flesh, and bones, and soul, and spirit and all."

I know we have strayed from the OP, but oh well...

First of all, there is a thread related to your exact question around somewhere but I will offer my

To suggest that Mark 16:9-20 are not inspired is to suggest that we cannot trust the canon at all. When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark. This suggestion then casts doubt on the whole canon because it was not just the titles of the books that were canonized but the contents of those books as well.

I believe there has been an attack on personal holiness due to the implication that we as individual Christians are able and encouraged to choose for ourselves which Bible is right for us. This idea advances individualism and diminishes unity. One could easily imagine a day when one would punch in a bunch of biographical data into a website and the website would spit out a personalized version God's Word just for you.

__________________

This is the crux of the matter. Evangelicals have tried to divorce higher and lower criticism as if canon and text can be treated according to two different principles. They can't. The text is that which was canonised.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."