SITE NOTICE | MORE..iPhone+iPad App Update v3.8! Lots of fixes and enhancements including iTunes file sharing for importing or backing up sermons, smarter downloaded media fail-safe, and MAPS tab search for nearby churches! .. click for more info!
A note to all posters on this board: I have just posted a new page on my website, tracing in outline the C18th Evangelical Revival, which you may find interesting: http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/c18_revival.html
I have also used a new Greek font to update and tidy my pages on textual criticism, on the same site.
I would welcome constructive criticism of this material, but please, it must be constructive.
Hidemi, I think I see what you're getting at, and I agree. You have basically given up on judges, because the basis of law and justice, the Word of God, has been abandoned. So what then does it matter where they they get their ideas: Wikipedia, or for that matter the back of a corn flakes packet?
This news item reminds me of when I was in Munich about 4 years ago. Wandering around the centre of the city I saw the Hall of Justice. It is an impressive building, with elaborately carved window frames and main portico. Over this main entrance or portico are two tablets of stone, representing the Ten Commandments. Over each of the ten windows in the facade is (in summary symbol) a commandment of the Decalogue, one for each window. The message is clear: Justice is founded on revealed Divine Law, and that Law is in the Bible. But alas! That perspective has been abandoned in modern, militantly secular Europe.
Someone on another thread (I can't remember who) commented that the real issue is that preachers are not resorting to the original languages and doing their own exegesis for their sermon prep. I think this is much more to the point than whether or not we use the KJV.
There are good versions available, and there are trash. Among the latter are: The Message The Living Bible Today's NIV New RSV
But may pastors get to grips with the Hebrew and Greek, and not get their exegesis second-hand. There is so little genuine Scriptuarl exposition today!
hidemi, Thank you for your response. I have just this minute seen Palin being interviewed on a You Tube clip. She certainly is a looker! She was mainly talking about the way she is taking on the ultra-green lobby regarding oil-drilling in Alaska. Perhaps that's why McCain took her on - because he wants to make his pitch to the electorate over energy self-sufficiency, and she already had the runs on the board (as we say) in that regard. This is important, as I believe that if Western nations jettisoned dependence on Arab oil we could make significant progress against the Islamic push into the West.
Yes, I did receive your email. Thank you very much for your kind and appreciative comments. I'll have time to respond today. I was teaching yesterday (English history: Wars of the Roses). I hope to have a new page up on my website later today - on the C18th Evangelical Revival.
hidemi, I wasn't suggesting that Sarah Palin is a true Christian - I simply don't know. All that I heard on the radio this morning was that she is a social conservative - on things like abortion, homosexuality, family values etc. That's all I was referring to.
Not that McCain is anything to write home about (as the saying goes). It's just that he is better than the ghastly and horrific alternative. And the ticket with Palin has improved the image.
I agree with your remarks on Pentecostals: an appalling number of synthetic Christians among their ranks!
kenny, I have just got out of bed, as it's 7:25 Sat morning here. But I have just heard the news about Sarah Palin. I don't know much about her, but from what I do know it sounds like (i) a brilliant move, and the timing was exquisite, and (ii) a necessary move as McCain had to endear himself to the Evangelicals somehow.
I agree with your assessment, and I can only hope that McCain-Palin will now go on to win. Obama is the most dangerous man in politics today - in any country! If ever there was a time to pray for the U.S. it is now!
The Devil called "the morning star". Haven't you read the preface in Isa.14:4? It's part of a taunt against the king of Babylon (Note)! And the prophet uses the language of irony, taunting him with titles which he claimed, but is not entitled to. I care nothing for later interpretations (N.B.) that refer this passage to the fall of Lucifer, one which originates with Jerome.
"the only verse in Scripture which specifically names the Trinity?" Oh come off it! Do you seriously mean to tell us that without 1 John 5:7 the NT would be ambiguous on this doctrine?? What about Matt.28:19? 2 Cor 13:14? The "God, the Lord, and the Spirit" theme in 2 Cor 3?
"the requirement for Biblical baptism" I take it you refer to Acts 8:37, a verse that has come into the mainstream text from the Western text, as attested by Codex D and certain Latin mss. Again, do you seriously mean to tell us that without this text the requirements for baptism would be obscure and indiscernible? Then you are proclaiming to us all how little you know your Bible. Likewise with the Trinitarian verses above.
DJC49, Regarding 1 Tim.3:16 See my comment on this verse on my website: http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/papyri__4.html
Codex A, the principal witness to the Pastoral Epistles and dated C5th, is badly faded in parts, including this passage, but modern photographic techniques have revealed that it does indeed read "God", not "who".
I agree with you: I pay attention to citations, but it is regrettable that it has taken this long to produce new photographs, the last having been done in the late C19th!
One other thing: Jude 25 and "Jesus Christ our Lord": this is included on the basis of an overwhelming number of early mss, which KJV-only-ites choose to ignore, and in particular P72 (late C3rd). But KJV-only-ites seem not to have heard of P72, being caught in a time-warp over Codices Aleph and B.
hidemi, Thank you for your appreciative comments. I trust all will go well for your recovery. BTW what was the diagnosis? Is it reconstructive surgery that you need?
The KJV debate is probably the most emotive of all issues on this board. It certainly is what gets the blood boiling, and, I regret to observe, the mud flinging. We need to remember that even with the most critical of texts (which I do not necessarily endorse) no doctrine of the Christian faith is compromised.
For that matter, you can read on my website about 1 Tim.3:16. Codex A (our best and most ancient manuscript for the Pastoral Epistles) has been misread at this point due to poor photography in the late C19th. That's no disrespect to scholars of the time, but it is shoddy scholarship that only until very recently that a new set of photographs have revealed that 1 Tim.3:16 does in fact read "theos", "God manifest in the flesh".
A Democratic Conservative wrote: ...Bad-mouthing & attempting to Smear & Defame Godly Brothers & Sisters in Christ Jesus like Ian Paisley, Texe Marrs & Gail Riplinger--as well as ALL who stand WITHOUT APOLOGY on THE "KING JAMES" BIBLE.
No, DemCons, a CT advocate such as myself doesn't need to bad-mouth the brothers you mention. They do a most effective job of that themselves without any help from me or anyone like me - what with all their invective, shouting over opponents (as I have heard on internet radio), unsubstantiated allegations, shrill rhetoric, and name-calling! It is painful to read, let alone to listen to!
Jim, Regarding your post of 8/20/08 and James I being a homosexual. I researched this one and put it up on my website. You may be interested to have a look at it: http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/king_james_1.html
hidemi, I note your experience, but with respect, your experience does not make a fallacy valid.
My own experience is otherwise: there are many evangelical Presbyterian churches which preach and expound God's Word from either the the NIV (which I personally dislike), the NASB, or the ESV. Many of them are what I would call spiritually alive. But all the while - properly - they will be appealing to the original Hebrew or Greek.
Currently I worship at a Grace Community Bible church, one of the John Macarthur circle (I left the Presbyterian circle over the usual issues of baptism and church govt.), and although I would like the musical side to be different, the expository preaching is excellent. And it is growing, with many young couples and families attending and growing in the faith!
As I commented to others on this board: if you have a liking for the KJV, that's fine. I have no quarrel with that. But when so many of the KJVO-ers on this board denounce modern versions (often in virulent language) they are tacitly making it a law for everyone to use the KJV - otherwise one's sanctification is suspect! That is the clear message I have gained from many, despite pleas and protests to the contrary.
hidemi williges wrote: The one single issue that weighs heavy on my mind is the fact that most KJV bashers (especially Pastors) either run or belong to some of the most liberal, modernist and corrupt Churches or Associations around. Most in co-operation with Roman Catholicism.
hidemi, I note that you reject Riplinger. Good! Note that I did not accuse you of doing so, I only expressed the hope that you did not.
Now as to the portion quoted: Your argument seems to be: Pastor X is a KJV-basher RCs and liberals are KJV-bashers Therefore Pastor X is a RC or a liberal.
I see this kind of argument time and again from your circles. But let me make a substitution of terms in the same argument form: This cat has fur All dogs have fur Therefore this cat is a dog.
You see how ridiculous - and unfair - this formal fallacy is? In formal logic it's called variously the illicit common factor, or the undistributed middle term. But one finds it so commonly in our reason-deficient world.
Just because I oppose KJV-only-ism that in itself DOES NOT make me a liberal, or a Roman Catholic, or whatever. Do learn to reason validly.
hidemi williges wrote: MurrayA, Looks like the only thing that I agree with you, is your stand on global warning.
And pray, hidemi, what points in particular do you dispute about my two essays on the history of the KJV? Bear in mind, I researched these thoroughly over several months before I put them up, and meanwhile, the literature cited is not exhaustive.
You are probably miffed that I did not cite KJVO literature. I have seen quite a bit of it, and heard some lectures (Dr. Waite in particular), and I can only say that it has to be some of the most unscholarly and tendentious rubbish I have ever seen masquerading as serious scholarship. It is full of special pleading, non-sequiturs, circular reasoning and many other such fallacies, as well as incendiary vituperations and invective.
Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" is a case in point. How such a menagerie of error-filled bile and nonsense ever saw the light of day is beyond me. She is as far to the right as Germaine Greer is to the far left! I would hope that you are not endorsing that!
I would say that of all the writers of this persuasion E F Hills would be the best. At least he tries to interact with the papyri evidence.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote: The reason it is called the King James Bible is that it was authorised by King James.
Sorry to inform you, Mark, but that is not correct, even if a widespread misconception. Adam Nicolson makes the following observation: " The King James Bible (henceforth known as the Authorised Version, although no known document authorising its use by the king, Council, or anyone else survived the 1619 Whitehall fire) was to become, by order, the only English Bible..." [God's Secretaries, p.228]
F F Bruce makes a similar point in his "The History of the English Bible" (I don't have a copy at hand as it was on loan from a College library, so I can't give the page reference. But the same point was certainly there.)
I have outlined the history of publication of the KJV on my website: http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/history_kjv_ii.html
As opposed to the mythology concerning the history of the KJV which abounds in KJVO circles and literature, the real story is much more interesting, if somewhat more depressing.
hidemi, I recognise that Tregelles held to textual criticism and text critical principles, more so than Burgon, but what I meant to emphasise was that the latter was not averse to a revision of the KJV, and wanted to see it. However, he stood opposed to any revision making use of the two codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That I grant.
Tregelles' position on textual criticism, I firmly believe, has much to teach us. Hywel Jones in a study of Tregelles in 1975 (Evangelical Library lecture) makes the following point, speaking of that class who refuse to see any imperfections in the KJV:
"To them the 1611 version must not be altered by a jot or a tittle. Any preacher who alters it is automatically classed with the liberals, to be at least inconsistent if not a traitor. This ought not to be. Let us learn from Tregelles."
With that I thoroughly concur, having had the "liberal" slur hurled at me time and again on this board for precisely the reason Jones indicates. This is unworthy, not to say outrageous. Tregelles was an outstanding scholar, and at the same time a thoroughly reverent Christian with a very high view of Scripture, as Jones outlines.
You would do well to learn from him too, instead of repeating ad nauseam the outdated arguments and vituperations of Burgon.
hidemi, I have not tracked down the quotation from Burgon re the Comma Johanneum, but I shall soon enough. He did reject the Comma, even though (as I recall) he supported its inclusion in a revised version on traditional grounds. He was not opposed in principle to revision, and as I said before, stood in principle with S P Tregelles.
However, Burgon is really not relevant to the whole debate on textual issues. He wrote well before the mass of NT papyri were found, and these have supported the text attested by the great C4th codices. When KJVO-ers repeatedly ignore this evidence, as I have found consistently and to my sorrow, they rule themselves out of serious consideration.
On the Comma, this quotation from F H A Scrivener aptly sums up my position: "We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim." [A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Third Ed., Cambridge, 1883, p. 654.]