You are not logged in.
A Tale of Two Cities, Antioch vs Alexandria - KJV Supporter View
(Has anyone looked into the "Versions" debate? I have read a little; enough to know there is one. The strong opinions may get in the way. What about the basic contentions?)
Offline
Don, The versions debate is bunk. It was introduced and popularized among right wing radicals in Adventism by Benjamin Wilkinson. He authored a book called the "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated."
This book is largely a review of the work of FHA Scrivener, a contemporary of W+H, who opposed their work.
Although not being a Greek scholar disqualifies me to to comment with authority on the issue, I would mention the significance of the LXX. It is quite different from the MT in many places. It has omissions and additions, yet it was the version of the OT used often quoted in the NT.
Jesus quoted it. EGW also used the English Revised Version which was based on the work of W+H. She indicates that it is superior to the KJV in some places.
Most of the people in Adventism promoting the KJV only agenda are themselves ignorant of Greek. They are, therefore, capable of rehashing the arguments of others.
The KJV contains perhaps the most well known fraudulent text, forged into a Greek manuscript. I personally prefer the NASB.
Most versions which people read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can be a blessing
(Message edited by Hansen on December 28, 2009)
Offline
Offline
I would mention the significance of the LXX. It is quite different from the MT in many places. It has omissions and additions, yet it was the version of the OT used often quoted in the NT.
A few observations to further our discussion:
1. The LXX compares favorably with the New Testament much of the time, but not always. Why?
2. Rabbinical tradition did not follow the LXX. Why?
3. What about the Syriac Peshitta? How ancient is it?
4. Some of the ancient post-apostolic writers mention a Hebrew version of Matthew. What happened to it?
Here is a resource comparing the LXX with the Masoretic Text.
(Message edited by Don on December 28, 2009)
Offline
Don, What do you mean when you say that the LXX and NT compare favorably?
Offline
What do you mean when you say that the LXX and NT compare favorably?
The LXX and the NT quotes of the OT compare favorably.
Offline
Most of the quotes in the NT were taken from the LXX. One would expect them to "compare favorably."
Offline
Most of the quotes in the NT were taken from the LXX. One would expect them to "compare favorably."
I am only willing to concede as much, after checking it out myself. The mysteries remain. Which LXX? What form did it take? How many LXX manuscripts are out there? Why do the authors of the NT not consistently quote from the LXX? What other OT sources did they use?
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? For example, Hebrew Isaiah. Does it agree with the LXX more than the Masoretic text?
Any attempt to simplify the past seems to fall short.
Offline
Don,
Why not go to CBD online and find a couple of books in the subject?
H.B. Swete wrote a book many years ago called "Introduction to the OT in Greek." He died in 1917. LXX studies have made great leaps since his day.
Here's a link to a older book which may shed some light on the subject:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/greekot.v.ii.html
Below is an an example of Jesus quoting the LXX. You can see the words translated in the KJV, ASV, and NASB as "ordained/established strength" in Psalms are in the LXX and NT as "perfected praise". The NASB of Matthew says "prepared praise".
Ps 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. (KJV)
Ps 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou established strength, Because of thine adversaries, That thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
(ASV)
Ps 8:2 {1} Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger. {1) Mt 21:16}
(LXX English translation by Brenton)
Mt 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? (KJV)
Mt 21:16 and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying?" And Jesus *said to them, "Yes; have you never read, ‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’?"
(NASB)
(Message edited by Hansen on December 29, 2009)
Offline
Glenn, thanks for the link to Swete's work; a wonderful resource on the topic. I wonder who has done similar works more recently.
Offline
Check out Christian Book Distributors. Type Septuagint studies in the search window. There are several recent volumes on LXX studies available.
Offline
to compare the different timelines offered by the LXX vs the KJV....vs the Samaritan...
check out this SDA prof's web site:
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/manuscript.htm
bad news? they cannot all be innerrant!!!!
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
The Hebrew Scholar and Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard, James L. Kugel, has much to say about the consistent interpretation of the Torah long before it was put to writing. Each of the oral stories were changed and evolved over the centuries.
How can we possibly expect or accept that every story was inerrant from the beginning? When these stories were told, they added for the time and occasion to present a moral or promise that had a meaning for the Israelites.
To adopt the position either of inerrancy or infallibility only when there is a written text, cannot address the initial origin of these stories. Only when a text is written, does it attain an "inspired" position, which ignores the many times the stories were adapted over the centuries. IOW, we can never know for certain what the originator of these events had in mind.
The ancient interpreters made several assumptions:
1. That the Bible was a fundamentally cryptic text: that is, when it said A, often it might really mean B. When it said, "and it came to pass aftr these things, what it really meant was "after these words.
2. Interpreters also assumed the the Bible was a book of lessons direct to readers in their own days. It may seem to talk about the past, but it is not fundamentally history, but instructions, telling us what to do.
3. Interpreters also assumed that the Bible contained no contradictions or mistakes; that it is perfectly harmonious, despite its being an anthology.
4. Lastly, they believed that the entire BIble is essentially a divinely given text, a book in whcih God speaks directly or through His prophets.
Because both modern-day Jews and Christians look to the Bible as a guidebook for daily life, they do not read it as if it were a relic from the ancient past, and even view the Bible's prophecies as being fulfilled in the events of today's world.
Offline
How can we possibly expect or accept that every story was inerrant from the beginning? When these stories were told, they added for the time and occasion to present a moral or promise that had a meaning for the Israelites.
To adopt the position either of inerrancy or infallibility only when there is a written text, cannot address the initial origin of these stories. Only when a text is written, does it attain an "inspired" position, which ignores the many times the stories were adapted over the centuries. IOW, we can never know for certain what the originator of these events had in mind.
The issue, IMO, is not "historical" inerrancy. Rather it is "prophetic" inerrancy. In other words, the message arrives at my reading (or hearing) as intended by the divine; by God.
These ancient stories are preserved for my (our) spiritual benefit. Some of the "spiritual" is tied to the historical, but it reaches beyond, and sometimes inspite of, the historical.
Take for example the story of the man resurrected to life when his body touches the bones of Elisha; an incredible account (2 Kings 13:20-21). Whether I accept the story as "history" or not, the spiritual message (for me) is that there is life in the lives of the prophets (the life and writings of). As we come close and "touch" the prophets, we come alive spiritually. Thus, as I hold the sacred text and read its message to me, life comes into me like that man of old. The "prophet's" message brings "life" to me.
(Did the author intend for this story to be believed as history? Perhaps. We could speculate on that question, but the author does not reveal his intention. If we seek to reduce the history to the humanly believable, the story is beyond that. Is it part of the received text; the sacred text? Undeniably. Thus, this story is sacred to me.)
I see a place for textual criticism but it is the place of a lowly servant. No high and spiritual benefit comes to me because I have figured out the textual issues raised by my (or others) scholarship of such. But, like a faithful (I hope) servant, the textual critic sheds light on the sacred text and I read more intelligently.
Offline
The "prophet's" message brings "life" to me.
but death to 42 kids.....if you believe one of the ancient stories literally.
and if you believe the story figuratively? isn't the message that God can kill you at anytime, for any reason, if you displease Him?
is this the Christian message to liberate the world from sin and superstition?
the following quote seems to well represent the fundy position, that the story of Elisha's bears was true, historical, and literal, and that God is a ruthless killer...but at least it was not little kids God killed....in defense of God's actions, it was ....hoodlums!!
Elisha's Bears
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4263/299/
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." (2 Kings 2:23-24)
This account has occasioned much criticism by skeptics, charging Elisha with petulant cruelty in sending bears to kill the little children who were taunting him. Actually, it was God who sent the bears, not Elisha.
The fact is, however, that Elisha did not curse little children at all. The Hebrew word for "children" used with the phrase "little children" can be applied to any child from infancy to adolescence. The word for the 42 "children" torn by the bears, however, is a different word commonly translated "young men." Actually, both words are used more often for young men than for little children.
The situation evidently involved a gang of young hoodlums of various ages, led by the older ones, with all of them no doubt instigated by the pagan priests and idolatrous citizens of Bethel. The bears which suddenly emerged from the woods "tare" (not necessarily fatally in all cases) 42 of the older hooligans.
The jeering exhortation to "go up, thou bald head," was both a sarcastic reference to Elijah�s supposed ascension, as well as an insult to God�s prophet. This was actually a challenge to God and could not be excused. So God made good--in miniature--on a warning issued long before: "And if ye walk contrary unto me. . . . I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children" (Leviticus 26:21-22). It can be a dangerous thing, for young or old, to gratuitously insult the true God and His Word.
and the author of this text wants everybody also to believe in a literal creation.....and a literal flood where an angry God impetuously tries to kill everybody.....and Morris contorts the evidence throughout his writings to do so.
so if we believe everything literally...
God is a wanton killer...
but its OK,...because He is God. and his modern day prophet, Morris, is capable like EGW of filling in all the necessary details in the bible to help us understand it the way he wants!!!
the alternative?
the ancient tellers of these stories were scientifically uneducated, superstitious people who believed that nature and natural processes were divine actions to either reward them for their correct worship, or punishment for some "sin"...
we know so much more today about how the world works that we should long ago have understood the nature of, and liberated ourselves from this type of ancient ignorance.
but the threat still works to suppress the questioning of ancient "truth":
It can be a dangerous thing, for young or old, to gratuitously insult the true God and His Word.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
How are those Bible stories unlike Aesop's Fables?
We know they are not literally true or "real" but
they carry morals necessary for good and successful living.
Just so, the Bible. There is no need to believe in its literality, but we should look for the instructions. When we are unable to "get" the instruction (as in the story John tells above), we can simply ignore it as all of these stories may not have been written with a moral, but simply the retelling of those they had long heard.
Offline
but death to 42 kids.....if you believe one of the ancient stories literally.
Wasn't it Uncle Arthur who told this story from the perspective of one of those kids grown up and explaining his scars to the next generation? :-)
Offline
"Uncle Arthur" took more than a few liberties with his children's stories.
All those who prayed, immediately had their answers to prayer (unlike real life).
Offline
I served a term in Ethiopia, a third world country. The population of Ethiopia increased from 20 million in 1956 to 85 million in 2010. I mention this only so that you can understand that there were always a LOT of kids running around the streets. Any time I stepped out of my jeep in any street of any village, I was immediately surrounded by a small crowd of boys from 10 - 16 years old. They were loud, assertive, and pushy. They wanted my attention and possibly a few pennies. I can easily see what Elisha faced when 42 of these boys came out to harass him. If these boys should imagine an offense, it would raise a hue and cry of insults, with all the boys joining in. It was not a pleasant experience.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Well now, Doc. I can surely see where that disrespect would warrant the death sentence. How many did you curse unto death (in the name of the Lord, of course) before they behaved?
Offline
