Comments on: A Short KJV Detour (Part 4) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:51:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Webster http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-9010 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:17:22 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-9010 Kent -- Where do you think the TR came from? The answer is, textual criticism, based on the best (we hope) texts available at the time. Why was Erasmus' effort such an accomplishment? Because a standard Greek text had NOT been generally available before that time -- there had only been widely dispersed handwritten (manuscript) copies. So, if textual criticism is wrong, then KJV is tarred just as much with that brush as any other modern translation. Textual criticism, historically, is how translators, including the KJV translators, pick which texts to translate. Users of all translations continue to promote exegetical preaching and use presuppositional or evidentiary apologetics as applicable -- why shouldn't they? The KJV Only debate raises passions so high, I have not been able to find a single place to read a balance presentation of reasoned arguments on both sides -- only advocacy sites. *sigh* Kent –

Where do you think the TR came from? The answer is, textual criticism, based on the best (we hope) texts available at the time.

Why was Erasmus’ effort such an accomplishment? Because a standard Greek text had NOT been generally available before that time — there had only been widely dispersed handwritten (manuscript) copies.

So, if textual criticism is wrong, then KJV is tarred just as much with that brush as any other modern translation. Textual criticism, historically, is how translators, including the KJV translators, pick which texts to translate. Users of all translations continue to promote exegetical preaching and use presuppositional or evidentiary apologetics as applicable — why shouldn’t they?

The KJV Only debate raises passions so high, I have not been able to find a single place to read a balance presentation of reasoned arguments on both sides — only advocacy sites. *sigh*

]]> by: Kent http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-7221 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:53:34 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-7221 A Scriptural discussion on the doctrine preservation is going to be held at this site, http://www.jackhammr.org/ , the entire month of February. A Scriptural discussion on the doctrine preservation is going to be held at this site, http://www.jackhammr.org/ , the entire month of February.

]]> by: Fred Butler http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6982 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:03:38 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6982 I use to be a vehement KJV onlyist. God used Gail Riplinger to show me the errors of my ways. I did an extensive study of KJV onlyism at my blog for anyone interested: <a href="http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/search/label/Answering%20KJV%20Onlyism" rel="nofollow">My Journey Through KJV onlyism</a> Fred I use to be a vehement KJV onlyist. God used Gail Riplinger to show me the errors of my ways. I did an extensive study of KJV onlyism at my blog for anyone interested:

My Journey Through KJV onlyism

Fred

]]> by: Pulpit Live Takes on the King James Version debate and seeks to clarify their position : The World According to Me http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6852 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:49:44 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6852 [...] http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/ [...] […] http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/ […]

]]> by: sarah http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6771 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:40:35 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6771 Echindod, I've put this one to bed and so should you. I'm sure Nate doesn't appreciate either one of us acting as immature and unchristian as we both have been acting on his site. I for one apologize for reacting to your statements against my statements. Let's part in peace. Echindod,
I’ve put this one to bed and so should you. I’m sure Nate doesn’t appreciate either one of us acting as immature and unchristian as we both have been acting on his site. I for one apologize for reacting to your statements against my statements. Let’s part in peace.

]]> by: Echindod http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6739 Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:59:00 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6739 Sarah, You won. I am livid. But I have some things to get done before I can prepare a response. So stay tuned and I will try to leave a link to my response here. (Seeing how the message dosen't really relate to the King James issue because I am not sure one can discern the Greek or Hebrew text that underlies most of the Message). Sarah,

You won. I am livid. But I have some things to get done before I can prepare a response. So stay tuned and I will try to leave a link to my response here. (Seeing how the message dosen’t really relate to the King James issue because I am not sure one can discern the Greek or Hebrew text that underlies most of the Message).

]]> by: Kent http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6691 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:56:35 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6691 Steve, To be genuinely open-minded, someone must be willing to believe something. If not, he closes his mind to everything. My Bibliology on preservation is not constantly evolving. I can learn more, but the essence of it, I have settled: presuppositional apologetics equals perfect preservation, general accessibility, and church agreement (canonization). These truths point to the text I receive. Not until Benjamin Warfield or Princeton put his spin on the Westminster Confession did providential preservation mean modern textual criticism. If I reject a "balanced eclectic" position based upon the three reasons I gave, that does not assume that I don't look at the CT, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the gospel of Judas for that matter. I am not, however, especially concerned if I come off to the world looking like an unlearned and ignorant man as long as the world takes knowledge that I've been with Jesus. Your "slight degrees of impact" happens to be "errors." Another word for errors is "errancy." That, to me, is a great deal of impact, considering what I profess about the Bible, that is, that it is completely pure. The "balanced eclectic" says it is "completely pure, wink, wink." Steve,

To be genuinely open-minded, someone must be willing to believe something. If not, he closes his mind to everything. My Bibliology on preservation is not constantly evolving. I can learn more, but the essence of it, I have settled: presuppositional apologetics equals perfect preservation, general accessibility, and church agreement (canonization). These truths point to the text I receive. Not until Benjamin Warfield or Princeton put his spin on the Westminster Confession did providential preservation mean modern textual criticism.

If I reject a “balanced eclectic” position based upon the three reasons I gave, that does not assume that I don’t look at the CT, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the gospel of Judas for that matter. I am not, however, especially concerned if I come off to the world looking like an unlearned and ignorant man as long as the world takes knowledge that I’ve been with Jesus.

Your “slight degrees of impact” happens to be “errors.” Another word for errors is “errancy.” That, to me, is a great deal of impact, considering what I profess about the Bible, that is, that it is completely pure. The “balanced eclectic” says it is “completely pure, wink, wink.”

]]> by: Steve http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6679 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:15:10 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6679 It seems to me that rejecting a "balanced electic" position equates to a patent rejection of any further evidence that could shed light on the text of scripture. And it is precisely this ignoring of evidence (ie. examination and comparison of newly discovered mss) that the world will criticize us for. It don't think it's reasonable to operate that way. Christians should never be unwilling to exam and scrutinize all available data. And we also have to realize that in the grand scheme of available textual data, such examination only amounts to very slight degrees of impact- and doesn't result in a mire of doctrinal uncertainties that KJV Onlyists insist upon. It seems to me that rejecting a “balanced electic” position equates to a patent rejection of any further evidence that could shed light on the text of scripture. And it is precisely this ignoring of evidence (ie. examination and comparison of newly discovered mss) that the world will criticize us for. It don’t think it’s reasonable to operate that way. Christians should never be unwilling to exam and scrutinize all available data. And we also have to realize that in the grand scheme of available textual data, such examination only amounts to very slight degrees of impact- and doesn’t result in a mire of doctrinal uncertainties that KJV Onlyists insist upon.

]]> by: Kent http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6655 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:35:10 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6655 The "balanced eclectic" position defies a presuppositional apologetic, Scriptural exegesis, and history. The “balanced eclectic” position defies a presuppositional apologetic, Scriptural exegesis, and history.

]]> by: sarah http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6650 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:03:50 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/#comment-6650 Here's a reference that Brian Flynn sent to me just for you. I am assuming that you know of him. He was a former New Ager and has published books. His website is www.onetruthministries.com if you don't know him and want to check him out. http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/message.html#_ftn1 Here’s a reference that Brian Flynn sent to me just for you. I am assuming that you know of him. He was a former New Ager and has published books. His website is www.onetruthministries.com if you don’t know him and want to check him out.

http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/message.html#_ftn1

]]>