A simple question

[Keachian]

NKJV is a decent one for modern English. I believe every language should have one majority text translation used so all read the same scripture. I have yet to see a version that comes close to the cultural and theological significance of the KJV..

Although just for good measure I own multiple Bible versions.I own KJV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV,and GNT Bibles.

As I say every time a Baptist comes up with the hooey of the State-given KJV; the Geneva. It simply thrashes the KJV on cultural and theological significance and lines up with the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State.

 

[Keachian]

Why did you provide this information without a link to the specific church that produced it?

Have you read this recent article of November 16, 2013, 'Why Calvinistic Southern Baptists are Not Reformed'?

Oz

I do like how the link you provide doesn't actually deny the credobaptist position, we do not believe that men should be Baptised twice and neither do you, nor would you presume to make that claim of us.

Do you understand the differences between paedobaptist and Baptist federalism that leads Confessional/Particular Baptists to their credobaptist position?

 

[OzSpen]

NKJV is a decent one for modern English. I believe every language should have one majority text translation used so all read the same scripture. I have yet to see a version that comes close to the cultural and theological significance of the KJV..

Although just for good measure I own multiple Bible versions.I own KJV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV,and GNT Bibles.

Did you note that you did with your response?

This was my statement to which you replied:

Could not the statement about the KJV Bible also be regarded as theological baggage? Repent, trust God, be baptised and live our faith, can be obtained just as easily from the NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV and other translations.

Therefore, your response is a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you do this.

When you get back to answering precisely what I wrote, then we can get back on track with a reasonable discussion.

Oz

 

[contango]

I am not very careful then I would suppose, I will use the same words again, MOST CHURCHES

So how many churches would you say are affected? And given your choice of words "most churches" suggest more than 50% of churches, in which case I'd ask how you are so familiar with so many churches.

If you've visited one church every day for 100 years you've visited slightly under 37,000 churches. So even if you've done that you still haven't experienced "most churches".

So I think I'll file your claim under "exaggerated for effect" rather than "likely to be accurate".

 

[SeventhValley]

Did you note that you did with your response?

This was my statement to which you replied:

Therefore, your response is a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you do this.

When you get back to answering precisely what I wrote, then we can get back on track with a reasonable discussion.

Oz

As long as those verses line up with the majority text then yes you could use those versions.

 

[SeventhValley]

As I say every time a Baptist comes up with the hooey of the State-given KJV; the Geneva. It simply thrashes the KJV on cultural and theological significance and lines up with the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State.

I am not that extreme, I would be for a pan-baptist conference(which would never happen) to decide on a majority text based Bible to be used by all for the next 500 years.

 

[OzSpen]

As long as those verses line up with the majority text then yes you could use those versions.

When you don't reply to what I wrote and go off at your tangent - the subject you want to discuss - you have committed a red herring logical fallacy.

 

[SeventhValley]

Could not the statement about the KJV Bible also be regarded as theological baggage? Repent, trust God, be baptised and live our faith, can be obtained just as easily from the NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV and other translations.

Oz

If you want a simple answer,yes the other versions are close enough 85% similar to the majority text that the basic Christian message can be gotten and utilized.

 

[OzSpen]

If you want a simple answer,yes the other versions are close enough 85% similar to the majority text that the basic Christian message can be gotten and utilized.

The ESV, NIV & NLT are based on earlier NT MSS evidence than the KJV. So do you mean that there is an 85% similarity between the KJV and English translations based on earlier MSS evidence?

 

[SeventhValley]

Earlier dose not mean more accurate. Plus God preserved his word through the majority text which matches most old manuscripts available. Augustine and the reformers used the majority text. Should a foot note be added saying a few manuscripts do not have text A or B? Sure , but to throw out scripture proved by time is a affront to God's word. Plus we cannot be Solo Scriptura unless we agree in one scripture to use. All Protestants long ago decided the TR is that scripture.

 

[SeventhValley]

Also 95% of 5,300 manuscripts in existence line up with the TR while a few old throw away scripts do not.

This is more proof we should go back to the TR.

 

[Keachian]

Also 95% of 5,300 manuscripts in existence line up with the TR while a few old throw away scripts do not.

This is more proof we should go back to the TR.

There are places where what is commonly called the TR (that which is published by the TBS) has absolutely no manuscript evidence John 5:7-8 is one of these places. There are a differences between the TR and the MT and the EO-PT

 

[OzSpen]

Earlier dose not mean more accurate. Plus God preserved his word through the majority text which matches most old manuscripts available. Augustine and the reformers used the majority text. Should a foot note be added saying a few manuscripts do not have text A or B? Sure , but to throw out scripture proved by time is a affront to God's word. Plus we cannot be Solo Scriptura unless we agree in one scripture to use. All Protestants long ago decided the TR is that scripture.

We can go Sola Scriptura with one Scripture if we have the original text. But we don't have it. So we need to compare the earliest copies.

By the way, the more a MSS is copied the better the chance of replicating errors (textual variants). I know it when copying by hand writing or touch typing on this computer. Obtaining a perfect replica is often extremely difficult. and the more a MSS is copied, the higher the chance of perpetrating textual variants, leaving out words, sentences, lines, sentences, etc.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There are places where what is commonly called the TR (that which is published by the TBS) has absolutely no manuscript evidence John 5:7-8 is one of these places. There are a differences between the TR and the MT and the EO-PT

When Erasmus compiled what became known as the Textus Receptus (TR) , he had not one Greek MSS for the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. So what did he do? He translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.

Since that time, earlier MSS have been found than 10th century MSS used in TR and not one of those MSS has agreed word-for-word with Erasmus's Greek translation.

I will not be accepting the TR as the most reliable NT Greek MSS.

Oz

 

[Keachian]

Spen, could you answer my post here:

I do like how the link you provide doesn't actually deny the credobaptist position, we do not believe that men should be Baptised twice and neither do you, nor would you presume to make that claim of us.

Do you understand the differences between paedobaptist and Baptist federalism that leads Confessional/Particular Baptists to their credobaptist position?

 

[SeventhValley]

There are places where what is commonly called the TR (that which is published by the TBS) has absolutely no manuscript evidence John 5:7-8 is one of these places. There are a differences between the TR and the MT and the EO-PT

False, the Codex Frisingensis a 500 AD manuscript has it.

 

[SeventhValley]

When Erasmus compiled what became known as the Textus Receptus (TR) , he had not one Greek MSS for the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. So what did he do? He translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.

Since that time, earlier MSS have been found than 10th century MSS used in TR and not one of those MSS has agreed word-for-word with Erasmus's Greek translation.

I will not be accepting the TR as the most reliable NT Greek MSS.

Oz

The Vulgate is based off the majority text so no problem there. The reformers Bibles both Geneva and KJV were all majority texts.

 

[Keachian]

False, the Codex Frisingensis a 500 AD manuscript has it.

Are we talking about the Greek and therefore the MT, TR, EO-PT, NA28 etc, or are we talking about the Latin?

This shall be my last post on the topic of the text, I will only reply to discussion of Federalism as that is what I see as the main problem to be addressed left.

 

[OzSpen]

I do like how the link you provide doesn't actually deny the credobaptist position, we do not believe that men should be Baptised twice and neither do you, nor would you presume to make that claim of us.

Do you understand the differences between paedobaptist and Baptist federalism that leads Confessional/Particular Baptists to their credobaptist position?

Yes, I do understand the differences between paedobaptist vs credobaptist and the covenant theology associated with Baptist federalism.

I'm not exactly sure what questions you are asking or comments you are making here. Your clarification would be appreciated.

While I have a Baptist icon associated with my name, I have included it because I am Baptistic (which CF allows). I'm ordained with the denomination of A B Simpson, A W Tozer, and Ravi Zacharias - the Christian & Missionary Alliance (C&MA). The C&MA is much closer to Presbyterian church government with its rule by a plurality of elders and functional deacons.

Having said that, my wife and I were married in a Baptist church and we've been Baptist for a reasonable portion of our married life.

I'd appreciate your further clarification of the issues you are raising.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[Keachian]

Yes, I do understand the differences between paedobaptist vs credobaptist and the covenant theology associated with Baptist federalism.

I'm not exactly sure what questions you are asking or comments you are making here. Your clarification would be appreciated.

While I have a Baptist icon associated with my name, I have included it because I am Baptistic (which CF allows). I'm ordained with the denomination of A B Simpson, A W Tozer, and Ravi Zacharias - the Christian & Missionary Alliance (C&MA). The C&MA is much closer to Presbyterian church government with its rule by a plurality of elders and functional deacons.

Having said that, my wife and I were married in a Baptist church and we've been Baptist for a reasonable portion of our married life.

I'd appreciate your further clarification of the issues you are raising.

In Christ,
Oz

Largely my questioning stems from accepting a criticism of Confessional Baptists that could be levelled at you (I am assuming that one of the reasons you bear a Baptist icon is because you are a credobaptist, issues of congregational ecclesiology aside [which also flows from 1689 Federalism]) If you claim that a Particular Baptist is not Reformed because they don't hold to paedobaptism, I can just as easily claim that you as a General Baptist are not Reformed for the same reason as the Remonstrants and even Jacobus himself were just as adamant against the Anabaptists as the Dutch Reformed Church.