NIV version

[Sophia7]

We can see the battle of the bible has been carrying for almost 2000 years. Many, thousands, millions gave their lives for the preservation of the true bible. Some asks if it is possible to have one true version. Yea, by divine providence. There must be. God says so. Do we not believe that?

The KJV version was born as a product of the Reformation. Not surprisingly the modern English versions were born as a product of the Romanizing the protestant world.

The Vulgate of Jerome, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus… the reformers once rejected, now vying for supremacy in the forms of modern translations. Among other reasons, are you shocked that the Reformation has died???
The Hebrews had abstract thinking, meaning not logical, but based on ideas, imagery… because the Hebrew language was flexible, broad and generic. The Hebrew mindset was not confined by specifics of the language but rather by ideas and general understanding. The same was the classical Greek. Because the classical Greek was also a descendent of the Phoenician like the Paleo-Hebrew. The English of 1611 was perfect in the sense that it too was a broad, flexible and generic language. Like the example you gave, ‘gird up the loins of your mind’, only minds that are connected (at least somewhat) to the Hebrew mindset can understand that. That’s the beautiful part. Who would want to lose that to the modern translations?

Here the Word of God is truly a dividing sword. We are all either for Him or against Him. It is not just a preference. It is a matter of life and death. At least for those who stood for it.

No, I do not believe that God says that there is only one true version of the Bible. This issue is just not as black-and-white as you would make it out to be. The Textus Receptus itself includes readings from the Latin Vulgate and additions that do not appear in any other Greek MSS:

Erasmus relied mainly on two twelfth century MSS, one for the Gospels and one for Acts and the Epistles. As he worked, he compared them with two or three others. He had only one twelfth-century MS for Revelation with the last page missing the last six verses. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek to supply the missing verses. The result was some readings that have not been found in any other Greek MS, but are now a part of the TR.

At other places Erasmus introduced material from the Latin Vulgate into his Greek text, and this material has become a part of the TR which lies behind the KJV. An example is Acts 9:6: "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" This question asked by Paul at the time of his conversion appears at Acts 22:10, but no known Greek MS has it at 9:6. This addition from the Vulgate was retained in the TR and now appears in the KJV.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/kjvonly.htm

How, then, can you say that any Bible version has not been subject to Roman influence? Nevertheless, I do believe that God has protected the Bible; I just have a different view of how He has done it than you.

 

[OntheDL]

No, I do not believe that God says that there is only one true version of the Bible. This issue is just not as black-and-white as you would make it out to be. The Textus Receptus itself includes readings from the Latin Vulgate and additions that do not appear in any other Greek MSS:

How, then, can you say that any Bible version has not been subject to Roman influence? Nevertheless, I do believe that God has protected the Bible; I just have a different view of how He has done it than you.

Hmm...how can you say it is not black and white? The fact that we are having this disagreement proves it is black and white. Either I'm right or you're right. Faith and doubt can not co-exist like the light and darkness can not co-exist. The truth and error do not mix.

The trademark of the Jesuit deception is to introduce grey areas. If one can not see the deception is all around us, he/she is already deceived. Do you not think the protestant world are deceived who threw out their historic doctrines and went to unite with the papacy whose shackles their forefathers shed blood and lost their lives to break away from?

Erasmus relied mainly on two twelfth century MSS, one for the Gospels and one for Acts and the Epistles. As he worked, he compared them with two or three others. He had only one twelfth-century MS for Revelation with the last page missing the last six verses. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek to supply the missing verses. The result was some readings that have not been found in any other Greek MS, but are now a part of the TR.

At other places Erasmus introduced material from the Latin Vulgate into his Greek text, and this material has become a part of the TR which lies behind the KJV. An example is Acts 9:6: "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" This question asked by Paul at the time of his conversion appears at Acts 22:10, but no known Greek MS has it at 9:6. This addition from the Vulgate was retained in the TR and now appears in the KJV.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch...ts/kjvonly.htm

The CIA has a term 'slide'. It means it puts out propergendas to ridicule its opposition and their ideas. So when and if one of its conspiracies is exposed, most people's mind will be so conditioned that their typical reaction would be 'file not found'.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The spirit of prophecy tells us wilderness means seclusion and obscurity. GC88 p55.

The bible is telling us the harlot of Revelation is working in secrecy to achieve her goals.

Clearly this aritcle you are quoting is attacking KJV. Have you read the two links I provided?

I can not answer questions after questions. It never works. You and I both know people will believe what they want to believe. So what's the single most critical issue that stops you from accepting KJV as the authoritative version?

 

[Sophia7]

Clearly this aritcle you are quoting is attacking KJV. Have you read the two links I provided?

No, it is attacking the notion that the KJV is the only perfect English translation of the Bible.

Yes, I have read your links, and I disagree with many of their arguments. I also think that they misrepresent the process by which modern translations not based on the TR came about.

I can not answer questions after questions. It never works. You and I both know people will believe what they want to believe. So what's the single most critical issue that stops you from accepting KJV as the authoritative version?

I love the KJV. It's the version that I grew up with. Most of the Scripture that I have memorized is from the King James Version. However, I do not believe that it is perfect, nor do I believe that all newer English translations are evil.

 

[tall73]

The 7th sabbath is not merely 'a' sabbath. It is the sabbath that vadicates God's creatorship and Lordship. The other sabbaths were types and shadows. In the original hebrew, there was no definite article.

Incorrect. There is not an INdefinite article in Hebrew, just as there is not in Greek. But there is a definite article in the form of a prefix:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Four/The_Definite_Article/the_definite_article.html

It is present on "seventh day", but not on "Sabbath" in the text. There is also a definite article in the Greek, and in the Septuagint it is there on Seventh, but not on Sabbath.

And the Sabbath is by definition a Sabbath or rest.

The modern english bibles were the products of Revisions of the 1881.

Some were renovations, but even they based some of their changes on the new manuscripts. Others were fresh translations by a committee and did indeed follow the modern manuscripts.

Over 5000 changes were made to the TR. The changes weren't mere preference of the group of text.

They were preference of the other manuscripts as you could see if you read a Greek apparatus. Here is a sampling from one that I have added some color keys too:

Notice that the reading “He” which is in the NIV is supported by a number of manuscripts. So is the reading “God.” Each of the little symbols and numbers in the yellow section represent a manuscript. It is by weighing the number, type, perceived quality etc. of the manuscripts that they came to their conclusions when creating the NA/USB critical text. In the same fashion the committees that formed most of the better modern versions go through their own process of weighing which reading to use.

In this case the NIV chose to go with He, and the KJV, going with the TR went with God.

Dr. G. V. Smith, a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee, wrote:
"Since the publication of the revised New Testament, it has been frequently said that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view... To the writer, any such statement appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case." --- Dr. G. Vance Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised N.T., p. 45

That all depends on the text. However, the issue is not whether we can back our current doctrinal views ,but what text is most likely similar to the original.

Perhaps, you don't realize the battle of the bibles has been raging ever since the death of John at around 100AD. The church has always suffered the influence of the paganism even during the time of Paul. But after the death of John, apostasy surfaced somewhat publicly. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen...were the earliest ones prominently contributed in the corruption of the NT manuscripts.

Constantine ordered 50 copies of Origen/Eusebius type MSS. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts came from these.

• The theory is that they might be of the 50. However, since they are quite different one from the other, it seems unlikely. Especially since Vaticanus especially seems to have an origin in Egypt based on style etc.

• Notice they are a text TYPE. Some of the earliest manuscripts are from this type. They were in existence before Constantine, he didn’t just invent them.

• The Byzantine text type is less supported before the 4th century, so it is not surprising that the church fathers tended to follow the Alexandrian text.

Now you said they were just different versions. But that's not the case, just use the example of the bapstismal requirement, by removing the verse, the picture is mirred that we are willing partakers of baptism.

Actually I said they were different underlying manuscripts. And it is in fact likely that these corrupt people you are afraid of ADDED formulas, such as the baptismal one, to the text after these were established. Either way, both are readings from texts. The question is which one is right. Again you use your own theological bent to show which one must be better rather than evaluating the text based on its own characteristics.

While the church of the west fell into apostasy, the church of the east: church of Judea and church of Antioch stood firm. Why? Because they had the unadulterated bible text. The Syriac Pershitta, the Aramaic NT was translated from the original Greek text in 150AD. And Pershitta agrees with Textus Receptus over and over.

The old Syriac supports a number of readings, most strongly the Western text type, and some Byzantine readings. When you read the apparatus you can see which reading the Syriac, etc. has as well.

AS to the church not falling into apostasy in the east, the east is where all of the action was happening. Constantine was the EASTERN emperor, and the councils happened in the east.

It was the church of Antioch who evangelized the northern Italy, southern France and the British Isles. When the Gallic/French people were slaughtered by the barbarians in the Second century, guess whom they cried out their sufferings to? Not Rome, but the church of Antioch.

Because of the evangelism, the true Greek NT text was widely circulated.

The bible tells us the dragon was wrath with the woman and remnant of her seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. The law and the prophets are the two witnesses of the pure Word of God. The catholic priests testified the difficulty of ‘converting’ the Celtic church because they had the Textus Receptus and rejected the papal teachings.

Such as the Trinity ? You said the modern versions downplay the divinity of Christ. But if anything the Roman church has always been quite clear on this part ,whereas the Eastern church was swamped with Trinitarian disputes…Arius, Nestorius, etc. were eastern figures. Your arguments just don’t follow.

The text you are complaining about is not from Western Rome, but from southern and eastern Alexandria. Hence the name Alexandrian text. Alexandria in this case referring to the city in Egypt. Some of the earliest papyri are from this text type, from Egypt.

The fact that it also existed early on in the Roman world is an evidence of its antiquity. The Byzantine text was copied many times in Byzantium in later centuries, where Greek was still spoken. In Rome Latin was the main language so Greek copies was rare.

But notice again, I already said I don’t always agree that the Alexandrian text type is the best. But the point is that there was no conspiracy. Their were a few text types (Alexandrian, Byzantine or majority, Western, and some see even some lesser classifications). These all were part of the record of the Scriptures. It is not a conspiracy to try and find out which is the closest to the original. Because the climate of Egypt allowed for better preservation there are more of the Alexandrian type preserved from earlier centuries. Whether this shows that these were more reliable, earlier texts, or just shows that the climate was better so that text type remained longer is debatable. The fact that the MT was copied copiously in the later centuries also accounts for it being the majority. So there are arguments on both sides.

The little horn power uprooted three nations who would not bow down to the beast power. In the last days, who will not bow down to the beast? Those who uphold the pure Word of God.

Um, in this case the ones overthrown were Germanic tribes, and these tribes were of Arian theology. In other words, the little horn would be indirectly favoring the Trinitarian concepts that you say the new Bible’s destroy.

The woman fled into the wilderness in the face of the persecution. The remote, inaccessible mountains shielded the woman for over a thousand years. At the dawn of Reformation, the Waldenses joined the reformers and shared with them the unadulterated text. John Calvin received the TR from a Waldensian scholar.

We can see the battle of the bible has been carrying for almost 2000 years. Many, thousands, millions gave their lives for the preservation of the true bible. Some asks if it is possible to have one true version. Yea, by divine providence. There must be. God says so. Do we not believe that?

Then you have several problems:

• The TR is not the same as the MT in many respects. It differs in over 1800 places. The TR was made up of only a handful of manuscripts which made up a largely Byzantine text.
• There are variances in the various manuscripts which make up the MT.
• You seem to be suggesting that the MT was not used by the Catholic Church. This is not true. It was called the Majority text because it represented the majority of
• manuscripts. Erasmus himself was in fact Catholic (though with reformation leanings.) The Old Latin has western readings, as does the syriac. These western readings are often distinct from both the MT and the Alexandrian type. The Alexandrian type was preserved in the Coptic translations. So it too did not fade.

There have been several text types from early on. That much is clear. Which one was the original is not.

The KJV version was born as a product of the Reformation. Not surprisingly the modern English versions were born as a product of the Romanizing the protestant world.

I don’t see any evidence for your claim. The modern versions are the result of new manuscripts. The KJV was for an Anglican King who likely supported infant baptism, etc. And the Catholic version, produced around the time, translated from the Vulgate, still in use by Catholics today also supported the reading you are concerned about:

8:37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

And here is the reading from the Douay in I John 5:

5:7
[FONT=&quot]And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.[/FONT]
There is simply no evidence of your claims.

The Vulgate of Jerome, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus… the reformers once rejected, now vying for supremacy in the forms of modern translations. Among other reasons, are you shocked that the Reformation has died???

You have not shown that they had these to reject, besides the Vulgate. And the vulgate, not being a Greek manuscript, was of course not used in the compilation of a critical GREEK text. However, the Douay did have a bit of an influence on the KJV, and it was translated from the Vulgate.

The Hebrews had abstract thinking, meaning not logical, but based on ideas, imagery… because the Hebrew language was flexible, broad and generic. The Hebrew mindset was not confined by specifics of the language but rather by ideas and general understanding. The same was the classical Greek. Because the classical Greek was also a descendent of the Phoenician like the Paleo-Hebrew. The English of 1611 was perfect in the sense that it too was a broad, flexible and generic language. Like the example you gave, ‘gird up the loins of your mind’, only minds that are connected (at least somewhat) to the Hebrew mindset can understand that. That’s the beautiful part. Who would want to lose that to the modern translations?

You miss the fact that not all the modern translations do that. The NIV does that not because of different manuscripts but because it is a dynamic equivalent. Saying that the NIV is inaccurate here is not the same as saying the Alexandrian text type is inaccurate. The NIV might be poor in some places, but that does not mean the underlying manuscripts are. They are two different issues.

Here the Word of God is truly a dividing sword. We are all either for Him or against Him. It is not just a preference. It is a matter of life and death. At least for those who stood for it.

[FONT=&quot]The modern editions are a reflection of modern finds in archaeology and a greater understanding of the history of the manuscripts. [/FONT]

 

[tall73]

Here are some of the quotes on Comma:

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." ---Tertullian, Adv. Prax., cap. xxv. 200AD.


'He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.' ---Cyprian, De Unit. Eccl., cap. vi. 250AD

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."---Priscillian, Liber Apologeticus. 380AD.

'But if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:" ...
These are the "Three Witnesses, and the Three are One, because of one substance."---Augustine, Contra Maximinium, Lib. II, cap. xxii.3. 390AD.

"there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." ---Victor Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 3.11 in PL58, 227C per RB, 485AD.

Interesting stuff. And good evidence that the reading was around, which would match up with some of the grammarical arguments mentioned in my previous post. However, aren't these the same church fathers that you said were part of the conspiracy, used the Alexandrian text, and corrupted the Bible?

Your argument seems mixed. The truth is that there were a number of variants early on, and we see some fathers using one reading for one text, , some others, but most using some type of Alexandrian text the majority of the time. Many of the manuscripts defy classification, while even those that follow a "text-type" do not do so in every respect. In fact, the idea that there were two Bible, exact in their two ways is not accurate at all. The text types are general trends. Not absolutes.

IMHO, we are getting into too much technicality. The enemies love to bug us down with confusion. However, we can always check the fruits and see what they reap. I think it's fairly established that there are only two bibles in this battle. The bible the faithful early church of the east, the wilderness church and the reformation church used. And bible the church of Rome used. Compare the group of people, I think it's not hard to see which bible we should be using.

You can't discuss without looking at details. If the details don't make the picture, then generalities about false notions of the details won't cure that.

You also keep saying the East was free from error. The EO is far more Catholic than you want to grant. The major issues dividing are the papcy, the addition to the creed, and cultural differences. They still have:

infant baptism
veneration of saints
veneration of Mary
confession to a priest
etc.

all the usual protestant gripes. Or as it is often phrased in GT, for the purposes of most discussions they are "Catholics with Beards."

And when dialogue started between Luther's followers and the Eastern church the Lutherans made little headway because they had major differences. They also were surprised to see that the EO shared most of the same church fathers, which some reformers apparently doubted.

Again, the coptic church, which also broke free fairly early from the mainstream, being considered monophysites, , preserved the Egyptian, Alexandrian readings in the Coptic. They were not under the sway of the papacy. So why would they do that? And they certainly died for their faith, being known as the church of the martyrs, being persecuted for centuries.

There are not just two Bibles. There are at least two main text types, which even within them have many different readings. And then others include the western type, which does not follow the Alexandrian in many respects.

 

[tall73]

Have you seen these two works?
http://www.present-truth.org/KJV-HB/KJV-HB-TOC.htm
http://www.present-truth.org/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm

I don't have the space or the time to cover everything. Nor do I think I have all the facts. Try these two above links if you haven't.

I will look over them.

 

[tall73]

Hmm...how can you say it is not black and white? The fact that we are having this disagreement proves it is black and white. Either I'm right or you're right. Faith and doubt can not co-exist like the light and darkness can not co-exist. The truth and error do not mix.

Because there are more than two text types and MANY readings which defy all text types. It is not black and white. Reducing it to a Catholic protestant issue is missing the complexity.

The trademark of the Jesuit deception is to introduce grey areas. If one can not see the deception is all around us, he/she is already deceived. Do you not think the protestant world are deceived who threw out their historic doctrines and went to unite with the papacy whose shackles their forefathers shed blood and lost their lives to break away from?

Some might say the trademark of conspiracy theorists is to assume their opponents are deceived. Makes about as much sense.

a. You assume that this is a Jesuit deception, though of course these manuscripts far pre-date the Jesuits. You could say the Jesuits like them, but you haven't proved that at all.

b. You accuse anyone who disagrees of being duped.


This is a way of poisoning the well against those who take another position.

Moreover, those who read the Catholic Douay Bible they would agree with you on the a number of texts...yet it was a Catholic version.

The CIA has a term 'slide'. It means it puts out propergendas to ridicule its opposition and their ideas. So when and if one of its conspiracies is exposed, most people's mind will be so conditioned that their typical reaction would be 'file not found'.

Yes, and of course that means that the KJV has been ridiculed all this time? Not at all. If anything you are ridiculing your opponents saying that they must be on the evil side.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The spirit of prophecy tells us wilderness means seclusion and obscurity. GC88 p55.

So the MAJORITY TEXT is the one that is in seclusion and obscurity?

Moreover the text is not talking about Bible versions but believers.

The bible is telling us the harlot of Revelation is working in secrecy to achieve her goals.


I can not answer questions after questions. It never works. You and I both know people will believe what they want to believe. So what's the single most critical issue that stops you from accepting KJV as the authoritative version?

a. The fact that it is in English (note, I don't necessarily think the majority text itself is all that bad, but it is one possibility, and each reading should be weighed on its own merits).
b. The fact that it does not account for all the manuscripts.
c. The fact that I am not the subject of an Anglican King so his authorization is not too important to me.


Finally, if your position is that the reformers were holding on to the TR why did Mrs. White use the Revised Version?

Before the revised version was published, there leaked out from the committee, statements regarding changes which they intended to make. Some of these I brought to Mother's attention, and she gave me very surprising information regarding these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to us." W. C. White, DF 579 (1931); Ministry, April, 1947, p. 17.

EGW did not base her belief on a perfect tramsmission of the Bible:

"Some look to us gravely and say, Don't you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?' This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. Yes, they would just as easily stumble over plain facts that the common mind will accept, and discern the Divine, and to which God's utterance is plain and beautiful, full of marrow and fatness. All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth.
Ms 16, 1888

Note this White Estate document which chronicles her use of the Revised version after its publication:

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/Versions.html#Some%20Later%20Comments--1889%20and%201901

 

[tall73]

I remember coming across a number of times the text presented in the RV when reading Mrs. White.

I looked up a few examples that I found just from a search on R. V. in the EGW CD:

Divine wisdom, infinite grace, were made plain by the things of God's creation. Through nature and the experiences of life, men were taught of God. "The invisible things of Him since the creation of the world," were "perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity." Rom. 1:20, R. V. {COL 22.1}

--------------------------------------

The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2} Lucifer had said, "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; . . . I will be like the Most High." Isa. 14:13, 14. But Christ, "being in the form of God, counted it not a thing to be grasped to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men." Phil. 2:6, 7, R. V., margin. {DA 22.3}

---------------------------------------

This enshrined the Infinite. The all-merciful God shrouded His glory in a most humble type, that Moses could look upon it and live. So in the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, God communicated with Israel, revealing to men His will, and imparting to them His grace. God's glory was subdued, and His majesty veiled, that the weak vision of finite men might behold it. So Christ was to come in "the body of our humiliation" (Phil. 3:21, R. V.), "in the likeness of men." In the eyes of the world He possessed no beauty that they should desire Him; yet He was the incarnate God, the light of heaven and earth. His glory was veiled, His greatness and majesty were hidden, that He might draw near to sorrowful, tempted men. {DA 23.2} God commanded Moses for Israel, "Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" (Ex. 25:8), and He abode in the sanctuary, in the midst of His people. Through all their weary wandering in the desert, the symbol of His presence was with them. So Christ set up His tabernacle in the midst of our human encampment. He pitched His tent by the side of the tents of men, that He might dwell among us, and make us familiar with His divine character and life. "The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." John 1:14, R. V., margin. {DA 23.3}

------------------

The exaltation of the redeemed will be an eternal testimony to God's mercy. "In the ages to come," He will "show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." "To the intent that . . . unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known . . . the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." Eph. 2:7; 3:10, 11, R. V. {DA 26.1}

That is just a sampling. And as the article noted, there are tons of verses from the KJV. I found 110 hits while searching for the R.V.

 

[OntheDL]

I remember coming across a number of times the text presented in the RV when reading Mrs. White.

I looked up a few examples that I found just from a search on R. V. in the EGW CD:

That is just a sampling. And as the article noted, there are tons of verses from the KJV. I found 110 hits while searching for the R.V.

Yes, the Spirit of Prophecy quoted from the new translations. But over 98% of all scriptural quotes are from KJV.

 

[tall73]

Yes, the Spirit of Prophecy quoted from the new translations. But over 98% of all scriptural quotes are from KJV.

Quite agreed.

But why would she quote at all from them if it could be taken as an endorsement? Or to put it a better way, could not that then mean that some of the readings are seen as better in the RV?

As I said before, I am not convinced by the Alexandrian or neutral text in all respects either. But each reading should be taken on its own. now I am aware of the fact that EGW did not read Greek. But she obviously did prefer certain readings.

Moreover, we would expect the number to be far less. As the article pointed out she said to her son not to use the new ones too much because the older members would be confused. Therefore she would only have reason to use it when it

a. deviated from the KJV
b. was viewed as superior.

 

[OntheDL]

Quite agreed.

But why would she quote at all from them if it could be taken as an endorsement? Or to put it a better way, could not that then mean that some of the readings are seen as better in the RV?

Yes, some are. As I posted in another post, I use other versioins for clarification. And I use to make points as the translation of the some words or phrase are more easily understood by the readers of today. But that's not the point.

As I said before, I am not convinced by the Alexandrian or neutral text in all respects either. But each reading should be taken on its own. now I am aware of the fact that EGW did not read Greek. But she obviously did prefer certain readings.

Moreover, we would expect the number to be far less. As the article pointed out she said to her son not to use the new ones too much because the older members would be confused. Therefore she would only have reason to use it when it

a. deviated from the KJV
b. was viewed as superior.

I don't deny there are instances that the modern translations are better due to some old words no longer carry current meanings. But the doctrines in the KJV are more easily proved than the others. KJV as a whole, paints a better picture by design. That's my point.

I'll make a post at a later time and see if I can address some of the points your brought up in your previous posts.

 

[tall73]

Yes, some are. As I posted in another post, I use other versioins for clarification. And I use to make points as the translation of the some words or phrase are more easily understood by the readers of today. But that's not the point.



I don't deny there are instances that the modern translations are better due to some old words no longer carry current meanings. But the doctrines in the KJV are more easily proved than the others. KJV as a whole, paints a better picture by design. That's my point.

I'll make a post at a later time and see if I can address some of the points your brought up in your previous posts.

Incidentally I am several chapters into that first book. So far I think a fair amount of the information is accurate. There are a lot of missing sections, repeat sections etc. in Vaticanus etc.

The information on the medium connection was new to me. I wouldn't mind seeing those particular source materials. But I have to say that regardless of what W&H were, they are not the issue. The issue is whether the texts are worthwhile or not. They may have made them famous, but the texts are the issue.

I don't know if you checked that other link I posted that looks at actual scribal habits, but it was posted by a member here, Nazaroo, and I suspect he also wrote it. Good information there if your interested.

As to modern versions being more clear...yes sometimes ,but that is not what I was referring to. The question is whether sometimes the text itself is the better selection based on evidence. If there were only two readings every time (Alexandrian and MT) it would be a cut and dried question. But that is far from the truth. None of the manuscripts are exactly the same. And that means we have to weigh the evidence in each reading.

 

[Sophia7]

Moreover, we would expect the number to be far less. As the article pointed out she said to her son not to use the new ones too much because the older members would be confused. Therefore she would only have reason to use it when it

a. deviated from the KJV
b. was viewed as superior.

Just to clarify, her son was referring specifically to her not using the Revised Version for preaching. Her concern was not with using it too much in her writings but with which reading was better as she carefully considered particular texts when they were brought to her attention:

As to Mrs. White's attitude toward the revisions of 1885 and 1901, and as to her own use of these in preaching and writing, her son, W. C. White, who was closely associated with her in her public ministry and in the preparation and publication of her books, wrote in 1931:

"I do not know of anything in the E. G. White writings, nor can I remember of anything in Sister White's conversations, that would intimate that she felt that there was any evil in the use of the Revised Version. . . .

"When the first revision was published, I purchased a good copy and gave it to Mother. She referred to it occasionally, but never used it in her preaching. Later on, as manuscripts were prepared for her new books and for revised editions of books already in print, Sister White's attention was called from time to time by myself and Sister Marian Davis, to the fact that she was using texts which were much more clearly translated in the Revised Version. Sister White studied each one carefully, and in some cases she instructed us to use the Revised Version. In other cases she instructed us to adhere to the Authorized Version.

"When Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, was printed and it seemed desirable to make some lengthy quotations from the Psalms, it was pointed out to Sister White that the Revised Version of these Psalms was preferable, and that by using the form of blank verse the passages were more readable. Sister White gave the matter deliberate consideration, and instructed us to use the Revised Version. When you study these passages you will find that in a number of places where the Revised Version is largely used, the Authorized Version is used where translation seems to be better.

"We cannot find in any of Sister White's writings, nor do I find in my memory, any condemnation of the American Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures. Sister White's reasons for not using the A.R.V. in the pulpit are as follows:

"'There are many persons in the congregation who remember the words of the texts we might use as they are presented in the Authorized Version, and to read from the Revised Version would introduce perplexing questions in their minds as to why the wording of the text had been changed by the revisers and as to why it was being used by the speaker.'

"She did not advise me in a positive way not to use the A.R.V., but she intimated to me quite clearly that it would be better not to do so, as the use of the different wording brought perplexity to the older members of the congregation." White Estate DF 579; Ministry, April, 1947, pp. 17, 18.

The extracts quoted above reveal the position of Ellen White on such questions as the transmission of the Sacred Text, the union of the divine and the human in the written record of God's revelation to man, and also as to her relation to the various translations of the Holy Scriptures.

--from http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/Versions.html#Some%20Later%20Comments--1889%20and%201901

 

[Sulla]

Is there a place online that has every problem with the NIV listed. I hate seeing only bits and pieces. I would better make up my mind if I looked at an entire list.

 

[djconklin]

Is there a place online that has every problem with the NIV listed. I hate seeing only bits and pieces. I would better make up my mind if I looked at an entire list.

There are KJV-only web sites that claim to have lists--whether they are complete or not is another matter. You also need to consider the bias of the site. The claim that they dropped words is usually a case of the words not being in the Greek in the first place.

 

[Sophia7]

There are KJV-only web sites that claim to have lists--whether they are complete or not is another matter. You also need to consider the bias of the site. The claim that they dropped words is usually a case of the words not being in the Greek in the first place.

Yes, and apart from the Greek issues, their claims are often based upon misunderstandings of King-James English.