Like always, the last forum that banned me (*cough*OB*cough) is embroiled in the TR vs. KJB debate again. The site claims to be "King James Version Only," and while the Administrator doesn't post enough for me to know for sure how he stands, the vast majority of the members there are "fair-weather KJB-onlyists," or they only believe the King James Bible because nothing better has come along to replace it.
Of course, this would only happen (the KJB being replaced) if it was a "faithful translation," though of course that very statement is insanely subjective, as anyone who uses his brain could figure. Someone who believes this is no better than Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, Bob Jones II and III, or Arlin Horton. The only difference is the text that they use to prop up their own ego and opinion. The first batch uses the Textus Receptus, while the other uses anything and everything except the TR. But in the end it's all the same thing: self-important, self-righteous men deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
Now I know as well as anyone that the King James arose mostly from the manuscripts that were compiled into the TR. That's a fact, and an indisputable one. However, what those TR-lovers neglect to mention is that there are many passages in the KJB that don't come from any Majority text manuscript or text. For instance the Johannine Comma: the only text at the time that had that passage in it was the corrupt Latin Vulgate! However, those "godly men" put that phrase in there, and were later vindicated by the rise of many Antioch manuscripts that included the passage.
Another fun topic that they love to rant against on that forum is what has been called "double inspiration," or "advanced revelation." Now double inspiration is their description of the Biblical teaching of Scriptural peservation and inspiration: that al Scripture is given by inspiration of God, so anything that claims to be Scripture must be given by inspiration of God. Simple, no? Then we have advanced revelation, which they tout as adding to God's word, when in fact it is simply things that showed up in the English LANGUAGE as a result of the translation from Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't something added in by the translators, it was something that was evidenced through the translation of Scripture that had been in the passage all along: it just wasn't evident in Greek or Hebrew!
Ok I'm tired of typing now, so I'll get into more down the road if I feel like it. Comments=more rant, so if you want more, comment! :D
Showing posts with label Textus Receptus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Textus Receptus. Show all posts
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
What is Truth?
I think I titled something this a long time ago, but I like it so here we go again. The phrase "What is truth?" is from Pilate, right before he condemned Christ to death. Here's the passage:
John 18:38
"Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."
He had Truth standing in front of him, but he was too blind to recognize it! Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." John 17:17 says "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." 1 Kings 17:24 "And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth."
So many people today have the truth right in front of their noses, but they haven't the foggiest idea what it is. Of course I'm speaking of the Bible issue; that's one of my hobby horses I like to pull out from time to time. God said He'd preserve His word. God said His word is given by inspiration. God said His word is perfect, pure, holy and righteous. Everyone should be able to agree on that; anyone who believes in the true God, that is.
But here's where everyone, IFBs included, starts stumbling and stuttering. The problem is that though everyone will agree that God's word is perfect, pure, "inspired," inerrant, etc., very few know where to FIND that word of God. Hence the deal about the "Alexandrian Cult," which Dr. Ruckman likes to harp on, and then there's the TR crowd that think the Bible derives Its authority from some moth-eaten manuscripts that only scholars can read.
A man named James White wrote a book titled "The King James-Only Controversy." Or favorite Bible Believing satirist fired back with a book titled "The Scholarship-Only Controversy," basically showing how White not only lied at least 16 times in his book, but also puts the authority of the Scriptures not on the Scriptures, but on the "learned men" that can study "The Greek and Hebrew."
However, even IFBs have fallen into the same trap, if not as far, by things such as the aforementioned statements by Ross. "The Bible this" and "the Bible that," followed slyly by "The King James translation" yada yada. See the difference? Bet you would have missed that if someone didn't show you!! That's how these shiesters like to work: in retail it's called Bait and Switch. You make the person think you're talking about a certain subject, then carefully change the object of the discussion without the person noticing, so he thinks the original object is still being discussed. Basically, Ross doesn't believe any existing Bible anymore than he believes in the Tooth Fairy. And that is EXACTLY how it works worldwide: people believe all this high-sounding, great stuff about the "Bible," then turn around and demean the "King James Version" or "translation of the Bible" etc.
There IS no other Bible, and contrary to Dr. Cloud's belief, the King James Bible or Authorized Version is NOT an edition of the Textus Receptus. The KJB was translated after being compared to over 300 manuscripts in 20-40 languages. While the vast majority of these were from the Antioch family of manuscripts, some of the readings follow the corrupt Latin Vulgate instead. Why is that? God wrote It, not those translators. He put what He wanted in there, so HE Authorized It, not King James. The king just paid for it.
No, Ross won't fess up; he's too embedded in his lies and deceit to realize it himself. SOP for the Alexandrian Cult, and now, as evidenced, it's seeped its way into "IFB" circles as well.
John 18:38
"Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."
He had Truth standing in front of him, but he was too blind to recognize it! Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." John 17:17 says "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." 1 Kings 17:24 "And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth."
So many people today have the truth right in front of their noses, but they haven't the foggiest idea what it is. Of course I'm speaking of the Bible issue; that's one of my hobby horses I like to pull out from time to time. God said He'd preserve His word. God said His word is given by inspiration. God said His word is perfect, pure, holy and righteous. Everyone should be able to agree on that; anyone who believes in the true God, that is.
But here's where everyone, IFBs included, starts stumbling and stuttering. The problem is that though everyone will agree that God's word is perfect, pure, "inspired," inerrant, etc., very few know where to FIND that word of God. Hence the deal about the "Alexandrian Cult," which Dr. Ruckman likes to harp on, and then there's the TR crowd that think the Bible derives Its authority from some moth-eaten manuscripts that only scholars can read.
A man named James White wrote a book titled "The King James-Only Controversy." Or favorite Bible Believing satirist fired back with a book titled "The Scholarship-Only Controversy," basically showing how White not only lied at least 16 times in his book, but also puts the authority of the Scriptures not on the Scriptures, but on the "learned men" that can study "The Greek and Hebrew."
However, even IFBs have fallen into the same trap, if not as far, by things such as the aforementioned statements by Ross. "The Bible this" and "the Bible that," followed slyly by "The King James translation" yada yada. See the difference? Bet you would have missed that if someone didn't show you!! That's how these shiesters like to work: in retail it's called Bait and Switch. You make the person think you're talking about a certain subject, then carefully change the object of the discussion without the person noticing, so he thinks the original object is still being discussed. Basically, Ross doesn't believe any existing Bible anymore than he believes in the Tooth Fairy. And that is EXACTLY how it works worldwide: people believe all this high-sounding, great stuff about the "Bible," then turn around and demean the "King James Version" or "translation of the Bible" etc.
There IS no other Bible, and contrary to Dr. Cloud's belief, the King James Bible or Authorized Version is NOT an edition of the Textus Receptus. The KJB was translated after being compared to over 300 manuscripts in 20-40 languages. While the vast majority of these were from the Antioch family of manuscripts, some of the readings follow the corrupt Latin Vulgate instead. Why is that? God wrote It, not those translators. He put what He wanted in there, so HE Authorized It, not King James. The king just paid for it.
No, Ross won't fess up; he's too embedded in his lies and deceit to realize it himself. SOP for the Alexandrian Cult, and now, as evidenced, it's seeped its way into "IFB" circles as well.
Labels:
Bible,
Greek,
King James,
Randy Ross,
Textus Receptus,
TR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)