Friday, May 13, 2005

Food for Thought Relative to the KJV

Here is an essay by Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Whether one agrees with every particular of Wallace, one can admit that he is completely reasonable in his approach to things.

Of the various things that Professor Wallace has authored, two stand out in my limited experience: (1) his book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics which is fun to read almost for stimulating pleasure-reading, and (2) a defense of thesis that Titus 2:13 and II Peter 1:1 are explicitly calling Christ by the name of God. This defense is found in the book mentioned in (1), as well as in his PhD dissertation, as well as in the Grace Theological Journal, though I can't easily find the month and year of this article.

The PP posts, and you decide.

Two final notes: (a) I agree with the general thrust of Wallace's article, and (b) I hope to respond in the next few days to some of the things contained within the pro-KJV links given.

Addendum: for a modern-day Bible that focuses on what textual and translational decisions were made and why they were made, the NET Bible is worth a checking out. It is a nice tool, and pretty inexpensive as well.

14 Comments:

Blogger c.t. said...

The Wallace essay is as boilerplate and mediocre as they come.

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:01:00 PM  
Blogger steve said...

With his customary knack for polite understatement, c.t. has expressed disapproval for the position I’ve taken on the KJV.

Well, all I can say is that I’m truly shocked, shocked, I say, that he would endeavor to impose on the pure and chaste Bride of Christ a version of the Scriptures authorized by James I, whom every student of church history knows to have been a raging sodomite.

And I must express my further dismay that he would impose on the aforesaid Bride of Christ a version which was produced by the Popish Church of England, what with its multitude of Papistical rites, framed according to the vain imaginations and infernal devices of men.

As should be evident to all who have eyes to see, the KJV is nothing less than a Trojan horse for all the soul-killing abominations of the Scarlet Woman a.k.a. the Church of Rome. How then, I ask, can c.t. allow himself to be an unwitting dupe for the Antichrist?

As a true son of the Reformation, I do shun the KJV as an unclean thing, and instead read the original Geneva Bible (1560), produced by my Puritan forefathers in the faith.

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:51:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

c.t. --- can you give a specific or two about the boilerplate nature of the essay?

PP

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:56:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

The evidence James I was a sodomite is no more real than the 'evidence' Calvin confessed to a priest, on his way to Geneva, that he 'had a demon', or that Calvin himself was a buggerite.

The Geneva Bible of course was one of the translations the AV1611 is based on (they both sharing Tyndale's foundational work and inspiration). The AV1611 consolidated the best of the English translations that preceded it. It is the English Bible refined, 7 times, if you will. It is the pinnacle of that process.

Considering the translators of the AV1611 rejected the Roman beast's manuscripts (Satanicus and Vaticanus), and considering the entire enterprise was seen, by the Roman beast, as a great threat to its power in England, but also throughout the world, and considering the Roman beast attempted to blow James I to hell in a terrorist act (um, not to mention the RCC's other historic well known acts towards Bible translators and the Bibles themselves)...it is a little difficult to claim that the Roman beast was being served by the translation being made called the AV1611.

The Puritans were wedded to their notes and didn't like seeing the apocryphal books in any manner in the Bible.

Considering the heroic effort and ultimate sacrifice men and women (and children too) made to bring the Word of God to you, fighting the very beast you speak of, the fact that you wet seminary boys (more fearful of man than God) would adopt such a flippant, sarcastic tongue towards this subject doesn't present you very well does it?

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:05:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>c.t. --- can you give a specific or two about the boilerplate nature of the essay?

Just do your homework first. If you then can't see it then so be it.

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:07:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Note that c.t. once again makes a claim about a reasonable essay with nothing to support it.

For the material to which he's linked that I've actually read, he's in good company with his name-it claim-it tactics.

A post is coming in the next day or two.

PP

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:18:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Jesus. You're very new to this subject. You just referenced an Al Franken book from the 2000 election cycle to tell me George W. Bush isn't to be trusted.

I can see now that you are already hot to write a definitive take-down of the views you didn't hold before you knew about them.

Fear God, it is the beginning of wisdom. The opinion and enforcement of your professors and fellow duped students are worth being feared, are they pilgrim?

The subject is more grave than you know. This process of the defilement of the Word of God is a progressive, evolving campaign. (What edition is your Wescott-Hort, excuse me, Nestle into?) It is part of the famine mentioned in Scripture. You are on the wrong side.

Remember... Yes, I know you have no attachment to the KJV because it wasn't the Bible of your youth or any other part of your life, and you obviously are geared more towards Star Trek than Elizabethan literature; just remember that the issue is corrupt manuscripts (and evolvingly corrupt manuscripts) vs. the supernatural preservation of the Word of God by God. The virtues of the English translation known as the Authorized Version is a separate issue. Not a small issue, but a separate issue...

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:30:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Yes, I forgot it was Satanicus or the other that was found in the garbage dump after 1611... No matter, the Vatican's main choice for corrupt manuscripts was in existence...

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:34:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

On this subject don't let my sarcasm effect you negatively. There's nothing for me to win here. This is about the Word of God. Manuscript disputes aside, what you should do, just for the hell of it, is read the Authorized Version complete (I mean complete). There's no law you can't do that and still be correct with the other versions in front of your professors and others you have reason to present that front to. You can also still have one of the other versions as your main choice. Whatever. You should read the AV1611 complete just at least once though. (And, again, I mean complete, no screwing around and saying "but I have" when you've read Psalm 23 in an anthology or whatever. The Word of God is Living Language, and the AV1611 is, whether you prefer its language or not, very alive and inspired language with a great foundation of inspired translation underlying it. To ignore it because you associate dumb KJV-only types - or whatever - with it is just an act of petulant emptiness...)

Why don't you read Shakespeare, the AV1611, and Chapman's Ilaid and Odyssey translations (and maybe throw in Arthur Golding's Ovid (Metamorphoses). The AV will be the easiest, then Shakespeare, then Chapman, then Golding. Round it out with some Malory, though not Elizabethan, a good dose of Saxon English. You'll be misspelling words the rest of your life... (Like Dan Quayle; when he spelled potato potatoe we Elizabethan literature admirers knew what was going on...ok maybe not...)

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:49:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

c.t. says: "You're very new to this subject. You just referenced an Al Franken book from the 2000 election cycle to tell me George W. Bush isn't to be trusted."

So Professor Wallace's views on the NT manuscripts are on the same level as Al Franken's views on his political enemies? I'll let that comment stand for posterity's sake. =D

As far as your self-proclaimed insights regarding me, my desire to take something down, my literary background, etc, [yawn] you're welcome to them. Both reality and I are getting a chuckle in the meanwhile.

PP

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:24:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

I'm going on what you've said (and revealed) about yourself in your own writing.

Notice you didn't pick up on anything in my last post. You're in juvenile kneejerk mode.

Remember, a seminary education doesn't give you discernment or understanding; and, worse, it gives you allegiances to man and man's opinions that can and will hold you back regarding issues just such as this having to do with corrupt manuscripts, how the devil operates in attacking the Word of God, and the supernatural elements in the presevation of the Word of God.

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:39:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

c.t. --- can somebody honestly come to, say, Wallace's and Carson's conclusions, or are such people agents of Satan?

PP

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:59:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

As Burgeon said, the only way to explain it is they are deeply caught in the illusion of the devil and his kingdom. They are duped by the devil. Again, this subject is a matter of spiritual discernment... If you are made to know the truth and you still petulantly tow the devil's line you have a problem with your connection with God.

A true mark of regeneration is a deep and dedicated valuation for the Word of God, and a deep and active contempt towards any thing that attacks the Word of God attempting to defile it in any way... This is why what the devil calls 'KJV-only' have such a deep contempt for the Roman Catholic church. And when we see the devil's manuscripts being used in EVERY modern translation we sound the alarm. You hear if you have ears to hear...

Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:53:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

So, c.t., are the variants between the TR and the modern manuscripts involving a moveable-nu or a spelling variation part of an attack on the Word of God?

PP

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home