Sunday, August 28, 2005

My Satanic Bible

A poster here at PP has written on his blog:

And if your version of God's Word based on the Satan-defiled Alexandrian manuscripts (satanicus/vaticanus) chooses to 'grant' to God some scare-brackets '[ ]' to contain the proclamation of his very Kingdom, Power, and Glory well, God bless your generous little soul. So generous to God you are! (No, sorry, pilgrim, scare-brackets don't count.)

The devil's attack on the Word of God began in the Garden.

It is progressive, continuing this very day. Come out of the devil's deception. Read the pure Word of God. (Here is a Reformed man who has seen the light.)


The text from the link follows below. Let's see a sampling of KJV-love in action, with some quickie PP commentary provided as well.

1. The Standard Text of the English Bible
It is wiser to choose the known over against the unknown. The weaknesses and disadvantages of a particular version of the Bible cannot really be assessed apart from a thorough trial of daily usage over many years. Many who welcomed the New International Version (NIV) with great enthusiasm when it first appeared are now prepared to admit its serious weaknesses as a translation.

The KJV is well established in the market-place and in the literature of Christian scholarship. It will continue in production in many editions for years to come. Helps and reference works are commonly available. It is not likely that the KJV will fade from view and disappear as have many versions produced to supplant it.


This is an argument for the superiority of the KJV --- that it is well-established in the marketplace? And that helps and reference works are available for the KJV means what? It isn't like, say, the NIV lacks any shortage of reference works.

Likewise the KJV is widely studied and commented on in the literature of biblical scholarship. It will always be a standard of reference and comparison of Bible commentators. All other versions are compared to it, contrasted with it, tested by it. Campaigns to sell other versions must attack it. The same cannot be said of any other Bible version.

Somewhere, the bouncer at the door told the argumentation and evidence that they couldn't come into the club.

2. Based on the Full Text of the Hebrew and Greek Originals
Based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek NT), and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT), the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations such as the Revised Standard Versions (RSV) and the NIV.

(a) Oldest Does Not Mean Best - The Westcott and Hort arguments that 'the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable' and that 'age carries more weight than volume' are not necessarily true. It could well be that the two oldest, complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscripts in their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts. This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.


Note the switch from the mere possibility that the WH framework [at least in the author's eyes] might be in error to the dogmatism that it is in error, no argument given.

(b) Volume - The King James Version is based upon the Traditional Text. The vast majority of the more than 5,000 known partial and complete Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading.

But the author doesn't indicate whether the texts form independent witnesses. You could, in theory, have a faulty ms with hundreds of descendant mss coming from the copy of the original faulty ms. We also have the principle of weighing the mss testimony instead of counting it: ponderanda sunt testimonia, non numeranda. [Let's hope I haven't botched the Latin here!] That is, a mere majority or plurarilty of mss favoring a reading is not necessarily by itself a decisive argument for a reading.

What interests me personally is not that I have a stake in the KJV, secretly owning stock in Zondervan and the Lockman Foundation as I foist my NIV's and NASB's on the world, but in seeing these sweeping claims offered in dead seriousness without nary a trace of evidence or thinking.

(c) Church History - The 'Received' or 'Ecclesiastical' Text has been used by the church historically. The English, French, Dutch, and German Reformation churches all used Bibles based on the Traditional Text. (The Dutch 'Statenvertaling' is also based upon the 'Ecclesiastic' Text.)

This has nothing to do with whether the mss underlying the modern critical editions have justification or not.

3. A More Faithful Method of Translation
The KJV translators employed a method of verbal equivalence ('word for word') rather than the method of paraphrase of dynamic equivalence ('meaning for meaning') used in the NIV. The result is that the KJV gives you what biblical authors wrote, not what a committee thinks they meant to write.


There is some discussion over verbal vs dynamic equivalence, but here the author merely assumes that dynamic equivalence is somehow deficient. We may as well use an interlinear text by the argument given above.

Note those black helicopters flying over your house? Did the Men in Black show up at your door? Did you notice that microchip implanted into your forearm? If so, you're in position to see the great NIV conspiracy unmasked! The next argument is as follows.

4. A More Honest Translation
The text of the KJV used italics to identify every word or phrase interpolated (supplied by the translator) and not given in the original. Such a practice was not followed in the NIV, lest the loose method of its translators be unmercifully exposed to view.


With such a conspiratorial tone, it wouldn't be surprising if the KJV folks imagine dialogues such as what follows in the secret underground NIV Moon Base:

NIV Translator #1: I don't like what the verse says!
NIV Translator #2: Well, let's make it say what we want!
#1: But people --- especially those pesky KJV folks --- will notice it!
#2: Ha! We'll get around God's Elect by not italicizing the results of dynamic equivalence!
#1: Hooray! Praise Sata....er, I mean God!
#2: Don't worry bro, I know what you mean [wink wink]!

Returning to being somewhat serious, note the paucity of actual examples where it is demonstrated or strongly argued that the NIV translators were deliberately sloppy. But that is an insult to the word "paucity" in the end.


5. A More Precise Idiom
Often attacked at this very point, the KJV actually is a more accurate and helpful translation precisely because of the archaic pronouns ('thou, thy, thee,' etc.). Both Hebrew and Greek distinguish clearly between the 2nd person singular ('thou') and the 2nd person plural ('ye,you'). In many statements this makes an important difference (e.g. John 3:7). In a sense it is correct to say that in praying the Lord Jesus used 'Thou' - God is one, not many! - for he definitely used the Hebrew or Greek equivalent.


This is actually a good point here.

6. The Best Liturgical Text
The KJV excels as a version to be used in public worship. That is why it has been used so widely in the churches. The requirements of the sanctuary are not those of the classroom. Other versions may be helpful on occasions to the student, but none is more edifying to the worshipper.


Evidence? Argument? Oh, I forgot. I'm dealing with a KJV person. My bad.

7. The Best Format For Preaching
The KJV traditionally has been laid out verse by verse on the page, rather than in paragraphs; though for most of the text, paragraphs are indicated by a sign. The Hebrew and Greek texts, of course, have no paragraphing at all. The verse-by-verse format best serves the purpose of verse-by-verse consecutive expository sermonizing.


A subjective matter of the author is here elevated to a global norm, no argument provided.

8. The Most Beautiful Translation
The KJV gives classic expression to many important passages in the Bible (e.g. Ps 23, Isa 53, Luke 2, and the Parable of the Prodigal Son). Our seniors need to hear these passages as a comfort and help as they draw near to the end of life's journey and our children need to hear them in the KJV as part of their nurture and education. They need to understand that the KJV is an important part of the spiritual and cultural heritage of all English-speaking Christians, and a key to our greatest literature. Children well instructed in the KJV will be greatly advantaged over other children, spiritually, linguistically, educationally, and culturally.


The evidence and argumentation must've dropped out of the buffer as I cut-n-pasted the material.

9. An Ecumenical Text For Reformed Christians
No other version has been used so widely among evangelical Christians. More significantly for Reformed Christians, this version is used by preference in many conservative Reformed congregations. The KJV is also used in the Christian schools these churches sponsor. Using the KJV is one way to underscore our unity and identity with other conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians.


Actually, one just might think that the best way to underscore our unity with other conservative Ev's and Reformed folks would be to preach and teach the same doctrines as they do. But that's just me.

10. A Practical Choice
The KJV is available in many editions; with a full range of helps and reference materials, not to mention computer software; in large-type, clear-print editions; and often priced well below modern translations.


The KJV wins because it's cheap! Another winning argument. And, large-print KJV's clinch the argument even further. I know that I get tired of squinting through my 500x magnifying glass as I read my Pocket-Sized NIV.

I note that the NET Bible is free, so why isn't this even better than the KJV?

11. 'Sounds' Like the Bible
More than any other version, the KJV sounds like the Word of God, even to unbelievers. The KJV translators aimed at this very thing. Even in 1611 the KJV sounded old-fashioned, ancient, a voice from the past. This was to command a reverent hearing, and to suggest the timeless and eternal character of God's Word.


Personally, I just imagine Charlton Heston speaking the words as I read the text, and that does the trick for me.

Note that, in the author's frame of mind, the solemnity of scripture comes not from the fact that it is God's revelation, but that it meets his subjective standards of literary goodness.

Also, the fact of the matter is that the Greek for various NT writings is pretty simple and is hardly literary. You have your Luke/Acts on the upper end, but contrast John's writings. The English translation may meet the KJV-lover's standard for elegant prose, but the Greek originals may or may not have been in more common parlance relative to the lingua franca of the ancient Roman world.

The modern unbeliever, if he has any spiritual concern at all, is well aware that the contemporary scene really offers him no hope. He expects the church to speak in a way that is timeless and other-worldly.

Many church-goers and occasional visitors to a church go much more by 'feel' and 'mood' than by intellectual content or apprehension. They are more likely to take seriously what is said to them if they sense that this is something more important than a casual conversation.


It would've been nice if the implication that the NIV, say, amounts to a casual conversation, was, you know, supported by some examples.

12. The Character of the Translators
The fifty men appointed to translate the King James Version were not only well-known scholars, but were also men of sound religious faith. They were strong believers in every word of the Bible being inspired by God and in all the central doctrinal truths of Scripture. They were God-fearing men whose lives testified of a saving knowledge of these truths. This same testimony cannot be made of all translators serving on modern translation teams.


Let's suppose this evidence-free claim is true. The argument is that a sinner or even a non-conservative can't get things right on textual questions. That's quite a claim to make, whether implicit or explicit. How 'bout some evidence?

13. Upholds 'Old Paths'
Using the KJV is a clear statement of where we stand and want to be as a church walking in the 'old paths' of God's Word. 'Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls' (Jer 6:16). In choosing this version we choose to stand with all that is best in the great tradition of historic Christianity.


Triumphalism here. No evidence.

The penchant for new translations was part of the program of change which has done such harm to many denominations over the past century. This change to new translations was often part of an effort to strip worship services of dignity, reverence, and beauty, in favour of the casual, the contemporary, and the convenient. It also causes a congregation to lose touch with keeping the Word in memory. Memorization of the Scriptures suffers when each generation uses a different translation.

Side note: if the author of this article finds the KJV so admirable and superior, why doesn't he write using the archaisms of the original KJV?

The blind faith of a KJV-lover is something to behold. Refusing to use his God-given critical faculties, the KJV-lover seeks a substitute spirituality and a teddy bear to snuggle with to make his assurance complete.

BTW --- I have nothing against the KJV itself, nor is the PP blog a stealth front organization funded by money laundered through Zondervan's drugs-for-arms deals and the secret Swiss bank accounts provided for the Lockman Foundation by the Illuminati who secretly run the Vatican. I merely want to point out that some KJV advocates need to start putting their money where their mouth is when they make their sweeping omnibus claims about other translations.

33 Comments:

Blogger JIBBS said...

You swore to secrecy, PP. We cannot risk allowing you to continue exposing us to those pesky KJV-only folks. Let's just leave the dirty work to our front-ops guys like James White. One more mess-up and we're gonna have to let you go.

--Agent Anton L. Lockman

Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:11:00 PM  
Blogger GeneMBridges said...

Ya forgot to mention that arguments 1,2, and 13 make a better case for the Vulgate than the KJV.

If you really want to watch KJVOnlyism in action, take a look at www.baptistboard.com in the Versions forum. It's scary.

Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:20:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Jibbs --- this won't affect my pension with Zondervan, will it?

Mr Bridges --- I'd probably blow a gasket if I went to such a forum!

Sunday, August 28, 2005 10:57:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Your fear of the truth (and your conscience afflicting you with the fact that you fear man's opinion more than God) shows in you not linking to the site where you got that post. When you fear the truth you attempt to censor it.

You also conveniently didn't mention that Dr. Joel R. Beeke is hardly a KJV-only type of the Ruckman/Riplinger school. The only type you duped fools want to deal with. You can't deal with the Burgons and Hills (and Joel Beekes).

When you know the truth and you continue to preach the devil's line you are in dangerous territory for your soul. And it doesn't matter how juvenile you are...

Monday, August 29, 2005 6:29:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Side note: if the author of this article finds the KJV so admirable and superior, why doesn't he write using the archaisms of the original KJV?

Devastating.

Monday, August 29, 2005 7:03:00 AM  
Blogger steve said...

Ah, notice that what's-his-name refers you to Dean Burgon, the Anglican prelate and high churchman or yore. See how he's trying to soften you up to cross the Tiber--just like Cardinal Newman before him! Veritably, the Church of England is a trojan horse of Popery and all things papistical!

Monday, August 29, 2005 8:51:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

c.t. --- the archaisms line was tongue-in-cheek.

As for the rest of your "You fear the truth" post, been there done that.

And about my post getting your goat, c.t., I'll have to steal a line of yours and say "If it stings, it stings." :-)

Monday, August 29, 2005 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

c.t. --- the archaisms line was tongue-in-cheek.

That makes it even more stupid.

As for the rest of your "You fear the truth" post, been there done that.

At some point maybe you'll actually confront it.

And about my post getting your goat, c.t., I'll have to steal a line of yours and say "If it stings, it stings." :-)

You were responding to my post.

Monday, August 29, 2005 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

Trojan Horse of popery! Oh man -- I have no idea how Steve stays single. Smart, funny, reformed -- he's like the Dennis Miller of internet apologetics.

I'd like ct to tell us exactly how Erasmus -- a Catholic at best and a Humanist for certain (note that he is Dave Armstrong's hero) -- was somehow exempt from Satan's clutches when he assembled the TR? Or does ct advocate that the TR of Erasmus is not the "correct" TR?

I'm dying to find out. I might unban him/her at my blog in order to find out.

Monday, August 29, 2005 1:11:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Monday, August 29, 2005 2:10:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Frank --- given Steve's latest admission to being a mere AI construct from some DARPA project of yore, I don't think he's into human females. On the other hand, he probably wouldn't mind merging files and processes with a nice female AI construct. But at the same time Steve has some baggage --- the last female AI construct I set him up with corrupted his registry and .cab files.

Monday, August 29, 2005 2:13:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

The truth I have confronted, my dear c.t., is that the link you gave for the KJV-is-better position contained a bunch of bad arguments with one good point thrown in just to confuse me. :-P

I don't remember invoking either Ruckman or Riplinger, either. I merely commented on the link you provided. You said that the man who wrote that link "has seen the light." Presumably, you agree with his reasonings too [?].

Finally, to state it once again, not one doctrine is affected by whether I use an eclectic text versus the TR. I don't, say, need the Johannine Comma to support the Trinitarian basics found elsewhere in scripture. But you've heard this already.

Monday, August 29, 2005 2:15:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

"The man who edited the text was a humanist named Erasmus."

The first thing to note about this charge is that today, a humanist is a God-rejecting hippie that worships humanity. In Erasmus' day, a humanist was one who didn't want to burn you at the stake if you disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church's dogma. Dr. Wallace here hides the truth in a lie and attempts to get you to lump Erasmus into the same heap of detritus that believers put Darwinism into. It's ironic that Wallace later complains of the KJV's antiquated words that can confuse the reader who is applying modern definitions to them -- here Wallace intentionally confuses the issue the same way. The bottom line is that Erasmus was a humanist when being a humanist meant something altogether different than what it means today. Unlike the other "religious leaders" of his time, Erasmus preferred to study rather than to kiss the Pope's ring or roast people at the stake. It's also odd that Wallace seems to be arguing against Erasmus from an entirely different angle than other scholars have -- the charge used to be that Erasmis was a bootlicking papist. I suppose since that argument was lost long ago, Wallace figured he'd try the other extreme for a label.

[From here.]

Also read this:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-wallace.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/erasmus.html

Monday, August 29, 2005 2:33:00 PM  
Blogger JIBBS said...

Trinity?? Deity of Christ? Who cares?? Were talkin' bout the Word of God, son. The AV 1611. Don't bother us with red herrings about your counterfeit Bible.

Monday, August 29, 2005 2:35:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Finally, to state it once again, not one doctrine is affected by whether I use an eclectic text versus the TR.

Keep saying it, Dorothy. And that wizard isn't a lie either...

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

Monday, August 29, 2005 2:36:00 PM  
Blogger GeneMBridges said...

When you know the truth and you continue to preach the devil's line you are in dangerous territory for your soul.

Where does the Bible say, "read the KJV only and thou shalt be saved?"

Monday, August 29, 2005 5:52:00 PM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

You still haven't answered the question of Erasmus' Catholicism/Humanism c.t. You have sneered at it.

Renaissance Humanism offered the necessary intellectual and philological tools for the first dispassionate analysis of texts. An early triumph of textual criticism by Lorenzo Valla revealed the Donation of Constantine to be an early medieval forgery produced in the Curia. This textual criticism began to create real political controversy when Erasmus began to apply it to biblical texts, in his Novum Instrumentum, aka the TR.

Erasmus did not give two ducats for eccesiastical traditions: he was trying to reconstruct the source text from the documents available to him. In that, the TR was provisonal in the sense that Erasmus believed it represented the best eclectic text and ought not to have been seen as the best traditional text.

Before his untimely death this year, I had the opportunity to discuss this with Theodore Letis, and he also ignored the fact that Erasmus was not working from a confessional standpoint but from a "scientific" or "rationalistic" standpoint in attempting to compile this original language text.

It's a blind spot in the TR argument. The other blind spot is which TR is the actual TR. Why did Erasmus continue to revise this work -- given that the first edition had many printers' errors and required some attention -- after the second edition? How do we discern what is actually the TR? You don't answer that question very well, either.

Monday, August 29, 2005 8:41:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Where does the Bible say, "read the KJV only and thou shalt be saved?"

I don't speak of salvation when I speak of the manuscript issues and translations of the Word of God. You can't do anything to save yourself.

This is about the progressive defiling of the Word of God by the devil started in the Garden. A regenerate Christian has a deep valuation for the Word of God and can discern when the Word of God is being defiled, and defends the Word of God against those - conscious defilers and their duped followers - that carry it out.

This is a manuscript issue. If you have a problem with the English of the KJV at least read the NKJV.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:10:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

You still haven't answered the question of Erasmus' Catholicism/Humanism c.t. You have sneered at it [&c.]

Neither was Augustine a Calvinist. Great point. (Another devastaing, knock-down riposte from the Alexandrian camp.)

Basically, centuriOn, I don't care about any man involved in the preservation of God's Word. The Holy Spirit controlled that, and the very fact that God's Word is still preserved for us (those of us who care about such things) is due to the influence of the Holy Spirit Himself.

You want to attack a man. I attack your filthy, satanic, defiled manuscripts. I have the Holy Spirit on my side. You have men on your side.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:17:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

For doctrine changed by the defiled, excised satanic Alexandrian manuscripts and the modern versions based on them read this:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

You still haven't answered the question of Erasmus' Catholicism/Humanism c.t. You have sneered at it [&c.]

Neither was Augustine a Calvinist. Great point. (Another devastaing, knock-down riposte from the Alexandrian camp.)

Basically, centuriOn, I don't care about any man involved in the preservation of God's Word.


c.t.,

You still have not answered the question that centuri0n posted and I think that your own standard is being crushed under the weight of your own assertions.

If Erasmus, a man, continually edited his text, he had the Spirit on his side. So, even though the Comma Johannine did not make it in until the third edition the Spirit is on his side, and he is not subject to being a man. c.t.--three editions with additions. By your own standard, it is of the devil, is it not?

And, since you seemingly do not have a problem with corrections made from the point of view of better knowledge, then by your argument regarding not caring about the men who were involved in the preservation of God's word, then we can also rest assured, knowing that such was the case with the NASB and NET Bible.

centuri0n's question needs to be answered by you:

Why did Erasmus continue to revise this work -- given that the first edition had many printers' errors and required some attention -- after the second edition?

Perhaps another way to phrase it to make it even more difficult for you, which of Erasmus' editions was the word of God for you?

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:27:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Mike, better manuscripts based on 'better knowledge'? Let me see, filthy devil-defiled manuscripts found in a trash can and a garbage dump - just happening to be found in the era of the atheist 'higher critics' - announce to the world that the Holy Spirit had not presevered the Word of God and that the Reformers and the Puritans didn't have the Word of God, until these heroic atheist, devil-worshiping 'higher critics' came in to save the day with the 'new', 'better' manuscripts?

The only way you can buy that is if you are deeply duped by the devil. Wake up. (Or don't, whatever, because you know what? the real Word of God will never be erased from the face of Earth. God is in control. The devil can only fool you and others like you. God's elect know the truth. We, though, won't stop sounding the alarm. God has more elect that need to hear and read the truth...

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:34:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Perhaps another way to phrase it to make it even more difficult for you, which of Erasmus' editions was the word of God for you?

No amount of editing of corrupt manuscripts will make corrupt manuscripts 'better'. Erasmus wasn't working with corrupt manuscripts. This is a manuscript issue. (I realize you are deep in vain allegiance to man on this issue and it effects your ability to think, but just concentrate on this point: this is an issue of different manuscripts, not different editions of the non-corrupt manuscripts.)

The 'problem' you are so desperate to ascript to my side doesn't exist. I believe in the role of the Holy Spirit Himself in preseving God's Word. You believe in the abilities and decisions of filthy, vain, unregenerate men to preserve the Word of God.

I have the Holy Spirit on my side. You have men on your side.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:42:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Here's your problem, folks:

You argue like Roman Catholics (and like Marxists and Darwinists) on this issue. You do this because you are 'cradle NIVers' (or NLTers or NASBers or whatever). You were ignorant that God's Word existed in true form (i.e. NOT in the Alexandrian manuscripts) from birth, so now when you are enlightened on the matter your vain, duped allegiance to 'what you know' kicks in.

Recognize your ignorance, overcome it, and move on. (Or don't. God's elect can discern God's Word. And when your 'higher critics' excise precious truths from God's Word we kind of don't take kindly to that. That's obviously difficult for you to understand, but maybe someday you will understand.)

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:47:00 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

Mike, better manuscripts based on 'better knowledge'? Let me see, filthy devil-defiled manuscripts found in a trash can and a garbage dump...

c.t., your inability to follow an argument is dizzying.

Erasmus did make corrections on his text. Do you agree with that or not? If you agree that it is a matter of historical record then I must ask, was he proceeding from better knowledge or not?

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:37:00 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:38:00 AM  
Blogger steve said...

Regarding the state of my libido, as an adaptive AI program I 've been contemplating a career move to become a suicide virus in order to secure my 72 virtual virgins in cybernetic paradise.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:45:00 AM  
Blogger GeneMBridges said...

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

Is this really the best you can do? The logic of that page is astounding. If it was true, it would mean that doctrine is formulated upon the frequency of a command in the Bible, not whether or not something is said in the text.

A couple examples:
1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Aside from the textual issue, notice that the argument isn't "it should be kept in because the best mss evidence favors it." The argument is "It should be kept in because without it somebody might possibly think that Mary was a perpetual virgin." Well, since RCC apologists don't appeal to Mat. 1:25 to support that heresy, we don't have to worry with that do we, and even if we did that would be an argument from silence, wouldn't it? So, we're left with an argument that assumes that the readers of the Bible are a bunch of unthinking, illiterate cows that need to be spoon-fed and can't think through the text and do basic exegesis. This, my dear, c.t. truly is "arguing like a Roman Catholic" and it is not the MV's that do it.

2) Matt 15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.

So, the argument here is that it should be left in because it is in Isaiah 29:13. Fair enough. Then why doesn't the critic here say that Matt. 4:4 should quote Deuteronomy 8:3 directly and to the fullest extent? The issue, again, is not what Isaiah's content was, but what the NT mss evidence points toward. Again, this is RCC argumentation to the extreme:

a. It reads its own standards from another standard, the KJB into the text and says what should or should not be included is driven by the text, and then...

b. Turns around and tries to establish doctrines based on the text, but it has used its doctrines to define and interpret the text. This, c.t. is RCC argumentation because it is a de facto exercise of Sola Ecclesia to define the text, not Sola Scriptura.

3) Matt. 8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.


And who reading the text, can't figure out that the demons are speaking to Jesus and not, say, Peter? In order for Christology to be affected, at a minimum that would have to be the case. If a person can't figure that out from the text, then I suggest they need to take a remedial reading class. Moreover, we do not derive our doctrine of the incarnation from the use of Jesus as a proper name to refer to "humanity" and the titles referring to His deity to affirm his "deity." That doctrine is driven by much, much more. If you actually believe that Christology is affected by not using a proper name for Jesus in this text, you are only displaying your ignorance of how theology is done.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

c.t. --- for the record, contra your claim about being a cradle NIVer, I grew up a Baptist with the KJV. Still have one.

Steve H. --- touche!

And, just to be sure for the Official PP 2005 Media Guide, I have no problems with the KJV, and I don't want to denigrate it. But the KJV triumphalism out there is rather irksome.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Maybe you could format the above so centuriOn's words and mine are not in the same-looking italics... Or, perhaps you just wanted to sow confusion anyway...

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:40:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Actually, if fellow devils here want to check out c.t.'s comments at his blog, they can go there, I deleted the post because it was poorly formatted.

I note that there c.t. sure likes throwing the term "devil" around.

Meanwhile, I'll devilistically devilize my devilacious and bedevilled mss as the devil proceeds with his devilish behavior, devilling and redevilling all.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:15:00 PM  
Blogger CrimsonCatholic said...

HAHAHA! Our sinister Romish plot to deprive people of the Word of God and replace it with garbage Bibles is working! MUUUUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

c.t. cannot save you poor liberally-deluded fools now!

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:18:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Aha! Crimson Catholic has become so brazen as to admit that the Satanicus Vaticanus ms foisted upon us by the Great Papal Antichrist is a product of Satan!

Hey, where are all of those references to the deity of Christ in my non-KJV Bible? What happened to John 1:1, 1:18, 8:58, 20:28?!?!
I guess Jesus isn't God after all...

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home