FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-23-2001, 11:07 AM   #101
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO:

PS - CowboyX even though I enclose your comments in quote, my question is addressed to Polycarp because he has not addressed the issue of whether there is biblical support for the dogma that people who have heard Gospel but have rejected the resurrection will be condemned. Polycarp, I am not asking whether you know what is the criteria of salvation. I am asking whether the writers of the bible do and if so what is criteria.
Tjun & Cowboy X,

The fact that neither of you can produce a biblical verse demonstrating that those who’ve heard the gospel will be saved IF, AND ONLY IF, they believe in the resurrection should answer your own question. The Bible doesn’t teach such a thing. The Romans passage I mentioned earlier, along with a passage like Acts 17:16-34, seem to teach the opposite of what you claim.

The way the gospel is presented today in much of Western culture makes me doubt that people really understand the message of the gospel. In other words, I think many people are rejecting a Western, middle-class gospel that has little, if anything, to do with the message Jesus actually taught.

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
Old 12-24-2001, 01:31 AM   #102
ventin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 6
Lightbulb

Here is why i use the KJV only! by KJV only, i dont mean that it can correct original Hebrew and Greek text. Just that it is the only English version i use.


Outline of Sermon entitled The Bible Preserved From Satan’s Attack preached by Dr Dell Johnson of Pensacola Christian College on 1st & 2nd April 1996

The question that baffles Christians this day: How do I know which Bible (version) is the Word of God?

Five Point Sermon –
1) Understand the Problem
2) Understand the Discovery
3) Understand the Disaster
4) Understand the Answers
5) Understand the Arguments

I)Understand the Problem

a) Christians nowadays face the problem of which Bible version to use and whether we do have the Word of God.

b) Those who affirm that the Bible is the very Word of God :
i) Jesus Christ did not criticise the Bible. (Ps 40:7, Jn 5:39, Heb 10:7)
ii) The Apostles did not criticise the Bible (Jn 2:17, 22)
iii) The Apostle Paul did not criticise the Bible. (Rom 3:2-4, let God be true, but every man a liar)

c) Satanic Attack
-The first critic of God’s Word – The Devil (He lied about God’s word. Compare Gen 2:17 with Gen 3:4)

d) Humanistic Attack
Man’s disbelief cannot discredit the credibility of the Bible (Rom 3:2-4). Man thinks that his mind is capable of correcting God’s Word.

We’re are in for the Battle of God’s Word !!!

e) The 2 doctrinal armours that God gives to His people concerning His Word :
i) The Doctrine of Verbal Inspiration (2 Tim 3:16, God breathed [theopneustos] His word on the originals)
ii) The Doctrine of Continual Preservation (Ps 12: 6, 7 ; Ps 119:89-90, Mt 24:35, Mt 5:18)

f) After 1,700 years came the dilemma of Bible versions: Which version to choose from the 110 English versions available?

g) The underlying issue that Christians face today is not the translation itself but the SOURCE of the translation. There are some so call ‘modern Bible scholar’ who contended that there is a controversy surrounding the genuity of the Greek text used. They are more accurately known as Textual Critics because they, presupposing of having intellect greater than God, spent their time correcting and criticising God’s Word. These men have very light views on the bible doctrines of Verbal Inspiration and Preservation of the Holy Scriptures.

h) Our King James translation is based on the Byzantine Text (or the Traditional Text – Textus Receptus), a family of text that was preserved by bible-believing Christians from Antioch, Syria.

i) All other Bible versions are based on the Alexandrian Text, a family of text used by liberal Christians (or heretics) in the city of Alexandria, Egypt.

j) Principles of the textual critics in determining which is the ‘genuine’ Greek text :
i) A difficult reading is a better than an easier reading.(denies verbal inspiration)
ii) A shorter reading is better than a longer reading.(denies divine preservation)
iii) A manuscript (a hand-written document) dated earlier is better than one of a later date. (an extant copy which have a earlier date is probably a rejected and unused copy.)

II)Understand the Discovery

a) The 19th century is an age of new discoveries – Darwinism, modern science, modern psychology (eg Sigmund Freud), modern politics etc. Christianity is not exempted, especially in the field of textual criticism.

b) Christian ‘scholars’ attempted to find the oldest extant manuscripts.

Found two :
i) Codex Sinaticus (or Aleph) discovered in a waste basket in St Catherine monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai in 1844 and was dated back to AD350.
ii) Codex Vaticanus (or B), dated AD350, found in the library of Vatican City, headquarter of Roman Catholicism

c) The above 2 manuscripts are from the Alexandrian text family.


III)Understand the Disaster

a) The 2 aforementioned codices were compiled (eclectically) into a new text by Westcort & Hort with disastrous effect. The resultant Greek text is henceforth known as the Westcort-Hort Text. (also known as the Nestle-Aland Greek text, United Bible Society Greek text)

b) The 2 earliest English Bible translation based upon the Westcort-Hort text are the English Revised Version (of 1881) and the American Standard Version (1901).

c) These are followed in quick succession by umpteen numbers of other versions eg
Revised Standard Version (RSV), Philips Bible, New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Version, Good News for Modern Man, The Living Bible etc.


IV)Understand the Answer

a) In the 19th century, defender of the Byzantine or Traditional Text – Dean John William Burgon expounded the truth of the bible doctrines of Scripture inspiration and preservation and also exposing the errors of the textual critics through a series of writings embodied in his books (on Inspiration of the Word, Revision Revised, Causes of Corruption, The Traditional Text, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark etc)

b) His arguments and evidences in his books have never been answered.


V)Understand the Argument

a) Facts that favour the Traditional text’s
i) Of the 5300 extant manuscripts, 95% belongs to the Traditional Text (hence the Majority Text)
ii) Evidence shows that certain Traditional text manuscripts dates back to AD400 or even earlier. Most of them (written on parchments) are not preserved physically because of the humid climatic condition or they were worn out due to extensive usage. This is very unlike the Alexandrian text manuscripts which are well preserved and not used because they were rejected by bible-believing Christians.
iii) The Traditional text was used in Africa, Asia, Europe etc but the Alexandrian was only limited to Egypt.
iv) The Traditional Text is translated into other languages of the world, eg Asian languages, Italian, French, English, Coptic and Ethiopic etc. while the Alexandrian text was NOT translated to any language.
v) Of the 87,000 recorded sayings of the early Church Fathers, majority of it comes from the Traditional Text.
vi) The Traditional text was received by the churches for 1500 years but the Alexandrian was rejected by God’s people.
vii) All the 2000 extant church readings (lectionaries) are from the Traditional Text.


viii) Codex Sinaticus excluded 4000 words in the gospels alone, added 1000 and made changes in 1500 places. It has so many mistakes that it needed 3 editions to fix it. It added 6 new books (ref Deut 4:2)
ix) Codex Vaticanus leaves out 1000 sentences, added 500 words, has changes at 2000 places. Leaves out 5 NT books and added another 5 books.
x) The 2 Codices disagree with each other at 17000 places.

Recommended Reading by Dr Johnson : The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills


Quotations of Dean John Burgon, Defender of the Traditional Text :

On Disbelief of the Bible –
“ At the root of the whole mischief of these last days lies the disbelief in the Bible as the Word of God. This is the fundamental error.”

On Inspiration of the Bible –
“The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne! Every book of it,--every chapter of it,--every verse of it,--every word of it,--every syllable of it,--(where are we to stop?),--every letter of it,--is the direct utterance of the most High! . . . The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it, more, some part of it, less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne; absolute,--faultless,--unerring,--supreme!”

On Preservation of the Bible –
“Accordingly, the earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished in giving to the church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which, authorised teaching was enshrined in written form...There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent (Holy Spirit), who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, staightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate.”

On Vindication of the Bible –
Related by his student Herman Hoskier :
“Three and a half years ago (year 1886) I was in Dean Burgon’s study at Chichester. It was midnight, dark and cold without; he had just extinguished the lights, and it was dark and getting cold within. We mounted the stairs to retire to rest, and his last words of the night have often rung in my ears since: ‘As surely as it is dark now, and as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, so surely will the traditional text be vindicated and the views I have striven to express be accepted. I may not live to see it. Mostly likely I shall not. But it will come.’”
ventin is offline  
Old 12-24-2001, 08:41 PM   #103
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Spam-a-lama-ding-dong. (FYI the KJV is based on late and relatively unreliable Byzantine manuscripts).
CX is offline  
Old 12-24-2001, 08:48 PM   #104
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp:
<strong>[b]

Tjun & Cowboy X,

The fact that neither of you can produce a biblical verse demonstrating that those who’ve heard the gospel will be saved IF, AND ONLY IF, they believe in the resurrection should answer your own question. The Bible doesn’t teach such a thing. The Romans passage I mentioned earlier, along with a passage like Acts 17:16-34, seem to teach the opposite of what you claim.

The way the gospel is presented today in much of Western culture makes me doubt that people really understand the message of the gospel. In other words, I think many people are rejecting a Western, middle-class gospel that has little, if anything, to do with the message Jesus actually taught.

Peace,

Polycarp</strong>

Well in fairness nobody asked me for a bibilical reference, did they? If so I apologize. But the fact is you might be misinterpreting the strength of what I'm saying here. I think the case definitely can be made that belief in the resurrection is required according to orthodox belief. The early Church Fathers certainly thought so or they wouldn't have so brutally repressed ebionism. Though perhaps I am overstating. The biggest problem with theological debate is that religious texts are open to a fairly wide interpretation. I could probably, if pressed, make the case the Jesus never made messianic claims and was not part of a trinity. Ultimately I'm not really interested in presenting a formal defense of the thesis that Pauline Xianity requires belief in the resurrection. I am curious though what you think Paul means when he says, "...for if Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain." I'm also interested in what your particular interpretation of the gospel is since you imply that you reject the traditional western interpretation.
CX is offline  
Old 12-24-2001, 11:21 PM   #105
ventin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 6
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by CowboyX:
<strong>Spam-a-lama-ding-dong. (FYI the KJV is based on late and relatively unreliable Byzantine manuscripts).</strong>
Why late? u got 2 books. 1 is kept away in a "safe" place, seldom or even never touch. The other is heavily used, transfering hands even. which will wear out first? in order to ensure to survivality of the original, what would u do?

Why more unreliable than the Alexandria manuscripts? did u read my post? or u have a better argument than presented?
i would like to hear it
ventin is offline  
Old 12-25-2001, 04:41 AM   #106
kctan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Heaven, just assasinated god
Posts: 578
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ventin:
<strong>

Why late? u got 2 books. 1 is kept away in a "safe" place, seldom or even never touch. The other is heavily used, transfering hands even. which will wear out first? in order to ensure to survivality of the original, what would u do?
</strong>
Never heard of copying ?
kctan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.