Single Status Update
I just have a brief question, just received my Associate of Arts in Christian Ministry from Maranatha Baptist University this May. What are some positions members here hold on the KJV and the issue of separation. I remember in my Greek classes, we used the Nestle-Aland version, and I have had some give me grief over having such a version of the Greek New Testament, yet, nobody from the Sword of the Lord influence has ever really sat with me and explained why the KJV is the only legitimate translation to use and we are to separate and have no fellowship with those who do not use it, almost like those who don't use it are heretics and aren't as good Baptists?
Where does that come from? Can anyone recommend good literature on this issue? One of our last assignments was to watch the debate between Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary and Dr. Bart Erhman of UNC-Chapel Hill (cannot believe I thought of getting my bachelor's in pre-law from this school. Lol.). Any counsel, knowledge, wisdom given is greatly appreciated.
I'm sure you have been taught that the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland Greek text are not from just one Greek Bible manuscript but rather composed of many different ones and then compared with each other in order to come up with one Greek text (along with minor variations and notes sometimes placed in the margins).
The problem with N-A is in it's composition Philosophy. This philosophy believes older, shorter, readings are better regardless of the origin of the script. It also teaches that what has been historically handed down to us has been manipulated and changed and added to from its original form. As a result their composition is ever changing to fit with "new manuscript discoveries" and the latest "modern research practices". It also ignores older Latin, and other languages script when considering how authoritative a Greek reading is. Additionally N-A holds several corrupt text in high regard such as the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrea manuscripts. Non of these have ever been historically used yet for the N-A they are considered the "best" manuscripts. All modern bibles, regardless quality use the N-A in translation.
The TR on the other hand is pretty much the opposite in collection philosophy and has been the standar for all English bibles up to the King James. It also derives its collection philosophy from scripture rather then "modern research practices". It believes what has been handed down by and used faithfully in the church community is better. (2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.) It also believes that origins of the manuscript matters, that text cannot contradict itself and has to be verifiable across many scripts to be considered authoritative. It also considers all manuscript languages to determine the correct Greek text.
The KJV translators also used the same philosophy in considering the word that would go into their English bible. They not only checked the TR but also conferred with Latin, French, German and other English bibles. The KJV was the perfection of all the bible that came before it and today is the final English product of the TR bible translating Philosophy.
No other bible in common use today other then the KJV uses the biblical translation method. Today they all use secular research methods which tend to ignore what the Bible itself has to say about transmitting the Word of God. That is the main reason I cannot accept the N-A and the modern English bible which use it.
- Show next comments 3 more