Home » Posts tagged 'Scripture' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Scripture
Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?
In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:
[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.
I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.
I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).
However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:
Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)
While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate. The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference. I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement. (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)
I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information. God is a God of truth. Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.
The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.
–TDR
KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
Sing John 3:16 in Koine / New Testament Greek: Ιωαννην 3:16!
Would you like to learn how to sing John 3:16 in Greek? You can sing these words in the very speech in which the Lord Jesus Christ originally spoke this blessed promise to Nicodemus!
You can learn to sing the infallible words of John 3:16, the most famous verse of the Bible in the video below from Rumble, or watch it on YouTube, or see it at Faithsaves.net.
John 3:16 Song: Koine Greek New Testament Language
Ιωαννην τρεις:εκκαιδεκα ωδή εν γλώσση Ελληνικη
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on Rumble
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on YouTube
–TDR
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Three)
Statements for Consideration
Consider these three statements:
The King James Version is divinely inspired.
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
Do all three have the same meaning? Are all three true? If not all three are true, then is any one of them?
I will answer these questions. To start, let’s read the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16 again: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The King James Version translators (KJVT) translated the three Greek words: pasa graphe theopneustos. We have only this statement on inspiration, because it’s the only time theopneustos (“God breathed”) is found in the New Testament. Other passages elaborate or apply.
The Considerations from Scripture
God Breathed Out
2 Timothy 3:16 says God breathed out “scripture.” Inspiration applies in a technical and specific sense to these sacred writings that come from God. God inspired the product produced, not the men. Yes, 2 Peter 1:21 says “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” That doesn’t contradict the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16. It elaborates. Inspiration, however, applies to sacred scripture alone according to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Inspiration occurred when God breathed sacred scripture (graphe). Again, depending on the context, graphe (scripture) refers to inspired writing. It does in 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Exclusion of Two Statements Above
God breathed out all sacred scripture. The KJVT, and I agree, took pasa graphe theopneustos as ‘given by inspiration of God.’ When given, the sacred scriptures were either Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That excludes the KJV from scripture given by inspiration of God. Therefore, that excludes two of the above statements:
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
I’m saying these two statements are false ones. They are saying, I believe, the same thing, meaning “God inspired” and “God gave by inspiration” are the same [An early comment by Jon Gleason in the comment section explain the London Baptist Confession position of “immediate inspiration”].
To come clean at this moment, until now I never took it upon myself to come to sufficient, completed thinking on the exact subject of these posts. I’m not done considering it, but I have arrived at sufficient enough thought to write this post (the third in a series so far). A comment I wrote last week, I edited because it disagreed with what I am writing here.
God Immediately Inspired Some Translation
“Scripture Saith”
As of this moment, I believe God inspired some translation. Which translation did God inspire? He inspired at least these translations:
John 19:37, “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”
Romans 9:17, “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
Romans 10:11, “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
1 Timothy 5:18, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”
James 4:5, “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”
God inspired all of these translations. . . . in their original Greek. He gave these by inspiration. In almost all of these, you are reading translations of translations, English translations of Greek translations from the Hebrew text. I use these specific verses because they say, “scripture saith.” If sacred scriptures say it, it means God said it.
“Have Ye Not Read Scripture?”
Jesus also used the language, “have ye not read this scripture”:
Mark 12:10-11, “And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?”
He translated a copy of the Old Testament Psalm 118:22-23. He again calls a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, “scripture.” Jesus and the Apostles also did more than just translate. In anticipation of this question, I say that Jesus targummed. Even the dictionary definition of targum says:
an ancient paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, of a type made from about the 1st century AD when Hebrew was declining as a spoken language
God inspired everything in the New Testament, including Jesus’ interpolations inserted into a translation of an Old Testament text.
“Spoken By the Prophet”
Other examples apply. The New Testament often says the two words, “spoken by,” referring to translated Old Testament scripture:
Matthew 2:17-18, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
Matthew 27:35, “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”
Acts 2:16-21, “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: . . . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Equating a Translation of a Copy with a Copy
Above are three of at least twenty “spoken by” passages in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 5:18 above gives unique information. Paul translates to Timothy an Old Testament text (Deuteronomy 25:4) and quotes a New Testament one (Luke 10:7), and he calls them both, “scripture.” He equates what we could call a translation of a copy of the Old Testament with a copy of the New Testament by calling them both, “scripture.”
Unlike what B. B. Warfield later asserted in his book on inspiration, copies are sacred scripture and accurate translations of copies are “scripture.” I contend, based upon 2 Timothy 3:16, that upon the completion of the canon, God did no more breathing out of translations. However, I also contend that accurate copies and accurate translations of those copies are in fact “scripture.” I also contend that these accurate copies and accurate translations are inspired. What God inspired, breathed out, remains inspired and breathed out. That occurs also with a translation in light of further New Testament elaboration.
The King James Version Is Divinely Inspired
Because of what I explain above, I believe one of the three statements, “The King James Version is divinely inspired.” I say that because it remains inspired. Insofar that the King James Version is an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text, it is inspired by God. This is how anyone can say about the King James Version, it is the inspired Word of God.
I might disappoint some of you with the following. The King James Version is not the only inspired translation. Any accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy is also inspired. When I say translation, I also mean translation into any language, not just English. That also means that if I sit down and do an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy, that too is inspired. If it is what God said, even in a translation, then it is also scripture.
No one translates today by inspiration of God. God by providence enables translation. He created language for translation. Verses above say a translation is scripture, so a translation of scripture can be scripture. An accurate translation of scripture is scripture. As scripture it remains inspired.
James White-Thomas Ross Debate Review 6: LXX & Latin Vulgate
It was a blessing to debate James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text. The debate when well. I have been continuing to add additional debate review videos. Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been completely against their own translation and in favor of modern versions based on the minority Greek text. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #6, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and what it claims about the LXX and the Latin Vulgate. What the KJV translators say is exactly what I argued for in the debate with Dr. White, and exactly the opposite of what James White argued. His claim about the KJV translators is invalid, and painfully so.
You can watch debate review video #6 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Creationism & KJV: James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 5
Should creationists, advocates of young-earth creationism, use the King James Version? Dr. Henry Morris certainly thought so. When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been “completely” on his side in our debate, standing for modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and opposing the Received Text and their own translation. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #5, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader,” where evidence is provided that the KJV translators were young earth creationists–something that a very high percentage of modern Bible version translators are not, and something that positively impacts the translation of the King James Bible.
You can watch debate review video #5 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Ruth 3:15: “he” or “she” went into the city? 1611 & 1769 KJV
Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
James White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)
When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today. I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate. In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them. This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.
The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.
You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Recent Comments