[TruthTalk] Perverting the words of the living God

[Judy Taylor]

In my library I have many different translations Bill and I can find the gospel in all of them. However, when I want to dig a little deeper I always go to the KJV which IMO is better than anything that has come along since.. As for fighting and dividing, I'm not into that either.  We are all at different places in our pilgrimage and if we really love the Lord from our heart and feed upon His Word those who are like minded will want to walk with us; in fact this is the only way true fellowship happens ie: "when we walk in the light as HE is in the light".  Jesus is the one building HIS Church and it's future is not up to any man - translater, cult leader, whatever....   judyt   From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy, I have nothing against the KJV. I prefer the NKJV for the simple reason that it is easier to teach from -- I'm talking about teaching people who were not reared in KJ language. During the time I was doing my Greek studies, my professors were from Westminster Theological Seminary. There isn't a more conservative seminary in the country. They had us translating from the UBS, TR, and Nestle/Aland texts. The purpose of this multi-texting approach was to not only familiarize us with the variants within the texts, but across the texts as well. I am aware of the bickering that goes on between the different "schools" of thought. I don't even disagree with you concerning the footnoting. But the texts themselves are remarkably similar, considering the 1700-2000 years of copying and passing forward. It just seems to me that instead of marveling at our God for preserving the text, we Christians use this as just one more way to fight with each other and divide. I am not so sure that is the best of our options. Bill    From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy, There are dozens of NT manuscripts, thousands of fragments, and thousands and thousands of referents from antiquity. From time to time new discoveries are made, some of which are older than previous manuscript evidence. If the new discovery checks out, how is that a bad thing?   jt: Well I'm reading that they are not a sure thing. Many errors and ommissions and the reason they were stored away was probably because they weren't the best manuscripts and so didn't get worn out. One was missing whole books and all of Paul's epistles.   If it doesn't check out, then it is catalogued and "marginalized." Most variants have to do with the spelling of pronouns eautou (of himself) instead of autou (of him), for instance, something like that, not enough to affect doctrine but noteworthy nonetheless. Don't you want at least someone to be informed in stuff like this, even if you yourself are not? Bill   IMO the new translations have caused a lot of confusion even though I have many of them myself. I don't use them as much as the KJV which is hard to beat. Some of the ommissions in the newer versions are quite serious.  These translators remove the text and replace it with footnotes etc. and in years to come the footnotes will probably be thought unnecessary and we will lose all the way around.   From: Judy Taylor I plan to Bill; you talk like these men are reworking a science manual rather than the Words of the Living God.   [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Keep on reading, Judy. ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor Now Bill, got to tell it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good about all that?  As the old saying goes, no smoke without fire...jt   [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; you can make anything sound seedy. Bill   From: Judy Taylor Please do, I will be looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German theologians other than things began to change for the worse when their textual criticism began to permeate the Seminaries in this country. I had heard of Westcott & Hort but not this Nestle/Aland pair.  jt     From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have a lot of problems with the NA text. When they finally get it right I will give you a critique. Right now we are at revision 26 - revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott & Hort text - Nest/Aland any edition     [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin.   A true scholar is one who can separate his personal views from the task he is qualified to perform.  The guy who cannot do that is just a well  educated sectarian.  All you have proven is the former.   So you don't agree with Aland in theory.  That does not change the fact that he and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and the others).   Do you have some textual criticism.  I was quoting the text with no reference to Aland's theology. Aren't you the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version?   John