Will's Transition from KJVO to KJVP
Those of you who follow the blogs “Fundamentally Changed” and “Reforming Baptist” already know me. I grew up at the famous North Valley Baptist Church in Santa Clara, CA and graduated from the college there – Golden State Baptist College. All of my life, I have been immersed in Independent Baptist Fundamentalism and to this day, I am still a part of the movement pastoring an IFB church. However, during my early years having recently graduated from Bible college, my conviction of holding to the King James Version of the Bible as the only inspired Word of God in English was challenged as I was exposed to other Christians on the internet. The internet was somewhat of a new phenomenon back in 1995-1999 when I was in college. Having only been taught one view, and given facts filtered through the various preachers and teachers who taught on the subject, I only knew what I was taught to believe and nothing more. I had all the KJVO books by Riplinger, Waite, Grady, Lacy, Sorenson, Carter, et al. When challenged, all I knew was that there were less words in the NIV and NASB than in the KJV, so someone must have been cutting and shredding God’s Word like King Jehoiakim did to Jeremiah’s letter!
To stay on the safe side, I just buried my head in the sand and safely went on my way. Then when I was an assistant pastor at the church where I am now the pastor, the previous pastor had been challenged about his KJV Onlyism by one of our members. He gave the pastor a set of CD’s by Dr. Mark Minnick -pastor of MCBC in Greenville SC and a professor at BJU- entitled: “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man“. As one of my assignments, the pastor asked me to listen to the set and then let him know what it was all about since he didn’t have time to listen to it. I did, and it changed my outlook forever. I was finally given the facts about the other manuscripts and translations that I had never been told in college.
Finally, after researching, reading, discussions with other KJVO and non-KJVO believers, I have come to a position of KJV Preferred. I still read from, study from and preach from the KJV in my ministry (although I do use other translations in my study as well). It all came together for me when I finally understood what the doctrine of inspiration was really all about. I won’t talk about it in this post, but I’ll post about it soon.
Anyway, my personal conclusion is that I prefer the text that underlies the KJV and the NKJV simply because it was what the church had been using for so many years, and I don’t really think that God has hidden the best manuscripts for thousands of years from His people. But to say THAT is much different than calling the older manuscripts “diabolical, corrupted, heretical or apostate”. To those who are strictly KJVO, reading what I am saying in this post sounds to you like I have jumped ship from being a Christian altogether. I understand your sentiment, I used to judge people the same way. Hopefully after the next few posts that I will write here (as well as on the Fundamentally Changed blog), you’ll understand where I’m coming from and maybe you’ll consider going a little deeper in your study of the matter.
Thanks to Bob and Jason for allowing me to contribute to this site. I look forward to some great discussions.
Will,
It takes much grace and humility to write as you did.
Thank you for sharing your story with us.
Great story Will. Even though we differ on the preferred text and Bible, we can respect each other in Christ. I appreciate your honesty and the charity with which you now view those who don’t prefer the KJV. It is a wonderful Bible and I’m thankful for it.
I’m glad you’re helping us out here at the KJV Only debate blog.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Bob,
I, too, prefer the KJV. It’s what I’m most comfortable with, and my people are most comfortable with it, too.
I love the tone.
I must say that I next like the NASB and ESV. They still have a more majestic “feel” to them than other translations.
Thankfully, the KJV is not all that we have. Not everyone can “get” it. That’s especially true if they do not have the blessing of expository preaching in their congregation.
I am sure that the debate should begin with two terms found in the scriptures… “inspiration” and “preservation”. The Bible clearly teaches that God has inspired, and preserved His word. The question should be… “what does the Bible mean by inspiration, and preservation?”. Is there a literally perfect word for word Bible available to us today? Many of the KJV only crowd believe emphatically that the KJV is truly the perfect Bible in the english language. Whether God inspired the KJV, or whether He preserved it to be absolutely perfect is in one sense a moot point. From either position, there are many who hold up the KJV in their hands and say “this is exactly the word of God!” There are also many who hold to the “recieved text” as the absolutly perfect word of God, declaring that the KJV is the best english translation, because it was translated out of the recieved text. They emphatically ‘do not’ believe that the KJV is a perfect word for word Bible. There are also others who believe that only the original writings were actually perfect, and that the term preservation ‘does not’ imply word for word perfection. These seem to be the three main positions that are held by Godly men. There are also many, many folks who ‘do not’ believe that even the original writings were perfect… of course, that position is not even worthy of consideration! A quick superficial survey of the wescot-hort text reveals obvious corruptions in the text itself… and a critical approach toward the word of God itself. It is easy to come to the conclusion that the “recieved text” is at the very least, a far superior text. Is it ‘inspired’ or ‘preserved’? Further yet, do inspiration and preservation imply perfection? Again, a quick superficial survey of the modern english translations reveal obvious corruptions in the versions themselves… and of course they were translated primarily, if not exclusively, from the wescot-hort text. It is easy to come to the conclusion that the KJV is far superior to all of the other english translations. The question remains… is it ‘inspired’ or ‘preserved’? Do inspiration or preservation imply perfection? So there it is. Is the recieved text a perfect text? Is the KJV a perfect Bible? These are two very excellent questions… and not necessarily easy to answer. But here is a starting point. Our great and wonderful God is fully capable of providing us with a perfect Bible. If we cannot agree on that point, the subject needs to change, immediately! So now we need only ask, did He? If He did, it is clearly either the recieved text, or the KJV, or both. My argument may seem overly simple, but it really is a short outline of the issue, designed to raise the right questions, and provide a starting point for further investigation. When you open up and begin to read the KJV, are you reading the “words” of God? Jesus did say that not one jot or tittle would pass away, until all be fulfilled. The book of Psalms does say that the “words” of God are pure words. Personally I have not come to a conclusion yet, as to whether or not the KJV or the recieved text are word perfect, but I am definately leaning toward the “word perfect” position on the KJV. It was easy for me to reject the wescot-hort text, as well as the modern english versions. I don’t know why people get stuck there. When I hold up Gods’ obviously, far superior KJV, what is in my hand? The very words of God… the very thoughts of God… or something in-between? I know that it is His preserved word, but is it perfect? Don’t be surprised if you find that it is. God is awesome, and holy, and wonderful, and far beyond what we can even imagine. And I find that the King James Bible is the same. I am in awe of it! As a matter of fact I find it to be far superior to other english translations, so much so as to make the comparison absurd. Don’t reject it out of hand. Use it for a while… and pray over it. You may find it to be singularly worthy of Him. You may behold things within its’ pages infinately wonderful, and exciting in a way that you have not yet experienced. Oh yes, I do believe that God will work in us and grow us through the other versions, because He is a great, loving Father to His children. But hey, why not give it a try!
Don –
Let me start with one question I always have trouble getting an answer to…
I don’t see how that is so clear. I would think if he were going to pick a non-original language text to be the perfect text he would choose the most influential, the Vulgate. The KJV is an important and influential bible but it pales in influence to the Vulgate.
And I have this problem with most of your argument. It doesn’t seem clear to me the KJV is superior to the other English versions, the received text superior to the other texts…. Your argument to me sounds like it essentially boils down to, “I like it therefore it is the perfect word of God”. If you liked the Clear Word instead would that be a perfect bible?
CD,
Good points.
Thanks
Will,
I am encouraged to see that you do not believe that the KJV Alone = God’s Word Alone.
I want to ask you about a statement you made:
“I don’t really think that God has hidden the best manuscripts for thousands of years from His people.”
Could you clarify that statement?
Are you admitting that the Alexandrian text is the best?
Thank you,
Alan
Hi Alan, thanks for the comment.
to answer your question, what I meant by that statement is this:
I don’t think that the Alexandrian MSS are the best or closest to the originals just because they are older. Their antiquity holds some weight in their argument, but it doesn’t automatically prove they are closer to the Originals. I personally don’t think that God kept back from the church, what modern scholarship considers the best MSS for the greater part of church history only to be recovered by Tischendorf in the 1800′s. I know all the arguments as to why they are considered superior (scribal insertions of parallel passages etc..) but they are really just theories. At the same time, I don’t hold that the Alexandrian MSS are corrupt, evil and a counterfiet Bible produced by Satan either. That’s nonsense when the Majority MSS and the Alexandrians are compared to eachother..they are so closely identical.
I don’t mind if people disagree with me, but I think that God preserved his Word and passed it down to His church and that nothing new needed to be added or taken away by newly discovered MSS. I favor the Majority Byzantine texts and would love to see a formal equivelant English translation based on the Majority text.
I hope that clarifies it. Thanks.
Will,
Thanks for your response. Here are a few things to consider:
I disagree with you on the weight of antiquity. This fact is more than just “some weight.” If they were just from a single locale, it would be some weight. However, the combination of antiquity and geographical distribution of the Alexandrian text-type demonstrates that this text-type goes back to at least the beginning of the second century. This cannot be said of the Byzantine text-type.
Further, there is not a single Greek manuscript, papyrus, or early version for the first 300 years of church history that contains a distinct KJV (or Byzantine) reading from a manuscript that reflects a Byzantine text.
In addition, nowhere is there to be found any Byzantine texts used in the voluminous writings of any early church fathers for the first 300 years of church history. This latter fact demonstrates conclusively that the Byzantine text did not exist for the first 300 years.
You said:
“I personally don’t think that God kept back from the church, what modern scholarship considers the best MSS for the greater part of church history only to be recovered by Tischendorf in the 1800’s.”
I do not know what to make of your statement. There are a lot of built-in assumptions here.
Are you aware that the Alexandrian text-type has been the majority text for about the same length of time as the Byzantine? (If you want to make claims about the majority text.) If you lived in AD 900 an Alexandrian advocate could say this same thing to a Byzantine advocate.
With this reasoning, you are required to abandon the Comma from the KJV since it was not included in “greater part of church history.”
I have written against using the majority principle here:
https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2242
You said:
“I know all the arguments as to why they are considered superior (scribal insertions of parallel passages etc..) but they are really just theories.”
This is not an argument. It begs the question. Why is the theory, for example, of expansion tendencies not compelling? Or, why should we accept that scribes did not tend to conflate readings?
You said:
“I favor the Majority Byzantine texts and would love to see a formal equivelant English translation based on the Majority text.”
But are you consistent by rejecting the Comma and many other minority readings in the KJV? such as this one:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2056
I hope you consider these questions in your pursuit.
Thank you for your time.
Alan
Alan,
I will take what you have said into consideration and read your articles. I appreciate it. Not trying to be argumentitive, but I am not so sure of some of your assertions such as:
“Further, there is not a single Greek manuscript, papyrus, or early version for the first 300 years of church history that contains a distinct KJV (or Byzantine) reading from a manuscript that reflects a Byzantine text.”
I have read that there are. In fact, one of the earlist Alexandrian MSS had a Byzantine text type in the four gospels. (I don’t have the time to dig through all my books right now, so i’m not sure if it is Codex Alexandrinus or another one)Also, the early church father Cyprian bishop of Carthage around 249AD quoted from I John 5:7 in one of his sermons stating that “it was written” as if it was inscripturated.
The other statement that I am not sure about is:
“Are you aware that the Alexandrian text-type has been the majority text for about the same length of time as the Byzantine? (If you want to make claims about the majority text.) If you lived in AD 900 an Alexandrian advocate could say this same thing to a Byzantine advocate.”
I was under the impression that the Western church was using Latin after the 3rd Century. There would not have been any Alexandrian text type New Testaments by 900AD. If there were, where is the multitude of MSS evidence to back that up?
I will also answer some of the other questions you raised:
Q – “But are you consistent by rejecting the Comma and many other minority readings in the KJV?”
A – Because of the Cyprian quote, I am not willing to reject the Comma. As for other minority readings, it depends upon a case by case basis. The one in Revelation you quoted in your article about “kings and priests” makes more sense as “kingdoms of priests” since that idea is written that way in other scriptures and I think the Majority text holds that also.
Q – “Why is the theory, for example, of expansion tendencies not compelling? Or, why should we accept that scribes did not tend to conflate readings?”
A – It is a compelling argument, but it’s not totally provable. You weren’t there to see it happen. Also, is there anything written in history that claims that they did this? In some cases, it probably did happen. To be safe, I would rather not take away those key phrases as “not in the originals” when I really don’t know. Not to be hysterical or anything, but the warning at the end of Revelation still scares me a little. I’d rather go with the conflated reading if they are “conflated” being that they match other exact phrases in scripture.
Anyway, like I said, my position is not one I will fight with others over. Its what I’m comfortable with and I am willing to listen to others’ arguments and weigh them.
Thanks again.
Will
p.s. To give you some context of my interest in this subject, I too was once an Independent Fundamentalist KJVO advocate. I recall walking past Dr. Strouse’s office all the time growing up (I attended Maranatha and grew up in that orbit).
To explain why there are no Byzantine statements in the early church, they would say that the manuscripts “wore out”! I have responded to this inane argument here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1938
I love fundamentalists. I have a heart for them. But I hate their legalism and their Traditions.
Thank you,
Alan
Will,
The fifth century MSS Alexandrinus in the gospels has a Byz type, but this is 400 years removed.
“Also, the early church father Cyprian bishop of Carthage around 249AD quoted from I John 5:7 in one of his sermons stating that “it was written” as if it was inscripturated.”
This is not correct. KJVO (not you) continue to perpetuate this inaccuracy. See Wallace sets the facts straight in this article here:
http://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
“I was under the impression that the Western church was using Latin after the 3rd Century. There would not have been any Alexandrian text type New Testaments by 900AD. If there were, where is the multitude of MSS evidence to back that up?”
More accurately: See Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmissino , and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) page 359 for evidence that the Majority text was in a minority in the first several centuries.
The Alexandrian and Western text agrees with each other in many places against the Byzantine text. Also there are sources out there that list the MSS with their text-types. Alexandrian MSS continue to be copied past the 3rd century. It took about 400 years for the Bzy to be the majority text. But this matter of the “majority” is fallacious. It is the character of the text that matters. 1,000,000 corrupt MSS cannot be considered better than a single uncorrupted MS.
As my article argues, that principle is not valid. I would rather have one good apple than a basket full of rotten ones.
I would also direct you to Wallace’s article “Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique” in Studies & Documents: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research.
Incidentally, the Western text-type is the majority today. Latin MSS should not be excluded in the count — and they have twice as many as Greek MSS.
You said regarding theories:
“It is a compelling argument, but it’s not totally provable. You weren’t there to see it happen.”
This is a weak response. The character of Byzantine MSS is expansionist. It is not an isolated incident. A simple comparison of MSS from the 2-4th century with MSS from the 4-6th century shows this.
“To be safe, I would rather not take away those key phrases as “not in the originals” when I really don’t know. Not to be hysterical or anything, but the warning at the end of Revelation still scares me a little. I’d rather go with the conflated reading if they are “conflated” being that they match other exact phrases in scripture.”
The text also says if someone “ADDS to them.” Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
As the textual historical nature of MSS shows, scribes overall had more of a tendency to add to Scripture than delete it.
“Delete, remove, etc’ are loaded words by KJVO advocates. They want people to think that modern versions remove key words. In reality, it has been the Byz tradition that has added to God’s words.
I would just direct you to the book, The King James Only Controversy. Its new edition was recently released.
Thanks,
Alan
I cover several of Alan’s points in my “Majority Rules! — Fact or Fiction?” post. I agree with Alan mostly, but the issue isn’t easy. Especially for one raised in KJV Onlyism. I appreciate Will’s perspective even if he hasn’t come all the way around. It’s still a valuable perspective to promote given the alternatives.
Thanks for jumping on over here Alan.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
I am glad to see you guys start a website such as this. I think former KJVO advocates such as yourselves carry credibility to the KJVO issue.
I also appreciate Will’s perspective and his interaction and contribution on this blog.
Blessings,
Alan
I’d like to add a few points to this discussion if I may:
Q – “Why is the theory, for example, of expansion tendencies not compelling? Or, why should we accept that scribes did not tend to conflate readings?”
The answer is because every recent, careful and exhaustive study of scribal habits has shown that the claim that “copyists tended to add more than omit” is demonstrably false.
Over the last 50 years some dozen studies of scribal habits have shown that the actual tendency is that omission preponderates over addition between 4x and 12x as often.
You can visit our webpage on this key topic and read selections from a half-dozen recent articles on the topic here:
http://pa-john.freehostia.com/TEXT/Errors.html
There are a few more glaring errors in the discussion. I will comment on a few shortly.
peace
Nazaroo
Quote:
“ ‘Delete, remove, etc’ are loaded words by KJVO advocates. They want people to think that modern versions remove key words. In reality, it has been the Byz tradition that has added to God’s words.”
The errors and exaggerations regarding the characterization of text-types have been rampant on both sides of the issue.
ALL text-types are guilty of many accidental omissions due mainly to haplography-type errors (homoioteleuton etc.).
Rather than vague generalities, it is better to look in detail at key variants at issue:
The basic difference between the TR/maj and the WH/modern text comprises of the omission of about some 200 whole and half-verses, 98% of which are omitted by the WH/modern text.
We examined these in detail, and found almost HALF of them to be simple homoioteleuton-type accidental errors, committed by the archtype of the Alexandrian (WH)-type text.
Even if one stubbornly refuses to accept them all as properly identified and catalogued, (say for argument’s sake you rejected the i.d./classification in 50% of cases), that would leave a huge number of such boners: some 25 whole and half-verses accidentally omitted by the Alexandrians by blunder.
Given this, it is absurd to hold up the Alex.text as inherently superior to the Byzantine, and/or blame the Byzantine text everytime there is a discrepancy between the two. The Byz.text appears to be right (and not guilty of expansion/conflation) at least half the time!
I would invite readers to look carefully at each example we have tabulated here:
http://pa-john.freehostia.com/SUPLEM/UBSgaffs.html
http://pa-john.freehostia.com/SUPLEM/UBSgaffs2.html
enjoy!
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
In addition to the scientific approach mentioned by Nazaroo there is also the common sense approach.
An addition is usually a deliberate tampering of the text, against the word of God, rebellion. We know that such tampering was disciplined, even at the time of Tertullian. Only a very low view of the scribal process (e.g. that of skeptics and mythicists) would have this as a common occurance.
Also, most significantly, an addition will glare out at the scribe proof-reading, the scriptorium manager, the church in the next town, the next city, the next copyist. Such will lead directly to a “huh, what’s that .. I never read that before” moment.
Partly for this reason, those who theorize additions like to discuss margin notes that “crept into” the text, in order to lessen the deliberate tampering aspect. Yet this is very difficult, almost never demonstrable from direct evidence, and extremely unlikely to actually take over a text or language line, especially if the original “creeping” was supposed to be late.
Incidentally, some of the best summaries of the overall phenomena occur in the incredible debate over the heavenly witnesses, where the addition-omission phenomenon was given close examination.
As for scribal accidental additions, they are very unlikely and will lead to a type of textual duplication that rarely will be sensible and most always will be caught easily. Duplication of lines or letters (dittography) will be rare, in terms of creating a viable textual variant.
The minority error “infants” or “babes” in 1 Thessalonians 2:7 was considered by Metzger to be dittography. Interestingly, NA-27 and some modern versions have now incorporated this error, even though most modern versions bypass their own NA-27 dubious text.
Now, consider omissions. They are extremely easy to understand, they will be very common.
Accidental omissions, or a letter, word or line, or even conceivably a section, are trivially easy, and will not require conscious tampering, and are observed continually in the scribal process. (A section can occur e.g. when a book is abbreviated by loss.)
Even deliberate omissions are far less likely to be noted than additions, since .. no one tells you about them, they are not there.
In fact, this matches the modern version motto:
Use the modern versions .. you don’t know what you are missing !
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven, I am assuming you have done the first hand research that has led you to these conclusions (almost all of which are assumptions as to the motivations of the scribes).
I would very much like to see your sources for the existence of “scribe proof-reading” and the rarity of textual duplications, as well as the fact that margin notes creeping into the reading must be “very difficult” and “extremely unlikely.”
Hi Folks,
One irony in all this, Erik, I remember reading of your sympathies for the Majority Text and and even the Received Text as the superior text. Clearly then, if you are right .. omissions are the norm, additions would be the exceptions, and you would have your some analysis of your own to back up the view.
So if you do not like my analysis and explanation, then share your own, with or without “proof”, so we can comment.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Erik,
And I specifically told you I was taking a common-sense approach, if you want the studies in a more specific sense, (there have been some, e.g. by Royse) we should start with Nazaroo’s post.
The idea of some scribe proof-reading is quite obvious, even within corrections in the same hand in the same manuscripts. Note that this was only one component so if it did not happen in a particular manuscript case, you still have the church next door, the leaders who read, the scribes in the next town and the next copyist. A text added will glare out at everybody .. and their brother. This is too common sense simple and true for modern textcrit.
If you think there are a lot of textual duplications relevant to the NT manuscript variants, simply name them. The one case often mentioned is a single letter, and there that dittography idea is only a minor part of the discussion.
The “creeping” phenomenon was largely embellished for the Johannine Comma debates (which is a long discussion in itself) and there rarely is any hard evidence of such a phenomenon. Although it probably occurred more than textual duplications, in the sense of effect on the manuscript tradition (ie. it may effect a few manuscripts on a few variants).
Shalom,
Steven Avery
So, a common-sense approach is one in which proof is not necessary. All that is required is the application of your cultural expectations (a la proof-reading) to the ancient context. All I needed to know.
Hi Folks,
You show me “proof” of anything about scribal habits, techniques and variants and theories that are held.
Give an example of a sharing you give and its “proof” so I will know your parameters.
As I mentioned, proof-reading was one part of about a five-fold checking method of manuscripts. The fact that you are stuck in square one is quite obvious.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Actually, not at all. I have asked you a fair question, and all you have done is insist that it is ‘common-sense’ to believe what you believe. But since your common-sense requires practices that I have never seen documented or supported in my studies about textual transmission, I have to question whether your ‘common-sense’ does not ride on your own modern context and your desire for a perfectly transmitted text than it does on actual study of ancient and medieval scribal practices.
Where is you evidence for your five-fold checking method? I can find no precedence for that in my study of the transmission of manuscripts. It certainly don’t see it in the transmission of documents by the medieval scriptoriums (Christian, not Jewish) of Western Europe. You’re throwing out some pretty broad statements about scribal methodology, and I don’t have to present a competing theory in order to ask you for proof of your own.
Since we have no ancient manuscripts of significant size and most of the manuscripts we possess are medieval, I am curious as to how you have come to this conclusion about the ancient texts.
I’m sorry, Steven, but just insisting that it is ‘common-sense’ holds no water with me.
For those of you who like to throw out theories and expect everyone to accept them without question, this is called “peer-review”. I am not asking of anyone to do something I am not ready to do myself when I present a theory. All of us have presented articles with somewhat unorthodox thoughts in them and had to answer critics with evidence and properly documented sources.
Hi Folks,
Erik, you simply ignored the substantive parts of my explanation. e.g. That a text that is new and surprising will get noticed much quicker than missing text that is unspoken. This is common-sense.
Instead of working with the common-sense substance you want to take the position that the manuscript lines had no correction, proofing, checking mechanisms .. the scribe did not lookk at what he wrote .. the churches, cities, later copyists, etc. had no effect .. which is clearly absurd. And there is a limit to how much time to spend discussing an absurd position.
==========================
Now if there was no correction method, you have a grossly impure text, since even Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have 3000 significant differences in the Gospels alone. So you have to go back to the proof-text method of those two scribally-corrupt manuscripts and say “maybe I only have a couple of thousand errors”.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Erik
“peer-review”.
Please tell me precisely who was involved in the peer-review of each paper being lauded from the Bauder book, and from the various views of James White, James Price, Daniel Wallace, Doug Kutilek, etc that are oft-quoted against the KJB being the pure word of God.
Thanks.
Oh .. when you get a chance you might want to look at how “peer-review” by those with an agenda is used to silence creationary positions within the scientific establishment.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven,
Please read what I write and not what you think I am writing. I did not say anything like:
I simply want you to provide some kind of substantiation, and you’re adamantly insistence that you have no need to prove your statements. A call for peer-review is a call for an even playfield. You have answered every request for support with deflection, trying to put words in my mouth and pretending like I hold a position I have never supported.
Hi Folks,
No, Erik. I am “adamantly insistent” of nothing. I asked you to define “proof” on textual matters.
No answer.
I asked you why you do not insist on “proof” for bogus claims like the Byz one above.
No answer.
I asked why you extracted one part out of a five segments of a multi-part presentation.
No answer.
I ask you to comment on the simple logic that I gave explaining that omissions are more invisible than additions.
No answer.
To put it simply, I feel like you approach this type of discussion as a game.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven, it is clear you have no intention of answering any of my requests. You will quibble and quibble, trying to put everything back on me.
At one point, I thought we could have an intelligent conversation but it is clear that all you want to do is spout your position then whenever someone asks you to verify it, you will quibble about semantics rather than answer the question.
All I wanted was to see your sources. You are trying to make this all about my position (or what you perceive to be my position), rather than simply providing the support for your ‘common-sense’ approach. I shall therefore conclude that you have no actual historical, textual or philological support for your position and add it to my list of untenable theories proposed by KVJO advocates.
If you could provide one single, tenable source – one example of medieval scribal practices, one inkling of the possibility of your theory – I would continue this discussion. But you won’t. In short, you’re obfuscating and redirecting. You want people to accept your idea because it is ‘common-sense’ and I say it needs support.
Please, continue believing your ‘common-sense’ theory and pedaling it on the internet; but please don’t waste anymore time here. We want something verifiable, and we wish to dialogue with people who will actually support their statements rather than just fling them into the ether.
You are the one who came to this site, knowing where the contributors stood. You came looking to prove the premise of the site wrong, and when we ask for evidence and proof, you respond by demanding that we provide proof for positions we may or may not hold to.
I mean no disrespect, but I have no time to further this roundabout. All you had to do was to provide the evidence for your theory. I asked a very specific, carefully worded question
Hi Folks,
That’s fine by me, Erik. I do not see any way to have intelligent conversations with you, you are not responsive in discussion, so I will write for all and discuss with others.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
I’m sorry, Steven. I’m sorry for being non-responsive by continually asking you to support your positions. I’m sorry for asking that you, as a commenter and guest on this site, verify your comments. Most of all, I am sorry for you because you are so blinded by your agenda that you cannot see the good will that I repeatedly extended to you in a number of conversations.
You love to throw out ideas as bait, pretending like you’re interested in discussion, but then you seize on anything you perceive as a weakness in the words of the other participants to aggrandize yourself and in your mind prove your superior position.
I’ve known far too many people like you, and I am most sorry for expecting some kind of reasonable discussion from someone in your particular brand of KJVO. I am so thankful that those closest to me in the KJVO/TRO camps (and I have many friends in those camps, some very respected) are not of your strand.
At least they have the decency to answer honest questions asked of them instead of grand-standing and pretending like they have the high grand.
Hi Folks,
Take Acts 8:37 as an example. A person could theorize that it “crept into” the text. Two major problems.
1) No early manuscripts with it in the margins
2) Early citations by Irenaeus and Cyprian
So such a theory is worthless. Even if there is a 10th century manuscript with Acts 8:37 in a margin, all that would indicate was that the issues were understood at that time by a scribe who was copying a text without the verse.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
And when you get a chance .. please demonstrate the “proof” of the claim above:
“In reality, it has been the Byz tradition that has added to God’s words.”
This was the provocative statement that is being examined. The fact that the common sense understanding is clearly hard for those in the alexandrian mentality to grasp.
Here I brought this up on a textcrit forum.
[TC-Alternate-list] Matthew 27:35 – autograph inclusion is inherently more explainable
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/3205
Now I would be very happy to give you more quotes on the topic, for your examination and consideration .. (this comes up a lot in the heavenly witnesses discussion) however if your only consideration is some abstract idea of “proof” .. unto convenience .. then I will wait till I see you demanding that from quotes like the Byz one above.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
That statement was made in a comment by Alan – who is not a contributor here. Unlike a discussion forum with proper threads, this is a blog with specific articles. If Alan chooses to defend his position, that is his choose although he would have to be getting the feed and realize you were responding to his comment.
Hi Folks,
Alan was quoted approvingly by the writer-contributor here, who apparently have no idea about a level playing field.
Do you agree that no evidence has been brought forth for Alan’s assertion, given by William Dudding ?
Why not insist on evidence and proof instead of quoting approvingly ?
Surely I gave lots more support and explanation for what I was sharing, specifically explaining why an addition is far more strained than omissions. That it often requires deliberate tampering, omissions do not. That additions will be caught easily, omissions will not.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven,
Alan is repeating an assertion that has been made in Textual critical circles since Wescott and Hort’s time and before. There are countless books that make the same assertion and deal with manuscript evidence and other proofs of that claim.
Alan wasn’t spouting some new theory with improbable statements attached to no support as you came on here doing. This is apples and oranges for you to use Alan’s quote and cry foul. Remember this is our blog and we happen to agree with Alan’s assertion, at least most of us do. And yes, 1 John 5:7, is an example of that tendency.
Now you have made may claims about what would be normal in manuscript production and what kinds of errors would be common and how common they would be. Examining manuscripts and comparing them is one way to prove your assertions, and those I’ve heard and read that do that sort of thing don’t come away with your conclusions that omissions are far more likely than additions. We see harmonizations all the time out of well-meaning but unprofessional scribes. So Erik is just asking where you come by this info. Is it your own personal study? Is it the books and work of other scholars? Or is this some hair-brained theory that you’ve come up with that has no support at all? Nothing personal. I think Erik is interested in where your theory came from. He or I may be interested in further discussions if we learned there was some support for it. But instead of explaining your expertise, or the source of your claims, you offer nothing. And that is tell-tale.
Hi Folks,
Alan Kurschner, who writes on the site of James White, made the typical textcrit-parsed assertion:
“Further, there is not a single Greek manuscript, papyrus, or early version for the first 300 years of church history that contains a distinct KJV (or Byzantine) reading from a manuscript that reflects a Byzantine text.”
This convoluted claim was challenged, a discussion began about Cyprian, and Alan could have simply said we have Cyprian’s writing in Latin. So my questions to Alan are:
1) List all the Greek manuscript, papyrus, or early versions for the first 300 years of church history
2) Show us your analysis of each such document as to whether or not they have a “distinct Alexandrian” or a “distinct Byzantine or KJB” or “distinct Western” or some other type of “distinct” reading.
And if you are going to make a claim like that, and filter out the incredibly rich early church writings in Latin .. and take a stopping point of convenience .. then I want you to list exactly what documents you are referring. (And this can not include Aleph and B, which are over 300 years.) And what analysis you are using for those documents. And what import you place on the whole filtered analysis.
Another question, precisely what documents, and how many, are included in the “geographical distribution of the Alexandrian text-type”.
And I would also like to know if Alan Kurshner agrees with James White on the preferred reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh” .. and if so, on what basis, in light of the above discussion.
At the very least, I would like Alan to answer the last question.
Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
Recommeneded websites…
[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……
Superb website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……