Gerry, is that really you?! It's good to have you back. Is everything okay?

Seeing that Gerry hasn't replied to your post, I will say that Gerry has been having his struggles.

It is good to see him back again.

I also think he is having a struggle getting used to the forum software that is quite different from the time he was last active on here.

It is unfortunate that this issue is springing up again in our church. From what I've seen, much of it is springing out of the misinformation put out by Amazing Discoveries. I used to subscribe heavily to the KJV-Only way of thinking at would instantly dismiss anything a minister/evangelist would say if he used a translation based on the critical Greek texts (though I did cut some slack for those using the NKJV). In short, I judged the worth of a text based on what I already believed, rather than judging what I believed by a multitude of [scriptural] witnesses.

KJV advocates need to come to terms with the fact that the Greek text underlying it (a version previous to the Textus Receptus) in no way represents the majority of readings found in the Byzantine line of texts. There are no two manuscripts that are identical throughout. Any Greek compilation can only be a best guess at what the original really was. And from what I've read, the further back one goes in the Majority Text manuscripts, the more closely they align with the ones brought to light by Westcott and Hort.

As baffling and disconcerting as it is at times, perhaps there is divine providence behind the differences as well. In research writing, it is crucial to be able to rephrase cited material in your own words. It is the only way to demonstrate that you understand the essential ideas behind your sourse material. What is better? Being able to quote a text word-for-word, or understanding the idea conveyed by the text sufficiently enough to express it in your own words? Better yet, how about having an experiential knowlege of what the text is saying?

Interesting thoughts, Dave, and welcome to the discussion. Would you be willing to expound a little more on your understanding? (My questions as pertain to your thoughts are below.)

What makes you feel this cannot be present truth?
What makes you believe it is "misinformation?"
Have you studied the differences among these "witnesses?" Can you tell us more about them?
Where is your evidence for this? How do you know that the Textus Receptus is a "newer" version?
Do you believe that God wants us to be guessing what He said?
Are you well acquainted with Westcott and Hort? What makes you put confidence in them?
Do you think the Bible should be rephrased in your own words and taught as "Scripture?" Do you think the Bible is equivalent to a piece of research writing?

Do you believe God does not care how we phrase things, so long as we "own" them? Do you think God is more interested in the big picture than the details?
How does this relate to the wording of the Bible? Do you think that the wording chosen by the reader will make a significant impact upon whether or not they will be capable of having an "experiential knowledge?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting questions. However, I am hoping that is questions for "expounding" because I didn't hear him saying anything like some of them.

Yes, experiential knowledge of Scripture is superior! Jesus demonstrated the truthfulness of Bible doctrines in the way He lived His life. People who question whether or not the Bible advocates and promises "a life of continual obedience" need only to look unto Jesus for the proof it is certainly so. Ellen wrote:


But, alas, how many SDAs have concluded "a life of continual obedience" is not possible! Too many! Ellen wrote:


"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself."

I noticed Dave Mullbock online in the process of posting a reply, possibly to Green Cochoa's post #131830.

Perhaps he is still working on that potential post of his.

At least I hope so, as I would be very interested in his reply to that post, especially after our pastor had presented a series espousing all the other modern translations/versions.

I'm in the process of translating the SDABC into Portuguese and I'm impressed by the number of errors existent in the translation of the KJV which the SDABC has to correct.

Rosangela, are you referring to errors in the English translation of the KJV,
or errors in the Portugese translation of the KJV?

Could you post some examples?

_________________

Sorry I forgot to reply so long ago. I just re-read your post and thought I'd follow up on it.



After reading more on some of Dr. Veith's talking points (which are for the most part, the same I used to make when arguing for KJV-only) I realized that I the ad hominem regarding the origins of the critical texts were unfounded: Westcott and Hort quotes in their context. I think it is telling that Amazing Discoveries has THIS BOOK in their online store.



As a former KJV-onlier, I became quite familiar with them. Like I said, I judged the worth of a translation based on my understanding of the SDA message. Since accepting the principle of reasoned eclecticism, I've discovered that these differences add depth to what I believe as an SDA.



The fact that the term "Textus Receptus" applies to the 1633 greek Bible (KJV written in 1611) is one thing. There are several differences between the TR and the majority text as well.



Are you familiar with the Westcott and Hort statements in their context? It was in looking deeper into their statements and reading them in their context (as well as statements made elsewhere) that I realized how disingenious some of the proponents (the ones who original lifted the quotes from their sources, like Gail Riplinger) of KJV-onlyism are.



All translations are essentially in somebody's own words (collectively, or individually). Only a word-for-word transcription of the autograph would not be a rephrasing. Translation is rephrasing. The structure of the Greek language is such that it simply can not be translated reasonably without rephrasing it in a way that makes sense in English.

Since the Bible is thought-inspired and not word-inspired, it must be translated in a way that conveys the thought. The fact that the Bible was written in Koine Greek is strong evidence of this. Koine was a vulgar form of the language. It could have been written in Classical Greek (like KJV-english) but it was written in the form of the language spoken by the commoner -- and often a crude form of that.



God cares that we have a functional understanding of what He says more than the ability to repeat it word-for-word. As long as the key aspects of the idea are conveyed, that is what is important. Lots of OT quotations in the NT are a far cry from the original Hebrew wording, yet the original idea (and even new insights) are still communicated.



Choosing a faithful, yet readable translation that you understand will enhance one's experience far more than one that is more difficult to read (and which is based on a conflated Greek text).