To Testy and the Forum:
The reason I dealt with the Bible version issue at all here is that learning missing facts and historical evidence about the nineteenth century process of changing from the King James Bible to the Modern Revised versions freed me from the last inappropriate authoritarian hold Thieme and his teachings had over me. I plead with all who have not examined this evidence in defense of the King James Bible and its underlying manuscripts to check it out in detail. I am not pushing this as religious proselytism I found this evidence on my own. I read the books and many articles by those who continue to defend the traditional texts as superior to the text behind the modern versions and I found their facts and reasoning compelling. All I wish for any one is to give that evidence A FAIR HEARING.
Thieme evidently did not do that in his seminary training because his professors did not do so, nor did their professors. Chafer's writings show that he perpetuated the opinions of the modern textual critic even though here and there he defends the KJB text on theological grounds. That is a tiny fraction of the evidence of the corruption and unsound product of modern textual criticism. Dr. Waite was at the same school as Thieme and took the same courses, and he even went so far as to complete a PhD from Dallas Seminary, and went on to earn a PhD in Speech and other degrees beyond that! He too believed what he had learned from Chafer and others UNTIL CHALLENGED BY A STUDENT to examine the evidence she had found in a book in the library by John Burgon. That set Dr. Waite on a journey of discovery into fine literature that had been ignored by his teachers, and their teachers, and their teachers. The disconnect happened in the process of time between Westcott and Hort in the 1870s through the early 1900s. It is not surprising that the majority of "scholars" now have never heard any of the evidence supporting the King James bible and its superior texts! But
reluctance to seek it out and give it a fair hearing is a sign of an unhealthy prejudice.Thieme trained all his followers to not read other men's work, but to only study what he said and wrote. That is a HUGE RED FLAG. But I missed that, with many others, and I stayed in bondage to him for decades. Thieme also trained us to not read our English Bibles, any English bible, because he said we could not get truth from God except by listening to him or one like him teach "Bible Doctrine," from "the original Greek and Hebrew."
Breaking free from this narrow and rigid training was very hard. Most of Thieme's errors derive from his high opinion of his skills in Hebrew and Greek, and most of his followers will refer to that when defending their beloved teacher.
When I learned there was MORE THAN ONE GREEK TEXT, and that the wrong one, the inferior one had won the majority support among today's scholars, I was furious with Thieme for leaving out that important fact. But he left it out because HE BELIEVED HIS TEACHERS and they did the same with THEIR teachers. Once you can see that prejudice toward unpleasant facts cause a massive scholarly disconnnect from history, and caused scholarly opinion to swing away from the best sources of our Greek and Hebrew Bible texts, then you can understand why many who ought to be defending the King James Bible and its texts do not do so.
It seems that Testy continues to
defend Thieme's view of textual scholarship and criticism without understanding the slant which is controlling the terms of the debate. Before the Internet, I can see how a person can miss a lot of pertinent research on this topic. I was educated in college to believe the Modern Version version of the history of our English Bible, but I never abandoned my basic faith in God and His Words, so I never lost my faith in God's ability to preserve and disseminate His Words to all generations.
I offer a number of valuable sources to examine which give the evidence Thieme. Chafer and Walvoord probably never examined because it was unfashionable to do so. The highly educated scholars formed
a club of mutual admiration and only the less intelligent would return to the old King James Bible. If you came out in support of the King James bible and its texts, then you were not welcome in scholarly circles. Just like Thieme did!
He ridiculed all who did not agree with him. But that did not make him right. And ridiculing or ignoring evidence in the matter of the comparative value of modern Versions vs. The King James Bible does not make a person right now, either. Especially if you have not done your homework. Looking up Chafer's references in an index to his Systematic Theology does not constitute examination of the evidences I refer to here. Until you have read the articles and books available which contain views you won't find unless you search for it, you still won't understand the terms of the debate, and I contend that Testy has not done that yet.
Here is my reply to Testy's latest post to me, and I refer in it to an email correspondence he and I had while this forum was down. I include some of the links here which I gave him in that correspondence so he and you can check them out if you so desire.
I have taken a lot of time to respond point by point to what Testy posted and to what he sent me by email. He has not done the same with the material I sent to him. I can tell that by the questions and statements he repeats in his latest post. So you check it out. I hope I have been fair to Testy's views.
I used to believe as he does about the Bible version debate, that ALL SCHOLARS were equally good and that there was just one "original Greek" text from which ALL VERSIONS were translated, but that IS NOT SO. And that is the fundamental misunderstanding I think Testy has on this issue.
Sincerely
Sistersoap
My replies to Testy are in {{{xxx}}} below.
Sister and Forum:
The King James scholars were scholars. The King James scholars were just men, as Dr. Chafer was just a man.
{{{Yes they were ALL fallen men, but some were more faithful to the Scriptures than others, and not all scholars have the same views, just as we on the forum do not have the same views on many issues. HOWEVER, in our email correspondence I sent you much evidence and documentation of why I think the KJB translators had superior TEXTS {which means THEIR GREEK AND HEBREW MSS WERE OF A SUPERIOR QUALITY than the ones, the tiny minority of inferior texts {Greek} that the Revisors had} superior TRANSLATION METHODS, that the translators of the KJB were superior in their training, experience and abilities, and their FAITH, and that they were superior by far in their THEOLOGY than the revisors were. I don't see that you have read all I sent you, much less that you have taken any of it to account in your replies so far.}}}
Sister quote: Referring to the Dr. Chafer quotes that you gave in your post, it is well to remember that when he wrote those words, he himself had been influenced by the same line of thinking that had already prevailed among "modern scholars" who also fell for Westcott and Hort's chicanery.
Truthtesty: Do you have specific proof of Dr. Chafer's method and that he fell for "Westcott and Hort's chicanery"?
{{{My proof lies in the very words of Dr. Chafer in the selected quotes you gave, Testy. Don't you see that? Chafer himself says he follows the Revisors and that he corrects the KJB and that the "scholars" are all just fine as far as he is concerned, not seeing apparently that there is much information out to contradict all this. If you are not going to read and take into account what I have already presented, why should I go further with the mountains of Chafer quotes you are so fond of giving us? I at least went through what you have posted and sent by email and RESPONDED point by point. You are not doing the same.}}}
I doubt what you are saying, because I have evidence that Dr. Chafer looked at what he called "original Greek" and said the Revisors were wrong at times.
{{{
You still are not seeing that "original Greek" means TWO DIFFERENT THINGS: First, the 1500 year old majority TEXT accepted by the believing Churches since the time of the apostles. This is what lies behind the King James Bible and NOT behind the modern versions all of which follow in the footsteps of Westcott and Hort. Second, "original Greek" also refers to the NEW GREEK TEXT invented by Westcott and Hort PRIVATELY AND SECRETLY derived from the "new" corrupted MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus, plus a few others, that HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED by the believing Churches because they KNEW THEY WERE CORRUPTED. If you had read what I have already sent you, you would at least have seen we are STILL NOT ON THE SAME PAGE here, You are speaking about apples, and I am speaking about oranges, only the apples behind the modern versions are rotten and full of worms. Chafer apparently bought into this "modern scholarship" like many good men did. I am not saying he was bad for having done this. He simply fell for the same bait and switch job the majority of "scholars" have done ever since Westcott and Hort did their PR job so well they swayed most scholars to follow their "new and better" Greek New Testament. I went over this in some detail already and you still are not seeing my point. I can tell this so far by the quotes you have given me. Chafer has not said in any of your excerpts that he sees the difference between the TRADITIONAL TEXT and the revised text....They are NOT THE SAME. I use only what Chafer quotes you send me, Testy. I don't have access nor the time to search out any more explicit "proof" than what you yourself have sent and posted. My proof is what Chafer has said in what you have posted and sent. I don't see why you can't see that.}}}
Sister quotes "All humans since Adam were born into a physically fallen race. No human since Adam and Eve has ever been free of the effects of the fall, excepting only Jesus Christ. None of us is in our bodies as God originally designed Mankind to be due to the fall of Adam. I am surprised Chafer would miss this point."
"Chafer says the Authorized Version favors the "heathen notion" of the physical body. Presumably this is the idea that flesh is sinful and cannot be "spiritual" or that the body is corrupt and is excluded from glory."
Truthtesty: Incorrect. Dr. Chafer did not miss the point of the effects of the fall on the human body.
The following should be helpful to understand Chafer's view of the "heathen notion" of the physical body.
{{{Is this in what you had posted, Testy?}}}
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 2, Page 157 Body of Sin (Rom. 6:6). This phrase, found in Romans 6:6, affords no warrant for the ancient philosophy which teaches that the body is the seat of evil and must therefore be weakened and despised. Such a view contradicts all Biblical testimony concerning the human body. Sin did not begin with the body, but is rather a rebellion of the will against God, and it ever continues the same. The body of the Christian bears unmistakable marks of honor and dignity. It is for the Lord and the Lord is for the body (1 Cor. 6:13); it is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:15, 19); its members are to be yielded properly unto God as instruments of righteousness (Rom. 6:13); and it is to be presented unto God a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). If the body is the seat of sin, it should be abandoned rather than redeemed; but the Spirit is said to “quicken” these mortal bodies. In the midst of abnormal suffering a person may welcome liberation from this body, but the normal attitude is to nourish and cherish it (Eph. 5:29). Most conclusive is the fact that Christ possessed a normal human body, yet without sin. It is never intimated that His body was the source of any solicitation whatever. A distinction arises here between the body, and the flesh, to which consideration will be given in due time.
{{{AS you can see, Testy,
there is some further information here that you had not sent or posted before. I can't be responsible to know all of Chafer. What you had sent and what I had commented on before was right as far as it went. In the passage you gave, Chafer DID MISS what I said he missed, that the body IS FALLEN and will not be redeemed as is. FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINDGOM OF GOD. When we die physically, the body rots in the grave, AND THEN the believer gets his resurrection PHYSICAL body at the Resurrection. It will be like Christ's glorious body which could walk through walls and appear at will any time any where He chose. The body we inherited from Adam will be done away with. We as believers hold our TREASURE {Christ} in EARTHEN VESSELS Chafer said that the KJB words about the body means that their work reflects a HEATHEN belief about the body, and that is NOT TRUE.}}}
Truthtesty: Chafer does compare and contrast various Scholarship and Texts and makes distinctions:
Vol. 1, Page 79 Over the second phrase—given by inspiration of God—there is much more dissension. The English word inspiration is from the Latin spiro and the passage in question is translated in the Vulgate by Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata, while the Greek is... (pasa graphē theopneustos—‘all Scripture is God-breathed’). Much of interest may be gathered from the various translations of this phrase.
The Æthiopic renders: “And every scripture is in the (by the) Spirit of the Lord.”
Wycliff: “All scripture of God inspired.”
Tyndale: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.”
Cremer (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek, ed. 2): “promoted by God, divinely inspired.”
Thayer-Grimm (Greek-English Lexicon of N.T.): “Inspired by God.”
Robinson (Greek and English Lexicon of N.T., new ed.): “God-breathed, inbreathed of God.”
Warfield: “Every scripture seeing that it is God-breathed.”
The Revised Version: “Every scripture inspired of God.”
Aside from that of the Revised Version which seems to leave room for the idea that some Scripture might not be inspired, these translations express, with all the force that language is able to devise, the truth that the Scriptures are God-breathed...
{{{You still are not seeing my point! Sure he 'DISTINGUISHES' such things as you say above, but he still is
not recognizing the fundamental difference in the character and quality of the NEW TEXT which was made from inferior manuscripts mainly Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus!!! That is the primary disconnect I see him and you making. Till you can see that, we are working at cross purposes.}}}
Truthtesty: It does appear that Chafer does have a high regard for scholarship and does not hold to Burgon's alarm or may never have heard of Burgon:
{{{Burgon was MORE than qualified to render his opinions at the time he gave them. It is due to the success of his opponents Westcott and Hort who like Darwin convinced a lot of people to believe some really preposterous things that Burgon's side lost the numbers contest and the Revision became widely accepted ALONG WITH THE THEORIES they invented to justify their many changes, additions, and omissions from the MAJORITY TEXT. Don't you see that? Again, you speak as if you did not read and think about all the material I sent you. I take a great deal of time to read and respond to what you send and post, Testy, I don't just consult an index of Chafer's writings and paste together a string of them to make a point. I think you sometimes don't understand what Chafer is saying or implying. What he has NOT SAID in what you have sent so far tells me at least as much as what he has said.
Nevertheless,
this does not INVALIDATE your points when you use Chafer to refute Thieme! Is that what concerns you? I don't have to agree with Chafer in all respects in order for his work to be a valid response to Thieme's errors.}}}
Vol. 4, Page 431
Only the uninformed will listen to the voice of a man who has no scholarship and ignore the fact that the greatest Greek scholars of all generations—who have given to the Church the true translation and interpretation of the original Greek text—have not modified the eternal feature of retribution. To be ignorant of the Greek text is not reprehensible, but to disregard the voice of all the worthy translators is reprehensible. It is reported that in England, on the morning when the Revised Version of the Scriptures was put on sale, a man inquired in a bookshop for “that new Bible that has no hell in it”; but he was disappointed, for the Revisers—and possibly no better scholars could be found—had not removed either the idea of retribution or its eternal character from the version they had prepared.
{{{Again, I addressed this in detail in my recent email to you. I see no need to post it here, You still have not responded to what I sent you on this point. NOT ALL SCHOLARS ARE EQUAL. They have their own prejudices and beliefs that affect their work.
Missing Burgon is a shame but it is not immoral, it is because his vital work has NEVER BEEN REFUTED by his opponents To this day,
they will not seriously deal with it because his body of work exposes the fatal flaws in their work. Chafer seems to be saying by his general praise of "ALL SCHOLARS" THAT ALL ARE EQUALLY QUALIFIED AND EQUALLY SPIRITUAL. That is NOT SO. I gave examples to you already, to which you have not responded.}}}
Truthtesty: Chafer does appear to have a high regard for past scholarship, but as seen above Chafer has does not appear to have a problem with correcting the Revisors either:
Vol. 1, Page 79 Aside from that of the Revised Version which seems to leave room for the idea that some Scripture might not be inspired
AND
Vol. 6, Page 58 (quoting Dr. Walvoord)
This can hardly be referred to the inspiration of Scripture, however, as it is doubtful if any of the Bible, in its present form at least, was in existence at that time. The only other reference is found in 2 Timothy 3:16, where the Authorized Version gives this translation, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Even here, in the American revision, the translation is changed to read, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” The revised translation, while attempting to solve the problem created by the absence of the copula, not at all unusual in the Greek, has greatly weakened the passage, and that, unjustly.
Truthtesty: It appears that Chafer does rely on the "original Greek":
{{{You are saying the same thing over and over, Testy,
without dealing with the reality of the TWO TEXTS! Majority text and minority text. They are not the same and nothing you have presented yet has recognized that fact. You keep on referring to this one issue with the Revised versions mutilating of the 2Tim. Quote, and in fact, that is TYPICAL of the work of the Westcott and Hort text! It does not support your conclusion that Chafer was an unbiased even handed evaluator of the scholars he used and referred to.
Without the work of the "opposition" all you have is a bunch of educated men who have not examined the complete evidence, but they think the other side's evidence is not worth examining, and they don't give it serious consideration! It is TOTALLY IGNORED by them, and apparently, by you.}}}
Vol. 4, Page 369
Those who oppose this view assert that the guaranty is that the hurch will be kept out of that hour. It becomes a study of the original Greek words. On this passage, Dr. Henry C. Thiessen, whose advanced knowledge of the Greek language is established, writes:...
{{{Again, I dealt with this idea OF ORIGINAL GREEK WORDS. Testy I will say it one more time:
NOT ALL THE "GREEK WORDS" OF THE MANUSCRIPTS ARE THE SAME,.The two sources are DIFFERENT. If you can get that through your head, you will begin to see a little more clearly what you are missing. If you had read the series of articles I referred to in my email to you by Dusty Peterson we would not be having this particular debate. I am assuming you did not read it or take any of it seriously. He does an excellent job of DISTINGUISHING THE TWO TEXTS. Till you can see what I mean on this, we don't have much more to say to each other on this point. For the benefit of the rest of the Forum, here is the link:
[
www.users.globalnet.co.uk]
SEE ALSO:
Bible Version Debate
The Bible Versions Debate (Part 1) by Dusty Peterson
The Bible Versions Debate (Part 2a) by Dusty Peterson
The Bible Versions Debate (Part 2b) by Dusty Peterson
The Bible Versions Debate (Intermission) by Dusty Peterson
The Bible Versions Debate (Part 3a) by Dusty Peterson
The above links are from:
[
www.users.globalnet.co.uk]
{{{Until you have read and understood this material we won't be able to have a fruitful conversation on this subject.}}}
Truthtesty: Dr. Chafer and Dr. Walvoord see the eKJV, the Revised, and other translations as other translations to be compared contrasted and corrected to the "Original Greek text"(best MSS ?). But let's be honest, Dr. Chafer and Dr. Walvoord do not ridicule the KJV, as Thieme does for political purposes.
{{{Again, Chafer and Walvoord both seem not to have considered the evidence against the Modern Versions and it is not unusual nor does it invalidate their other work. Most men of the previous generations were educated without any reference to the minority opinion and work which was actually the MAJORITY and accurate work on the texts accepted by the MAJORITY OF THE BELIEVING CHURCHES for 1500 years.
Modern "scholarship" claims that "the originals were lost" and so was the Word of God until they came upon the scene in the late 1700s and early to mid 1800s! That is a ridiculous claim, but their side won the numbers game and that is how most men in seminaries have been trained to believe. God did not lose HIs Words until Tischendorff and Tregelles rummaged around in trash cans and found old, disused MSS and lo, the word of God was RESTORED to the Churches. No no no.
This is the lie that has become accepted in modern scholarship and it is FALSE.Testy, you and I ought to be very sympathetic to people who have bought a lie and lived to regret it. I was so wrong for so long, I have NO DIFFICULTY admitting it when evidence convinces me that I am wrong now. But you have perhaps not dealt with all the evidence you have missed on the Bible version issue. Until you do that, we are not going to be able to communicate clearly with each other.
If Chafer and Walvoord had been fairly exposed to what they had missed, it is altogether possible they may have changed their minds on this issue. It does not invalidate their critiques, in Walvoord's case, of Thieme's work!
All I am saying is that Chafer and Walvoord DID MISS SOME IMPORTANT FACTS OF HISTORY AND SOME VALID CRITICISMS of the modern versions and the scholars behind them. It is common for this to be true. If you had read what I sent and referred to you would understand this better.}}}
Are Dr. Chafer and Dr. Walvoord wrong for comparing and contrasting different translations without predjudice? When there is really NO ORIGINAL? All we have is copies.
{{{READ WHAT I SENT it covers this issue plainly. If you understood the terms of the debate, you would not keep asking this same question of me. }}}
As I presented before, if you wish to compare manuscripts yourself (especially Westcott Hort vs Byzantine ((TR based on Byzantine))) then compare here [www.laparola.net]
I am for one definitely interested in the manuscripts controversy, but I would like to see both sides of the argument.
{{{I gave you MOUNTAINS of material to start with. So go read it all and get back to me on it. Deal with it point by point as I have dealt with your post point by point.Start with the Dusty Peterson material then read the Dr. Waite and David Cloud articles. They will at the very least educate you about what I am saying.
Chafer and Walvoord seem to have missed a bunch of evidence on the Bible version issue, but that does not invalidate their usefulness in refuting Thieme! I used to believe as they did and as Thieme himself did about Bible versions, until I sought out the missing facts and evidence, and I CHANGED MY MIND, and it broke the last hold Thieme had over me. That is why I bother to deal with it at all here. }}}
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2008 10:43AM by sistersoap.