Good points about Chafer, Testy.

Chafer was just a man. He does not mistake himself for God nor his work for Bible Doctrine.

Thieme liked to say that Chafer called Thieme a "genius"......more name dropping. Had Thieme really absorbed and respected Chafer's Systematic Theology, Thieme would have turned out differently in my opinion. He would not have wandered so far off the Biblical base.

Like he said he and General Wedemeyer used to tour givnng speeches about the brainwashing of our Korean POWs by the Chicoms.

More name dropping?

There is no comparison between the body of work by Chafer and Thieme's work. Not at all in the same league.

Sis

To the Forum:
I would like to add to my above post to Testy about why I think Bob Thieme Jr. went so far off base instead of staying with the Bible itself.

He was vastly misinformed.

As a comparison, look at a classmate of his at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dr. D.A. Waite, Jr. was at the Seminary part of the time Thieme was a student there. He received the same education as Thieme did, only he went on to complete a PhD. as well as his Master's degree. He has earned PhD's in other subjects as well. He served as chaplain in the Navy for some years. He has had every bit as busy a life as Thieme did.

BUT....

when a young lady student challenged him about the King James Bible and informed him that their school Library had a book about it by Dean John William Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, who "tricked" the "scholarly" world into accepting the first English Revised Version as a substitute for the King James Bible, HE CHECKED IT OUT. He found the venerable book THE REVISION REVISED by John William Burgon. he read it. Now he testifies that HE HAD BEEN MISINFORMED AT SEMINARY and has since then COMPLETELY CHANGED HIS MIND.

That is sincere Christian HUMILITY.

Many men and women can say the same today, that they had never leared the facts their professors left out or ridiculed as outdated and not worth serious consideration. If they would only investigate the scholars who have demonstrated the faults of the modern versions compared with the King James Bible, they would probably be shocked at the avalanche of information they have been missing!

But PRIDE will keep one stuck to 'WHAT MY TEACHERS SAID" no matter what else may come their way. It is pride that keeps one elevated in one's own mind and it blinds one to one's weaknesses. I think this is part of what happened with RBTJr. He seems to have had an abiding faith in his own intelligence such that no one else could possibly do as well or even better than he, and he believed his own "discoveries" about RIGHT PASTOR, and PRIVACY OF THE 'PRIESTHOOD' and other doctrines which built up a CULT OF PERSONALITY which has bone far afield from the Biblical teachings that everyone can see for themselves if they only would read it for themselves.

It is the OBLIGATION OF THE CHRISTIAN TO WARN OTHERS of false teaching or false teachers one has had contact with. It is NOT true that it is only up to God to deal with or expose error in a teacher. God can and does discipline any believer for his sins and failures. But we are commanded to examine what is being taught and to compare it with the Scriptures to see if it is so. If we find that it is not so, we should go to the person if this is possible and ask about it. But this became a non option for Thieme followers. And that is one of the main reasons why some of us have taken to some forums to expose what we know from our own experience. We are not or never were trying to ruin a man's ministry. I would not condone that action. But to tell the truth about what we know is an obligation lest being silent we partake of the error we would warn against.

Having said that, I would caution readers to examine their reasons for objecting to this thread. Maybe you don't like the attitudes of some who post here against Thieme's teaching. Ok, you don't have to like it or us. But you should pay attention to what we say when we QUOTE HIM and SHOW THE ERROR.

Being blind to that kind of evidence just perpetuates the harm.

Sistersoap

To Sister and Forum:


This is interesting and well worth further review. However, immediately I see that Dr. Chafer does make distinctions between the Authorized text and Revised Version.


Vol. 7, Page 200
As applied to Scripture, the term inspiration means ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:16–17) and more particularly that the words of Holy Writ are derived from God. All Scripture is said to be God-breathed, not as the Revised Version might suggest: “Every scripture inspired of God [or, God-breathed] is also profitable …” Regarding the Scriptures and plenary, verbal inspiration, it may be said that no other explanation has been the belief of the church from the beginning...

Vol. 2, Page 158
Our Vile Body (Phil. 3:21). Here the translation is wholly at fault. Nothing God has made is vile. The Authorized text would favor the heathen notions regarding the human body. The Revised Version renders this “the body of our humiliation,” which is sustained by all exegetes. Equally as misunderstood is the phrase “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory” (1 Cor. 15:43), where the contrast is drawn between the present body—especially as it sees corruption—and the body that is to be. The word dishonor implies no moral failure. It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be.

Also:

The Revision Revised: Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review - John William Burgon - 1883 [books.google.com]


Test all things.


Truthtesty

Thanks Testytruth!

You said:

This is interesting and well worth further review. However, immediately I see that Dr. Chafer does make distinctions between the Authorized text and Revised Version.



COMMENT:

Yes he does distinguish and by doing so recognizes the fact that they are not the same. Sounds obvious, doesn't it? Things that are different cannot be the same. Maybe he is more specific elsewhere about TEXTUAL DIFFERENCES and his estimation of the merits of modern TEXTUAL CRITICISM, but he does not say that here. He simply states a preference for the modern translation {"bodies of humiliation"} of the word for "vile" over the King James use of that word to describe the bodies of fallen men. He just says "all exegetes agree." That is a typical tactic of textual critics who omit to include other views and pretend that their conclusions are the only respectable ones scholars recognize.

I might also add that the major distinction between the King James Bible and all the modern versions, including the Revised Version Chafer quotes, lies in THE TEXTS. The Greek Text {and the Hebrew text as well, but we are dealing with the Greek here} used for the KJB is not the same Greek Text which was used to translate the Revised Version into English. The vast majority of extant manuscripts line up with or favor the texts used by the translators of the KNG JAMES BIBLE, leaving a measly one or two percent that were used for the modern versions. And those minority texts were not only a tiny minority, but they are obviously corrupted as evidenced by disagreeing among themselves and even containing contradictions within themselves. There are other obvious faults that go ummentioned by their proponents. That is like telling a jury to ignore 95% of the evidence presented to them for their deliberation and to only use 5% of the evidence to form their verdict. How reliable would you believe the result to be, much less the validity of the court which carried on that trial?


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. I don't know the date of the quote you used, but if you could find out, I would surmise it was about the nineteen twenties? and many men who were otherwise sound in their doctrine had been persuaded to give equal or greater weight to the modern versions and their texts, AND also to the unsound methods of translation they used. Not only that, it was not necessary for these "modern scholars" to even believe the doctrines of the faith of the book they were translating in order to qualify for the work! Many of them did not even believe that the Bible was INSPIRED BY GOD WORD FOR WORD. They therefore believed that the Bible should not be treated as a book by God using men to write His inspired words, but that it should be treated JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK written by men.

Another truth often ignored by Modern Version proponents is that God promised to PRESERVE HIS WORDS TO ALL GENERATIONS. Without this, we have "experts" guessing as to what God probably said by the "recovered" words we have today. The truth is that God only wrote ONE BOOK, and its words were preserved by Him to this very day. Those Words are the HEBREW, GREEK AND ARAMAIC words contained in the Manuscripts we have to this day. Those are the inspired words which were used to translate into English in our King James Bible. THE KJB is the best English translation existent today. It is based on better manuscripts, was translated by better methods, and the work was done by godly men who reverenced the God of the Book as well as the Book of God. They actually believed that they were dealing with the WORDS OF GOD, and so were convinced that they had NO RIGHT TO INSERT WORDS, REMOVE WORDS, OR CHANGE WORDS according to their own beliefs or their personal fancies. They knew they could not TREAT THE BIBLE AS IF IT WERE A MAN MADE BOOK, instead of a GOD INSPIRED BOOK. This is the main difference between Westcott and Hort and John William Burgon. And this is the reason that those instructed in modern TEXTUAL CRITICISM which is taught in the vast majority of seminaries today feel free TO CORRECT THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS instead of accepting God's Words as they in truth are THE WORDS OF GOD PRESERVED BY HIM TO ALL GENERATIONS.



How does this relate to Thieme and to Chafer?

In Thieme's case itseems very evident to me that his habit of CORRECTING THE TRANSLATION, from what textual base he never says, according to his personal preferences, gave him the "permission" to insert his own doctrinal discoveries, "breakthroughs" as he sometimes called them, to make changes and invent terms not in the Bible and call it BIBLE DOCTRINE. The lack of respect for the preserved words of God in the accepted and the MAJORITY texts behind the King James Bible was the beginning of a slippery slope right in Dallas Theological Seminary.

It seems to me that the quotes you gave of Chafer show he recognized differences between the Revised Version TEXT and the TRADITIONAL TEXT, and he feels free to vote for the revision when it suits him. In that sense, Thieme follows in his steps. But so did Dr. Waite until he was enlightened and better informed. The information has been available all these years since Burgon wrote his books against the revision, and has been belittled, ridiculed and ignored by "scholars" who want to retain their positions and the praise of other "scholars" in academia who hold to the erroneous majority opinion against the traditional, majority text behind the King James Bible.

As for the specific points Chafer makes:

quote:

Our Vile Body (Phil. 3:21). Here the translation is wholly at fault. Nothing God has made is vile. The Authorized text would favor the heathen notions regarding the human body. The Revised Version renders this “the body of our humiliation,” which is sustained by all exegetes. Equally as misunderstood is the phrase “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory” (1 Cor. 15:43), where the contrast is drawn between the present body—especially as it sees corruption—and the body that is to be. The word dishonor implies no moral failure. It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be. endquote

The scriptures say, in context:

Phi 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Phi 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.



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. Well, that is exactly what the Scriptures say: Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God {1 Cor. 15: 50}. 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. I don't have the expertise to say whether the same words in the Greek are used for "vile" in KJB and in the Greek text used for the Revised Version Chafer quotes. But the King James translators had the godly temperament to communicate what God said in Greek from the best manuscripts that exist down to this very day, and the Revised translators chose to rely upon less than 5% of the available evidence, making their conclusions unreliable. Chafer says of his choice that all exegetes concur that "vile body" is wrong, and "body of humiliation" is right. NO! If all exegetes concur, then why did the KJB translators NOT CONCUR? He is not making himself clear here. Or he is preferring "modern scholars" who themselves were corrupted by the same process that corrupted Thieme! Perhaps somewhere else Chafer makes himself clearer, but it seems to me that Chafer is supporting the "modern textual critical" results and is not even saying that that is what he is doing. It is simply assumed! This is an unsound basis for theology in my opinion.


The passage in 1 Cor. that Chafer references is given in context here:


1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

The power of the resurrection where the saved receive glorified bodies like the body of Christ in His heavenly glory is sapped by the notion that our physical mortal bodies have nothing wrong with them, and that to say that they do dishonors God! WRONG. What God made Adam in the beginning was tarnished and destroyed when he sinned. All his offspring including us received that contamination in our physical bodies, otherwise why do we get sick and die? This is the picture of dishonor and corruption we see being transformed into glory and honor that is clearly shown in this passage, and why would Chafer not see this?

You got me. You don't really even need Greek to see that.

John Burgon had the right title for his signature book, which by the way, was not his first. He called it THE REVISION REVISED because originally the committee that was tasked with "revisiing" and "improving" the KING JAMES BIBLE, using the traditional texts used when it was first translated, Westcott and Hort, the heads of the project, CHANGED THE TEXT, and snuck their own Greek text which they had been working on for years, basing it NOT on the texts used by the King James translators, but using the minority texts that the KJB translators KNEW ABOUT BUT REJECTED FOR GOOD REASON AS INFERIOR, even though they were "older." This was the BAIT AND SWITCH that John Burgon would not let go silently. His passion was to expose this event and to show the many ways this was inferior to what had been handed down since before 1611. All the great Reformation Bibles had been translated from the majority text passed down through the believing churches since the time of the apostles, as well as the Masoretic Texts the Hebrews preserved, and which Jesus had in His day. He said nothing about it not being perfect. The inferiority of the Revision was not least because of its inferior theology, favoring unbelieving fads such as evolutionism, and attacking the Deity of Christ.

It is this watch dog Burgon's strong warning that Dr. Waite found in the library of his school and humbly seeing that he had been misinformed by Dallas Theological Seminary changed his mind and ever since has warned the church that the modern textual criticism is a danger to the health of the Body of Christ. I think it is evident that Thieme took his cue from this corrupted academic teaching and ran with it. It gave him permission so to speak to "discover" the "corrected translation" and to govern what it says to his followers, rather than be governed by it and giving what it actually says to his listeners.


He never even dealt with the issues of textual criticism or the differences between the majority and the minority texts or the reasons for them. He probably never knew them because it was not taught in seminary except to ridicule the King James Bible and its translators.

That is why I think this is a significant point in tracing Thieme's errors. Dr. Waite was taught the same things, but he came to examine evidence Thieme either did not know about or knew about and ignored, and changed his mind, and in so doing, he wrote a book that SET ME FREE FROM THIEME'S INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY and gave me back the freedom to read and study my own Bible.

Here is something I wrote a while back and sent to family and friends about this very subject.

Please read the excerpt below and consider that this is a serious example of how modern translations of the Bible are corrupted by inferior scholarship. Dean John William Burgon was an Anglican and a contemporary of the revisers Westcott and Hort. In 1881 they published their NEW TRANSLATION from their privately devised GREEK TEXT made from recently discovered, OLDER BUT NOT BETTER codices, especially Aleph, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. These men and their committee refused to follow their instructions and simply correct as few as possible "errors" in the King James Bible using the SAME TEXT as was used to translate the KING JAMES BIBLE in the first place. They SECRETLY passed out copies of their private work using newly discovered INFERIOR manuscripts and swore their colleagues on the revision committee to secrecy. They knew they would be accused of HERESY because of the theology supported by this group of manuscripts and they wanted to get their work in print before it could be rejected.

Below is an example of what it means to use differing manuscripts {TEXTS} to translate the same passage of Scripture when the manuscripts {TEXTS} do not agree among themselves. I hope you find it enlightening. I sure did.

And if any reader of this message sees any errors that need to be corrected, please do reply with the information.

This is a priceless quote from Dean John William Burgon's book which I am reading called THE REVISION REVISED. It is about the dreadful errors involved in the so called "revision" of the King James Bible by Westcott and Hort when they published their NEW TRANSLATION based on their NEW GREEK TEXT in 1881 {based on different and inferior manuscripts} instead of a simple revision of the venerable King James Bible being based on the Received Text accepted by the churches for almost 1500 years.


Here is what Burgon says about performing the same revision as was made of the King James by the same methods if it were done to Hamlet's soliloquy TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION written by Shakespeare:{pages 14 and 15 in THE REVISION REVISED by Burgon}


"But let the learned chairman of the New Testament company of Revisionists (Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. He is characterizing these same 'old uncials,' which it is just now the fashion---or rather, the craze --- to hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached as any of his neighbours:---

QUOTING BISHOP ELLICOTT:
The simplicity and dignified conciseness (he says) of the Vatican manuscript (B): the greater expansiveness of our own Alexandrian (A): the partially mixed characteristics of the Sinaitic ( a Hebrew letter given here which I don't know ~ Sistersoap): the paraphrastic tone of the singular codex Bezae (D), are now brought home to the student. (From Bishop Ellicott's Considerations on Revision, etc, 1870, p. 40) END QUOTE

"Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a description of four professing transcripts of a book; and that book, the everlasting Gospel itself? ---transcripts, be it observed in passing, on which it is just now the fashion to rely implicitly for the very orthography of proper names,---the spelling of common words,---the minutiae of grammar. What (we ask) would be thought of four such 'copies' of Thucydides or Shakespeare? Imagine it gravely proposed, by the aid of four such conflicting documents, to re-adjust the funeral oration of Pericles, or to re-edit 'Hamlet." Risum teneatis amici? Why, some of the poet's most familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: e.g.
A--- "Toby or not Toby; that is the question."
B--- "Tob or not, is the question:' (Hebrew letter codex ? ~ Sistersoap)
"To be a tub, or not to be a tub; the question is that:"
C---"The question is , to beat or not to beat Toby?":
D (the 'singular codex'),---"The only question is this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?"
END QUOTE

Dean Burgon goes on to explain that he is not denying the value of these inferior texts, but that their CHARACTER is "depraved", especially that of aleph(?), B and D. Then he goes on to specify in detail what he means by this concerning each codex in question. He says that "(aleph), B and D are:

"three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:---exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:---have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,---which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God. " page 16 of THE REVISION REVISED.
END QUOTE


Burgon is speaking about the poor scholarship demonstrated by the "textual critics" of modern times and especially by Westcott and Hort's committee charged with the revision, NOT THE RETRANSLATION of the King James Bible and from DIFFERENT TEXTS than those many which underlie the King James Bible. Burgon was a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, and he did not have the benefit of the publication of both Westcott's and Hort's sons LIFE AND LETTERS of their fathers published after Burgon died in 1888. Burgon's claims were wholly justified by this new material which he did not live to see.

~ Sistersoap

To Sister and Forum:

The King James scholars were scholars. The King James scholars were just men, as Dr. Chafer was just a man.

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"? 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.

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.

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.

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....

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:

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.

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":

Vol. 4, Page 369
Those who oppose this view assert that the guaranty is that the Church 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:...

Truthtesty: Dr. Chafer and Dr. Walvoord see the KJV, 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.

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.

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.


Truthtesty

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.

TO TESTY AND TO THE FORUM:
To follow up on my last post,

To Testy and the Forum:

These are the basic references I recommended to Testy to read and to respond to. I make them availible here in one place to make it easier for all to consult if they would like. Some of the links I provided in my previous post did not work. Hope these do!
~ Sistersoap

FROM:[www.users.globalnet.co.uk]
DUSTY PETERSON'S BIBLE VERSION DEBATE SERIES:

The Bible Versions Debate (Part 1) by Dusty Peterson
[www.users.globalnet.co.uk]

The Bible Versions Debate (Part 2a) by Dusty Peterson
[www.users.globalnet.co.uk]

The Bible Versions Debate (Part 2b) by Dusty Peterson
[www.users.globalnet.co.uk]

The Bible Versions Debate (Intermission) by Dusty Peterson
[www.users.globalnet.co.uk]

The Bible Versions Debate (Part 3a) by Dusty Peterson
[www.users.globalnet.co.uk]

THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION By Dr. D.A. Waite
[www.wayoflife.org]

NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS
Dr. Jeffrey Khoo
March, 2006
[www.deanburgonsociety.org]

THE "CULT" OF "KING JAMES ONLYISM"?[www.wayoflife.org]
by David Cloud

On the heresies, of Westcott and Hort:
In their own words:
FROM
[www.learnthebible.org]


These are a good beginning, and if you want to understand where Thieme got his basis for his inappropriate authoity over the "flock" this is what he was missing. Plus some possilbe personality problems, the facts were there but omitted by his education. It is much easier now to FILL IN THE MISSING "LINKS."

Happy reading!

~ sistersoap

To The Forum:

an excerpt from an article from 1998, by John Green called
Prepared For The Slaughter: The Disarming Of The
Church, given on the BEREAN CALL email newsletter of 7-18-2008,

apropos of the discussion here about Thieme and others who have misled some of the body of Christ:

QUOTE:

Prepared For The Slaughter: The Disarming Of The Church
[Excerpts]

It is very disturbing to me to observe a trend in the Body of Christ today. This trend is to scorn and belittle those who would exercise their God-given self-defense weapon of discernment. Those who would obey scripture and "test all things" are mocked and ridiculed and labeled 'Pharisees.' It seems that the Church has fallen prey to the pluralistic, non-judgmental mindset of our present age. The one unpardonable sin is to question someone's belief, or dare to say that it might be wrong. These new leaders demand you climb on the bandwagon, and if you cannot agree, then you must remain silent at all costs. They call for us to experience now, and evaluate later.


Those who would remove the defensive weapon of discernment are binding the hands of the Church. They are preparing God's people for the slaughter. Why are they doing this? Why would they want to expose millions to the myriad deceptions of the enemy with no protection. Why do they take away what the Father has given? The Church is becoming a slaughterhouse slick with the spilled blood of saints who have been seduced by false teachers.... Charlatans rule the bestseller list. Pseudo-knowledge is dispersed around the world, speeding through electrical synapses. Make no mistake. It is a battle, and much is at stake.

Let us examine the logic (or lack of it) behind what some of these leaders are saying:

"You have to experience it yourself before you judge it." This is pure nonsense. It is the method the Mormons use to get people hooked in (pray about the Book of Mormon and see if you get a 'burning in your bosom'). You don't have to experience suicide to know that it is bad for you. Christians are never commanded to authenticate a questionable spiritual experience by submitting themselves to it.


"If you don't jump in the River, then you may miss out on the move of God." If you don't exercise your duty to test everything and hold on to what is good, then you may be deceived. God is not in a hurry. If you are walking with Him, seeking to please Him, then He will guide you into all He desires for you. Just because someone proclaims something is a move of God, doesn't make it so. Beware of the salesman who pushes you to make a decision on the spot. He may have something to hide. "God offends the mind to reveal the heart." I don't know what this is, but it is not Scripture. It is true that God's ways may be offensive to human wisdom. Often though, this quote is used to say that if you are offended by something going on in the Church, then your heart isn't right. The real issue is, are you offended because what is going on is unscriptural? If so, then stand fast.

END QUOTE

Very very true and applicable to the concerns expressed on this forum.

~ sistersoap

Dear Sister:


I have not had time to read the information you posted on the manuscripts issue(s). If you would be so kind Sister, would you point to the specific differences between the versions in which theology is drastically at risk? In other words, it is my generalized understanding that approximately 85% of ALL VERSIONS agree exactly. What percentage disagree and what MAJOR theologies are at stake? Of the examples, that I sent you privately that is almost all of Dr. Chafer's mentionings of differences. I am glad to work with you to make a study of the contrasts and comparisons of the KJV scholars and Dr. Chafer.

In the previous posts and in those that I sent you privately, (which though abrreviated) was to show that Chafer did make specific distinctions between the various versions. I tried to show differences Chafer made between the Authorized version and other versions. In the spirit of truth, no trickery on my part is involved here.

For the unabbreviated remarks, see that Chafer does not miss the theological point in this particular case.

Vol. 2, Page 152
An exception to this clear teaching on the universality of the resurrection of bodies of Christians is the abrupt statement that “we shall not all sleep” (1 Cor. 15:51), that is, not all Christians are to experience death. By these arresting words a hitherto unrevealed purpose of God, here termed a mystery, is disclosed. As elsewhere declared, some will be alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:15–17); but these do not enter heaven in the present body of limitation. For these, this body will be changed, and that “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (vss. 51–52). The change here indicated is not with respect to residence, though such a change is determined (1 Thess. 4:17), but rather the change is one of the nature of the body itself. It has just been stated that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, “neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50). “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (vs. 52). Including himself as one who might not die, the Apostle draws the sharp contrast between those who are raised incorruptible and those who are changed from the living state to the body of glory and without death. “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (vs. 53). Those to whom these promises are addressed have, when saved, “put off” the old man and “put on” the new man (Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10), but now they are said to “put on” either incorruption or immortality; all of which implies that corruption and mortality will be put off. Incorruption is that estate of body which is attained through resurrection from the dead and is described in previous verses (vss. 35–50), and is the usual experience of believers; while immortality is that estate of body which is attained by an immediate change, apart from death, and is an exception since it is only for those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord. The final consequence is identical in either case, being, as it will be, a body like unto the glorious body of Christ (Phil. 3:20–21).

Even in the abbreviated previous quote does it not say?:

"It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"

Vol. 2, Page 158
Our Vile Body (Phil. 3:21). Here the translation is wholly at fault. Nothing God has made is vile. The Authorized text would favor the heathen notions regarding the human body. The Revised Version renders this “the body of our humiliation,” which is sustained by all exegetes. Equally as misunderstood is the phrase “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory” (1 Cor. 15:43), where the contrast is drawn between the present body—especially as it sees corruption—and the body that is to be. It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be.

Your objection seems to be over Dr. Chafer's description of the Authorized version's use of the word "vile", but in the entirety of the message, Dr. Chafer is not missing the theological point. "Vile" seems to be just one of the possible English translations of meaning of the Greek word.

[www.laparola.net]

Definitions
Thayer
1) lowness, low estate
2) metaphorically
2a) spiritual abasement, leading one to perceive and lament his (moral) littleness and guilt
Part of Speech: noun feminine
Citing in TDNT: 8:1, 1152

Strong
G5014
From G5013; depression (in rank or feeling): - humiliation, be made low, low estate, vile.


Louw-Nida
Gloss Section
b low status 87.60
a humility 88.51

ZHubert
With a link to the definition of Perseus

Ulrik Petersen
Strong's dictionary

Crosswalk
Thayer's dictionary plus other information.

LaParola
From this site's dictionary (in Italian)

In the New Testament
NA/UBS (also Westcott and Hort; Tischendorf; Byzantine)


Truthtesty

Hi Testy,

Saturday July 19, 2008

Please consult the links and read, then get back to me. If you want to carry on a conversation why not deal with what I actually say? In your most recent post, given below, you do not quote me at all. How about doing that when you refer to something I said or you think that I meant and give the source, as email or Rick Ross, or personal message on Rick Ross and so on. It will be very helpful if you do. Not quoting me is making it much more time consuming to deal with your objections and questions.


YOUR RECENT POST TO ME ON RICK ROSS:
July 19, 2008 08:26AM
Dear Sister:

I have not had time to read the information you posted on the manuscripts issue(s).

{{{I can understand that, Testy. But I raised a number of important issues for us to discuss there that will cover all your concerns and then some, and I asked you to deal with those piece by piece for a good reason. That reason is that you seem not to understand some very basic things about the debate over Bible versions, not the least of which are some very common false assumptions about the KJB, its history and manuscripts, its interpretation, and the people who defend it and those who do not. I don't think it would be wise to try to deal with this particular question you have raised to me without referring to the comprehensive information I have already given because we won't be using the same understanding of terminology and will be constantly at cross purposes.

However, as you seem to be pressed for time, might I begin to point out some of those basics here and ask that you take the time you have to deal with them as I present them? I have told you privately that in a couple of days I will be away from my computer and I have a lot to do at home before then that will not allow me to spend hours at my computer as I usually do.

Now I will read the rest of this post and make my response to it and leave it with you.}}}

If you would be so kind Sister, would you point to the specific differences between the versions in which theology is drastically at risk?

{{{If I understand your question, you are asking me what the differences are among the versions which affect theology. I can give you a link if you care to read it.

But a lot of this information is in the items I already sent you!

Please see:

BIBLE VERSION INFORMATION CENTER:

[www.chick.com]

{{{This site is JACK CHICK's, publisher of tracts and other Christian literature. In my opinion, Chick's heart is in the right place, but he DOES support some of the claims of those who believe the ENGLISH of the KJB is as good and INSPIRED as is the GREEK AND HEBREW TEXTS, which is an error in my opinion, and Dr. Waite agrees that this is an error. However, Chick's site is the quickest, most economically arranged source for the question you have asked, so that is why I included it here. If you will browse its pages I think you will find some rapid answers to your particular area of concern which you have expressed here. But Testy, you have in fact changed the subject and I would hope that in time you would get around to what I have already sent you!}}}

BIBLE VERSION INFORMATION CENTER, QUICK COMPARISON CHART of the KJB and NIV:

{From the same Chick web site above:}[www.chick.com]



DO THE MODERN VERSIONS CHANGE DOCTRINE? by David Cloud
[www.wayoflife.org]

BIBLE DOCTRINES AFFECTED BY MODERN VERSIONS
By Paul L. Freeman
610 Race Street, Catasauqua, PA 18032

[www.wayoflife.org]

{{{This article deals mostly with the New Testament. It is a basic article but important to fill in gaps in understanding the issue you have inquired about.}}}

Some brief excerpts:

QUOTE:

There are many Modern Versions on the scene today all claiming to be more accurate or more readable renderings of the Word of God. Most of these versions follow the MINORITY Greek Text even though that text exhibits a corruption throughout. The King James Version was translated from the MAJORITY Greek Text which agrees with about 95% of all available manuscripts. The MAJORITY Greek Text can be traced back to the Peshitta (Syriac Version) about 150 A.D. ...

Many Christian Colleges and Universities have switched over to the MINORITY Greek Text (known as Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland) for the classroom while still using the King James Version in public preaching. Since there are over 5,000 differences between the MAJORITY and MINORITY texts a problem immediately faces the student...

The student is well aware that God did not inspire two different Bibles. ...

Those who want to replace our King James Version with new Modern Versions are constantly stating that no Bible Doctrines are affected by the changes. One school recently published an article by one of its' teachers in which he said that, "BOTH TEXTS ARE THE WORD OF GOD." It is difficult to understand how two texts differing in over 5,000 places can both be the Word of God. It only serves to show the absolute desperation on the part of the MINORITY Text champions to defend their indefensible position. The purpose of this volume is to show the changes made by the MINORITY text and how they affect the Bible Doctrines which Christians have always believed. Though I do not consider any change in the Word of God to be unimportant, I have singled out the most glaring examples. A careful reading will show that the Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian faith have been affected many times. ...

Are we to believe the scholars when they tell us that no important doctrines are affected by the new Modern Versions? It is obvious that they are not correct. What they really mean to say is that when all the changes have been made the Bible Doctrines are still there somewhere else in the Bible. If there are ten verses showing the Virgin Birth of Christ, and they have removed two, there are still eight remaining to prove the doctrine. That may satisfy them, but the Fundamental believer sees that as a piece by piece destruction of the Word of God.

My conclusion is that the new Modern Versions are based on Greek manuscripts that have been corrupted by heretics who changed the Word of God to agree with their rejection of the Deity of Christ and their Humanism regarding salvation. The Greek Text underlying the King James Version is not filled with additions made by overzealous Christians. It is the Word of God preserved by the Spirit of God and it exalts the Lord Jesus Christ, giving him his proper place and the glory due unto his name. ...

{Then he lists changes in the New Testament that demonstrate his points.}

HOW MANY DIFFERENCES ARE THERE BETWEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT UNDERLYING THE KJV AND THE WESTCOTT-HORT GREEK TEXT?


[www.wayoflife.org]

EXCERPT:

QUOTE:

The fact is that the differences are large and serious and a choice must be made.

The following is from Dr. Donald Waite’s book Defending the King James Bible:
“The Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places.

“Do you know how many changes they made? My own personal count, as of August 2, 1984, using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these 5,604 alterations, I found 1,952 to be OMISSIONS (35%), 467 to be ADDITIONS (8%), and 3,185 to be CHANGES (57%). In these 5,604 places that were involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words included, making a total of 9,970 Greek words that were involved. This means that in a Greek Text of 647 pages (such as Scrivener's text), this would average 15.4 words per page that were CHANGED from the Received Text. Pastor Jack Moorman counted 140,521 words in the Textus Receptus. These changes would amount to 7% of the words; and 45.9 pages of the Greek New Testament if placed together in one place.

“Rev. Jack A. Moorman, in December 1988, wrote a book entitled: ‘Missing in Modern Bibles--Is The Full Story Being Told?’ It was published by The Bible For Today in April, 1989. Rev. Moorman counted every word of the Received Greek Text and also every word of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text and, on a chapter by chapter count, came up with the Nestle/Aland text being SHORTER than the Received Text by 2,886 words. This is 934 words more than were omitted from the Westcott and Hort text. (1,952 vs. 2,886). The omitting of 2,886 Greek words is the equivalent, in number of English words involved, of DROPPING OUT THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF 1 PETER AND 2 PETER! Pastor Moorman's book is eighty large pages.” [B.F.T. #1726] (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108)


THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK
[www.wayoflife.org]

This article is a short explanation of how Dean Burgon refuted the Revisers' theories because they had said that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark did not belong in our Bibles since it was not found in their favorite source manuscripts.

Burgon's scholarly work of PRIMARY RESEARCH has NEVER BEEN REFUTED by anyone.

But it has been virtually ignored because it is not popular. How is that for cultic thinking and prejudice?

BACK TO YOUR POST:

In other words, it is my generalized understanding that approximately 85% of ALL VERSIONS agree exactly. What percentage disagree and what MAJOR theologies are at stake? Of the examples, that I sent you privately that is almost all of Dr. Chafer's mentionings of differences. I am glad to work with you to make a study of the contrasts and comparisons of the KJV scholars and Dr. Chafer.

{{{TESTY, this is getting into so much detail without establishing the basics of the subject and I don't think we have time now to go into this specific question. I am not trying to skip your question, but please understand that I don't have time to go back and reread the volumes of information you have given me. It is time for you to read what I have suggested here, then go back to the stuff I sent you email. There is an ideal chart online that I can't post here because the page is down for some reason, so I WILL SEND IT TO YOU EMAIL. THAT CHART IS AT THE END OF THIS EMAIL. As for Chafer's views you have the index and I don't. Check out what I send you here then see if this answers your general questions first, then we can proceed to specifics of Chafer eventually.}}}

YOU SAID:
In the previous posts and in those that I sent you privately, (which though abrreviated) was to show that Chafer did make specific distinctions between the various versions. I tried to show differences Chafer made between the Authorized version and other versions. In the spirit of truth, no trickery on my part is involved here.

{{{I never said there was any trickery on Chafer's part or even on Thieme's part. They both were trained in a field of Bible criticism called TEXTUAL CRITICISM and the modern teachers of this prevail. They do not inform their students of the "missing information" in their subject because either they are not aware of it or they do not want to deal with it because it blows their theories right out of the water. Thieme went one way with his education, and Waite went entirely another with the same course work, but very different personalities! Thieme distorted what he learned and Waite did not. Chafer did not teach Thieme to do what he eventually did with the Word of God. Chafer is not the real issue as I see it except that he taught Thieme and Dr. Waite as well. Dallas Seminary has elected to follow the modern Bible critics and not include a lot of historical information which should be dealt with. It is information that is powerfully convincing to an honest inquirer, and I think that is one reason why it is ignored.

I never said that Chafer did not distinguish between versions, but that IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HE IS NOT AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO STREAMS OF TEXT. I can't be dogmatic about that not having the source online or the time to research his views in detail on Bible versions and textual criticism. I don't think you understand the difference between the TEXTS that the modern versions all are based upon and the traditional text that the KJB is based upon, which was used by the faithful churches for 1500 years before the 1870s and 1880s work of Westcott and Hort. THAT IS WHY it is spinning wheels to try to answer your questions fairly until you get up to speed on the basic terminology and issues. There really is no shortcut to this. You have to do the homework. You don't have to do it all at once or within a deadline. But if you want to discuss it with me further, PLEASE read what I have given here. If your questions are not answered by any of this, keep a list and then go read the previous items I sent you email. We can deal with this either on Ross or by email if Ross thinks this is not related enough for the Thieme subject. But I have already made a good case that it is relevant and I don't have a problem in posting here if that is what you prefer.}}}

YOU SAID:
For the unabbreviated remarks, see that Chafer does not miss the theological point in this particular case.

Vol. 2, Page 152
An exception to this clear teaching on the universality of the resurrection of bodies of Christians is the abrupt statement that “we shall not all sleep” (1 Cor. 15:51), that is, not all Christians are to experience death. By these arresting words a hitherto unrevealed purpose of God, here termed a mystery, is disclosed. As elsewhere declared, some will be alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:15–17); but these do not enter heaven in the present body of limitation. For these, this body will be changed, and that “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (vss. 51–52). The change here indicated is not with respect to residence, though such a change is determined (1 Thess. 4:17), but rather the change is one of the nature of the body itself. It has just been stated that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, “neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50). “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (vs. 52). Including himself as one who might not die, the Apostle draws the sharp contrast between those who are raised incorruptible and those who are changed from the living state to the body of glory and without death. “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (vs. 53). Those to whom these promises are addressed have, when saved, “put off” the old man and “put on” the new man (Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10), but now they are said to “put on” either incorruption or immortality; all of which implies that corruption and mortality will be put off. Incorruption is that estate of body which is attained through resurrection from the dead and is described in previous verses (vss. 35–50), and is the usual experience of believers; while immortality is that estate of body which is attained by an immediate change, apart from death, and is an exception since it is only for those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord. The final consequence is identical in either case, being, as it will be, a body like unto the glorious body of Christ (Phil. 3:20–21).

Even in the abbreviated previous quote does it not say?:

"It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"


{{{I already covered this in some of my previous work sent to you or posted. Please read it then get back to me if your point is not addressed.}}}


Vol. 2, Page 158
Our Vile Body (Phil. 3:21). Here the translation is wholly at fault. Nothing God has made is vile. The Authorized text would favor the heathen notions regarding the human body. The Revised Version renders this “the body of our humiliation,” which is sustained by all exegetes. Equally as misunderstood is the phrase “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory” (1 Cor. 15:43), where the contrast is drawn between the present body—especially as it sees corruption—and the body that is to be. It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be.

Your objection seems to be over Dr. Chafer's description of the Authorized version's use of the word "vile", but in the entirety of the message, Dr. Chafer is not missing the theological point. "Vile" seems to be just one of the possible English translations of meaning of the Greek word.

{{Ditto. You did not quote anything I actually said about this already. Read it, get back to me on it. }}}

[www.laparola.net]

Definitions
Thayer
1) lowness, low estate
2) metaphorically
2a) spiritual abasement, leading one to perceive and lament his (moral) littleness and guilt
Part of Speech: noun feminine
Citing in TDNT: 8:1, 1152

Strong
G5014
From G5013; depression (in rank or feeling): - humiliation, be made low, low estate, vile.


Louw-Nida
Gloss Section
b low status 87.60
a humility 88.51

ZHubert
With a link to the definition of Perseus

Ulrik Petersen
Strong's dictionary

Crosswalk
Thayer's dictionary plus other information.

LaParola
From this site's dictionary (in Italian)

In the New Testament
NA/UBS (also Westcott and Hort; Tischendorf; Byzantine)


Truthtesty

{{It is significant that these mention the NESTLE/ ALAND text and W&H. You do not seem to understand that these are the PROBLEM not the solution! Read what I already sent you about these things, and we can proceed. I can wait on you.}}}

RE THIS CHART: The home page where I found this is:

[watch.pair.com]

The actual page I originally got this chart from is down I hope not permanently:

{{{Shucks, now I can't find IT. Will have to do without it. The web site may have some loony aspects that I don't agree with but the chart is helpful and useful in giving you a quick overview. I keep looking for other charts and preserve them as I find them. This is the first thing I could come up with because I have it on my hard drive.}}}

Please read hat I have already written and sent, then QUOTE me when you refer to what I said or what you think I said or meant. It will help a great deal.

Sincerely,
Sis

P.S. SORRY ABOUT THE BIG PATCH ABOVE OF LARGE PRINT TEXT. I did not mean for so much to be enlarged and I don't have time right now to change it. Although it is lovely to be able to read this without squinting I know before now that moderators have objected to a lot of big print.
~ Sis



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2008 11:55AM by sistersoap.