Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 03, 2008 12:33AM
To the Forum:
Burgon quote: 17. In Textual Criticism then, "rough comparison" can seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact Collation of documents whether ancient or modern with the received text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text, - (as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein ; Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz ; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,) - not as a criterion of Excellence, but as a standard of Comparison. All this will be found fully explained below, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of the authenticity of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever found, - whether in Justin Martyr and Iranaeus, on the one hand; or in Stephens and Elizevir, on the other; - to the test of Catholic Antiquity. If the witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of arbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other criterion of Truth.
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Burgon quote: 17. In Textual Criticism then, "rough comparison" can seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact Collation of documents whether ancient or modern with the received text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text, - (as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein ; Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz ; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,) - not as a criterion of Excellence, but as a standard of Comparison. All this will be found fully explained below, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of the authenticity of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever found, - whether in Justin Martyr and Iranaeus, on the one hand; or in Stephens and Elizevir, on the other; - to the test of Catholic Antiquity. If the witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of arbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other criterion of Truth.
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 03, 2008 03:13PM
To the Forum:
Burgon quote: " I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels p. 15
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Burgon quote: " I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels p. 15
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 03, 2008 05:16PM
To the Forum:
Dr. Waite quote: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Here I disagree with Dr. Waite's approach. "Absolute" should be left to God - the "Living Word".
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Mark 13:31
To me this statement is evidence that when heaven and earth pass away, God's Words will not pass away. So when heaven and earth pass away it would seem that the paper the Texts are written on would pass away too. This is evidence to me that it is living spiritual Words of God being referred to.
Perhaps Dr. Waite should listen to Burgons own words "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Doubts will arise no matter what; assuming a pretentious "absolute" approach does not stop doubts. And wanting often has nothing to do with the truth.
Truthtesty
Dr. Waite quote: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Here I disagree with Dr. Waite's approach. "Absolute" should be left to God - the "Living Word".
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Mark 13:31
To me this statement is evidence that when heaven and earth pass away, God's Words will not pass away. So when heaven and earth pass away it would seem that the paper the Texts are written on would pass away too. This is evidence to me that it is living spiritual Words of God being referred to.
Perhaps Dr. Waite should listen to Burgons own words "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Doubts will arise no matter what; assuming a pretentious "absolute" approach does not stop doubts. And wanting often has nothing to do with the truth.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 04, 2008 10:29AM
To the Forum:
Scrivener quote: In appendix E has been brought together all that can throw light on the critical resources at the command of our Translators in the prosecution of their version of the New Testament. That these were very scanty is sufficiently well known, and, if for this cause only, a formal revision of their work has become a matter of necessity, after the lapse of so long a period. None of the most ancient Greek manuscripts had then been collated, and though Codex Beza (D) had been for many years deposited in England, little use had been made of it, and that single document, from it's very peculiar character, would have been more likely to mislead than to instruct in inexperienced hands. It would be unjust to allege that the Translators failed to take advantage of the materials which were readily accessible, nor did they lack care or discernment in the application of them. Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of Beza's Greek Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed than his fifth (1598), the production of his extreme old age. But besides these, the Complutensian Polygott, together with several editions of Erasmus, and Stephen's of 1550, were constantly resorted to. Out of the 252 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books is sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, with Stephen against Beza in 59, with Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80. The influence of Beza is just as perceptible in the cases of their choice between the various readings which have been collected above (p.58): the form approved by him is set in the text, the alternative is mostly banished to the margin. On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yielded too much to Beza's somewhat arbitrary decisions; but they lived at a time when his name was the very highest among Reformed theologians, when means for arriving at an independent judgment were few and scattered, and when the first principles of texual criticism had yet to be gathered from a long process of painful induction. His most obvious and glaring errors their good sense easily enabled them to avoid (cf. Matt. i. 23; John xviii, 20).
The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives Cambridge, 1884, By Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, pgs 59-60
[books.google.com]
Not only did the King James Translators side with the Vulgate against Beza and Stephens in 80 places, but "they lived at a time when his name was the very highest among Reformed theologians, when means for arriving at an independent judgment were few and scattered, and when the first principles of texual criticism had yet to be gathered from a long process of painful induction."
Texual Criticism was in it's early stages as we can clearly see the King James Translators practiced thier own early version of "Texual Criticism": Out of the 252 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books is sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, with Stephen against Beza in 59, with Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80. AND maybe yielding "too much to Beza's somewhat arbitrary decisions."
The Translators selected among various Texts - Textual Criticism. And since it appears "None of the most ancient Greek manuscripts had then been collated", there is nothing to say that they would not have referenced ancient Texts had they been collated. Also Scrivener seems to suggest that the Translators were inexperienced ie "...though Codex Beza (D) had been for many years deposited in England, little use had been made of it, and that single document, from it's very peculiar character, would have been more likely to mislead than to instruct in inexperienced hands."
Test all things.
Truthtesty
Scrivener quote: In appendix E has been brought together all that can throw light on the critical resources at the command of our Translators in the prosecution of their version of the New Testament. That these were very scanty is sufficiently well known, and, if for this cause only, a formal revision of their work has become a matter of necessity, after the lapse of so long a period. None of the most ancient Greek manuscripts had then been collated, and though Codex Beza (D) had been for many years deposited in England, little use had been made of it, and that single document, from it's very peculiar character, would have been more likely to mislead than to instruct in inexperienced hands. It would be unjust to allege that the Translators failed to take advantage of the materials which were readily accessible, nor did they lack care or discernment in the application of them. Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of Beza's Greek Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed than his fifth (1598), the production of his extreme old age. But besides these, the Complutensian Polygott, together with several editions of Erasmus, and Stephen's of 1550, were constantly resorted to. Out of the 252 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books is sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, with Stephen against Beza in 59, with Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80. The influence of Beza is just as perceptible in the cases of their choice between the various readings which have been collected above (p.58): the form approved by him is set in the text, the alternative is mostly banished to the margin. On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yielded too much to Beza's somewhat arbitrary decisions; but they lived at a time when his name was the very highest among Reformed theologians, when means for arriving at an independent judgment were few and scattered, and when the first principles of texual criticism had yet to be gathered from a long process of painful induction. His most obvious and glaring errors their good sense easily enabled them to avoid (cf. Matt. i. 23; John xviii, 20).
The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives Cambridge, 1884, By Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, pgs 59-60
[books.google.com]
Not only did the King James Translators side with the Vulgate against Beza and Stephens in 80 places, but "they lived at a time when his name was the very highest among Reformed theologians, when means for arriving at an independent judgment were few and scattered, and when the first principles of texual criticism had yet to be gathered from a long process of painful induction."
Texual Criticism was in it's early stages as we can clearly see the King James Translators practiced thier own early version of "Texual Criticism": Out of the 252 passages examined in Appendix E, wherein the differences between the texts of these books is sufficient to affect, however slightly, the language of the version, our Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, with Stephen against Beza in 59, with Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80. AND maybe yielding "too much to Beza's somewhat arbitrary decisions."
The Translators selected among various Texts - Textual Criticism. And since it appears "None of the most ancient Greek manuscripts had then been collated", there is nothing to say that they would not have referenced ancient Texts had they been collated. Also Scrivener seems to suggest that the Translators were inexperienced ie "...though Codex Beza (D) had been for many years deposited in England, little use had been made of it, and that single document, from it's very peculiar character, would have been more likely to mislead than to instruct in inexperienced hands."
Test all things.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 04, 2008 11:55AM
To the Forum:
Burgon quote: "And let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because the Syriac and the Latin versions are such venerable documents they must be held to outweigh all the rest and may be right in this matter after all. It will be found and explained elsewhere that in places like the present, those famous versions are often observed to interpret rather than to reproduce the inspired verity: to discharge the office of a Targum rather than of translation.... The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established By John William Burgon, Edward Miller pg. 49
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2008 11:57AM by Truthtesty.
Burgon quote: "And let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because the Syriac and the Latin versions are such venerable documents they must be held to outweigh all the rest and may be right in this matter after all. It will be found and explained elsewhere that in places like the present, those famous versions are often observed to interpret rather than to reproduce the inspired verity: to discharge the office of a Targum rather than of translation.... The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established By John William Burgon, Edward Miller pg. 49
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2008 11:57AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 05, 2008 11:54PM
To the Forum:
britannica quote: "These witnesses (as they may be called) must be identified, dated, and described, using the appropriate paleographical and bibliographical techniques. They must then be collated; i.e., the variant readings that they contain must be registered by comparison with some selected form of the text, often a standard printed edition."
[www.britannica.com]
Burgon quote: 6. but how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have "put forth Lloyd's Greek Testament as the final standard of appeal"? True, that, in order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred five famous codices (A B N C D) - certain of which are found to have turned the brain of the Critics of the new school- to one and the same familiar exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament: but by so doing I have not by any means assumed the Textual purity of that common standard. In other words I have not made it "the final standard of Appeal." All Critics, - wherever found,at all times, have collated with the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient standard of Comparison ; not surely, as the absolute standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pg. xviii by Burgon
[books.google.com]
Notice again above Burgon does not agree with an "absolute" standard of excellence, but of a convenient standard of comparison.
Burgon quote: 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy. (Lloyd's 'Greek Testament,') only in order to facilitate reference, and to make sure that my statements would be at once understood by the least learned person who could be supposed to have access to the 'Quaterly.' I presumed every scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to reproduce Mill's text; and that Mill (1707) reprduces the text of Stehphens;1 and that Stephens (1550) exhibits with sufficient accuracy the Traditional text, - which is confessedly at least 1530 years old.1 Now if a tolerable approximation to the text of A.D. 350 may not be the accepted as a standard of Comparison, - will the writer in the 'Church Quarterly' be so obliging as to inform us which exhibition of the sacred Text may?
Subscript 1: "Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum idem perfecto, quod ad textum attinet, cum ed. Milliana," - And Mill, according to Scrivener, [Introduction, p. 399,] "only aims at reproducing Stephens' text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whetherby accident or design." Such places are found to amount in all to twenty-nine.
Burgon quote: 17. In Textual Criticism then, "rough comparison" can seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact Collation of documents whether ancient or modern with the received text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text, - (as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein ; Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz ; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,) - not as a criterion of Excellence, but as a standard of Comparison. All this will be found fully explained below, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of the authenticity of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever found, - whether in Justin Martyr and Iranaeus, on the one hand; or in Stephens and Elizevir, on the other; - to the test of Catholic Antiquity. If the witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of arbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other criterion of Truth.
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2008 12:04AM by Truthtesty.
britannica quote: "These witnesses (as they may be called) must be identified, dated, and described, using the appropriate paleographical and bibliographical techniques. They must then be collated; i.e., the variant readings that they contain must be registered by comparison with some selected form of the text, often a standard printed edition."
[www.britannica.com]
Burgon quote: 6. but how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have "put forth Lloyd's Greek Testament as the final standard of appeal"? True, that, in order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred five famous codices (A B N C D) - certain of which are found to have turned the brain of the Critics of the new school- to one and the same familiar exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament: but by so doing I have not by any means assumed the Textual purity of that common standard. In other words I have not made it "the final standard of Appeal." All Critics, - wherever found,at all times, have collated with the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient standard of Comparison ; not surely, as the absolute standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pg. xviii by Burgon
[books.google.com]
Notice again above Burgon does not agree with an "absolute" standard of excellence, but of a convenient standard of comparison.
Burgon quote: 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy. (Lloyd's 'Greek Testament,') only in order to facilitate reference, and to make sure that my statements would be at once understood by the least learned person who could be supposed to have access to the 'Quaterly.' I presumed every scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to reproduce Mill's text; and that Mill (1707) reprduces the text of Stehphens;1 and that Stephens (1550) exhibits with sufficient accuracy the Traditional text, - which is confessedly at least 1530 years old.1 Now if a tolerable approximation to the text of A.D. 350 may not be the accepted as a standard of Comparison, - will the writer in the 'Church Quarterly' be so obliging as to inform us which exhibition of the sacred Text may?
Subscript 1: "Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum idem perfecto, quod ad textum attinet, cum ed. Milliana," - And Mill, according to Scrivener, [Introduction, p. 399,] "only aims at reproducing Stephens' text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whetherby accident or design." Such places are found to amount in all to twenty-nine.
Burgon quote: 17. In Textual Criticism then, "rough comparison" can seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact Collation of documents whether ancient or modern with the received text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text, - (as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein ; Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz ; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,) - not as a criterion of Excellence, but as a standard of Comparison. All this will be found fully explained below, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of the authenticity of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever found, - whether in Justin Martyr and Iranaeus, on the one hand; or in Stephens and Elizevir, on the other; - to the test of Catholic Antiquity. If the witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of arbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other criterion of Truth.
[books.google.com]
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2008 12:04AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
sistersoap
()
Date: August 06, 2008 02:41AM
TO TESTY AND THE FORUM
I see Testy is not replying to any of my questions and requests to him. He is piling up his quotes again without responding to what I say and ask specificially to and of him.
Therefore, this is no longer a CONVERSATION with him, it is a pile up of quotes which it seems he is good at doing,
It appears to me that he is a complete failute at TALKING WITH ME AT LEAST when I strongly disagreee with him. I spend a lot of time on answering his posts and all I get in return is MORE QUOTES, no answers to my requests.
I wanted to let him and fthe forum know that I am home again, and plan to eventually get to each of his posts, as he will not address ME, I will not necessarily address HIM, but would like, for the sake of others who read what is posted, to respond to issues he reaises, but does not follow through on in response to what I have asked HIM. He demands such response of others, but will not give it reliably.
I grant him his ability to find and post quotes. Too bad he is not good at playing with others and likes to attack then disappear. Or hide behind his famous temper.
While I was away on vacation, my computer evidently came on after a power interruption and stayed on for who knows how long. I NEVER leave my computer on if I am not using it and it is VERY SLOW right now. I also can't send email. I can receive but not sent. So IF I SEEM TO DISAPPEAR for a while it is not for lack of interest, it is probably a computer problem.
Sadly, Testy's temper and lack of conversational skills and fighting with me DO NOT HELP THE CAUSE THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER HERE. It is probably a cause for rejoicing over at the pro Thieme camp for sure.
Sad, isn't it?
Sistersoap
P.S. TESTY, I have skimmed your posts but have not had time to read them in detail. You are good at finding quotes that agree wtih your postition. You are not good at seeing others' points of view if they disagree with you, at least in my case you are not. You still do not have a clear understanding of what I am saying about TEXTS, VERSIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS.
You need to read Dr. Waite's book in toto and go to the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY'S WEB PAGE and read their quotes of Burgon. You might find something that challenges you and your quotes.
Are you afraid?
Sis
I see Testy is not replying to any of my questions and requests to him. He is piling up his quotes again without responding to what I say and ask specificially to and of him.
Therefore, this is no longer a CONVERSATION with him, it is a pile up of quotes which it seems he is good at doing,
It appears to me that he is a complete failute at TALKING WITH ME AT LEAST when I strongly disagreee with him. I spend a lot of time on answering his posts and all I get in return is MORE QUOTES, no answers to my requests.
I wanted to let him and fthe forum know that I am home again, and plan to eventually get to each of his posts, as he will not address ME, I will not necessarily address HIM, but would like, for the sake of others who read what is posted, to respond to issues he reaises, but does not follow through on in response to what I have asked HIM. He demands such response of others, but will not give it reliably.
I grant him his ability to find and post quotes. Too bad he is not good at playing with others and likes to attack then disappear. Or hide behind his famous temper.
While I was away on vacation, my computer evidently came on after a power interruption and stayed on for who knows how long. I NEVER leave my computer on if I am not using it and it is VERY SLOW right now. I also can't send email. I can receive but not sent. So IF I SEEM TO DISAPPEAR for a while it is not for lack of interest, it is probably a computer problem.
Sadly, Testy's temper and lack of conversational skills and fighting with me DO NOT HELP THE CAUSE THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER HERE. It is probably a cause for rejoicing over at the pro Thieme camp for sure.
Sad, isn't it?
Sistersoap
P.S. TESTY, I have skimmed your posts but have not had time to read them in detail. You are good at finding quotes that agree wtih your postition. You are not good at seeing others' points of view if they disagree with you, at least in my case you are not. You still do not have a clear understanding of what I am saying about TEXTS, VERSIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS.
You need to read Dr. Waite's book in toto and go to the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY'S WEB PAGE and read their quotes of Burgon. You might find something that challenges you and your quotes.
Are you afraid?
Sis
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 06, 2008 06:04AM
To Sister:
I am not hiding or afraid of anything you have to say or post. You say I was nasty to you. I don't think I was. I am researching the subect of Burgon which I'd much rather do than deal with your rants and you could at least appreciate that I am testing the subject. Your crying about my endless quotes but they are not Chafer quotes are they? They are Burgon quotes and? still your crying. I am researching the subject so that others can learn about the Burgon/Waite issue.
Already there is a problem:
Dr. Waite quotes: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Perhaps Dr. Waite should listen to Burgons own words "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Test all things
Truthtesty
I am not hiding or afraid of anything you have to say or post. You say I was nasty to you. I don't think I was. I am researching the subect of Burgon which I'd much rather do than deal with your rants and you could at least appreciate that I am testing the subject. Your crying about my endless quotes but they are not Chafer quotes are they? They are Burgon quotes and? still your crying. I am researching the subject so that others can learn about the Burgon/Waite issue.
Already there is a problem:
Dr. Waite quotes: If you do not start with an absolute, you're going to continue to move and to accept more and more changes. Where can you stop, once you have begun to slide? Doubts will arise in your mind. We don't want to move from the Hebrew O.T. on which our KJV is based. We must have an absolute.
My personal belief is that the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KJV is not only the "closest to the original autographs," but that it is IDENTICAL to those original autographs. I can't prove that to anybody, but I accept it as a matter of personal faith. I believe we have the very Words that God has preserved through the years. I believe every Word in the Hebrew text is God's Word, preserved because He told us He would preserve it for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years--to a "thousand generations."
[www.biblebelievers.net]
I am not really surprised that Burgon disagrees with Dr. Waite's approach on this point:
Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387
[books.google.com]
Perhaps Dr. Waite should listen to Burgons own words "what sane man..." AND "hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence". Burgon's own statements in this paragraph was one of making the case that Burgon's approach was one of Comparison and not confusing Comparison with Excellence (not superiorly stating equality to the Divine autographs).
Test all things
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: August 07, 2008 04:24AM
To the Forum:
In my unpredjudiced research for truth, Dr. Chafer does appear to be aware of the Reformation/Revisor issue to some degree.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 4, Page 36: The clear recognition of that which, through divine grace, the Church is, of the supreme place she occupies as the Body of Christ, and of the glory and exaltation which awaits her as the Bride of the Lamb, is indispensable if a worthy perspective of God’s plan and purpose is to be gained. The all but universal disregard on the part of theologians for the Pauline revelation respecting the Church has wrought confusion and damage to an immeasurable degree. Two factors serve as paramount causes of this deplorable neglect, namely, (a) the Reformation did not recover this truth as formerly it was held by the early church, and (b) the attitude of the theologians, being bound and confined within the limitations of Reformation truth, has been that of avoiding what to them seems new. No theology would be complete, even as viewed by the Reformers, that did not exalt the first Pauline revelation of the gospel. However, it is as true, in the light of the Scriptures, that no theology is complete that does not recognize and elevate to its transcendent place the second Pauline revelation of the Church. The two disclosures are interdependent and therefore inseparable to a large degree. Together they form that larger body of truth which the Apostle termed “my gospel.”
While there were occasional references to the Church universal in post-Reformation theological literature, it was not until the middle of the last century that this extensive and important body of teaching was wrought into a doctrinal declaration. It was given to J. N. Darby of England to achieve this distinctive ministry. From the teachings of Darby and his associates what is known as the Brethren movement sprang; and these highly trained men have produced an expository literature covering the entire Sacred Text which is not only orthodox and free from misconceptions and disproportionate emphasis, but essays to interpret faithfully the entire field of Biblical doctrine—that which theology confined to the Reformation has failed to do. At this same time, other men in America and foreign countries were awakening to the fact that the Bible presents a much larger range of doctrine than that released by the Reformers, and, as a result, a widespread Bible exposition movement has developed which incorporated all that the Reformation restored and very much more. There is, then, a division at the present time in the ranks of orthodox men. On the one hand, there are those who, being trained to recognize no more than that which entered into Reformation theology, are restricted in their doctrinal viewpoint and who look upon added truth as a departure from standard ideas and therefore dangerous. On the other hand, there are those who, though as jealous to preserve the purity of the divine revelation, are constructing an unabridged system of theology, and finding the way into the full-orbed harmony of truth and into the limitless field of Biblical doctrine.
Scofield followed Darby. Here's an example from JSTOR: Dispensationalism in America, Its Rise and Development by C. Norman Kraus Church History, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1960), pp. 111-113: The origin of this modern dispensationalism Kraus locates in the teachings of J. N. Darby, the English founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement. Darby, almost unknown to church historians, has exerted a profound influence outside his own denomination, for it was his eschatology and (especially) his ecclesiology which gave such a characteristic stamp to dispensationalism, premillennialism, and eventually fundamentalism. Darby visited North America frequently, travelling to the U.S. three times in the 1870's. He and his disciples considered themselves missionaries, but they evangelized from the pulpits of influential evangelical churches. Their message was directed more to puzzled Christians than unbelievers.....Kraus approached this study (acccording to the dust jacket) in order to combat dispensationalism's disquieting invasion of his own denomination. He traces its history in order to refute its theology. In this, I feel, he failed to see the real significance of the movement. In tracing the origin of dispensationalism, Kraus has uncovered the seed plot of fundamentalism. The theology of fundamentalism is dispensationalism, its Bible, the Scofield Referenice Bible. Ever since the publication of Stewart G. Cole's History of Fundamientalism, historians have vaguely referred to the premillennial conferences of the late nineteenth century as fundamentalism's point of origin. My own study of those conferences, however, left me puzzled. Although fundamentalists were obviously running the conferences in 1914 and 1918, men of a basically different stamp were in charge in 1878. In tracing the rise of dispensationalism through J. N. Darby, Kraus has put his finger on the real founding father of fundamentalism.
Chafer followed Scofield. (As I have already shown examples).
So far I have found this in relation to Burgon and Darby: Miracle and Mission By James A. Kelhoffer p.17 subscript 63.
[books.google.com]
Miracle and Mission By James A. Kelhoffer p.17 subscript 63: "63 The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established, (Oxford and London: James Parker, 1871: reprinted , Ann Arbor, MI: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc, 1959) Because the page numeration is different in the first (1871) and reprinted (1959) versions, the page numbers cited here refer to the original 1871 edition. Before Burgon, proponents for the Textus Receptus included F. H. A. Scrivener, J. N. Darby and F. C. Cook...
In Miracle and Mission By James A. Kelhoffer p.17 subscript 63(above) It references the two following books by Burgon:
The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established, by John William Burgon
[www.worldcat.org]
The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark
by John William Burgon
[www.worldcat.org]
Before Burgon, proponents for the Textus Receptus included F. H. A. Scrivener, J. N. Darby and F. C. Cook...
Test all things.
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2008 04:28AM by Truthtesty.
In my unpredjudiced research for truth, Dr. Chafer does appear to be aware of the Reformation/Revisor issue to some degree.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 4, Page 36: The clear recognition of that which, through divine grace, the Church is, of the supreme place she occupies as the Body of Christ, and of the glory and exaltation which awaits her as the Bride of the Lamb, is indispensable if a worthy perspective of God’s plan and purpose is to be gained. The all but universal disregard on the part of theologians for the Pauline revelation respecting the Church has wrought confusion and damage to an immeasurable degree. Two factors serve as paramount causes of this deplorable neglect, namely, (a) the Reformation did not recover this truth as formerly it was held by the early church, and (b) the attitude of the theologians, being bound and confined within the limitations of Reformation truth, has been that of avoiding what to them seems new. No theology would be complete, even as viewed by the Reformers, that did not exalt the first Pauline revelation of the gospel. However, it is as true, in the light of the Scriptures, that no theology is complete that does not recognize and elevate to its transcendent place the second Pauline revelation of the Church. The two disclosures are interdependent and therefore inseparable to a large degree. Together they form that larger body of truth which the Apostle termed “my gospel.”
While there were occasional references to the Church universal in post-Reformation theological literature, it was not until the middle of the last century that this extensive and important body of teaching was wrought into a doctrinal declaration. It was given to J. N. Darby of England to achieve this distinctive ministry. From the teachings of Darby and his associates what is known as the Brethren movement sprang; and these highly trained men have produced an expository literature covering the entire Sacred Text which is not only orthodox and free from misconceptions and disproportionate emphasis, but essays to interpret faithfully the entire field of Biblical doctrine—that which theology confined to the Reformation has failed to do. At this same time, other men in America and foreign countries were awakening to the fact that the Bible presents a much larger range of doctrine than that released by the Reformers, and, as a result, a widespread Bible exposition movement has developed which incorporated all that the Reformation restored and very much more. There is, then, a division at the present time in the ranks of orthodox men. On the one hand, there are those who, being trained to recognize no more than that which entered into Reformation theology, are restricted in their doctrinal viewpoint and who look upon added truth as a departure from standard ideas and therefore dangerous. On the other hand, there are those who, though as jealous to preserve the purity of the divine revelation, are constructing an unabridged system of theology, and finding the way into the full-orbed harmony of truth and into the limitless field of Biblical doctrine.
Scofield followed Darby. Here's an example from JSTOR: Dispensationalism in America, Its Rise and Development by C. Norman Kraus Church History, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1960), pp. 111-113: The origin of this modern dispensationalism Kraus locates in the teachings of J. N. Darby, the English founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement. Darby, almost unknown to church historians, has exerted a profound influence outside his own denomination, for it was his eschatology and (especially) his ecclesiology which gave such a characteristic stamp to dispensationalism, premillennialism, and eventually fundamentalism. Darby visited North America frequently, travelling to the U.S. three times in the 1870's. He and his disciples considered themselves missionaries, but they evangelized from the pulpits of influential evangelical churches. Their message was directed more to puzzled Christians than unbelievers.....Kraus approached this study (acccording to the dust jacket) in order to combat dispensationalism's disquieting invasion of his own denomination. He traces its history in order to refute its theology. In this, I feel, he failed to see the real significance of the movement. In tracing the origin of dispensationalism, Kraus has uncovered the seed plot of fundamentalism. The theology of fundamentalism is dispensationalism, its Bible, the Scofield Referenice Bible. Ever since the publication of Stewart G. Cole's History of Fundamientalism, historians have vaguely referred to the premillennial conferences of the late nineteenth century as fundamentalism's point of origin. My own study of those conferences, however, left me puzzled. Although fundamentalists were obviously running the conferences in 1914 and 1918, men of a basically different stamp were in charge in 1878. In tracing the rise of dispensationalism through J. N. Darby, Kraus has put his finger on the real founding father of fundamentalism.
Chafer followed Scofield. (As I have already shown examples).
So far I have found this in relation to Burgon and Darby: Miracle and Mission By James A. Kelhoffer p.17 subscript 63.
[books.google.com]
Miracle and Mission By James A. Kelhoffer p.17 subscript 63: "63 The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established, (Oxford and London: James Parker, 1871: reprinted , Ann Arbor, MI: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc, 1959) Because the page numeration is different in the first (1871) and reprinted (1959) versions, the page numbers cited here refer to the original 1871 edition. Before Burgon, proponents for the Textus Receptus included F. H. A. Scrivener, J. N. Darby and F. C. Cook...
In Miracle and Mission By James A. Kelhoffer p.17 subscript 63(above) It references the two following books by Burgon:
The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors and established, by John William Burgon
[www.worldcat.org]
The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark
by John William Burgon
[www.worldcat.org]
Before Burgon, proponents for the Textus Receptus included F. H. A. Scrivener, J. N. Darby and F. C. Cook...
Test all things.
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2008 04:28AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
karen
()
Date: August 07, 2008 07:01AM
Quote:
Linda Holley
Her husband asked for a divorce (of course he was in revisionism at the time - is there really such a word?)
I'm wondering who decided that her husband was in reversionism? Did his wife tell him so or did he tell himself? Was it the Pastor who pointed it out? I know another word I hear traveling around the Christian realm is "backslidden." That's the same thing as reversionsim, right?
Words like this make me a little bit nervous. I'm sure anyone, believer or not, can fall into this state of being but I also believe that God is capable of restoring a person to sanity if the person wants it badly enough.
If you want to use words like "reversionsim" then, personally speaking, I'd have to guess that half the world we live in is in that state to one degree or the other.
I don't think any one person, and not even a Pastor, has the final say as to these
things. I meen, don't you think every man can search out his own heart and let GOD tell you what you need to know?
Why all the negatives?
I'm not an expert on R. B. Thieme. One post read, if was reading right, that
the Pastor showed up to a service intoxicated?
True or not true, I really don't think that's something that should be
typed out on a worldwide public forum.
We've all messed up in our lives one way or the other and I am not
interested in knowing about how a Pastor was drunk.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion in freewill and grace today.
Karen
Linda Holley
Her husband asked for a divorce (of course he was in revisionism at the time - is there really such a word?)
I'm wondering who decided that her husband was in reversionism? Did his wife tell him so or did he tell himself? Was it the Pastor who pointed it out? I know another word I hear traveling around the Christian realm is "backslidden." That's the same thing as reversionsim, right?
Words like this make me a little bit nervous. I'm sure anyone, believer or not, can fall into this state of being but I also believe that God is capable of restoring a person to sanity if the person wants it badly enough.
If you want to use words like "reversionsim" then, personally speaking, I'd have to guess that half the world we live in is in that state to one degree or the other.
I don't think any one person, and not even a Pastor, has the final say as to these
things. I meen, don't you think every man can search out his own heart and let GOD tell you what you need to know?
Why all the negatives?
I'm not an expert on R. B. Thieme. One post read, if was reading right, that
the Pastor showed up to a service intoxicated?
True or not true, I really don't think that's something that should be
typed out on a worldwide public forum.
We've all messed up in our lives one way or the other and I am not
interested in knowing about how a Pastor was drunk.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion in freewill and grace today.
Karen
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.