To the Forum:


Burgon's theory of the seven notes of truth (emphasis mine):

CHAPTER III.
THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.

§ 1. Antiquity :—the more ancient, probably the better testimony—but not the sole arbiter.

§ 2. Number :—much fallacy in 'witnesses are to be weighed not counted'—used to champion the very few against the very many—number necessarily a powerful, but not the sole note of truth—Heb. iv. a.

§ 3. Variety :—a great help to Number—various countries—various ages—no collusion—St. Matt. x. 8.

§ 4. Weight, or Respectability :—witnesses must be (1) respectable—(2) MSS. must not be transcripts of one another—(3) Patristic evidence must not be copied—(4) MSS. from one archetype—between one and two copies—(5) any collusion impairs weight—(6) a Version outweighs any single MS.—(7) also a Father—weight of single MSS. to be determined by peculiar characteristics.

§ 5. Continuity :—value of Unbroken Tradition—weakening effects of smaller chasms—fatal consequence of the admitted chasm of fifteen centuries.

§ 6. Context :—(a) Context of meaning—i Cor. xiii. 5—(4) Context of readings—St. Matt. xvii. 2i—xi. 3-3 and St. Luke vii. 19—consistency in immediate context . pp. 40-67

§ 7. Internal Evidence.

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established By John William Burgon
[books.google.com]

*Note: I added § 7. Internal Evidence as it is missing from the TOC on page xvi , but it is presented on pg. 65. [books.google.com]

Of intresting note to me is Burgon's last paragraph on pg. 67

Burgon quote: I desire to point out concerning the foregoing seven Notes of Truth in Textual Evidence that the student can never afford entirely to lose sight of any of them. The reason is because although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading which can be named, practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength resides in their co-operation.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Here is the "The Oxford debate on the textual criticism of the New Testament" Held at New College, On May 6, 1897 ; With a preface explanatory of the rival systems by Edward Miller.

This is just a beginning to this debated controversy. Both sides present thier cases, but as noted on p 43 "Inevitable limits of time hampered all the speakers."

[books.google.com]


The JSTOR review article "The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1898), pp. 674-675" summarizes: The Oxford debate grew out of a desire on the part of Prebendary Edward Miller to secure from Oxford biblical students a fresh hearing for the case of the traditional text of the New Testament-which is preserved in the great mass of our MSS., and on which the Authorized Version is based -as against the critical text, derived by a genealogical study, chiefly from a few early uncials. This desire was met by Professor Sanday's invitation to a debate. The debate was thus between the school of Dean Burgon on the one side, and the followers of Dr. Hort on the other. The speakers were six: Miller, Gwilliam, and Bonus, as advocates of the traditional text, and Sanday, Allen, and Headlam, for the historico-critical method of Dr. Hort; the two sides being represented alternately, and Mr. Miller closing the debate...


Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2008 01:45AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:


^{CONVOCATION, an assembly of the spirituaity of the relam of England, which is summoned by the metropolitan archbishops of Canterbury and of York respectively within thier ecclesiastical provinces, pursuant to a royal writ, whenever the Parliament of the realm is summoned, and which is alsocontinued or discharged as the case may be, whenever the Parliamentis prorogued or dissolved.... Further, whereas the purport of an ordinary provincial council is to consult on matters which concern the faith or the peace of the church as a religious body, the Convocations are called together to treat of matters which concern the Crown, and the security and defence of the Church of England, aud the tranquillity, public good, and defence of the realm itself. All these subjects are specified as probable matters for deliberation in the royal writs, under which the archbishops are commanded to call together their respective Convocations.... These assemblies would thus appear to be integral parts of the body politic of the realm of England; but when and how they originated, and when and how they became so incorporated in it is not historically clear. Òhis much is known from authentic record, that the present constitution of the Convocation of the prelates and clergy of the province of Canterbury was recognized as early as in the eleventh year of the reign of Edward I (1283) as its normal constitution ; and that in extorting that recognition from the Crown, which this clergy accomplished by refusing to attend unless summoned in lawful manner (debito modo) through their metropolitan, the clergy of the province of Canterbury taught the laity the possibility of maintaining the freedom of the nation against the encroachments of the royal power...}
[books.google.com]

On February 10, 1870, a resolution was unamimously carried through both Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury, to appoint a joint committee of both Houses " To report upon the desirableness of a revision of the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testament, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those passages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall, on due investigation, be found to exist." This committee, composed of seven bishop from the Upper House and fourteen members from the Lower House, reported in the following May (nth) to this effect: " fi) That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken....
....VII. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join the New Testament company : Dr. Angus, the Archbishop of Dublin [Trench], Dr. Eadie, the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee, Dr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan, Professor Mouiton, Dr. J. H. Newman [declined], Professor Newth, Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott, Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Dr. Vaughan, and Canon Westcott .
^{VIII. That the general principles to be followed by both companies be as follows : (i) To introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness. (2) To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Versions. (3) Each company to go twice over the portion to be revised, — once provisionally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided. (4) That the text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating, and that when the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin. (5) To make or retain no change in the text on the second final revision by each company, except two-thirds of those present approve of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities. (6) In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those present at the meeting, such intended vote being announced in the notice for the next meeting. (7) To revise the headings of chapters, pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation. (8) To refer, on the part of each company, when considered desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions.
IX. That the work of each company be communicated to the other as it is completed, in order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language as possible.
X. That the special or by-rules for each company be as follows : (i) To make all corrections in writing previous, to the meeting. (2) To place all the corrections due to textual considerations on the left-hand (3) To transmit to the chairman, in case of being unable to attend, the corrections proposed in the portion agreed upon for consideration."} ... Those engaged on the New Testament completed their labors in ten and a half years, the Preface being dated from Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey, 11th November, 1880. This was exactly five hundred years after a complete English translation of the Bible had been given to the world by Wyclif. The work was published the ensuing year, on the 17th of May in England, and on the 2oth of the same month in the United States.


[books.google.com]

The Bible in English its history and influence by Daniell quotes Morberly: That although both the chief schools of biblical criticism were most ably represented among us. yet inasmuch as it shortly became apparent that the views of one of them [Westcott and Hort] generally carried, on a division, a majority of votes, the chief supporter of the other [Scrivener] refrained from challenging a division in many instances, preferring to wait for the second revision, when the requirement of two-thirds of the company present would necessarily operate in a conservative direction, excluding various changes which would have been carried by a mere majority in the first instance.59

[books.google.com]

Truthtesty: Here we see the King James version connection of "translation and revision" being tied directly into Crown of England and the Church of England. Thus it is to a degree a political product. Also, we clearly see that Scrivener was in the same revising New Testament Company as Westcott and Hort. And the "changes" to the Authorized version were made by vote. In the first "go round" of voting changes were made by simple majority and in the second "go round" were made by a necessary 2/3's requirement of votes. It appears that the "Revised version" dated from Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey, 11th November, 1880 is not the same product of Wescott and Hort nor of Scrivener. It appears to be a compromise between over 30 members of the "New Testament company", of which Westcott, Hort, and Scrivener were members of.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:

The 1611 was a "Revision" based on "The Bishop's Bible" 1604. To show a contrast and comparison between the methods of the 1881 "Revisors" and methods the 1611 "Revisors":

A History of Conferences and Other Proceedings Connected with the Revision By Edward Cardwell pg. 187
VII. After that, he moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eight and Edward the Sixth were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original . For example, first, Galatians iv. 25. the Greek word .... neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostles sence, nor the situation of the place.

[books.google.com]

((Of intresting side-note here is how Englishmen were able to clear thier conscience for executing Papists (Catholic) priests for treason. Confession was probably by the blade. (The lord treasurer added, that doctor Reinolds might have observed another use of those bookes, viz. that now by the testimony of those priests themselves, her late majesty and the state were cleared of that imputation, of putting papists to death for their consciences only, and for their religion, seeing, in those books, they themselves confess that they were executed for treason. Doctor Reinolds excused himself, expounding his complaint, not meant of such books as had been printed in England, but such as came from beyond the seas, as commentaries both in philosophy and divinity.)) [books.google.com]

The History of the Reformation of the Church of England By Gilbert Burnet, Edward Nares

Here is the Order set down for the Translating of the Bible (by King James) and the rules (methods) to be followed (also the 14 New Testament scholars and the 32 Old testament scholars):

[books.google.com]

1. THE ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered, as the Truth of the Original will permit....
...
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and filly be uxprest in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter, or Chapters, and having translated, or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath liispatched any one Book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for his Majesty is very careful in this Point.
....
14. These Translations to used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops' Bible, viz {Tindall's Matthew's Coverdale's Whitchurch's Geneva .


The Encyclopaedia Britannica By Hugh Chisholm Vol. III 1910 pg. 902cf
The English Bible, which is now recognized as the Authorized Version wherever the English language is spoken, is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, begun in 1604, and published in 1611. It arose out of Conference between the High Church and the Low Church parties convened by James I. at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604, for the purpose of determining " things pretended to be amiss in the church," and was originally proposed by Dr Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the leader and spokesman of the Low Church party, and subsequently on the committee which revised the translation of the Prophets. No real opposition was offered to the proposal, and the King cleverly sketched out on the moment a plan to be adopted. He " wished that some special pains should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation — professing that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English — and this to be done by the best learned in both the Universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the privy council; and lastly to be ratified by his royal authority; and so this whole church to be bound unto it and none other."1 He also particularly desired that no notes should be added by way of comment in the margin, since some of those in the Genevan Bible appeared to him " very partial, untrue, seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits." ....

The appointment of the revisers was a work of much responsibility and labour, and five months elapsed before they were selected and their respective portions assigned to them; ....shows how large an amount of scholarship was enlisted.... It is observable also that they were chosen without reference to party, at least as many of the Puritan clergy as of the opposite party being placed on the committees.

[books.google.com]


Truthtesty

To the Forum:

The manuscripts issue is very important. To realize that different "Greek" texts are used by different publishers should be enlightening to most people, whether one favors the "probability" arguement of one side or the other.

Dr. Waite's primary source for Westcott and Hort's changes is:

"The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised version together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version" by Scrivener.

[books.google.com]

The majority of Scrivener's document is in Greek. However, the preface(s) are in English. Even though this is an attempted reconstruction of the Textus Receptus behind the 1611 translators, it is still important as evidence to the different texts used by Westcott and Hort vs Scrivener in comparison to the 1611 Authorized. A short reminder is that Scrivener was in the same "New Testament Company" as Westcott and Hort, but they were obviously at many times at both contrary ends of the arguements to one another, in the "compromised" production of the "Revised Edition".

Among other intresting facts, Scrivener's preface shows approximation:

...The publication of an edition formed on this plan appeared to be all the more desirable, inasmuch as the Authorised Version was not a translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and no Greek text intended to reproduce in any way the original of the Authorised Version has ever been printed. In considering what text had the best right to be regarded as "the text presumed to underlie the "Authorised Version," it was necessary to take into account the composite nature of the Authorised Version, as due to successive revisions of Tyndale's translation. Tyndale himself followed the second and third editions of Erasmus's Greek text (1519, 1522). In the revisions of his translation previous to 1611 a partial use was made of other texts; of which ultimately the most influential were the various editions of Beza from 1560 to 1598, if indeed his Latin version of 1556 should not be included. Between 1598 and 1611 no important edition appeared; so that Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach. It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorised Version than any other Greek text; and accordingly it has been adopted by the Cambridge Press as the primary authority. There are however many places in which the Authorised Version is at variance with Beza's text ; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. In these cases it is often doubtful how far the revisers of 1611 deliberately preferred a different Greek reading; for their attention was not specially directed to textual variations, and they might not have thought it necessary to weed out every rendering inconsistent with Beza's text, which might linger among the older and unchanged portions of the version.


Truthtesty



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2008 05:52AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:


It is noteworthy that Thieme claimed he was very familiar with brainwashing techniques. So much so that Thieme and General Wedemeyer lectured on the brainwashing techniques of the "chicoms".

Evidence (video clip): [www.4shared.com]


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Thieme quote: Sharing God’s happiness has nothing to do with circumstances or the details of life. (Money, sex, job, position, family, friends, wealth, etc.) Sharing the happiness of God is a result of knowing God! And being "brainwashed" with His Thinking! (Eph_5:26-27) (Christian Integrity by RB Thieme).


Since Thieme teaches that the "right pastor" is the final authority for what the Word of God says for the submissive dependent believer, then isn't Thieme really saying "You are to be brainwashed with what I tell you God thinks?

Yes he is.

I have already shown many times how Thieme's doctrine of "right pastor", is not biblical. (here is just one ex: [forum.culteducation.com]).



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

In addition:

Thieme quote: "Successfully brainwashed by human viewpoint and by cosmic culture and ideals, by religious and political liberalism, they have become casualties in the angelic conflict (Col. 2:8)!"

According to Thieme your either brainwashed with human viewpoint OR brainwashed with "God's thinking". "God's thinking" is really what Thieme tells you God thinks, which equates to being brainwashed with Thieme's rhetoric. In either case the christian's own critical faculties are of little or no consequence.

It appears to me that Thieme, with his rhetoric, is trying to replace the job of the Holy Spirit, though he never says so.

Dr. Chafer called the Holy Spirit the "Master teacher".


Truthtesty

I want you to know I appreciate your calm approach and can't understand why anyone would take a single line out of your detailed post and give you hell for it. I went to Berachah Church as a child and as a teenager had a bit of a falling out. It had little to do with Thieme's Methodology or the content of his sermons I was just engaging in worldly studies and coming to know worldly ideals. I am coming back to Bible doctrine as the past few years of my life have been miserable ones and I believe the Word of God is what is missing. I agree with your assertion that it's difficult to convince people who already believe Thieme to be a cultist otherwise. I too will bow out now as I feel I am only beginning my true study of God's Word and simply wanted to thank you for maintaining a level head in a thread that seems to be dominated by great anger and self-righteousness.

To UPGRAYEDD:

On your return to Bible doctrine, perhaps you'd like to review the information orangeperuviscacha has compiled. The information is at [www.4shared.com]

And thank you for the kind post.


Truthtesty