Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:57 PM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default The William Carey Bible Society

I would like to recommend the website of a newly formed ministry that I believe all defenders of the KJV should be aware of. This ministry is the William Carey Bible Society.

The website is - http://www.wcbible.org.

This ministry was started by Dr. Phil Stringer (former Vice President of Landmark Baptist College), Dr. Stephen Zeinner, Dr. Mickey Carter, Dr. Rex Cobb, Dr. Humberto Gomez and a few other men who stand for the inerrancy and preservation of the KJB. I know several of these men personally and have at least met all but 1 of the leaders of this group. While we all may not agree with each of these men on every single particular of the Bible issue, I can vouch for these men that they are are strong in their stand on the KJB as the inerrant and preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. These men will not hesitate to tell you that there are absolutely no errors in the KJV and they vehemently opposed the modern translations and the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that they are based upon.

The William Carey Bible Society's purpose is to promote Bibles in other languages that are equivalent to or are least the closest to the KJV. This may not mean a lot to some of you but to those of us who minister to people of a different language it is an important issue. We know we have a perfect Bible in English in the KJV. But what do we do when God leads us to minister to people outside of the English language?

The leaders of the William Carey Bible Society are committed to investigating the situation of Bibles in other languages in order to determine which are the best to use. On their website they have provided a list of Bibles in other languages around the world that are at least based upon the Received Texts of which the KJV came from:

http://wcbible.org/documents/theword.pdf

Now keep in mind that this list is not impeccable. It should be understood that this list simply provides a starting point for those interested in finding out what Bible in a certain language reads closest to the KJV. There are over 4000 languages in the world that do not have 1 verse of scripture translated. There is about 400 whole Bibles and about 1100 NTs of Bibles in different languages. Some language groups only have corrupt bibles. And so this list is provided by the WCBS to help the seeker get past the bad bibles and find what real options for a foreign Bible are available if any.

There is much more I can say about this important ministry but I trust those interested will peruse the website and let the information speak for itself. Of course, I look forward to some dialogue in this thread concerning Bibles in other languages as it is a subject near and dear to my heart.

Needless to say, as a Bible-believer I am in full support of what the William Carey Bible Society is doing. I'm sure you will be to.
  #2  
Old 12-04-2008, 09:25 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Doctrinal Statement

The William Carey Bible Society believes that the Holy Scriptures are the verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God. We believe that God has preserved His word through the Received Text. The Old Testament Received Text is to be found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The New Testament Received Text is to be found in the Greek New Testament as edited by Dr. Scrivener (1894). The King James Bible is the Received Text in English.
I could never stand with those who believe that the Holy Scriptures are preserved in Scrivner's text. Scrivner was a notorious Bible corrector who is well known to have edited the AV 1611 to fit his weak faith in God's Word.

Also this doctrinal statement makes it clear that they are TR guys. They are not King James Bible Believers (not by this statement that is).

Nice try.

Peace and Love,
Stephen
  #3  
Old 12-05-2008, 08:54 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanos View Post
I could never stand with those who believe that the Holy Scriptures are preserved in Scrivner's text. Scrivner was a notorious Bible corrector who is well known to have edited the AV 1611 to fit his weak faith in God's Word.

Also this doctrinal statement makes it clear that they are TR guys. They are not King James Bible Believers (not by this statement that is).

Nice try.

Peace and Love,
Stephen
Then if you are a King James Bible-believer, you are cutting your nose to spite your face. You must not realize that Scrivener's Greek Text of the TR is the most accurate edition of the TR in that it is the ONLY Greek Text that was made to mirror the KJV. Here is an official statement from the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning the Greek Text they print (read carefully and learn):

Quote:
Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?

In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.


How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?

F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.
  #4  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:15 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez View Post
Then if you are a King James Bible-believer, you are cutting your nose to spite your face. You must not realize that Scrivener's Greek Text of the TR is the most accurate edition of the TR in that it is the ONLY Greek Text that was made to mirror the KJV. Here is an official statement from the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning the Greek Text they print (read carefully and learn):
Right, I had realized this. What I was saying is that these guys are clearly TR guys by their statement. I also was commenting on my concerns about Scrivener. He was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

Oh and I still agree with Bibleprotector on teaching english vs translating the entire KJB into another language.

Peace and Love,
Stephen
  #5  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:22 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanos
Scrivener ... was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.
However the work we are discussing is not a "corrector" work, it is simply the accurate King James Bible NT reflection into Greek, the single-source text, if the King James Bible translators had used a single source. A scholarly work that was well done.

The problem comes when it is placed, stated or implied, as superior to the King James Bible. The author of the work is not the problem, Edward Hills or another could have conceptually produced the work, Scrivener did so, a lot of labour. And appreciated on this end.

Shalom,
Steven
  #6  
Old 12-05-2008, 04:49 PM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanos View Post
Right, I had realized this. What I was saying is that these guys are clearly TR guys by their statement. I also was commenting on my concerns about Scrivener. He was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

Oh and I still agree with Bibleprotector on teaching english vs translating the entire KJB into another language.

Peace and Love,
Stephen
Scrivener was a Bible "corrector" in the similar sense that John Wesley and Noah Webster (author of the 1828 Websters Dictionary that Bible Believers hold so dear) were considering that they also authored their own revisions of the English Bible. These men had no disdain for the Traditional Texts or the KJV like Westcott and Hort and supporters of the Alexandrian Text crowd did/does. As the KJV was going through its purification process between 1611 and the 1800s, many of these men sincerely thought there was more work to be done. Of course, we now know that they were wrong. But I wouldn't put Scrivener in the same category as Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Nida, Aland, and others who manifested a real disdain for the KJV. Scrivener opposed Westcott and Hort and wrote extensively in disproving their translating theories, criticizing their corrupted Greek text, and uplifting the Received Texts of which the KJV was based upon.

As far as "TR guys", I think its high time that Bible-believers start realizing that there is life outside of Ruckman (no disrespect to Doc intended, my Pastor is a PBI graduate) and that not everyone who doesn't dot their I's and cross their T's like we do are the enemy. Take these men on the William Carey Bible Society for example. You may not agree with them on their interpretation of Inspiration or their emphasis on the original languages. But these men are criticized by the same Bible correctors and the anti-KJV crowd that we combat. Dr. Waite is just as despised by Bob Jones University as Dr. Ruckman is. One church, of whom I know the Pastor personally, lost his entire staff and most his members because he invited Dr. Waite to his church to teach on the Bible issue. BJU issued statements to these church members that they could no longer be affiliated with BJU if they attended this church. Here is a Pastor and church who are being persecuted for their stand on the Bible, yet some "Bible-believers" would look at that Pastor and say "His stand is not good enough" or "He's just a TR guy and not a REAL Bible-believer like I am" because of his association with Dr. Waite.

I know Dr. Waite personally. I am a member of his Dean Burgon Society. I also know the men of the William Carey Bible Society. I consider most of them as personal friends. I have preached for at least 3 of them. I have sat down with these guys and talked extensively about many issues concerning the KJV debate. And every one of these guys will not hesitate to tell you that there is not one shred of error in the KJV. Every one of these guys will tell you that the Modern Versions, even the NKJV, are corrupt, perverted, and so on. These men have a true zeal and love for God's pure words just as much as any man that was ever associated with Dr. Ruckman. These men receive just as much heat from the Alexandrian Text crowd as any man from Ruckman's crowd ever did. If you don't think so, read anything by James White, James Price, Micheal Sproul, or any other Bible apostate. These "TR guys" are on the right side of the fence. We agree on a whole lot more than we disagree with concerning the Bible issue. Yet some "Bible-believers" are so narrow-minded that they are incapable of thinking outside of the box. Forget about working together like saints of old did for the cause of Christ.

I will say this for these so-called TR guys, at least these guys do more than just sit back and complain and criticize their own. These guys are actively involved in aiding Bible translators, raising funds for worthy Foreign Bible projects, supporting Bible translators, printing the KJV and KJV equivalent foreign translations, providing Missionaries with the information they need on the situation of Foreign Bibles, writing books to defend the KJV and inform people, and actually engaging with the Alexandrian Text crowd to try to convince them of the truth. These guys are getting the job done while others are sitting on the sidelines trying to find what technicalities they disagree on so that they can make a big deal of it.

I have more respect for those that are actually trying to do something to help the pure words of God grow and multiply rather than those who just sit back and shoot their own crowd. And I'm a Bible-believer.

Last edited by Manny Rodriguez; 12-05-2008 at 05:08 PM.
  #7  
Old 12-05-2008, 08:01 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Brother Manny,

I'm just trying to make it clear that I don't stand on the TR, but rather the AV 1611. If these guys believe the King James Holy Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God preserved in the English Language then I could work with them. But I could not work with men who think that in order to understand the AV1611 I need to be able to read and understand the TR (whatever edition). This is the feeling I get from the website you linked to, that is that they think it is necessary to go to the Greek and their lexicons in order to get some sort of higher understanding of the Scriptures. This is an error taught by a lot of pseudo-KJBO folks that I feel strongly about. Now, that being said, I am all for standing with these men against the cult of Alexandria, and its scholars. I myself am no scholar and my understanding of the textual issues behind King James Bible Onlyism is rather simple, but my faith in the AV1611 is anything but simple. It quite literally defines me as a Christian, and a Bible Believer.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen
  #8  
Old 12-06-2008, 06:17 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Scrivener was a Bible "corrector" in the similar sense that John Wesley and Noah Webster (author of the 1828 Websters Dictionary that Bible Believers hold so dear) were considering that they also authored their own revisions of the English Bible. These men had no disdain for the Traditional Texts or the KJV like Westcott and Hort and supporters of the Alexandrian Text crowd did/does. As the KJV was going through its purification process between 1611 and the 1800s, many of these men sincerely thought there was more work to be done. Of course, we now know that they were wrong. But I wouldn't put Scrivener in the same category as Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Nida, Aland, and others who manifested a real disdain for the KJV. Scrivener opposed Westcott and Hort and wrote extensively in disproving their translating theories, criticizing their corrupted Greek text, and uplifting the Received Texts of which the KJV was based upon.
While above I defend the Scrivener Greek text that represents the King James Bible, this misses a few points.

Scrivener's position was more milquetoast. Example: Wesley defended the Johannine Comma (quoting quite beautifully with a bit of modification the mariner's compass poem of Bengelius) Scrivener attacked it .. even while essentially recognizing the Cyprian citation. Scrivener also attacked other TR verses like Acts 8:37.

Noah Webster was a grammatical 'corrector', not a textual corrector. His view of the grammar of the King James Bible was similar to the Scrivener view of the text and translation, a desire to make "corrections", to meddle and muddle. With Scrivener that is why he was on the Revision committee, that is why even his Cambridge Paragraph Bible changed faith to hope in Hebrews 10:23 and why he wrote specifically opposing various Greek-minority TR verses.

Dean Burgon, while not strictly TR, never attacked these verses and wrote in a way that favored every more significant Received Text verse. Even in his case it would be more accurate to say he uplifted the Traditional Text. From outside Dean Burgon decimated the corrupt Revision, smashed it to smithareens. Something never done by the compromised Scrivener, who had been on the Committee.

Scrivener in a sense gave the Revision legitimacy by being on the committee and losing the textual battles against Hort the mesmerist (my conjecture, based on the seance attendance with occultists/mesmerists even when older). Losing in this context means outvoted in the Revision Committee. Even if he went in without full understanding, after a day or a month or a year of the charade he would better have left the Revision. Afaik, he remained to the bitter end and must be considered as an active participant in the biggest textual disaster of some centuries. (ie. Combined with the W-H Greek text accepted by the participants.) What did he accomplish in his 10 years or so ? Perhaps Scrivener prevented a couple of laughable Hortian "primitive corruptions" into the text or effected the manner the Revised Version deceived the publich in including the ending of Mark against its own text. Better to let the dogs lie to one another and have time for prayer and sleep.

While we can respect his scholarship (even including some of his KJB scholarship and historical analysis) and appreciate greatly his Greek KJB-text, and note various arguments he made that were solid, we should be slow to give F H A Scrivener more than faint praise, if that, for his Bible views overall. While he definitely should not be confused with Westcott, Metzger, Aland etc. his overall Bible text legacy is mixed.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-06-2008 at 06:28 AM.
  #9  
Old 12-05-2008, 09:17 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanos View Post
I could never stand with those who believe...
Bob Jones Sr. said:

“It is never a compromise to go as far as you can on the RIGHT road with anyone: it is always a compromise to go any distance on the wrong road with anyone.”
  #10  
Old 12-04-2008, 10:58 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

I believe that it would be better to help people learn English than to waste resources making second-best translations into other languages. The trends are toward global use of English anyway, and knowing English gives them economic advantage, etc. If people know English, they can read the KJB and in many cases get it from the internet right now.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com