Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98776 | ||
KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? 'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Another book against modern versions of the Bible has entered the marketplace. Like previous works by King James Version (KJV)-only advocates, it argues for the KJV and/or majority text-type as being truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions. It goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence. 'Until the late 19th century, the texts used by scholars generally were built on a manuscript tradition begun in the seventh century of the Christian era (though I would concede that some readings found in this tradition date back before the fourth century). With the discovery of older Greek manuscripts, and other New Testament manuscripts, critical texts began to be built on manuscripts developed in the fourth and fifth centuries — in addition to a number of ancient papyri, some of which date into the second century. Riplinger rejects these earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them. Unfortunately, NABV has received considerable praise from many popular authors who either did not really take the time to evaluate the book or apparently share Riplinger’s ignorance of the issues of textual criticism and translation. 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies. In a two-hour debate I had with her, I found her very able to articulate her position. But she repeatedly mispronounced terms used by biblical scholars and did not seem to understand the development of the textual tradition from the Byzantine/“majority” manuscripts to the Erasmian text used by the translators of the KJV. Moreover, I had to ask her four times before she hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. 'A seminary degree is not required to understand the matters of Bible transmission and translation. But one must learn the history and methodology of textual transcription and transmission, and gain a good grasp of the Hebrew and Greek languages, before one “pontificates” on the subject as Riplinger has done. Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. 'I have no personal interest in defending the NIV or NASB. I prefer to use the NKJV (New King James Version), though I adopt a more eclectic view of textual criticism than its translators, who hold to the majority text theory. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' — H. Wayne House H. Wayne House, author, lecturer, and professor-at-large at Simon Greenleaf University School of Law, holds earned doctorates in theology and law, and a master’s degree in biblical and patristic Greek. [This article has been edited to fit here within space limitations. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] --Radioman2 |
||||||
2 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | mkm9 | 98933 | ||
Hi Radioman2--Doesn't anyone get the "Spirit of God"here?--New age is a philosophy which denies our sin--makes us our own God and tells us we can save ourselves without ANY standard except our own understanding-- with sheep mentality-- of our selves----this was satans sin and our following! in Him-mkm9 | ||||||
3 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jooklum99 | 98945 | ||
Is the accuracy of the translation the responsibility of the reader or the writers? We, as readers of the word, do exactly that. If we pray that the Holy Spirit interpret the Word for our personal understanding, then we will receive it. I speak two languages. Each language has its nuances and cultural weights, inclinations and connotations that are not implied by the words themselves. Without knowing the language, you rely on the translator to explain the words AS WELL AS the meaning. I would think that Greek/Hebrew study would be essential to find any hidden meaning or true comprehension. For example, I study martial arts. The self-defense moves we teach do not always suggest their true application. Technique is more important than power. If scripture is truly suitable for application in one's daily life, is it not reasonable to seek the "perfect" or intended (true) purpose of the instruction? I know that all that I have said is irrelevant. All that matters in the end is our relationship with Christ. Discussing the details IS important, but only if we keep the correct perspective. |
||||||
4 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | mkm9 | 99106 | ||
Hi jooklum-I agree with you on one thing--"all that matters in the end is our relationship to Christ"--the Bible tells me I am a "member" of "His Bride" also that my"ways are not His ways"-You make a statement but don't address any new age teachings or make any comparison --why not?-----In Jesus Name--mkm9 | ||||||
5 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jooklum99 | 99157 | ||
Good question! Well, I guess that I am trying to distance myself from the semantics, to a certain extent. I do not agree with the "new age" teachings in any way. I am not sure how the NASB (which I use) is seriously flawed. If a Bible translation is willfully wrong, then it is not our (the user's) problem. I believe that God will judge the translators accordingly. I also do not think that our God will be limited in His work by our varying Bible translations. I think that the different translations allow Christians to reach more people...some of whom cannot digest KJV. I started reading the KJV, it's the only one that FEELS Biblical to me. However, I find that the NIV and NASB are a bit more accessible for daily reading and study. The issue is whether there is any false teaching or willfull departure from the most reliable manuscripts we have. This all points back to my previous post. I believe that God is interested in our availability to Him. We are to read His Word and the Holy Spirit will give us the true understanding. Every work of man shows his failure and his imperfection...the Bible translations included. But the Word of God is infallable and inerrant. The Word of God will not be hindered by man. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Is it not arrogant to think that man actually changes the Word and can somehow hinder God's divine will? Jesus is the living Word. Now we have the written Word. God will use what we make available to Him. Flawed translations and all. Didn't the Pharisees have all the "best" tools? Those were not the vessels that Jesus used. He used the broken vessels, those that were available. When it is time, a believer's thirst may grow from the milk of NLT to the meat of KJV. It's all in God's plan. He reveals His mysteries in His time. |
||||||
6 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | mkm9 | 99205 | ||
Hi jooklum99-Thanks for response--when you say NASB-do you mean New Amarican Standard version?--I can agree with some of what you said but want to be clear about where you are starting.-in Him mkm9 | ||||||