Hello Everyone,
There was a discussion on my facebook page about Ephesians 2:15 that led to this exchange, which evolved into a discussion of the Masoretic text. Hoping we can continue the discussion here on the new forum.......
Gerard Bouw: The italics in the KJV are not "optional," they are clarifications.
Banner Kidd: The italics were added by translators based on their spin. They don't always fit the context and many times lead you away from what is really being said.
Gerard Bouw: In other words, the revelation is lost and you (not necessarily meant as the singular) are in a position to restore the true revelation. If the KJV is not the inerrant word of God, no one has it. Every modern version admits that it is not the inerrant, preserved word of God consisting of the very words of God; only the KJV admits that. We have roughly 25 Original Greek texts for the N.T., and four or five Original Hebrew texts including two Masoretic versions, one with and one without the emendations of the Soperim. So where is the word of God that consists of the words of God?
Peter Sander: For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Peter Sander: I wanted to wait to add more, but four or five "original Masoretic texts (MT)?" Where did you get that? There are two families of MT--both of which have the emendations of the sopherim (which the KJV slavishly follows). And, the MT is not an "original" autograph or text itself, it is an attempt to restore the text in favor of Rabbinic doctrine and perspectives on textual integrity. Prior to the MT we have evidenced four or five families of Hebrew mss including the DSS, the proto-MT, and the LXX. As far as having four or five "original hebrew" texts...where are these? I have never heard of such nonsense regarding the MT.
Peter Sander: Paul's official indictment about King James Onlyism: "[they] worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator..."
Banner Kidd: Gerard, it is simply that we can't ever trust a man's interpretation. The Scriptures are the best in interpretation and bears witness to its own context. The additions of man lead us away from context in most cases.
Maureen LaFaive: Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. I have facebook friends from a variety of perspectives so I hope we can all share with respect for one another. When the KJV and its defenders are attacked (called foolishness, etc.) it just makes me appreciate the KJV and its defenders even more. This Bible has served me well for 27 years and I know the Spirit of the LORD meets me in its pages each day. I am willing to hear the KJV defense by able defenders, are you? If so, join me at a new forum about to launch. Dr. Bouw, your participation is especially welcome by the forum owner (will send you private message). I hope to show that the KJV/TR can be reconciled with Torah as relevant for today. There will also be a Messianic corner at the new forum. We are working out the details of participation so that all can share their perspectives freely without strife or bannings. Iron sharpeneth iron!
Gerard Bouw: I didn't say four or five MTs (I see you read Scripture about as closely as you did my post). I said 2 MTs, one with the Soperim emendations and one without. I said 4 or 5 "Original Hebrew texts": the pre-Masoretic, the Sopherim MT, Kittel's, and the Ben Hachim MT, not to mention revised editions thereof. Each of these claims to be the original or a restoration of the original.
The original LXX was confined to the Pentateuch and existed only in the Alexandrian Library, if the Letter of Aristeas can be believed (it may have been a fable concocted by Philo). Origen took advantage of the Letter to forge an LXX in his own image. There was no LXX prior to AD 140 (when Aquila created his), then 2 more were created between 160 and 220 (Symmachus [after 160] and Theodotion [after 170]). Origen wrote his forgery after 220. Did you welch on your homework too, Peter, when you were in school? It seems so if your only response is a canned one with name calling.
Peter Sander: This listing given of "original Hebrew texts" is a conflation of textual families. note: all MT have the emendations of the sopherim. There are two MT families which are the Ben Hachim (a Karaite) and the Aleppo. There are Temmani variations as well. The Aleppo was esteemed by Rambam as the superior MT, but the text in vogue among Jews and Christians is the Ben Hachim. Kittel's critical text (or any other critical text for that matter, e.g., BHS) works from all of the available and documents variants, etc. Critical texts are not "originals" any more than any of the MT groupings are originals.
I will not dignify the LXX denial campaign by addressing the canned statements you make about LXX denial. Um, maybe there wasn't an historical Philo or an historical Jerusalem either.
Gerard Bouw: Good, you've done some homework. The KJV does not have the emendations of the Sopherim, and there are good reasons for each case. For instance, the Sopherim suspended the nun in Jg. 18:30 because it was in the original but they thought it should not be there since Moses had a son, Gershom, and they deemed it impossible that Manasseh could have a descendent named Gershom, too. The final conclusion, which you tacitly admitted, is that we do not have the original texts. I agree with that. So where can I find the living, preserved words of God in one book so that God can righteously judge men by his word?
And there you go with an unlearned dismissal of the LXX fraud. Those are Marxist, liberal tactics: "maybe there wasn't an historical Philo or an historical Jerusalem either." Those are the tactics that are destroying the USA this very moment, before our very eyes. If you're unprepared to meet an argument, brush the proponent of the argument with the label of ignoramus--right?
Gerard Bouw: The party line on the LXX are the canned statements. (Sorry, ran out of space in the previous post.)
Peter Sander: Dr. Bouw, the KJV reflects the emendations faithfully even in cases where the emendations work against christological readings of the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, Psalm 110:5 has "adonai" as a result of the emendations (note, the DSS has YHWH). The YHWH reading bolsters an argument for the deity of Jesus where the sopherim-edited reading lends more toward the rabbinic party line.
In the case of Judges 18:30, yes the nun is suspended--a fact not reflected in English translations. But, the reading is still Manasseh despite the incredulity of the scribes. Hence, though the scribal note is made and faithfully preserved, it is not reflected in English translations.
Peter Sander: In synagogue, after the reading of the Torah, the scroll is elevated as the congregation states, "W'zot ha torah ashwer sam moshe l'phney bnei yisrael al pi adonai b'yad moshe" (This is the Torah that Moses placed before the Children of Israel, upon the command of the LORD, through Moses' hand."
Now, Jews recognize that scribal additions, corrections, and oversights (dating all the way back to the inspired work of Ezra the priest and scribe) are to be found in the text of the Pentateuch, but they also maintain that the text is divinely inspired *as it is.* I think it is essential to recognize that in the gault (dispersion) that it is impossible to expect the divine investment of God in Scripture to not undergo the process of humanity. To deny the cultural impact on the Bible both in composition (genre, individual style), in transmission, and in translation is essentially to deny the human component. It is another form of docetism--like denying the humanity of enfleshed Word.
Maureen LaFaive: Quote: So where can I find the living, preserved words of God in one book so that God can righteously judge men by his word?
This is a very profound question, Dr. Bouw. Thank you for making this point. How can God judge us, if we do not have the Word of God? If it is "forever settled in Heaven" but not available on Earth, what good does that do us today? The Ethiopian eunuch had Scripture to read. Timothy's mother had Scripture. Surely, God has preserved it to all generations. As someone, I think maybe Sam Gipp? remarked, "If the KJV is not inspired, it will do until something better comes along." At this point I am not sure if the text has been purified six or seven times but it is pure enough for me to trust.
Peter Sander: Why does there have to be a book free of textual challenges in order for God to judge mankind? Does not even Paul assert that the nations are judged by the law written on their hearts (Romans 2)? I think this is an artificially constructed dilemma that leads people into enshrining a book into something it was never ever ever meant to be.
Maureen LaFaive: The heart is deceitful......how is God going to judge us based on the law written on our hearts? there must be a righteous standard that we have easy access to.
Maureen LaFaive: It's not a matter of enshrining a book any more than the Torah scroll. It is a matter of recognizing the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, and fearing God enough to let the Scriptures judge us rather than us judging the Scriptures.
.........continued in next post.........
There was a discussion on my facebook page about Ephesians 2:15 that led to this exchange, which evolved into a discussion of the Masoretic text. Hoping we can continue the discussion here on the new forum.......
Gerard Bouw: The italics in the KJV are not "optional," they are clarifications.
Banner Kidd: The italics were added by translators based on their spin. They don't always fit the context and many times lead you away from what is really being said.
Gerard Bouw: In other words, the revelation is lost and you (not necessarily meant as the singular) are in a position to restore the true revelation. If the KJV is not the inerrant word of God, no one has it. Every modern version admits that it is not the inerrant, preserved word of God consisting of the very words of God; only the KJV admits that. We have roughly 25 Original Greek texts for the N.T., and four or five Original Hebrew texts including two Masoretic versions, one with and one without the emendations of the Soperim. So where is the word of God that consists of the words of God?
Peter Sander: For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Peter Sander: I wanted to wait to add more, but four or five "original Masoretic texts (MT)?" Where did you get that? There are two families of MT--both of which have the emendations of the sopherim (which the KJV slavishly follows). And, the MT is not an "original" autograph or text itself, it is an attempt to restore the text in favor of Rabbinic doctrine and perspectives on textual integrity. Prior to the MT we have evidenced four or five families of Hebrew mss including the DSS, the proto-MT, and the LXX. As far as having four or five "original hebrew" texts...where are these? I have never heard of such nonsense regarding the MT.
Peter Sander: Paul's official indictment about King James Onlyism: "[they] worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator..."
Banner Kidd: Gerard, it is simply that we can't ever trust a man's interpretation. The Scriptures are the best in interpretation and bears witness to its own context. The additions of man lead us away from context in most cases.
Maureen LaFaive: Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. I have facebook friends from a variety of perspectives so I hope we can all share with respect for one another. When the KJV and its defenders are attacked (called foolishness, etc.) it just makes me appreciate the KJV and its defenders even more. This Bible has served me well for 27 years and I know the Spirit of the LORD meets me in its pages each day. I am willing to hear the KJV defense by able defenders, are you? If so, join me at a new forum about to launch. Dr. Bouw, your participation is especially welcome by the forum owner (will send you private message). I hope to show that the KJV/TR can be reconciled with Torah as relevant for today. There will also be a Messianic corner at the new forum. We are working out the details of participation so that all can share their perspectives freely without strife or bannings. Iron sharpeneth iron!
Gerard Bouw: I didn't say four or five MTs (I see you read Scripture about as closely as you did my post). I said 2 MTs, one with the Soperim emendations and one without. I said 4 or 5 "Original Hebrew texts": the pre-Masoretic, the Sopherim MT, Kittel's, and the Ben Hachim MT, not to mention revised editions thereof. Each of these claims to be the original or a restoration of the original.
The original LXX was confined to the Pentateuch and existed only in the Alexandrian Library, if the Letter of Aristeas can be believed (it may have been a fable concocted by Philo). Origen took advantage of the Letter to forge an LXX in his own image. There was no LXX prior to AD 140 (when Aquila created his), then 2 more were created between 160 and 220 (Symmachus [after 160] and Theodotion [after 170]). Origen wrote his forgery after 220. Did you welch on your homework too, Peter, when you were in school? It seems so if your only response is a canned one with name calling.
Peter Sander: This listing given of "original Hebrew texts" is a conflation of textual families. note: all MT have the emendations of the sopherim. There are two MT families which are the Ben Hachim (a Karaite) and the Aleppo. There are Temmani variations as well. The Aleppo was esteemed by Rambam as the superior MT, but the text in vogue among Jews and Christians is the Ben Hachim. Kittel's critical text (or any other critical text for that matter, e.g., BHS) works from all of the available and documents variants, etc. Critical texts are not "originals" any more than any of the MT groupings are originals.
I will not dignify the LXX denial campaign by addressing the canned statements you make about LXX denial. Um, maybe there wasn't an historical Philo or an historical Jerusalem either.
Gerard Bouw: Good, you've done some homework. The KJV does not have the emendations of the Sopherim, and there are good reasons for each case. For instance, the Sopherim suspended the nun in Jg. 18:30 because it was in the original but they thought it should not be there since Moses had a son, Gershom, and they deemed it impossible that Manasseh could have a descendent named Gershom, too. The final conclusion, which you tacitly admitted, is that we do not have the original texts. I agree with that. So where can I find the living, preserved words of God in one book so that God can righteously judge men by his word?
And there you go with an unlearned dismissal of the LXX fraud. Those are Marxist, liberal tactics: "maybe there wasn't an historical Philo or an historical Jerusalem either." Those are the tactics that are destroying the USA this very moment, before our very eyes. If you're unprepared to meet an argument, brush the proponent of the argument with the label of ignoramus--right?
Gerard Bouw: The party line on the LXX are the canned statements. (Sorry, ran out of space in the previous post.)
Peter Sander: Dr. Bouw, the KJV reflects the emendations faithfully even in cases where the emendations work against christological readings of the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, Psalm 110:5 has "adonai" as a result of the emendations (note, the DSS has YHWH). The YHWH reading bolsters an argument for the deity of Jesus where the sopherim-edited reading lends more toward the rabbinic party line.
In the case of Judges 18:30, yes the nun is suspended--a fact not reflected in English translations. But, the reading is still Manasseh despite the incredulity of the scribes. Hence, though the scribal note is made and faithfully preserved, it is not reflected in English translations.
Peter Sander: In synagogue, after the reading of the Torah, the scroll is elevated as the congregation states, "W'zot ha torah ashwer sam moshe l'phney bnei yisrael al pi adonai b'yad moshe" (This is the Torah that Moses placed before the Children of Israel, upon the command of the LORD, through Moses' hand."
Now, Jews recognize that scribal additions, corrections, and oversights (dating all the way back to the inspired work of Ezra the priest and scribe) are to be found in the text of the Pentateuch, but they also maintain that the text is divinely inspired *as it is.* I think it is essential to recognize that in the gault (dispersion) that it is impossible to expect the divine investment of God in Scripture to not undergo the process of humanity. To deny the cultural impact on the Bible both in composition (genre, individual style), in transmission, and in translation is essentially to deny the human component. It is another form of docetism--like denying the humanity of enfleshed Word.
Maureen LaFaive: Quote: So where can I find the living, preserved words of God in one book so that God can righteously judge men by his word?
This is a very profound question, Dr. Bouw. Thank you for making this point. How can God judge us, if we do not have the Word of God? If it is "forever settled in Heaven" but not available on Earth, what good does that do us today? The Ethiopian eunuch had Scripture to read. Timothy's mother had Scripture. Surely, God has preserved it to all generations. As someone, I think maybe Sam Gipp? remarked, "If the KJV is not inspired, it will do until something better comes along." At this point I am not sure if the text has been purified six or seven times but it is pure enough for me to trust.
Peter Sander: Why does there have to be a book free of textual challenges in order for God to judge mankind? Does not even Paul assert that the nations are judged by the law written on their hearts (Romans 2)? I think this is an artificially constructed dilemma that leads people into enshrining a book into something it was never ever ever meant to be.
Maureen LaFaive: The heart is deceitful......how is God going to judge us based on the law written on our hearts? there must be a righteous standard that we have easy access to.
Maureen LaFaive: It's not a matter of enshrining a book any more than the Torah scroll. It is a matter of recognizing the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, and fearing God enough to let the Scriptures judge us rather than us judging the Scriptures.
.........continued in next post.........
Last edited by a moderator: