Chris Pinto has yet to take a position I object to and rarely fails to teach me something important as well. I know my blogs are becoming something like a Chris Pinto fan club, but that's because I believe what he has to offer Christians is crucially needed -- and on the very subjects some of my different blogs are intended to address.
Here he is on The King James Bible. This radio show was on July 4, 2011, and you may have to look a a page or two ahead of the linked page to find it since the page numbers keep changing as new shows are added. [Later: Must recommend the next radio show as well, on the same page, Rome vs. the Bible].
His defense of the King James is excellent. He calls himself "King James Mostly" which could describe me too, except that he's Textus Receptus Only, which I could also call myself, except that I want a label that indicates that I'm against the English translation of the Revision of 1881 as much as I'm against the corrupted Greek texts they used. So I'm really anti-Westcott and Hort. Nevertheless, in this radio show he makes a fine case for the English of the King James as well. [I gather that the main reason he's "King James Mostly" is that he's against the fanatical King James Only camp, as I also am, accepting that other translations are also the word of God, while believing that the King James is the best translation we have.]
He does believe that the Bibles that have come out since the Revision of 1881 are being pushed by Rome, no surprise since he has uncovered all kinds of influences of the hand of Rome in other areas including political movements, wars, secret societies and all the other religions of the world. Rome's influence on the Bible Revision is something I would never have discovered if it weren't for his work.
I read enough of Westcott and Hort to recognize that they hated the King James Bible with an irrational hatred, which Pinto of course shows to be the attitude of Rome as well, since the King James represents the Protestant Reformation which is her greatest enemy. I had also noted some remarks by Westcott and Hort that showed them to be favorable to Rome, but nothing like a smoking gun that would demonstrate with any certainty that their destructive 1881 Revision had the same intention as Rome's behind it, quite simply to destroy the word of God. Pinto makes this a far more likely possibility than I could have guessed.
You also have to see his film A Lamp in the Dark which you can find at Noise of Thunder dot com, and I'm looking forward to his next film on the Bible, Tares Among the Wheat which I understand will be out in a few weeks.
As usual, I believe Pinto's work should be known by all Christians.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The English translation itself is a horror equal to the corrupt Alexandrian texts
There are two different kinds of problems with the Bibles that have come down from Westcott and Hort's revisionist mistreatment of 1881. The best-known problem is that they substituted corrupted Greek documents, known as the Alexandrians, for the Greek documents that the King James version was based on, known as the Textus Receptus.
However, the English "translation" they also produced at the same time was just as evil as the evil Greek manuscripts, and unfortunately the pattern of that translation laid the groundwork for future changes in the Bibles since then.
I could call myself Textus Receptus Only but it may be clearer just to call myself anti-Westcott and Hort, or as I say at the top of the blog, a Burgonian. Dean J W Burgon's The Revision Revised was originally published as three separate articles documenting the errors of the Westcott and Hort revision: 1) The errors in the corrupted Greek texts which were imposed by them on the revision although the agreement assumed they'd base the revision on the Textus Receptus, 2) their horrifically bad translation into English which also violated their original agreement, making some 36,000 mostly unnecessary changes in the English, and 3) the ridiculous "theory" by which they justified their vandalism of the King James translation.
Not only the Greek texts they used were bad, but the translation itself was bad, and a violation of their agreement as well. Their objective seems to have been to destroy the Bible by one means or another.
The King James needed some changes to bring it up to date, but it did not need even a 50th of the changes made by the revising committee, as testified by Bishop Wordsworth whose comment on this I've linked in the margin and quoted elsewhere in this blog, and others. The ENGLISH word substitutions are just as destructive to the text, even where -- or really, especially where-- they don't really alter the meaning but simply make it impossible for Christians holding different translations to read along. None of this was corrected. Changes were made in their translation, but most of their own changes were retained, and what they established was itself the habit of making changes in the text, so that the problem has only increased down the decades since then.
However, the English "translation" they also produced at the same time was just as evil as the evil Greek manuscripts, and unfortunately the pattern of that translation laid the groundwork for future changes in the Bibles since then.
I could call myself Textus Receptus Only but it may be clearer just to call myself anti-Westcott and Hort, or as I say at the top of the blog, a Burgonian. Dean J W Burgon's The Revision Revised was originally published as three separate articles documenting the errors of the Westcott and Hort revision: 1) The errors in the corrupted Greek texts which were imposed by them on the revision although the agreement assumed they'd base the revision on the Textus Receptus, 2) their horrifically bad translation into English which also violated their original agreement, making some 36,000 mostly unnecessary changes in the English, and 3) the ridiculous "theory" by which they justified their vandalism of the King James translation.
Not only the Greek texts they used were bad, but the translation itself was bad, and a violation of their agreement as well. Their objective seems to have been to destroy the Bible by one means or another.
The King James needed some changes to bring it up to date, but it did not need even a 50th of the changes made by the revising committee, as testified by Bishop Wordsworth whose comment on this I've linked in the margin and quoted elsewhere in this blog, and others. The ENGLISH word substitutions are just as destructive to the text, even where -- or really, especially where-- they don't really alter the meaning but simply make it impossible for Christians holding different translations to read along. None of this was corrected. Changes were made in their translation, but most of their own changes were retained, and what they established was itself the habit of making changes in the text, so that the problem has only increased down the decades since then.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
A pedantic overconcern with the Hebrew Name of God is just another way of undermining the English Bible
An article arguing that "Jehovah" is not the true Name of God has been published at Brannon Howse's Worldview Weekend website, and even with the disclaimer that not all opinions expressed there are shared by the web hosts it seems to me that this is the sort of material that a watchman ministry like Howse's should be watching instead of giving it publicity.
This article about the name "Jehovah" has all the same earmarks as the "scholarship" behind all the new Bibles since Westcott and Hort: an implicit denigration of the work of the King James translators and an appeal to "scholarship" -- in most cases a highly questionable standard of scholarship too -- as of far greater concern than the needs of the Christian who reads the Bible.
There is nothing wrong with "Jehovah." The article denigrates the name as a "nonsense" word but in fact it is simply the original Hebrew four-letter name, or Tetragrammaton ("JHVH"), with vowels added to make it pronounceable, and the argument that the vowels used in the English Bibles were the wrong ones is just pedantic and inconsequential. Nobody KNOWS what the original vowels were and there is a decent argument in favor of those chosen for "Jehovah."
But primarily the problem is that this pursuit of the "authentic" Name of God is a conceit of modern scholarship that feeds all the wrong concerns. The Name "Jesus" is also not "authentic" if what you will only accept as authentic is the original Hebrew Name, Yeshua, nor are any of the English names for the disciples or other famous characters of the Bible. When you translate a term from one language to another it necessarily changes. If you move to a foreign country your own name is likely to be changed for the sake of the native speakers' ears.
And here's an important point: The article notes that the traditional pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was lost after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That fact ought to be a heads-up that God Himself was not concerned to preserve any supposedly "accurate" pronunciation of His Name: it was God Himself who brought about the destruction of the Temple to mark the reign of the Messiah who had come and replaced it.
It might also be noted that God's Name is really a MEANING, not a Hebrew term: It means "I AM that I AM." That can be said in English as well as in Hebrew.
We've had enough of "scholarly" disruptions of our English Bible since Westcott and Hort who were possibly influenced by Jesuits and in any case did their utmost to make the text less accessible to English-speaking people, or as Chris Pinto puts it, unrecognizable. Fiddling around with the Name of God really has no other objective than that. There is no need for all this prissy superstitious "accuracy" and all it does is introduce unnecessary difficulties into learning the Bible which the ordinary reader cannot benefit from. This is just one of the many wearisome ways the legacy of Westcott and Hort has interfered with God's word and the peace of God's people.
It also may be relevant to note that a concern with this sort of "accuracy" underlies the Hebrew Roots heresy.
This article about the name "Jehovah" has all the same earmarks as the "scholarship" behind all the new Bibles since Westcott and Hort: an implicit denigration of the work of the King James translators and an appeal to "scholarship" -- in most cases a highly questionable standard of scholarship too -- as of far greater concern than the needs of the Christian who reads the Bible.
There is nothing wrong with "Jehovah." The article denigrates the name as a "nonsense" word but in fact it is simply the original Hebrew four-letter name, or Tetragrammaton ("JHVH"), with vowels added to make it pronounceable, and the argument that the vowels used in the English Bibles were the wrong ones is just pedantic and inconsequential. Nobody KNOWS what the original vowels were and there is a decent argument in favor of those chosen for "Jehovah."
But primarily the problem is that this pursuit of the "authentic" Name of God is a conceit of modern scholarship that feeds all the wrong concerns. The Name "Jesus" is also not "authentic" if what you will only accept as authentic is the original Hebrew Name, Yeshua, nor are any of the English names for the disciples or other famous characters of the Bible. When you translate a term from one language to another it necessarily changes. If you move to a foreign country your own name is likely to be changed for the sake of the native speakers' ears.
And here's an important point: The article notes that the traditional pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was lost after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That fact ought to be a heads-up that God Himself was not concerned to preserve any supposedly "accurate" pronunciation of His Name: it was God Himself who brought about the destruction of the Temple to mark the reign of the Messiah who had come and replaced it.
It might also be noted that God's Name is really a MEANING, not a Hebrew term: It means "I AM that I AM." That can be said in English as well as in Hebrew.
We've had enough of "scholarly" disruptions of our English Bible since Westcott and Hort who were possibly influenced by Jesuits and in any case did their utmost to make the text less accessible to English-speaking people, or as Chris Pinto puts it, unrecognizable. Fiddling around with the Name of God really has no other objective than that. There is no need for all this prissy superstitious "accuracy" and all it does is introduce unnecessary difficulties into learning the Bible which the ordinary reader cannot benefit from. This is just one of the many wearisome ways the legacy of Westcott and Hort has interfered with God's word and the peace of God's people.
It also may be relevant to note that a concern with this sort of "accuracy" underlies the Hebrew Roots heresy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
