From: Jerrel Sturdy (muskogeean44@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 18:15:53 EDT
<x-flowed>
>From: "Jerrel Sturdy" <muskogeean44@hotmail.com>
>To: muskogeean44@hotmail.com
>Subject: TEXTS, TRANSMISSION, TRANSLATIONS, ETC.--Keep
>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:10:30 +0000
>
>Even though the translation list is designed for translation matters, I
>wish to share these codes for anybody who would like to use them. First, I
>want to list two sources that I have on printed paper. Not off Internet at
>all.
>
> Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus Receptus.
>Gordon D. Fee. Gordon D. Fee is associate professor of New Testament at
>Gordon-Cornwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. (He
>was when I received this work from my friend Wayne Jackson, preacher for
>East Main Street church of Christ in Stockton, California, in the early
>1980s. He may not be there now.) I could copy that for someone on a
>limited-time basis if one would want to pay the cost of copying and
>postage.)
>
> Matter of fact, the date was March 1978 and possibly was from the
>Journal of Biblical Literature.
>
>_____________________
>
>
>
> Debate on KJV. From Facts for Faith, Volume III, Number 10, October
>1972. Gordon Wilson, editor, now perhaps extant. The proposition was:
>"Is the King James Version nearest to the original autographs?" David
>Otis Fuller, now deceased if memory serves me right affirmed it is. My
>preacher friend Daniel King Sr. of Tennessee denied that. It is printed
>and it has 11 pages. I can copy it if somebody wants to pay for the cost
>of copying and postage. Brother King undeniably showed that the KJV is not
>the best nor is the Textus Receptus the best. Fuller did not even try to
>retort it.
>
>
>_____________________
>
>
>
> I would like to quote from Page 103, "The Accuracy of the NIV," by
>Kenneth L. Barker. Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516.
>
>
> "The writer heartily commends to today's minister a ministry of the
>word of God.
>
>
> Study it diligently.
>
> Believe it implicitly.
>
>
> Obey it completely.
>
>
> Expound it faithfully.
>
>
> I would add now: Translate it correctly, that is, with the best
>BALANCE between faithfulness to the original languages and faithfulness to
>the English language. Such a balanced approach is the surest path to
>accuracy in translation." Amen.
>
>
> What Mr. Barker wrote needs some consideration. (J. S.)
>
>
>_________________
>
>
> Now I would like to give some codes for some sources:
>
>
>
> NIV. Translation comparison chart.
>
> http://www.zondervan.com/NIVinfo.htm
>
> The New International Version (NIV) Bible Fact Sheet.
>
> http://www.zondervan.com/nivfact1.htm
>
> History of the New International (NIV) Bible
>
> http://www.zondervan.com/nivhist.htm
>
> NIV Contributors.
>
> http://www.zondervan.com/nivcont.htm
>
> Were KJV Translators Inspired? King James Version (KJV) ONLY?
>
> http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
>
> (That one is extremely good. J. S.)
>
>
> Why Dean Burgon Would NOT Join "The Dean Burgon Society" by Gary R.
>Hudson.
>
>
> http/::members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/burgon.htm
>
> (That is an very good one, too. Get it!!! J. S.)
>
>
> Statement DK115. Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt? Answering the
>Allegations of KJV Only Advocates. By James R. White. (Good one, too. J.
>S.)
>
>
> http://www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm
>
> Questions and Answers. "Were the King James Version Translators
>Biased Toward the 'Faith-Only' Doctrine?" By Wayne Jackson, an Internet
>bulletin from East Main church of Christ, Stockton, California. I also
>have Wayne Jackson's book "The Bible Translation Controversy." It is
>pretty good. Apologetics Press, 230 Landmark Drive, Montgomery, Alabama
>36117-2752. It is not too expensive. About 32 pages.
>
>
> http://christiancourier.com/questions/biasedTranslatorsQuestions.htm
>
>
> Probe Ministries. The Debate Over the King James Version by Rick
>Wade.
>
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html
>
>
> IF ONE WANTS A MIGHTY FINE TRANSLATION, TRY THIS:
>
>
> The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ.
>Commonly styled the New Testament Translated from the Original Greek by
>doctors George Campbell, James MacKnight and Philip Doddridge with
>Prefaces, Various Emandations and an Appendix. Published under Alexander
>Campbell's leadership. Fourth Edition. Bethany, Brooke County, Virginia.
> (A very excellent work. These guys took out all the ecclesiastical words
>as best they could.)
>
>
> http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tlo4?TLO400A.HTM
>
>
> This goes along with Living Oracles, the translation from above.
>Table XIV. Apostolic Words and Phrases. Which have been subjects of
>controversy; alphabetically arranged and defined from their current
>acceptation in the "Christian" scriptures.
>
>
> http://www.mun.ca/rels/restnov/texts/acampbell/tlo4/TLO400LF.HTM
>
> 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus? By Daniel B. Wallace PhD. Professor
>of New Testament Studies. Dallas Theological Seminary. Review of Carsten
>Peter Thiede, The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?
>
>
> http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/7q5.htm
>
> The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations. By Daniel B.
>Wallace, noted above.
>
>
> http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/conspire.htm
>
>
> The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? By
>Daniel B. Wallace, noted above.
>
>
> http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm
>
>
> Another Bible, Another Gospel. By Robert Barker.
>
>
> http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm
>
>
> Significant Textual Variants. TR vs. MT. By Gary F. Zoella.
>
>
> http://www.org/versions/book/variants-tr-mt.htm
>
> Errors in the Greek Text Behind Modern Translations? The cases of
>Matthew 1:7, 10 and Luke 23:45.
>
> http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/errors.htm
>
> That one is by Daniel Wallace, too, noted above.
>
>
> Errors and Mistranslations in the KJV. Written by Richard Nickels.
>"Why are there errors in the King James Version?"
>
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html
>
>
> John 5:44.
>
> http://www.genesisnetwork.net/business/consider/john544.htm
>
> "Is the claim correct that many early translations and writings of
>the church fathers show they are in support of the Byzantine text?" No
>author that I see.
>
>
> wallace@bible.org/docs/q&a/q&a-151.htm
">http://wallace@bible.org/docs/q&a/q&a-151.htm
>
>
> (Must be Daniel Wallace. J. S.)
>
>
> The New American Standard Version! Is this the Word of God? (Must
>be by a KJV-only writer. J. S.)
>
>
> http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/nasv.html
>
> The New International Version! Is this the word of God?
>
>
> http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/niv.html
>
>
> THE UPDATED NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(c). "The most literal is
>now more readable." The Lockman Foundation.
>
>
> http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/trans/trans.htm
>
>
> NAS95: Review. By Gary F. Zoella.
>
>
> http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/nas95.htm
>
>
> I have other sources of material on texts and translations, but these
>are on Internet or else I will copy two of them. Sent in hope of
>edification only. J. S.
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
###################################################################
Post messages to Bible-Translation@kastanet.org or Reply to any list message.
To unsubscribe, e-mail to Bible-Translation-unsubscribe@kastanet.org
For all other list options, including Digest, Index, or Null, e-mail to
Bible-Translation-confirm@kastanet.org and read the instructions
at the bottom of the message you receive.
List FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/files/btranfaq.txt
Message archives: https://mail.kastanet.org/Lists/Bible-Translation/List.html
Discussion list Files: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/files/list.htm
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:04 EDT