|Whee! Everyone is doing this!|
Join the movement!
The latest post in the New Testament text is an example of the flummery being foisted upon us. That is why we must all be Bereans searching the Scriptures rather than Gadarene swine running off the cliff.
|I am not sure what the website promotes, but the graphic is good.|
If you read the previous post and carefully consider all the evidence, you will see that the modern text of the New Testament rests upon the fraudulent work of one man who really wanted to become famous.
And Tischendorf is justly famous for making his two miraculous discoveries the norm for the New Testament text - and even better for the apostates - demolishing the concept of a fixed New Testament text.
You Don't Believe This! Sehr komisch!
Tischendorf reported in his 1865 book Wann Wurden Unsere Evangelen Verfasst, translated to English in 1866 as When Were Our Gospels Written in the section "The Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript" that he found, in a trash basket, forty-three sheets of parchment of an ancient copy of the Greek Old Testament, reporting that the monks were using the trash to start fires. And Tischendorf, horrified, asked if he could have them.
Do most people warm their libraries by burning animals skins - parchment? I wonder if Tischendorf's adventures inspired the literary career of a CPH editor, famous for posting thank-you comments when he plagiarized the blogs of Lutheran friends and The Catholic Encyclopedia.
|Questioning Tischendorf's fable punctures|
the great deception, so keep your voices down.
Your Modern Translation Is Based Upon the Tischendorf Deception
Tischendorf, Wescott and Hort worked together to make the two fake discoveries the basis for the New Testament text, so verses magically disappear from the Greek text and never make it to the English text. In some cases, the missing verses appear in small italic print at the bottom of the page.
The German Bibles still say "nach Luther" after Luther's version, even today, but the English versions are in a rush to avoid mentioning any flavor of the KJV.
That means your beloved
- New RSV
- New NIV
- The Message
- Etc. etc. etc.
is based on the Tischendorf lie. What should astound us is the logic - that this recent find should displace the thousands of examples of the traditional text.
Those unfamiliar with NT scholarship, as it styles itself, should realize that certain theories mesh well with the Tischendorf myths. One is that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel - and the most reliable. Matthew and Luke used Mark and the never-discovered Q to form their Gospels. What a miracle! I should write Q on pigskin and discover it. No one can even define Q, but it is just as handy as the magical characters kids invent to place the blame for missing toys, broken windows, and other misdemeanors.
|The late Nils A. Dahl, Yale University,|
studied under Bultmann, Mowinkel, etc.
He was a kind and gracious man.
The greatest NT scholar I have known was Nils A. Dahl, who studied under all the greats of Europe. Krister Stendahl called Dahl the greatest exegete in the world, no small honor. Dahl said, "No one really knows the way Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written."
But careers are made on arguments about such theories, which always leave out any suggestion of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The same argument can be turned around, looking at common elements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Mark could very well be a harmony and a condensed version of Matthew and Luke, because everything in Mark can be found in Matthew or Luke or both Gospels. There are only two short passages unique to Mark, the seed growing secretly and the streaker.
So, if Mark must be early, simple, and reliable, it also helps to deny the divinity of Christ in the first verse, which is really an introduction to the entire Gospel, a thesis sentence in modern essay writing. If only one tradition, of uncertain origin, offers such a reading, why would the world scholars reject 11 centuries of Greek Christianity, which is where the Christian Church first flourished?
Modern New Testament scholarship has little to do with the content of the Bible, so the Trilateral Commission of Tischendorf-Wescott-Hort goes well with Biblical literature as a creative writing exercise.
When someone argues that his favorite modern translation is superior, as for Mark 1:1. Is the Son of God omitted, as Wescott-Hort argued?
Did that family of translations convert the Virgin Birth of Isaiah 7 become an ordinary pregnancy? The RSV reminds me of ladies shampoos, which I put on the shelf at Walmart. There is not just one brand, like Suave, but various series of sub-brands of Suave, and variations on those sub-brands, so they occupy rows of shampoo in similar, well designed bottles. Any particular preference could be answered by Suave!
The R stands for Radical. The S represents Standard, after an old favorite the American Standard Bible. The V is a nod to the KJV or Authorized Version, just for laughs. They could not sell many if they said "National Council of Communist Churches" Version.
If they change the R to an E, they have a run of RSVs with a Calvinist editor. But they can extend the RSVs into many sub-categories.
|Wendland said this at the WELS convention,|
in defence of the New NIV.
The New NIV is even more clever than the RSV business. Once the New NIV was in print, the old NIV ceased to exist. I can no longer look up old NIV readings on Biblegateway.com, which is an NIV website.
Moreover, no publishing house is allowed to continue printing NIV materials using the old NIV. They must reprint everything in New NIV, which has supplanted the old NIV using the same name.
Do the denominations receive incentives for bowing at the NIV altar? I am sure of it. WELS used a Wheaton cow, Dr. Moo, to promote the New NIV among the ordination hopefuls. Did any Mordor student even imagine he could go against the favorite error of Wendland? I doubt. it.
Thus Tischendorf-Wescott-Hort are driving the Biblical message among all modern Bibles, with the Bible hucksters remaining studiously silent about the King James family. I am not keen about the Babtist New KJV, but at least it shares the text with the KJV.
So far I have not seen a significant difference in the KJV21 or the Third Millenium Bible - that is - no reason to switch. Yes, I find some opaque terms in the KJV, like chambering, but a little study shows it means bed-hopping, based on the original term. A little more study does not hurt the clergy or the laity.
Sadly - or happily - the laity drive clergy study by asking the basic questions.