From: Jerrel Sturdy (muskogeean44@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 18:29:29 EDT
<x-flowed>
>From: "Jerrel Sturdy" <muskogeean44@hotmail.com>
>To: muskogeean44@hotmail.com
>Subject: TEXTS, TRANSMISSION, TRANSLATIONS, ETC.--Keep
>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:27:34 +0000
>
>
>
>
>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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>The APOSTOLIC WORD CODE DID NOT WORK, BUT THAT MAY BE IN WITH THE LIVING
>ORACLES TRANSLATION AND THAT CODE DID WORK. 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