Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Hoss vs another Bible corrector (Luke 2:33 discussion)

Hoss vs another Bible corrector (Luke 2:33 discussion)

I sent someone my ESV is their reply.

"I haven't recommended the Critical Text or an ESV so why send me your email.
Would you in effect claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth with an inexcusable, blasphemous reading "his father" at Luke 2:33?
Several of the pre-1611 English Bibles on the KJV-only view's good line or pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' because that reading was in some printed editions of the Textus Receptus.and in Byzantine Greek manuscripts on which those TR editions were based.
Would a consistent application of KJV-only accusations about Luke 2:33 suggest that the KJV denied the virgin birth or the deity of Christ with a blasphemous reading when it referred to Jesus as "the son of Joseph" at John 1:45 and John 6:42 or “Joseph‘s son“ at Luke 4:22?"
Sir, thank you for the information. 
Yes, the King James Bible was a revision of other translations (not just other English translations, but also other languages). I am not sure how "pure" I would consider Wycliffe's version, though it does have its importance as to attempting to bring the word of God into English. It was translated from a corrupt text. 
As far as I know (which is not too far! ) the Geneva was the only other version that has "Joseph" in Luke 2:33. So yes, early English versions had corrupt readings in them. However, KJB believers see early versions as going "up hill" rather than "down hill". The early versions were getting better while the modern versions have gotten worse.
"Joseph" has the most manuscript evidence, which I think may even include the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.  

Sir, you seem to have pulled a rather slick move.
Look at the context of the verses you cited (trying to say that I am inconsistent)

Luke 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Everyone of those passages records a person assuming/asking that Joseph was Christ's father. This is MUCH different than Luke 2:33.
Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
This portion of scripture is the Holy Spirit guiding the narrative....the Spirit is the one making the word choices here in Luke 2:33. What the Holy Spirit says about Christ and what people say about Him is much different. 
So yes, I am consistent here. 
Thank you for your time! --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your questions or comments welcome.