# Critique of James White & Wretched TV #1326



## Robert Truelove

I finally got around to doing this critique of James White & Wretched TV #1326.

If you're familiar with the textual issues at all, there isn't going to be anything new here. I just wanted to put a response out there because I found this episode to be very misleading for people who aren't familiar with this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU8V3N7U2EA


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Excellent job Robert. I wish that Critical Text proponents would stop using these specious arguments because they have misled so many people.


----------



## MW

"Think of it this way. Take John Stewart, remove the potty language and change all of the worldly topics to Christian. That is Wretched."

Personally I wouldn't take it seriously. True theology does not flourish within that type of environment. It is staged for the benefit of those who are going to judge by the presentation rather than the facts. But a helpful response nonetheless, especially the appeal to professional text-critical scholars.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Here is what James White posted to his Facebook wall this morning in response to this...

"A few weeks ago I had a brief exchange with Robert Truelove, who identifies himself as a "Traditional Text" advocate (he's specifically a Byzantine text advocate, but is not overly accurate in how he identifies his position). It has been my experience that when challenged to provide specific, necessary textual answers to the questions that simply must be answered in the field of textual criticism, those who hold to traditions that cannot provide (consistent) answers normally end up becoming more and more aggressive as a cover for the failure of their system. A few weeks ago brother Truelove apologized for his initial statements, especially the highly offensive assertion that the only reason I am invited to debate in mosques is due to, evidently, some textual compromise on my part (is that why he is NOT thusly invited?). And now a few weeks later we have this video, in which he speaks of "The James White Reality Distortion Field." Then we get to the heart of the matter---the "spirit" in which I speak is as "inflammatory and offensive" as the King James only guys. I am presenting "Critical Text Onlyism" that is "rude, divisive, critical, unloving, uncharitable," and I am the "source" for this kind of spirit and attitude (and that was based upon my simply *starting* to respond to Friel's question---I honestly had not yet said a full sentence). All of this video is based upon ignoring the fact that the video he is addressing was put together from portions of my full Wretched presentation on the reliability of the NT text, and draws solely from the Q&A at the end.

The number of category errors and simple ignorance of context in brother Truelove's comments is astounding. But I am more concerned to point to the fact that it didn't take long to move to the aggressive attack mode on the part of someone who claims to see the errors of KJVOism, and yet, holds to a position that, like KJVOism, enshrines a traditional position within an envelope of theological reasoning. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can view my presentation on the reliability of the NT text and then, on that basis, turn around and say that my presentations are as "rude, divisive, critical, unloving and uncharitable" as the kind of rhetoric one finds flowing forth from the mouths and keyboards of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Steven Anderson, Will Kinney, and the rest of the KJVO movement. I leave it to the reader to evaluate the fairness of Truelove's accusation.

But as you continue on, it only gets worse. After I mention the problems Erasmus had with the text of Revelation and the haste of the printing of the first edition of Erasmus' text, Truelove cuts away and says, "So the general message, so far, is that the Textus Receptus is really a load of festering c**p." Seriously? This is supposed to be taken seriously, coming from a minister of the gospel? Talk about destroying your credibility in one fell swoop! I am sorry, but how can such absurdity be taken seriously? Truly makes one wonder.

So my brief point this morning is just because someone recognizes the absurdity of the KJV Only movement it does not follow that they will not become aggressive in the promotion of their own particular tradition that they use to separate themselves from the "majority" view of the day."

The careful listener in all of these will listen carefully for 1) What points are actually being made and 2) Are those points being answered?

The comments in my video are rather tame compared to the stuff James White has been saying in many of his videos. Perhaps I should put a string of videos together of James doing his rants so people can see first hand what I'm talking about but if you follow him, you already know what I'm talking about. 

I listened to Jeff Riddle's (another Reformed Baptist Pastor) critique of this same Wretched TV edition this morning and he draws very many of the same conclusions I drew in my video and provides a lot more information. It's interesting I made my comments before I ever heard Riddle on this. You can hear his take here...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=823142034515

Finally, I made a very clear argument in my video that the Critical Text is not based upon the 5700 extant Greek manuscripts but primarily reflects the minority Alexandrian readings and this was being misrepresented. That was the issue addressed over and over again. Why aren't we getting a reply on that? Rather he takes issue with my "load of festering c**p" comment and essentially dismisses the whole argument. I used strong language because that is exactly how he continually presents the Textus Receptus and translations based upon it. Instead of addressing the issues, we get an ad hominem, "we can't take a guy like this seriously". Well fine...he's not going to answer the issues.


----------



## Username3000

Pastor Truelove,

Have you read James White's _The King James Only Movement_ in its entirety? The reason I ask is because the book seems to contain his position on many of these issues. But, having not read it myself, I don't know what is and is not included in the book.


----------



## rickclayfan

I used to be part of those whom you call Critical Text only-ists. I viewed the TR with contempt and viewed it as an inferior text in the shadow of the CT. I viewed the matter just as White portrays it. Then, I read Owen's volumes on Hebrews. Resources and manuscripts on the original text were not so scant back in the day as I had supposed.


----------



## Robert Truelove

E.R. CROSS said:


> Pastor Truelove,
> 
> Have you read James White's _The King James Only Movement_ in its entirety? The reason I ask is because the book seems to contain his position on many of these issues. But, having not read it myself, I don't know what is and is not included in the book.



Yes. I've got both the 1995 edition (read it when it first came out) and then have reread it in the 2009 edition.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If your goal was to ensure that you and James will simply dismiss one another's arguments out of hand, then you've succeeded. I think James wrote and said some things he ought not have in response to you but going for the jugular will ensure that's the end of any kind of irenic engagement.

You might think that's unfair because, after all, you know how careful you were and how you try to make your points plain but I'm certain James feels the same way about his own arguments. As much as you despise the man's arguments in the video you review (summarizing some of his statements as simply saying "the TR is ****"), it is interesting that you demand careful consideration of your own view by him.

The party lines are now clearly drawn.


----------



## Captain Picard

I am still following all of this stuff. None of this is likely to stop my holding the Dividing Line in high regard.

I am grieved that these conversations veer rapidly into what I would view as "sowing dissension among brothers" territory.


----------



## JimmyH

I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JimmyH said:


> I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.



I think the argument is that the Byzantine
texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.


----------



## Captain Picard

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the argument is that the Byzantine
> texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.
Click to expand...


It would sort of set my mind at ease for there to be a middle ground between "the Alexandrian text-type is a conspiracy to obfuscate the Word"and "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are definitive proof that the Byzantine text-type is secondary". I feel like in my search for truth in this field I'm navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the argument is that the Byzantine
> texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.
Click to expand...


Which is the question Robert asked in the video. This is why i theologically struggle with the CT.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Semper Fidelis said:


> If your goal was to ensure that you and James will simply dismiss one another's arguments out of hand, then you've succeeded. I think James wrote and said some things he ought not have in response to you but going for the jugular will ensure that's the end of any kind of irenic engagement.
> 
> You might think that's unfair because, after all, you know how careful you were and how you try to make your points plain but I'm certain James feels the same way about his own arguments. As much as you despise the man's arguments in the video you review (summarizing some of his statements as simply saying "the TR is ****"), it is interesting that you demand careful consideration of your own view by him.
> 
> The party lines are now clearly drawn.



The difference is...I made a bunch of careful points AND the main one, over and over again (that the CT is not based upon the 5700 manuscripts and it is the TR that claims the broader manuscript support). In White's reply we get ad hominem. I don't mind if he wants to call me a low down scoundrel...just address the issues if you're going to respond.

Regarding the summarizing of White's presentation of the TR as, "the TR is c**p"...He was tame in the Wicked TV presentation compared to other places I've seen him do this. I simply don't know a way to sugar coat it...that's exactly what he communicates about the TR and it is intentional because ultimately he is presenting a case for why we shouldn't use it. The ironic thing is, on this point I don't totally fault him. As a CT guy, I understand that he would think the TR is lousy. My point in the video was simply to make clear what was trying to be communicated by the story. The problem with it...was it was supposed to be a piece against King James Onlyism, but was a case against the Traditional Text. THAT was the issue.

This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White. Well, not only me...there are a lot of us out here who think this way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Robert Truelove said:


> This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White.


I think the main problem is that you conflate criticism of the KJVO (and arguments appropriate to it) to criticisms of the Ecclesiastical Text position.

How do I know this?

Because his arguments are only effectively targeted at the KJVO crowd. It's like a JW arguing about the kinds of arguments James uses to demonstrate the Deity of Christ to Muslims. Some of the arguments might touch on the same areas but he'll approach them differently knowing the manner in which that material is argued.

For the KJVO crowd, James only has to demonstrate a single place where the historical validity of a certain reading may be called into question. KJVO stands or falls on the idea that every single word is accurate and its defenders will defend the manner that this came about to the death (including Erasmus work). This is why the manner in which Revelation comes into play from Erasmus' work is germane. He doesn't state that Erasmus' work is altogether horrible (this is a childish representation) but there are the superstitious that assign some sort of infallible work of Erasmus to recover the Greek and this leads to a platform that eventually is translated into English.

That's just one example where you conflate Jemes' criticism of the *KJVO* with your own position. I think the very first thing James would rightly point out is who the argument was directed toward and that it's not worth responding to for that very reason. If I was, for example, arguing against a dispensationalist anti-paedobaptist I would not give your offense the time of day if I argued for Covenant Theology in my defense of the baptism of infants. You migh angrily say that I consider your Covenant Theology "****" in the way I don't acknowledge your arguments about the nature of the New Covenant as I argue with this dispensationalist. I would simply tell you that I wasn't arguing the case for infant baptism with a Reformed Baptism and to get offended only when I actually take up an argument against your case. Of course, if you simply ravaged my arguments repeatedly in a certain way, I might conclude that I don't really ever want to engage you in lengthy dialog.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the main problem is that you conflate criticism of the KJVO (and arguments appropriate to it) to criticisms of the Ecclesiastical Text position.
> 
> How do I know this?
> 
> Because his arguments are only effectively targeted at the KJVO crowd. It's like a JW arguing about the kinds of arguments James uses to demonstrate the Deity of Christ to Muslims. Some of the arguments might touch on the same areas but he'll approach them differently knowing the manner in which that material is argued.
> 
> For the KJVO crowd, James only has to demonstrate a single place where the historical validity of a certain reading may be called into question. KJVO stands or falls on the idea that every single word is accurate and its defenders will defend the manner that this came about to the death (including Erasmus work). This is why the manner in which Revelation comes into play from Erasmus' work is germane. He doesn't state that Erasmus' work is altogether horrible (this is a childish representation) but there are the superstitious that assign some sort of infallible work of Erasmus to recover the Greek and this leads to a platform that eventually is translated into English.
> 
> That's just one example where you conflate Jemes' criticism of the *KJVO* with your own position. I think the very first thing James would rightly point out is who the argument was directed toward and that it's not worth responding to for that very reason. If I was, for example, arguing against a dispensationalist anti-paedobaptist I would not give your offense the time of day if I argued for Covenant Theology in my defense of the baptism of infants. You migh angrily say that I consider your Covenant Theology "****" in the way I don't acknowledge your arguments about the nature of the New Covenant as I argue with this dispensationalist. I would simply tell you that I wasn't arguing the case for infant baptism with a Reformed Baptism and to get offended only when I actually take up an argument against your case. Of course, if you simply ravaged my arguments repeatedly in a certain way, I might conclude that I don't really ever want to engage you in lengthy dialog.
Click to expand...


I would agree that many of the arguments used against the KJVO crowd will naturally overlap into other views and positions, even of that is not necessarily the intention. I would also agree that perhaps Robert's characterization of Dr. White's view of the TR was unfair and overstated. That being said, I would also agree with Robert that Dr. White failed to meaningfully engage the core of his argument. Arguing for the superiority of the CT on the basis of superior manuscript support on a purely numerical basis is misleading at best and patently false at worst. Even if it is technically true that the CT is based on many more manuscripts than the TR, the practical result is that the TR is largely in agreement with the vast majority of these texts while the CT is in much more significant disagreement with the same.


----------



## Robert Truelove

I agree that my characterization of Dr. White's view of the TR was overstated. Obviously, he sees it as better than a load of festering c**p. When I said "that's exactly what he communicates" I certainly don't mean literally. It's simply that he presents it in the worst possible light when he gives this sort of presentation and clearly communicates that he thinks it is severely defective and should not be used.

Regardless, this was a subpoint of a subpoint in the context of my critique.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Captain Picard said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the argument is that the Byzantine
> texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would sort of set my mind at ease for there to be a middle ground between "the Alexandrian text-type is a conspiracy to obfuscate the Word"and "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are definitive proof that the Byzantine text-type is secondary". I feel like in my search for truth in this field I'm navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.
Click to expand...


James,

I totally reject the idea that "the Alexandrian text-type is a conspiracy to obfuscate the Word". It is the early text form of upper Egypt, and despite it's faults, remains orthodox. I reject also the idea that Bibles are "perversions" just because they are based upon the Critical Text. 

Furthermore, I affirm that the CT and faithful translations based upon it are the word of God.

The distinction is, I would also affirm the Textus Receptus (our present edition of the Traditional Text in use) is a better source based upon better manuscripts so faithful translations based upon it are better than those from the Critical Text. 

I think the arguments stating the "Satanic perversions of the Alexandrian Text" are both overstated and unnecessary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bill The Baptist said:


> That being said, I would also agree with Robert that Dr. White failed to meaningfully engage the core of his argument. Arguing for the superiority of the CT on the basis of superior manuscript support on a purely numerical basis is misleading at best and patently false at worst.


Again, however, James is not interacting with an Ecclesiastical Text person at this point. He's not even arguing with a TR per se but a KJVO in the segment. How can it be said that James is being unfair to Robert in the video when that's not whom he is addressing? The number of manuscripts is mainly germane in the issue of the KJVO crowd because the number of Greek MSS found by that point when the KJV was authored was limited. Again, the target is limited to KJVO which rejects even the notion of textual variants.

I don't even know that I would fairly characterize James as "CT only". I would see him more as someone who questions the idea of an Ecclesiastical text from the standpoint that the "used Scripture in the Churches" provides the surest way of determining what was providentially preserved. I was reflecting upon this today and realized that it's actually pretty consistent with James being a Baptist that he would be more suspicious of an Ecclesiastical Text since there is really no such thing as Church authority beyond local assembly in his Ecclessiology.

As I noted in another thread, I do find some apologetic and theological value in the parallels that can be drawn to Kruger's arguments in The Heresy of Orthodoxy that demonstrates how the early Church _used_ the Scriptures. The fact that Christians used "books" centuries before they were cool and the collections they put in these codices (and those they left out) makes for some strong argumentation. Of course, everyone gets a little choosy about Church belief and practice at some point. The Roman Catholic Church might point to Jerome's translation of the Greek word for justification in Romans changing the meaning from "declared righteous" to "made righteous". The same Ecclesiastical text arguments could (and had) been made by the RCC to argue against theological reform. Further, no Baptist is going to accept the settled theological tradition of the baptism of infants as an Ecclesiastical tradition.

Thus, I think James may not be perfect in all his arguments but he seems pretty consistent in mostly being suspicious of the idea that an Ecclesiastical text was settled by THE Church when he doesn't really think of Erasmus or Geneva or the Anglicans as THE Church. I think he probably thinks that, if they had the same number of manuscripts that we have access to then they might have made different textual decisions.

That all said, these are broader discussions that are not really addressed when dealing with the KJVO crowd so, again, I just don't think the video reviewed is the best place to bring them out and wonder why he doesn't deal with them.

Finally, I tend to agree with Dr. Maurice Robinson that the NA and UBS apparati (or is it apparatuses) are too selective in their use of the Byzantine text. There are readings within that MSS family that are not included and I appreciate the work he does. I'm also more inclined to agree with his basic approach to the matter:


> Byzantine-priority differs from other theories and methods within New Testament textual criticism: the object is not the reconstruction of an “original” text that lacks demonstrable continuity or widespread existence among the extant manuscript base; nor is the object the restoration or recovery of an “original” text long presumed to have been “lost.” Neither should the concept of an archetypal autograph be abandoned as hopeless. Rather, Byzantine-priority presents as canonical the Greek New Testament text as it has been attested, preserved, and maintained by scribes throughout the centuries. This transmissional basis characterizes the Byzantine-priority theory.
> 
> The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. (2006). (p. vii). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Again, however, James is not interacting with an Ecclesiastical Text person at this point. He's not even arguing with a TR per se but a KJVO in the segment. How can it be said that James is being unfair to Robert in the video when that's not whom he is addressing? The number of manuscripts is mainly germane in the issue of the KJVO crowd because the number of Greek MSS found by that point when the KJV was authored was limited. Again, the target is limited to KJVO which rejects even the notion of textual variants.



I was not referring to the Wretched video, but rather to Dr. White's Facebook response to Robert's video that is posted above. Dr. White went to great lengths to protest Robert's characterization of his presentation, but failed to address his core argument in any fashion whatsoever.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bill The Baptist said:


> I was not referring to the Wretched video, but rather to Dr. White's Facebook response to Robert's video that is posted above. Dr. White went to great lengths to protest Robert's characterization of his presentation, but failed to address his core argument in any fashion whatsoever.


Gotcha. I didn't really read that in-depth. It sort of distills issues when two issues are brought together. Critiquing James about what he says to KJVO advocates in a video distracts from how James might have responded better to a purely ET position. This is my point. Now that Robert has conflated criticism of the ET in this video, it makes it much more difficult that James will respond to the original issue. It's moved away from how James might have responded to Robert's original video and a whole host of additional distractions are now present.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not referring to the Wretched video, but rather to Dr. White's Facebook response to Robert's video that is posted above. Dr. White went to great lengths to protest Robert's characterization of his presentation, but failed to address his core argument in any fashion whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. I didn't really read that in-depth. It sort of distills issues when two issues are brought together. Critiquing James about what he says to KJVO advocates in a video distracts from how James might have responded better to a purely ET position. This is my point. Now that Robert has conflated criticism of the ET in this video, it makes it much more difficult that James will respond to the original issue. It's moved away from how James might have responded to Robert's original video and a whole host of additional distractions are now present.
Click to expand...


Indeed one of the things that is difficult for most of us to imagine is the sheer amount of ridiculousness, hatred, and vitriol that Dr. White has to deal with on a daily basis from multiple fronts. Obviously I wouldn't consider Robert's presentation to fall into that category, but when that is what you mostly have to deal with, eventually it becomes difficult to even distinguish between the two any more. While I am in agreement with Robert on this issue, I can also understand how Dr. White would be wiry of even addressing this issue anymore after having dealt with so many KJVO nut cases for so many years.


----------



## Semper Fidelis




----------



## Robert Truelove

If you didn't see it, this is the response I received from the first video (note: I am responding to the content of the Dividing Line in the OP on Facebook)...

https://www.facebook.com/aomin.org/posts/1032853633405905?comment_id=1033067926717809&offset=0&total_comments=4&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D

Note my last comment to which there is no reply (as of this post it's over two weeks old). So that's pretty much how it ended up.

From my view of things, I do think Dr. White uses the KJVO critique to criticize all anti-Critical Text views. It's laced throughout his vocabulary within the very terms he uses and the emphasis he chooses to make. I can tell you that quite a few people who hold to similar views on the text issue have communicated this same thing to me about the way they perceive Dr. White and his dealing with this subject. I'm not the only one out here somewhat frustrated with the effect Dr. White is having on some of his followers. I refer to the divisive Critical Text Only kinds of folks.


----------



## MW

Robert Truelove said:


> From my view of things, I do think Dr. White uses the KJVO critique to criticize all anti-Critical Text views.



Yes, the arguments are doing double-duty in his apologetic for the so-called critical text. Basically any position which gives weight to the Byzantine witness is bound to dissent from his presentation of what he considers to be the "facts" of the case.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

For those who are interested, Dr. White just indicated on his Facebook page that he will be addressing Robert's questions on tomorrow's edition of the Dividing Line beginning at 4 pm EDT.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Robert Truelove said:


> f you didn't see it, this is the response I received from the first video (note: I am responding to the content of the Dividing Line in the OP on Facebook)...
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/aomin.org/p...:"R2"}



I find this exchange very interesting. I had not seen this interaction and precisely what I surmised above is exactly the case.

James even wonder why you would think you're in his cross-hairs and is actually pretty kind to you in his reply giving you some reasons why he doesn't find the Byzantine priority position very compelling. He then went silent on the thread (for whatever reasons he might have) and you responded 2-3 times including a question as to why he says some things that seem to lump a bunch of people together in his criticism.

What's his answer?

We don't have one because you didn't wait for a reply.

Instead, you made the video that we're responding to in this thread that deals (once again) with somebody (not yourself) that James is criticizing.

I'm honestly kind of bewildered at your impatience when you had a line of communication open with him. There are a number of issues that I find irksome that James says about Baptism but I'm biding my time on those for the opportunity to get a hearing realizing that his aperture is only so wide given the amount of correspondence he gets. The last thing he needs is any reason to view me as "ignorable" on an issue.


----------



## alexandermsmith

MW said:


> "Think of it this way. Take John Stewart, remove the potty language and change all of the worldly topics to Christian. That is Wretched."
> 
> Personally I wouldn't take it seriously. True theology does not flourish within that type of environment. It is staged for the benefit of those who are going to judge by the presentation rather than the facts. But a helpful response nonetheless, especially the appeal to professional text-critical scholars.



Absolutely. Any "Christian" discussion show which calls itself "Wretched" in this blithe, trendy manner is to be treated with suspicion. Indeed man is wretched by nature: to turn this reality into a fashion statement is woeful.

To follow the reasoning of people like White is to doubt the Bible you hold in your hands. These men are saying whole portions of Scripture shouldn't even be there and every time a different translation comes out they're preaching verses which don't say the same thing they said the last time they preached on them. I think this is connected with a movement to always go to the original langauges, which you see with a lot of Reformed people. Of course knowledge of the original languages is valuable and important, but if one has to refer to the original language to "really" know what Scripture is saying then you're effectively saying the vast majority of Christians can't truly know what God is saying to them in Scripture: they need a small group of learned men to tell them. That's why the divine _preservation_ of the text of Scripture is an essential element of the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. We have a faithful translation, based on a text which was divinely preserved. We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.

Mr. Truelove, if I could just say: I appreciate your video and I think it's really important to be saying these things today, but I do find the use of a certain word not only unnecessary but not worthy of a Christian. People like White are inflammatory and their tone is objectionable: we must be better.


----------



## Logan

alexandermsmith said:


> We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.



And for languages other than English...?


----------



## Robert Truelove

alexandermsmith said:


> Mr. Truelove, if I could just say: I appreciate your video and I think it's really important to be saying these things today, but I do find the use of a certain word not only unnecessary but not worthy of a Christian. People like White are inflammatory and their tone is objectionable: we must be better.



Point taken. I think some of this is where I live in the South, "c**p" is generally no more offensive here then saying "dung" or "poop" (<which aren't offensive words here either). At worst it is seen as an very mild crude-ish word. 

I was initially taken a little aback that some people saw that as a cuss word. That's my problem though as I am not only responsible for what I say, but how the things I say are received. I do not want to offend with language and I have never been one to applaud the "cussing preachers" so I will retire the use of the "c" word in future videos.

EDIT: I just added an annotation to the first time I used the "c" word in the video...


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Logan said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for languages other than English...?
Click to expand...


KJV-O logic would dictate that all non-English versions of the Bible should be a word-for-word, literal translation of the KJV, because based on the debate between Dr. White and Pastor Steven Anderson that I found myself watching after reading the OP here, the Greek and Hebrew doesn't matter. The final authority lies in the KJV, not in the original languages.

Actually, we really should be safe and just force everybody to learn English, and not only English, but English that stopped being used over 300 years ago so that they can read the KJV and it alone.

Note: I'm not a fan of KJV-only. I see it as idolatry.


----------



## Robert Truelove

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for languages other than English...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KJV-O logic would dictate that all non-English versions of the Bible should be a word-for-word, literal translation of the KJV, because based on the debate between Dr. White and Pastor Steven Anderson that I found myself watching after reading the OP here, the Greek and Hebrew doesn't matter. The final authority lies in the KJV, not in the original languages.
> 
> Actually, we really should be safe and just force everybody to learn English, and not only English, but English that stopped being used over 300 years ago so that they can read the KJV and it alone.
> 
> Note: I'm not a fan of KJV-only. I see it as idolatry.
Click to expand...


I agree. KJVO is unorthodox and is actually an attack upon the authority of the Scriptures by making a translation produced by fallible men have authority over the infallible originals.

Having said that, I think people often overplay the Greek and Hebrew to the point where English readers can feel like they really can't know the Bible and that is as much nonsense and KJVOism. We are very fortunate to have some very good English translations and the KJV is one of them (though only one of them...but confessedly, it is my fav  ).


----------



## Robert Truelove

Semper Fidelis said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> f you didn't see it, this is the response I received from the first video (note: I am responding to the content of the Dividing Line in the OP on Facebook)...
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/aomin.org/p...:"R2"}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this exchange very interesting. I had not seen this interaction and precisely what I surmised above is exactly the case.
> 
> James even wonder why you would think you're in his cross-hairs and is actually pretty kind to you in his reply giving you some reasons why he doesn't find the Byzantine priority position very compelling. He then went silent on the thread (for whatever reasons he might have) and you responded 2-3 times including a question as to why he says some things that seem to lump a bunch of people together in his criticism.
> 
> What's his answer?
> 
> We don't have one because you didn't wait for a reply.
> 
> Instead, you made the video that we're responding to in this thread that deals (once again) with somebody (not yourself) that James is criticizing.
> 
> I'm honestly kind of bewildered at your impatience when you had a line of communication open with him. There are a number of issues that I find irksome that James says about Baptism but I'm biding my time on those for the opportunity to get a hearing realizing that his aperture is only so wide given the amount of correspondence he gets. The last thing he needs is any reason to view me as "ignorable" on an issue.
Click to expand...


I can appreciate and understand where you are coming from but I don't see it as you. From my perspective there was not an open channel for dialog and the "conversation" was over. There was another thread from a month back where he had first called me out because of an offhanded comment I made in a private discussion group (that from my last video). We went back and forth a couple times and then he left my last question hanging and never came back to address it in that case as well.

I don't mean this as a criticism. I realize he is busy and he certainly doesn't have to address me, but I'm just saying that apart from going on the Dividing Line so he can argue with me, I've not really seen any open doors here.


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Robert Truelove said:


> GraceOverwhelmsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for languages other than English...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KJV-O logic would dictate that all non-English versions of the Bible should be a word-for-word, literal translation of the KJV, because based on the debate between Dr. White and Pastor Steven Anderson that I found myself watching after reading the OP here, the Greek and Hebrew doesn't matter. The final authority lies in the KJV, not in the original languages.
> 
> Actually, we really should be safe and just force everybody to learn English, and not only English, but English that stopped being used over 300 years ago so that they can read the KJV and it alone.
> 
> Note: I'm not a fan of KJV-only. I see it as idolatry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. KJVO is unorthodox and is actually an attack upon the authority of the Scriptures by making a translation produced by fallible men have authority over the infallible originals.
> 
> Having said that, I think people often overplay the Greek and Hebrew to the point where English readers can feel like they really can't know the Bible and that is as much nonsense and KJVOism. We are very fortunate to have some very good English translations and the KJV is one of them (though only one of them...but confessedly, it is my fav  ).
Click to expand...


I understand that both sides of the spectrum are dangerous, but I don't think that Dr. White has ever truly taken the position that the KJV shouldn't be read or that everybody needs to become a master of Greek and Hebrew. Yes, he loves the Greek and Hebrew and reads it in his daily study rather than reading any English translation, but I think your critique of the video kind of misses the mark. Your critique is based on an argument he wasn't trying to make. I feel like it was borderline strawman. 

His arguments have always been against KJVO using the manuscript arguments, but that is because it is literally the only thing that can combatant the "The KJV is inspired because the KJV inspired because when I read it I know it's inspired and everything else is satanic because I can tell it's not inspired by the way it sounds." Pastor Steven Anderson is on record saying that if people don't understand or "get anything out of" the KJV that they cannot be saved because, "They don't hear the voice of the Shepherd." He is also on record saying that because of his allegiance, not to the pursuit of the truth, but to the KJV, that it is necessary to believe that Jesus' soul was in hell. This, of course, was after admitting that there was, absolutely, a distinction between gehenna and hades that the KJV failed to make but that's ok, according to him, because we can't go out evangelizing and using foreign words like hades that we have to explain (this from a guy who swears by an English translation that is extremely foreign to the general populace). 

I've never once heard him say that you shouldn't use the KJV because the manuscripts are awful messes - he just warns against believing the KJV is the only perfect English translation. He calls for us to be a bit critical of the translation we hold in our laps - not because the "conspiracies" the KJVO folks make - but to make sure we are in fact holding a good translation. He feels that God has preserved His Word in many translations, wishes that there wouldn't be as many translations (he feels the vast number of them are mostly a money-grab), and says that the ones that have been messed with are easy to spot (NWT, for example), and that things like adding "Isaiah" to the manuscript and then quoting Micah first, then Isaiah (as the Jews of the era would have done) are not a "change" or a "conspiracy", but something a Jewish scribe might have done.

From what I can gather, this interview with Todd Friel happened about a year or so after his debate/interview with Pastor Anderson, so that argument was probably still fresh in his brain.

By the way, your use of "****" is not offensive and you shouldn't feel bad. Just like styles change, so do the meaning and offensiveness of words. There are only those standard 4-letter words that seem to transcend time and space of offensiveness. 100 years ago, if a pastor would have said "poop" in the pulpit, he would have been kicked right out of there. If you had dropped the s-bomb, then you may have a need to repent, but not for saying ****.


----------



## Pergamum

If only Dr. Maurice Robinson could weigh in here. I'd love to hear his commentary about these exchanges. 

http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/08/09/kjvodb-interviews-dr-maurice-robinson-pt-1/

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html

Has James White ever engaged Robinson's "Byzantine Priority" view? And how is Robinson's position different than what Truelove is asserting? Any differences in the latter men's views (maybe Robert can answer direct to this)? Is Robert Truelove's and Maurice Robinson's views on the text the same, almost the same, similar, or somewhat different? I am trying to understand the differences in the views.

I'd like to ask how the terms are defined and if there is any difference in how MT (majority Text) and TR ( Recevied Text) is being used here in these debates. Dr Robinson seems to speak more of the Majority Text, but the Truelove/White videos speak more of the TR. Are these terms being used interchangeably? 

Finally, I'd like to ask whether proper "Confessionalism" must also include the version of the Bible being footnoted in the confessions. If so, then does James White have no claim to "holding to the 1689" if he rejects the version listed in that same confession? Or is that a trifling technicality?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the main problem is that you conflate criticism of the KJVO (and arguments appropriate to it) to criticisms of the Ecclesiastical Text position.
> 
> How do I know this?
> 
> Because his arguments are only effectively targeted at the KJVO crowd. It's like a JW arguing about the kinds of arguments James uses to demonstrate the Deity of Christ to Muslims. Some of the arguments might touch on the same areas but he'll approach them differently knowing the manner in which that material is argued.
> 
> For the KJVO crowd, James only has to demonstrate a single place where the historical validity of a certain reading may be called into question. KJVO stands or falls on the idea that every single word is accurate and its defenders will defend the manner that this came about to the death (including Erasmus work). This is why the manner in which Revelation comes into play from Erasmus' work is germane. He doesn't state that Erasmus' work is altogether horrible (this is a childish representation) but there are the superstitious that assign some sort of infallible work of Erasmus to recover the Greek and this leads to a platform that eventually is translated into English.
> 
> That's just one example where you conflate Jemes' criticism of the *KJVO* with your own position. I think the very first thing James would rightly point out is who the argument was directed toward and that it's not worth responding to for that very reason. If I was, for example, arguing against a dispensationalist anti-paedobaptist I would not give your offense the time of day if I argued for Covenant Theology in my defense of the baptism of infants. You migh angrily say that I consider your Covenant Theology "****" in the way I don't acknowledge your arguments about the nature of the New Covenant as I argue with this dispensationalist. I would simply tell you that I wasn't arguing the case for infant baptism with a Reformed Baptism and to get offended only when I actually take up an argument against your case. Of course, if you simply ravaged my arguments repeatedly in a certain way, I might conclude that I don't really ever want to engage you in lengthy dialog.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am misunderstanding you Rich but I have seen White conflate KJVO with others who do not hold to that position. I even communicated with him years ago concerning his lumping Green in next to nut case Riplinger in his KJV Controversy booklet. He just brushed it off. He is neither a scholar nor honest in my estimation and I have never been one to endorse him. Not even when I was a Reformed Baptist. I have stated this before through the years before I was on the PB and ever since. I know he is an acquaintance of yours but Dr. Oakley has problems and he is Great at obfuscation.

Addition

The following shows why I have made the statement I posted.

Remember I have been around for a long time. I knew Green and his response to this discussion. 

Letis is on White. The King James Controversy. 

My charges are reiterated through the discussion but for a short, start around the 24 minute mark.

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/tape04_James_White_Critique_August_4_&_7,2000.mp3

Of course this is very old. The booklet has been around for some time.


----------



## JimmyH

Pergamum said:


> If only Dr. Maurice Robinson could weigh in here. I'd love to hear his commentary about these exchanges.



Not sure if this is helpful, but from The New Testament in the Original Greek, Robinson/Pierpont, I have the book here in hard copy and have read the appendix with the defense, where I might note that Robinson characterizes the TR as, "the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts". ........ and ;

"Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. but the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner." (footnote to the preceding sentence) ; "This includes all the various factions which hope to find authority and certainty in a single "providentially preserved" Greek text or English translation (usually the KJV), It need hardly be mentioned that such an approach has nothing to do with actual text-critical theory or praxis."


----------



## MW

> It need hardly be mentioned that such an approach has nothing to do with actual text-critical theory or praxis."



The eclectic proponents say the same of the Byzantine-priority approach. What is gained by being dismissive in this way? Nothing.


----------



## Captain Picard

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the main problem is that you conflate criticism of the KJVO (and arguments appropriate to it) to criticisms of the Ecclesiastical Text position.
> 
> How do I know this?
> 
> Because his arguments are only effectively targeted at the KJVO crowd. It's like a JW arguing about the kinds of arguments James uses to demonstrate the Deity of Christ to Muslims. Some of the arguments might touch on the same areas but he'll approach them differently knowing the manner in which that material is argued.
> 
> For the KJVO crowd, James only has to demonstrate a single place where the historical validity of a certain reading may be called into question. KJVO stands or falls on the idea that every single word is accurate and its defenders will defend the manner that this came about to the death (including Erasmus work). This is why the manner in which Revelation comes into play from Erasmus' work is germane. He doesn't state that Erasmus' work is altogether horrible (this is a childish representation) but there are the superstitious that assign some sort of infallible work of Erasmus to recover the Greek and this leads to a platform that eventually is translated into English.
> 
> That's just one example where you conflate Jemes' criticism of the *KJVO* with your own position. I think the very first thing James would rightly point out is who the argument was directed toward and that it's not worth responding to for that very reason. If I was, for example, arguing against a dispensationalist anti-paedobaptist I would not give your offense the time of day if I argued for Covenant Theology in my defense of the baptism of infants. You migh angrily say that I consider your Covenant Theology "****" in the way I don't acknowledge your arguments about the nature of the New Covenant as I argue with this dispensationalist. I would simply tell you that I wasn't arguing the case for infant baptism with a Reformed Baptism and to get offended only when I actually take up an argument against your case. Of course, if you simply ravaged my arguments repeatedly in a certain way, I might conclude that I don't really ever want to engage you in lengthy dialog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe I am misunderstanding you Rich but I have seen White conflate KJVO with others who do not hold to that position. I even communicated with him years ago concerning his lumping Green in next to nut case Riplinger in his KJV Controversy booklet. He just brushed it off. *He is neither a scholar nor honest in my estimation* and I have never been one to endorse him. Not even when I was a Reformed Baptist. I have stated this before through the years before I was on the PB and ever since. I know he is an acquaintance of yours but Dr. Oakley has problems and he is Great at obfuscation.
> 
> Addition
> 
> The following shows why I have made the statement I posted.
> 
> Remember I have been around for a long time. I knew Green and his response to this discussion.
> 
> Letis is on White. The King James Controversy.
> 
> My charges are reiterated through the discussion but for a short, start around the 24 minute mark.
> 
> http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/tape04_James_White_Critique_August_4_&_7,2000.mp3
> 
> Of course this is very old. The booklet has been around for some time.
Click to expand...


What is there to be gained by being dismissive in *this* way, for that matter.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Logan said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for languages other than English...?
Click to expand...


An excellent question. For other languages people should look for translations into their own language based on the TR. The Trinitarian Bible Society is the place to go: they are a wonderful organisation which does sterling, matchless work in bringing the truth of God's Word to a large variety of languages.

Just to be clear: it's the TR that I referred to as being divinely preserved, not the KJV per se. I'm not a KJVO. It seems because of Logan's quoting my post out of context that the impression has been given I was advocating for KJVO. I was referring only to English translations, as that was the clear context of the discussion in both videos and this forum. Since no one else mentioned translations into languages other than English I find it strange that it would be insinuated that I was speaking about all translations whatever the language.

I happily say that the KJV is the superior English translation; I also happily say there are excellent translations in other languages, because they are based on the same text. I hope that is clear.

I would also add in response to the point about the KJV's English not being in use today: there are many, many familiar phrases in the KJV, because they came into the language through the KJV (although a lot of them were in earlier English translations). The language of the KJV isn't hard. I also think it's strange to thus say, by inference, that Scripture is "easy" if it is in "modern" English. Really? The reader of Scripture must grapple with it whatever language it is in and to suggest that just by putting it into "modern" English it suddenly becomes more "accessible" is foolish. And I've used other translations in the past: they have their own problems with readability. The NASB and ESV have very stilted, unnatural English constructions in parts.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Robert Truelove said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Truelove, if I could just say: I appreciate your video and I think it's really important to be saying these things today, but I do find the use of a certain word not only unnecessary but not worthy of a Christian. People like White are inflammatory and their tone is objectionable: we must be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken. I think some of this is where I live in the South, "c**p" is generally no more offensive here then saying "dung" or "poop" (<which aren't offensive words here either). At worst it is seen as an very mild crude-ish word.
> 
> I was initially taken a little aback that some people saw that as a cuss word. That's my problem though as I am not only responsible for what I say, but how the things I say are received. I do not want to offend with language and I have never been one to applaud the "cussing preachers" so I will retire the use of the "c" word in future videos.
> 
> EDIT: I just added an annotation to the first time I used the "c" word in the video...
Click to expand...


Thank you for your response. I hope you didn't take my comment as scolding as that was not the intent. I think we have to be very careful about the language we use and it was merely out of that concern that I raised the issue.


----------



## alexandermsmith

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> By the way, your use of "****" is not offensive and you shouldn't feel bad. Just like styles change, so do the meaning and offensiveness of words. There are only those standard 4-letter words that seem to transcend time and space of offensiveness. 100 years ago, if a pastor would have said "poop" in the pulpit, he would have been kicked right out of there. If you had dropped the s-bomb, then you may have a need to repent, but not for saying ****.



Whilst you may argue that times change, meanings of words change, I disagree. Words which are used as expletives are expletives, even if some are more explicit than others. Because it's not just the word but the thought being expressed in the word which is wrong and so whatever word one uses- however explicit or tame- it is a form of profanity. We do not have liberty to be offensive or immoral or vent our frustrations in angry and profane ways. And I wonder if there's nothing wrong with the word that you use asterisks instead of just writing the word out.


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

alexandermsmith said:


> And I wonder if there's nothing wrong with the word that you use asterisks instead of just writing the word out.



I didn't. The forums did it.



alexandermsmith said:


> it's the TR that I referred to as being divinely preserved



How do you/can you know this? Is it sinful to read and believe what is written in a Bible that utilizes the critical text? If I believe the CT is superior to the TR and is more faithful to the original manuscripts, does that put my salvation in jeopardy? Am I not properly able to "hear my Shepherd's voice" if I don't believe the TR is divinely preserved? 

You say the KJV is the "superior translation." Why? How can the superiority of a translation be an objective thing? If I believe the ESV to be the superior translation, am I wrong? How can you be sure? By pointing to the differences between the KJV and the ESV and saying that since the KJV says one thing and the ESV says the same thing slightly differently, that the ESV is automatically in the wrong and has thus "changed" the Word of God?

To make a point that the TR is divinely preserved as if it is as true of a statement as "Jesus rose from the dead" just boggles my mind. It's as if saying that a Bible that does not stem from the TR means that it cannot be used as a means of grace for folks. What happens to a person who picks up an NIV and is taught from the NIV? Must they drop the NIV at the moment of their conversion and seek out a TR-based Bible?

It's talk like THIS is what is making people question the Bible they have in their lap. It's not that we're picking on one or two translations like the NWT. This kind of talk makes it seem like the vast majority of the Bibles on the shelves are not the Bible at all, and are simply satanic propaganda.

This statement is so obtuse to me that I can't even fathom it.


----------



## Logan

alexandermsmith said:


> I also happily say there are excellent translations in other languages, because they are based on the same text.



Thanks for clarifying, yet one problem I have with that stance is that it not only effectively disparages a great portion of the translations into other languages that have been made in the past 100 years, but also possibly, Luther's German Bible, which doesn't have 1 John 5:7, for example---being based off Erasmus' earliest critical text (though of course it is still extremely close). 

But why cannot the German people, who have been using this Bible almost 100 years longer than we have been using the KJV, say that ours is defective, even if only slightly, and theirs is the preserved one? Clearly one or the other is not perfect, can we then "trust" what we read in German? Even the Greek church itself apparently didn't have a completely preserved Bible because some things had to be "reinserted" from its "preservation" in the Latin. 

Some alleviate this by saying they hold to the "TR variants" (3 by Erasmus, several by Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, Scrivener) as preserved, but it is my personal opinion that most views holding to the TR are remarkably anglocentric. Note that I think all the views expressed on this board (TR, Ecclesiastical, Byzantine Priority, Majority, Critical) have hurdles, but Byzantine Priority, or Ecclesiastical Text makes more sense to me than a "TR".


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

alexandermsmith said:


> Whilst you may argue that times change, meanings of words change, I disagree.



How about the word "pisseth" in the KJV? That word without the "eth" is considered an expletive in 2015. You say you have to go pee, not pisseth otherwise you're being crude. How about the word for donkey? 300 years ago, when somebody said "ass", it always meant donkey. When Luther called Erasmus an "ass", he was calling him stubborn like a donkey. We read Luther's letter today and gasp at the language because when we call people that, we're not calling them a donkey. There are Bible translations that call Balaam's ass, Balaam's donkey as to not be offensive to modern readers.

Yes... The meaning of words change. Above I demonstrate that even Biblical words that were at one time not used as expletives, are now considered to be expletives. The reverse can also be true.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Captain Picard said:


> What is there to be gained by being dismissive in *this* way, for that matter.



I was not being dismissive. I even backed up my accusation with an interview that was given with the late scholar Theodore Letis.

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/tape04_James_White_Critique_August_4_&_7,2000.mp3


----------



## JimmyH

It always fascinates me that in all of these recurring debates the same people rush to say the TR is Divinely inspired, the CT is the product of those devils, Westcott & Hort, but "I am not KJVO".


----------



## Robert Truelove

JimmyH said:


> It always fascinates me that in all of these recurring debates the same people rush to say the TR is Divinely inspired, the CT is the product of those devils, Westcott & Hort, but "I am not KJVO".



Well, I certainly don't say that. I believe good Critical Text translations are the word of God. Someone can read the ESV (for instance) and grow in their walk with Christ and the all of the doctrines of our faith. 

I think when TT folks claim the Alexandrian manuscripts are "perversions of Satan", it is just as out of order as when the CT folks paint the TR as "vile" or "totally unreliable".

The issue is which textual tradition is the most accurate and this is an important issue. BUT With ALL manuscripts (before doing any sort of critical work) being in 85-90% agreement, we don't have to resort to conspiracy theories or gross exaggerations of the problems.


----------



## JimmyH

Robert Truelove said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always fascinates me that in all of these recurring debates the same people rush to say the TR is Divinely inspired, the CT is the product of those devils, Westcott & Hort, but "I am not KJVO".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly don't say that. I believe good Critical Text translations are the word of God. Someone can read the ESV (for instance) and grow in their walk with Christ and the all of the doctrines of our faith.
> 
> I think when TT folks claim the Alexandrian manuscripts are "perversions of Satan", it is just as out of order as when the CT folks paint the TR as "vile" or "totally unreliable".
> 
> The issue is which textual tradition is the most accurate and this is an important issue. BUT With ALL manuscripts (before doing any sort of critical work) being in 85-90% agreement, we don't have to resort to conspiracy theories or gross exaggerations of the problems.
Click to expand...


Revered Truelove, I did notice that you said that some CT translations have merit. I was not referring specifically to you. As for me, I continue to read my KJV daily, followed by a CT translation, usually NIV. I do this to clarify nuances I may have missed in the KJV due to the occasional archaisms, and to check how close, or how far the NIV is from the KJV. The NIV is the translation that it seems some people love to hate. In comparing the two verse by verse I find it to be an excellent translation, but I'm certainly not an expert. 

I also read the ASV, NASB, NKJV, ESV for comparison on occasion. I think anyone who does not read in the original languages benefits from comparing the translations, and I'm working on the Greek, albeit slowly. If I could I'd read the Vulgate, the dominant translation for a millennium from what I understand.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JimmyH said:


> It always fascinates me that in all of these recurring debates the same people rush to say the TR is Divinely inspired, the CT is the product of those devils, Westcott & Hort, but "I am not KJVO".


I am not seeing the humour. There are reasons for the defenses and accusations. There is historical context for most of the discussion. KJVO has a definitive understanding that needs to be understood. Many have falsely been linked to the ideology as a means of obfuscation and strawman arguments. It appears W&H do seem to have a checkered past. But the problem that many good men have is found in the premises of being able to discern what is and what isn't. This is a matter of faith and it can be shaken in ways that lead others to conclusions that Bart Erhman has arrived at in the past decade. It doesn't seem that funny nor comical to me.


----------



## JimmyH

PuritanCovenanter said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always fascinates me that in all of these recurring debates the same people rush to say the TR is Divinely inspired, the CT is the product of those devils, Westcott & Hort, but "I am not KJVO".
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing the humour. There are reasons for the defenses and accusations. There is historical context for most of the discussion. KJVO has a definitive understanding that needs to be understood. Many have falsely been linked to the ideology as a means of obfuscation and strawman arguments. It appears W&H do seem to have a checkered past. But the problem that many good men have is found in the premises of being able to discern what is and what isn't. This is a matter of faith and it can be shaken in ways that lead others to conclusions that Bart Erhman has arrived at in the past decade. It doesn't seem that funny nor comical to me.
Click to expand...

Point taken. If I had the post to do over again I would leave W&H out of it and delete the humorous emoticon. It is not funny, but from my own observation, leaving W&H out of it, I still feel it is a _generally_ accurate view.


----------



## Pergamum

Westcott and Hort were devils, though, weren't they? Just as we should be rightly suspicious of any bible version newly invented by Bart Ehrman or other apostates, we should, likewise, look at any fruit from the hands of Westcott and Hort with an extra measure of suspicion, shouldn't we, based on who they are?


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Pergamum said:


> Westcott and Hort were devils, though, weren't they? Just as we should be rightly suspicious of any bible version newly invented by Bart Ehrman or other apostates, we should, likewise, look at any fruit from the hands of Westcott and Hort with an extra measure of suspicion, shouldn't we, based on who they are?



Can not God use "devils" to accomplish His work? Many would argue that without Paul's vicious attack on the church in its infancy, it would have died out in Jerusalem or wouldn't have spread as far as quickly as it did. God used the "devil" Saul of Tarsus to get His church to spread throughout the region. Why couldn't God use the "devils" Westcott and Hort to create the basis for a text that is accurate and untainted by their h

You don't think that scholars have been looking at the WH text with a critical eye? You don't think their work has been checked, double checked, triple checked, etc? You think that since 1881, the church has just blindly accepted these texts? It's not like their text just waltzed out of the door the other day. The church has had plenty of time to discern their veracity, and by-and-large it seems like their work and all of the other works since then (CT) that are based on it have been widely accepted.


----------



## Pergamum

God seems to use devils to persecute us into faithfulness (water outside the boat), instead of the devils within the church (water inside the ship)...

But yes, I suppose God can do this....he used Constantine as well to protect the Church from Arianism.


----------



## JimmyH

Pergamum said:


> Westcott and Hort were devils, though, weren't they? Just as we should be rightly suspicious of any bible version newly invented by Bart Ehrman or other apostates, we should, likewise, look at any fruit from the hands of Westcott and Hort with an extra measure of suspicion, shouldn't we, based on who they are?



I don't know about Hort, although Alexander Whyte praised him, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones said W&H were trustworthy, but I have Westcott's commentary on the Gospel of John, and on 1 John, and reading those, there seems to me no doubt that he was a fervent believer. Whether the conclusions he and Hort drew as to the superiority of the Alexandrian manuscripts was mistaken, or not, I'll leave to people like Metzger, Wallace and other philologists.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Pergamum said:


> Westcott and Hort were devils, though, weren't they? Just as we should be rightly suspicious of any bible version newly invented by Bart Ehrman or other apostates, we should, likewise, look at any fruit from the hands of Westcott and Hort with an extra measure of suspicion, shouldn't we, based on who they are?



genetic fallacy


----------



## Robert Truelove

Here are my thoughts on yesterday's Dividing Line...

I am glad to see that Dr. White addressed the matter irenically, but my concern still stands.

While the full Wretched TV presentation costs $15 (it's not on youtube, which is why I haven't seen it), he said he has done it many times and since he showed some PowerPoint slides for it yesterday, I was able see that it is the same presentation below. I have seen this presentation before and it is, ironically, the same video I was initially commenting upon when James White first called me out. (It is a fantastic video BTW, the comment I apologized for was really unwarranted as it related to this video,)

He only mentions the issue of the majority here...

From around 35mm 22s till 37mm 40ss (the whole thing that's supposed set this all straight is only about 2 minutes of an hour and a half long presentation?)

I don't hear anywhere in here where he clearly communicates that the Critical Greek text is not based upon the 5700. When he does make a brief reference to the Majority Text, there is very little clarification of how that's different from the Critical Text he is going to defend in the Wretched piece. Also, when he speaks of the multifocality of the text (starting at 1:03:00), there is no clarifying comment regarding how this understanding lines up with textual criticism. While I have no trouble with what he says here, when you fast forward to the Wretched TV segment I critiqued, does not one get the impression that the Critical Text is not only based upon 5700 manuscripts, but manuscripts that come from everywhere? To my mind, the full lecture makes the Wretched TV segment even more misleading.

What conclusions do you think people who are new to this subject are going to draw after listening to this 1.5 hour long presentation and then hearing the Wretched TV piece where it is affirmed repeatedly that the Critical Text is based upon 5700 Greek manuscripts and the TR on 6?

I run into people quite frequently who have a skewed understanding about the textual issue and I believe this has a lot to do with it. This is why I did my critique. I can appreciate why Dr. White holds to the Critical Text, my main beef is the misleading nature of the Wretched TV piece.

https://youtu.be/LuiayuxWwuI?t=35m22s

As far as the fact that the Wretched TV piece was against KJVO, my concern is that the typical person in the pew hearing all of this is very likely to come away with an idea about the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus that is almost diametrically opposite what the reality is. I can confirm that because I talk to people more and more these days who think the Critical Text is based upon the majority of all the manuscripts. I've discovered over the last month where they are getting that from.


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Pergamum said:


> God seems to use devils to persecute us into faithfulness (water outside the boat), instead of the devils within the church (water inside the ship)...
> 
> But yes, I suppose God can do this....he used Constantine as well to protect the Church from Arianism.



I concede that God's standard and ordinary usage of "devils" stems from their work on the outside. I just tend to have general malice toward genetic fallacies. So many people who have had otherwise amazing work have said and done some amazingly stupid stuff. Tossing out everything they've done because of what they did prior to their work or after their work was complete isn't cool.

If the critical eye has continued to see and approve the work done by these men, then that is fine with me. It's not like we're talking the Joyce Meyer annotated AMP version of the Bible here that is leading people toward the WoF movement. We're talking a couple guys that have have been quoted by ripping their statements out of context. They could mean what the quotes say, but unless I see the full context of the statement, I will not deem them by-and-large heretics. Let's be honest - we've all said or thought heretical things at least once in our lives, either because we were legitimately in error, or because something came out of our mouths or pens that we didn't mean.


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Robert Truelove said:


> As far as the fact that the Wretched TV piece was against KJVO, my concern is that the typical person in the pew hearing all of this is very likely to come away with an idea about the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus that is almost diametrically opposite what the reality is. I can confirm that because I talk to people more and more these days who think the Critical Text is based upon the majority of all the manuscripts. I've discovered over the last month where they are getting that from.



This is why I hold that this argument should stay in academia. The argument shouldn't be brought before the lay-person. They need not wonder if they are reading the Word of God or not. Very few laypersons are going to randomly pick up James White's book, and if they do, then God bless them in their pursuit. 

The fact that Wretched covered this topic at all irks me. They simply perpetuated this controversy into the "lay-sphere." Your video should have been leveled at Friel rather than White.

If questioned respectfully, I have seen White answer very gracefully. If you think he misspoke, or if you believe he is perpetuating false information, perhaps instead of creating a public video attacking his stuff, you shoot him an e-mail and ask him to clarify? Perhaps you take it offline and sit down in his office. I've seen him graciously concede at various points, so if you think he's in the wrong, the right way of confronting it should be pursued. 

The way you, White, and other folks level critiques of people by publishing a video on YouTube where you play a small clip of what they're saying and then critiquing it sits wrongly with me. If we have disagreements, we should start with a private conversation. We shouldn't start our conversations by publicly "slamming" them.


----------



## Pergamum

Robert Truelove said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Westcott and Hort were devils, though, weren't they? Just as we should be rightly suspicious of any bible version newly invented by Bart Ehrman or other apostates, we should, likewise, look at any fruit from the hands of Westcott and Hort with an extra measure of suspicion, shouldn't we, based on who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> genetic fallacy
Click to expand...

Shout "Genetic fallacy!" until your head falls off.....nevertheless, it is wise not to trust untrustworthy sources. Nor should we trust someone who does not believe the Scriptures with the honest handling of the Scriptures.

It appears Westcott and Hort had Catholic leanings, and serious deficiencies of understanding.

The theology of the translators is a relevant point when considering the authority of the translation.


----------



## Logan

Pergamum said:


> It appears Westcott and Hort had Catholic leanings, and serious deficiencies of understanding.



For a minute I thought you were talking about Erasmus


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Pergamum said:


> Nor should we trust someone who does not believe the Scriptures with the honest handling of the Scriptures.



You believe this of WH because of what? Some random quote you saw? You believe they are apostates because of those same sources? 

Pray tell - were the majority of the absolutely terrible stuff you've read about these men written by KJVO or TR-only advocates?

I've searched into these guys a lot more since joining into this discussion and from what I'm seeing, the majority of the people who are vehemently attacking these guys are KJVO folks.


----------



## Pergamum

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> God seems to use devils to persecute us into faithfulness (water outside the boat), instead of the devils within the church (water inside the ship)...
> 
> But yes, I suppose God can do this....he used Constantine as well to protect the Church from Arianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concede that God's standard and ordinary usage of "devils" stems from their work on the outside. I just tend to have general malice toward genetic fallacies. So many people who have had otherwise amazing work have said and done some amazingly stupid stuff. Tossing out everything they've done because of what they did prior to their work or after their work was complete isn't cool.
> 
> If the critical eye has continued to see and approve the work done by these men, then that is fine with me. It's not like we're talking the Joyce Meyer annotated AMP version of the Bible here that is leading people toward the WoF movement. We're talking a couple guys that have have been quoted by ripping their statements out of context. They could mean what the quotes say, but unless I see the full context of the statement, I will not deem them by-and-large heretics. Let's be honest - we've all said or thought heretical things at least once in our lives, either because we were legitimately in error, or because something came out of our mouths or pens that we didn't mean.
Click to expand...


Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Pergamum said:


> Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?



I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.

I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.


----------



## Pergamum

Logan said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears Westcott and Hort had Catholic leanings, and serious deficiencies of understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a minute I thought you were talking about Erasmus
Click to expand...


Ow, that hurts! Good point.


----------



## Pergamum

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.
> 
> I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.
Click to expand...


So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys? W&H may have been Anglican, but you don't think they are errant beyond the point of trustworthiness? That is one major slander-job by the KJV-Onlyists, then.

I just found this site, which looks intriguing: http://westcotthort.com/faqs.html


----------



## God'sElectSaint

It seems that the textual and translation issue breeds a lot of division, stereo-typing, and simply behavior that doesn't become Christians. I have myself have engaged in this type of discourse in times past and am trying to repent and handle this matter very differently. Pastor Truelove, first and foremost I want to commend you for being, from what I have seen thus far from your YouTube page, an excellent Minister and for rightly dividing the Word of Truth in your sermons. I have enjoyed them and been edified by them. I watched both your video's in response to James White and watched his response to this video last night on the Dividing Line. Mr. Truelove I appreciate your zeal for God's Word and what you believe to be the most accurate representation thereof, but I think you did err a little in your video. I think James White made good points on the Dividing Line that the video in question from "Wretched" was at the end of a larger presentation and the question posed to him was about KJV onlyism though Todd threw a little mention of Greek manuscripts in his initial question. James was addressing KJV onlyism for the most part in his answer and as he said on the Dividing Line "the making of the Textus Receptus is certainly relevant to refuting KJV onlyism"(I am paraphrasing) But I would have to agree with him there and say that your video was a little unfair to James and you did take it out of context. That is not to refute the points you made on your video because you made some good ones. I actually agree quite a bit with your version of the "Traditional Text position". I myself do favor the "TR" over the eclectic text for a number of reasons. But In my opinion the "TR" is not perfect neither is the KJV but nevertheless I love the KJV and it is my translation of choice. I have great trust and faith in the KJV and believe I am reading the living Word of God when I pick it up and read it. I hope that everyone of God's elect can hold their version of God's word with the same confidence whether Greek,English,Chinese,Spanish,ect. I think we must be careful not to diminish the faith anyone has in their bible(within reason of course their unacceptable translations out their,NWT, and some of the paraphrases) Which I think Pastor Truelove has tried to avoid doing. Your opinion is a reasonable one,I considered to be reasonable, but I think you did treat James White unfairly in this particular video. I enjoy Dr.White personally and have been edified by much of his work and will continue to be so. I think all sides should tread lightly and pray over this issue. I also think Christians, even laity, should study and research the matter and understand why they choose the text and translation they do to read. Their is good material on both sides of the fence to look into. I personally will continue to read the KJV with confidence in it and I pray Brian will do the same with his ESV, and Jimmy with his KJV & NIV, and Pastor Truelove with his KJV. I remind everyone of the words of the Apostle Paul, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."(Rom 14:1) and "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.' (14:22) I realize the context of Romans 14 is not manuscripts and translations but it's implications can benefit us nevertheless. Grace,mercy,and peace be unto all my PB brethren!


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Pergamum said:


> GraceOverwhelmsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.
> 
> I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys? W&H may have been Anglican, but you don't think they are errant beyond the point of trustworthiness? That is one major slander-job by the KJV-Onlyists, then.
Click to expand...


You completely misrepresented what I said either due to lack of careful reading or lack of charity. As such, I am removing myself from this discussion on WH. 

Should the conversation return to the original point of the OP, if I have anything to contribute, I will do so at that point.


----------



## Pergamum

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GraceOverwhelmsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.
> 
> I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys? W&H may have been Anglican, but you don't think they are errant beyond the point of trustworthiness? That is one major slander-job by the KJV-Onlyists, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You completely misrepresented what I said either due to lack of careful reading or lack of charity. As such, I am removing myself from this discussion on WH.
> 
> Should the conversation return to the original point of the OP, if I have anything to contribute, I will do so at that point.
Click to expand...


No, it is an honest question. If they were, in fact, apostates, we should question all that they write. Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.

But...several posters above seem to indicate that W&H were not, in fact, apostates. 

The bad things said about W&H appear to actually stem from several men in the KJV-Only movement. W&H were Anglican and thus differ theologically a bit from the Reformed. I am open to the possibility that the accusations of W&H's apostasies, were, in fact, a big slander job by several within in the KJV-Only movement. Here is a weblink defending W&H: http://westcotthort.com/faqs.html


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

Pergamum said:


> No, it is an honest question.



"So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys?" is not an honest question. It is a leading question and it is framed in a way that is not representative of anything I've said. It is for that question that I no longer want to debate.



Pergamum said:


> If they were, in fact, apostates, we should question all that they write. Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.



And I have said to you, time and time again, that their work has been looked at by scholars since 1881, and there has been nothing indicating they did anything but their best at preserving the Word of God. If it was common belief that these men were heretics, liars, cheats, "devils," and apostates, the WH would have been thrown out and somebody would have started over. Unfortunately for the "weird KJV-Only guys" this hasn't occurred.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Pergamum said:


> Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.



I agree but that claim would have to be well substantiated because it is a bold accusation against them. We should tread lightly and investigate any claim of apostasy towards any man. I have not researched W&H enough to make an educated assessment on that, but if indeed they were or anyone is for that matter an apostate, I agree that the text produced/worked on by a an affirmed apostate must come under high scrutiny. And I would disagree with the notion that God would use 'devils" or apostates to handle His sacred texts. I see this supported no where in scripture. I see the devil used to build up,humble and refine and prove the faith of godly men but the only accounts of satan in regards to the use of God's Word is him perverting and misusing it.(Matt 4:6,Gen 3:1) I am not claiming the W&H or the modern eclectic text is a product of satan but personally would disagree that the heathen should be trusted with the text of scripture in anyway.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Brian,

Are you familiar with Theodore Letis, Wilbur Pickering, Jacob Van Bruggen, John William Burgon, Jay Green Sr. Edward F. Hill, or any others who desire the group of manuscripts that don't come from the Alexandria line? The argument does not necessarily depend upon who W&H are but why do you think they believe they are justified in making the decisions and choices they made. Some very true scholars believe that Warfield himself changed the argument and point of reference concerning the discussion from Preservation to Innerrancy. Thus he also changed the Church's focus away from our confession 1.8,9 from God preserving His word and it being infallible to something he believed we would achieve by finding, because it had been lost. But that simply has not happened. There are also some doctrinal issues at hand despite what some people think. 



> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
> 
> IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.



Steve wrote about Warfield year's ago on the Puritanboard. 

[


Jerusalem Blade said:


> JM,
> 
> Have you read Letis' article, “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism”? There Letis documents Warfield's departure from what had been the standard view of preservation, as noted in WCF 1:8. In particular Letis looks at Warfield's _re-defining_ the Confession's statement, so that the meaning the framers intended was changed. The article got some critical acclaim, as is seen in an appendix. I quote this below from the thread,
> "What is the authentic New Testament Text",
> 
> ---------
> 
> Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield [made his higher-critical views widely known] when he wrote to the general Christian public in _Sunday School Times_ 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind_, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.
> 
> To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in _The Ecclesiastical Text”_, pp. 26-27):Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an _urtext_, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, _The Presbyterian_ (April 13, 1892):15]​
> Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [_Family 13 (The Ferrar Group_ (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​
> Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​
> Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.
> 
> [end of quote from previous post]
> ----------
> 
> It goes to show how one person can influence great multitudes, for good or for ill.
> 
> Steve



Steve has done a lot of work on this topic. He has also done it in a most congenial spirit. I believe he has a lot of this on his Puritanboard blog

So, there are people who do have issues with the things being discussed. They have pointed out those issues. And they are not nut cases.

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/268-Jerusalem-Blade-s-textual-posts-(a-partial-compilation)

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/196-Tying-up-some-loose-ends


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Brian,
> 
> Are you familiar with Theodore Letis, Wilbur Pickering, Jacob Van Bruggen, John William Burgon, Jay Green Sr. Edward F. Hill, or any others who desire the group of manuscripts that don't come from the Alexandria line? The argument does not necessarily depend upon who W&H are but why do you think they believe they are justified in making the decisions and choices they made. Some very true scholars believe that Warfield himself changed the argument and point of reference concerning the discussion from Preservation to Innerrancy. Thus he also changed the Church's focus away from our confession 1.8,9 from God preserving His word and it being infallible to something he believed we would achieve by finding, because it had been lost. But that simply has not happened. There are also some doctrinal issues at hand despite what some people think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
> 
> IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> JM,
> 
> Have you read Letis' article, “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism”? There Letis documents Warfield's departure from what had been the standard view of preservation, as noted in WCF 1:8. In particular Letis looks at Warfield's _re-defining_ the Confession's statement, so that the meaning the framers intended was changed. The article got some critical acclaim, as is seen in an appendix. I quote this below from the thread,
> "What is the authentic New Testament Text",
> 
> ---------
> 
> Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield [made his higher-critical views widely known] when he wrote to the general Christian public in _Sunday School Times_ 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind_, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.
> 
> To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in _The Ecclesiastical Text”_, pp. 26-27):Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an _urtext_, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, _The Presbyterian_ (April 13, 1892):15]​
> Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [_Family 13 (The Ferrar Group_ (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​
> Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​
> Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.
> 
> [end of quote from previous post]
> ----------
> 
> It goes to show how one person can influence great multitudes, for good or for ill.
> 
> Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steve has done a lot of work on this topic. He has also done it in a most congenial spirit. I believe he has a lot of this on his Puritanboard blog
> 
> So, there are people who do have issues with the things being discussed. They have pointed out those issues. And they are not nut cases.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/268-Jerusalem-Blade-s-textual-posts-(a-partial-compilation)
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/196-Tying-up-some-loose-ends
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with none of the work by these men, nor am I a scholar in Greek or Hebrew. I am also not schooled in the history of the texts. 

I am also not denying that there are likely some errors in the CT. I don't doubt there are legitimate concerns over it. 

My argument toward W&H was just to caution to do actual research before labeling a person a heretic, apostate and especially a "devil". I am neither a proponent of the CT or the TR. I hold no allegiance. My tale is simply a cautionary one. 

I don't presume to discuss the pros and cons of any of the texts, though I am aware of many of them. I just don't like when I hear people call people out on an issue that they were neither attacking nor defending, and when people start giving ugly labels to people that have mostly been used by the fringe group of vehemently opposed people to the CT.


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe

God'sElectSaint said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but that claim would have to be well substantiated because it is a bold accusation against them. We should tread lightly and investigate any claim of apostasy towards any man. I have not researched W&H enough to make an educated assessment on that, but if indeed they were or anyone is for that matter an apostate, I agree that the text produced/worked on by a an affirmed apostate must come under high scrutiny. And I would disagree with the notion that God would use 'devils" or apostates to handle His sacred texts. I see this supported no where in scripture. I see the devil used to build up,humble and refine and prove the faith of godly men but the only accounts of satan in regards to the use of God's Word is him perverting and misusing it.(Matt 4:6,Gen 3:1) I am not claiming the W&H or the modern eclectic text is a product of satan but personally would disagree that the heathen should be trusted with the text of scripture in anyway.
Click to expand...

What about the Word of God? God gave special revelation in various forms to Egyptian leaders, false prophets, and other gentile leaders. If they can be trusted with the Word of God in that capacity , why wouldn't he trust a couple guys who were among the top scholars in the languages to handle the texts? 

I'm not saying that they are not heretics. I'm not saying they are heretics. I'm just saying.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Brian,

Many would think you have entered a fringe group by adhering to Confessional Christianity. I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here. I imagine if you dig a little deeper you will find the information concerning W&H. They are not coming from just nut cases like Jack Chick. And character does matter as do intentions. It is not uncommon knowledge that most of the gnosticism and Arian heresies had deep root in Alxexandria. Motive and character do matter. 

I am hoping a friend will chime in on this to help. He is better at addressing these things. Just be patient brother. 
For now let me refer you to one of Steve's posts concerning W&H.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...-Hort-manuscripts-are-bad?p=188993#post188993

It is referenced.

Here is something he posted earlier in that thread. 


> Nor would I allow either of these two men, Westcott or Hort, despite their ecclesiastical “attainments,” to preach or teach in the church I serve, seeing as they were heretics and reprobates, both in belief and in conduct, which assertions are documented. I find there is much secular attestation, beside the testimony of their sons in their respective _unabridged biographies of their fathers, to their spiritualism.
> 
> In a book, a former president of The Society For Psychical Research acknowledged its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” formed by Westcott and Hort:
> 
> Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society. (The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History, by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.)
> 
> I could go on with documentation of their unbelief in the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis (and affirming solidarity with Charles Darwin and his theory), and other evidences of their unregenerate state. (To deny the historicity of Genesis, is to deny the Fall, the sinful condition of the human race, the need for an atoning sacrifice, etc etc.) That they fiercely demanded the presence of a notorious Unitarian on their revision committee , Dr. Vance Smith (who later published, gloatingly, of the textual damage done regarding the deity of Jesus Christ in the revision), indicating they considered him a brother Christian nonetheless, says something about their hearts.
> 
> Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it._


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing... Personally, I don't think I have ever turned to discuss THE MOTIVES OR CHARACTER of W&H. it is more of a distraction. There is enough information out there to help us know God has preserved the text for us so that we may believe and have confidence that we have his word. The early church fathers wrote using the Scriptures and referenced them as well as many other things. W&H may actually be a distraction. The word of God testifies of its own origin and of its preservation. I read the ESV as well as other translations. My main translation is the Authorized Version. I became a Christian reading a paraphrased bible, the Living Bible. The first Time I read the Old Testament through was in the New International Version. I have benefitted from many translations. At the same time I still believe there is a good solid reason for believing that God has done what he said he would do. I also believe there is a fallen creature who desires to misuse and even destroy the testimony of God. Why shouldn't we believe that and know that to be true. But God is Sovereign and no one or nothing can thwart His plan and will.

Just an FYI. I know I don't chime in much anymore. I usually just read posts and keep a low profile. Many of the new guys might not know much about me. So if you are interested you can read my testimony at the following link. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...eived-testimony-of-christs-work-in-my-life-2/


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> W&H may actually be a distraction.



I think the concentration on their personal views is a distraction. Their text-critical views paved the way for an anti-TR position which has become entrenched in academia, so that should be the more obvious focus.


----------



## JimmyH

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here.



Glad to hear that. Can you point to any works by BF Westcott that you've personally read demonstrating that he was not a devout believer ? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## alexandermsmith

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I wonder if there's nothing wrong with the word that you use asterisks instead of just writing the word out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. The forums did it.
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's the TR that I referred to as being divinely preserved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you/can you know this? Is it sinful to read and believe what is written in a Bible that utilizes the critical text? If I believe the CT is superior to the TR and is more faithful to the original manuscripts, does that put my salvation in jeopardy? Am I not properly able to "hear my Shepherd's voice" if I don't believe the TR is divinely preserved?
> 
> You say the KJV is the "superior translation." Why? How can the superiority of a translation be an objective thing? If I believe the ESV to be the superior translation, am I wrong? How can you be sure? By pointing to the differences between the KJV and the ESV and saying that since the KJV says one thing and the ESV says the same thing slightly differently, that the ESV is automatically in the wrong and has thus "changed" the Word of God?
> 
> To make a point that the TR is divinely preserved as if it is as true of a statement as "Jesus rose from the dead" just boggles my mind. It's as if saying that a Bible that does not stem from the TR means that it cannot be used as a means of grace for folks. What happens to a person who picks up an NIV and is taught from the NIV? Must they drop the NIV at the moment of their conversion and seek out a TR-based Bible?
> 
> It's talk like THIS is what is making people question the Bible they have in their lap. It's not that we're picking on one or two translations like the NWT. This kind of talk makes it seem like the vast majority of the Bibles on the shelves are not the Bible at all, and are simply satanic propaganda.
> 
> This statement is so obtuse to me that I can't even fathom it.
Click to expand...



The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit?

Of course people can come to faith reading other translations. But it's like the argument some people make about Spurgeon: Spurgeon used hymns and many people were converted, therefore hymns can't be wrong. The argument assumes that Spurgeon's preaching was blessed _because_ of the use of hymns, rather than _despite_ their use. The same would apply to other translations being blessed to readers. 

Why wouldn't you want to read the most faithful, accurate translation of God's Word? In order to do that one needs to read a translation fully based upon the TR: that is the KJV. To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.

I haven't said anything about things being "satanic", so please don't put words into my mouth. I'm making a logical argument: if there is no divinely preserved text, there is no trustworthy Bible. And we see that again and again when we have translations removing sections which have been there for centuries; making changes purely to meet copyright requirements.


----------



## alexandermsmith

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst you may argue that times change, meanings of words change, I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the word "pisseth" in the KJV? That word without the "eth" is considered an expletive in 2015. You say you have to go pee, not pisseth otherwise you're being crude. How about the word for donkey? 300 years ago, when somebody said "ass", it always meant donkey. When Luther called Erasmus an "ass", he was calling him stubborn like a donkey. We read Luther's letter today and gasp at the language because when we call people that, we're not calling them a donkey. There are Bible translations that call Balaam's ass, Balaam's donkey as to not be offensive to modern readers.
> 
> Yes... The meaning of words change. Above I demonstrate that even Biblical words that were at one time not used as expletives, are now considered to be expletives. The reverse can also be true.
Click to expand...


"Ass" is still used in that older manner today, as in "the law is an ass". I heard that on Question Time in the UK one, two years ago; I wouldn't say that I need to go "p**" (and I did insert the asterisks) because such language is crude and childish. "Pisseth" is in the Bible, as are other words which, removed from the context of Scripture are usually profane but do have legitimate uses in secular discussion. The word used in the video does not fall under such a category and if any of these words used in the KJV were used as an expletive, then that would be wrong.


----------



## JOwen

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> Pray tell - were the majority of the absolutely terrible stuff you've read about these men written by KJVO or TR-only advocates?


Now who's spouting generic fallacy?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

God'sElectSaint said:


> And I would disagree with the notion that God would use 'devils" or apostates to handle His sacred texts.



What's your opinion of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament?


----------



## JimmyH

alexandermsmith said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always fascinates me that in all of these recurring debates the same people rush to say the TR is Divinely inspired, the CT is the product of those devils, Westcott & Hort, but "I am not KJVO".
> 
> 
> 
> And have you read the things which Westcott and Hort wrote?
Click to expand...

As to my hyperbolic comment noted above, I've read that some people believe the TR, and for that matter the AV, are divinely inspired. I haven't come across an example I can quote. As to the question I asked another member, you're answering my question with a question ? I have read some of what Brooke Foss Westcott wrote in the 76 years in which he devoted his entire adult life to Christian study and ministry. Thirty of those years in the compilation of the W&H Greek NT. 

I've got commentaries by him on John's Gospel, and epistles. I cannot say I've read them cover to cover, but enough to know that he was a devout believer. If you go to the wiki article on him here, and scroll downpage to 'works', you'll find online access to much of his voluminous writings. Take the time and trouble to read from his "Lessons From Work", published the year he died, it is a testimony to his belief. https://archive.org/stream/lessonsfromwork00westuoft#page/n77/mode/2up


----------



## Logan

alexandermsmith said:


> To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.



There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?

It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JimmyH said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear that. Can you point to any works by BF Westcott that you've personally read demonstrating that he was not a devout believer ? Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...


I openly admit that what I have read is second hand. Kind of like having a friend who has a scarred hand proclaiming that I shouldn't stick my hand in the fire. I no longer have access to the library and resources I once had access to as my old friend (Jay P. Green Sr.) has passed away. But someone who does have a library has given us much information on this Web site. And concerning matters like these I have found him to be very careful. I will lead you to one of his earlier posts.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...sm-Is-it-Reliable-Video-3?p=964533#post964533



> I believe there _is_ information pertaining to the sayings, teachings, and beliefs of Westcott and Hort which does bear on their fitness to handle the Greek manuscripts, and which I enter below. For instance, a pregnant mother seeing a doctor as her Ob/Gyn who has for decades strictly specialized in abortions would not be a wise move. Likewise with these men. Assess the info below, and see.
> 
> 
> Hello Jackie,
> 
> You have a quote of Westcott above which says, “I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly. (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).”
> 
> But the full quote in context is this:
> 
> "5th May 1860. My dear Hort - I am very glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's - glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too 'must disclaim setting forth infallibility' in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve." This was taken, as yours purported to be, from _The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, Vol. I, p.207, by his son Arthur. I have the biographies of both Westcott and Hort – each written by their sons – in hard copy.
> 
> Sorry to correct you on this, but in these discussions it is important to be minutely accurate, as we can be discredited and dismissed if we are not. One must vet quotes and sources, especially from Wiki. Please do not think I am a fan of Messrs. Westcott and Hort (W&H), it is just that our credibility is on the line when we quote them, as there is much disinformation blowing around.
> 
> But to examine these men a little, to get an idea of their hearts and minds. It was important to them that the things they believed and did were kept secret, as they well knew they were at odds with orthodox Christian faith, even in the ailing Anglican Church. In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially[1] working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,
> Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.[2]​
> Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”[3] (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,
> Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.[4]​
> He was surely right in this! He was not a believer, and it was easily apparent in his views! We shall see in a moment that both he and Lightfoot were involved in spiritualism (along with Westcott and Benson), and although having respect to the COE and its traditions, the group of them were but secular classicists highly trained in classical Greek. They approached the New Testament Scriptures as they did any other Greek classics, with worldly, rationalist presuppositions and critical methods. In other words, their spiritualism was not their only heresy.
> 
> In answer to an Oxford undergraduate’s questions (in 1886) about the COE’s Thirty Nine Articles of Faith, with regard to Article IX (concerning the doctrine of Original Sin), Hort answered thus,
> The authors of the Article doubtless assumed the strictly historical character of the account of the Fall in Genesis. This assumption is now, in my belief, no longer reasonable.[5]​
> One might understand why he would think this way from his view of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_. In a letter to Westcott (1860) he says,
> …Have you read Darwin?…In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”[6]​
> To his friend John Ellerton, he wrote (in 1860),
> But _the_ book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable[7] (emphasis his).​
> We see Westcott was of the same mind:
> No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I never could understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did…[8]​
> The implications of these views are immense. If the Book of Genesis is not true history, then it is either error, or allegory masquerading as history. If Genesis is not true history, Jesus was in error asserting the historicity of Adam and Eve[9], and Paul likewise in error in Romans and 1 Corinthians. If there was no actual fall of an actual Adam and Eve, the atonement of Christ was but a meaningless fiction. The Book of Genesis is foundational for all of God’s revelation concerning salvation. But such supposed errors were in accord with W&H’s view of the _errancy_ of Scripture.
> 
> In the event someone says, but this is _argumentum ad hominem_ (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)
> 
> Footnotes:
> [1] They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
> 2 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 445.
> 3 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
> 4 Ibid., page 421.
> 5 Ibid., Vol. II, page 329.
> 6 Ibid., Vol. I, page 414.
> 7 Ibid., page 416.
> 8 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. II, page 69.
> 9 Matthew 19:4-6
> *----------*
> 
> To be fair, Dr. Theodore Letis (for whom I have high respect) was of the view that Westcott, if not Hort, was a genuine believer, and just caught up in the thinking of the day. He didn’t convince me, though.
> 
> Here is more data concerning these men:
> 
> It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on the Revision Committee. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith was forced to leave.[1] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,
> …that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[2]​
> For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the results of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, “It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences.”[3]
> 
> One of these highly significant changes – “trifling alterations” Hort would say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,
> The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[4]…It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[5]
> 
> The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.*[6] [Emphasis added]​
> A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,
> Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages.[7]​
> Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.
> 
> Footnotes
> 
> [1] _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
> 2 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
> 3 Ibid.
> 4 _Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
> 5 Ibid., page 45.
> 6 _Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
> 7 _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394.
> *
> ----------*
> 
> 
> Here is another aspect of Messrs. W&H, not often spoken of. I have lifted most of this from a paper I wrote on the Authorized Version, from a section concerning its background:
> 
> --------
> 
> But there was more in the air of the times in England (19th and early 20th centuries) than liberalism, Catholicism, and love of the classics. Although Westcott and Hort were nominal members of the Church of England, they evidently had no fear of God in the Biblical sense. In 1845, as an undergraduate, Westcott and some of his friends founded a club at Cambridge which eventually took the name Hermes Society[1]. That of itself might not be so bad, even though Hermes is widely known, not only as a god in Greek mythology, but a major figure in the occult, from notorious occultist H.P. Blavatsky’s equating of Hermes with Satan[2] (this latter entity not being evil in her eyes) to Carl Jung, as editor, including in a book of his, “Hermes is Trickster in a different role as a messenger, a god of the crossroads, and finally the leader of souls to and from the underworld.…Hermes recovered attributes of the bird life [wings] to add to his chthonic [underworld] nature as serpent.”[3] Occultism and spiritualism were exploding into manifestation in 19th century England, and Hermes was esteemed in these groups. What leads us to think Westcott’s Hermes club was not innocent of occult involvement are the name and the activities of his next club, founded in 1851: the Ghostly Guild.
> 
> James Webb, a secular historian of the occult, notes in his book, _The Occult Underground_, in the section, “The Necromancers,”
> In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. In effect it was a combination of those groups already working independently in the investigation of spiritualist and other psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.). Of these the most important was that centered round Henry Sidgwick, Frederick Myers and Edmund Gurney, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and deriving its inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson wrote in his biography of his father, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost club became Bishops, and one a Professor of Divinity.
> 
> …The S.P.R. was a peculiar hybrid of Spiritualistic cult and dedicated rationalism; the S.P.R. fulfilled the function of Spiritualist Church for the intellectuals.[4]​
> We learn from Hort himself who some of the members were:
> Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions.[5]​
> The Society For Psychical Research, in its history written by one of its presidents, acknowledges its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’ ” and says, under the section of that title,
> Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.[6]​
> The believing church, however, does not consider this “ecclesiastical eminence”! There is more that can be said about their continued occult involvement, including other secret societies they founded or were part of, having others be the officers in (and “founders” of) these clubs while they remained generally unnamed and (to public scrutiny) in the background, but this is not the place for a thorough exposé. That they were practicing spiritualists – “necromancer” is the Biblical word – is beyond dispute. It is enough to note the Lord’s judgment on this matter:
> There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire [i.e., to be burned as a child sacrifice], or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or *a consulter with familiar spirits,* or a wizard, or *a necromancer.* For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD… (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)
> 
> And *the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits*, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. (Leviticus 20:6)
> 
> Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, *witchcraft*, hatred…murders, drunkenness…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
> 
> Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, *and sorcerers*, and whoremongers, and murderers… (Revelation 22:14, 15)​
> Another secular historian looking at this time in English history says,
> In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost evangelical faith…spiritism as a substitute for Orthodox Christian faith.[7]​
> It should be clear that these men were not Christians, although they were baptized when infants in the Church of England. These were worldly men, unregenerate.
> 
> --------
> 
> Footnotes
> 
> 1 _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today, Vol. I, p 47.
> 2 _The Secret Doctrine_, by Helena P. Blavatsky (the Theosophical Publishing Society, 1893), Vol. II, page 30.
> 3 _Man and His Symbols_, Edited by Carl G. Jung (Dell Pub. Co., 1964); “Part 2: Ancient Myths and Modern Man,” by Joseph L. Henderson, page 155.
> 4 _The Occult Underground_, by James Webb (Open Court Pub. Co. 1974), page 36.
> 5 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today, Vol. I, page 211.
> 6 _The Society For Pyschical Research: An Outline Of Its History, _by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Pyschical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.
> 7 _The Fabians_, by Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1977), page 18.
> 
> --------------
> 
> It was the academic attainments and so-called “ecclesiastical eminence” of Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, and Benson (who was to become the Archbishop of Canterbury) which gave a “respectability” and credence to occultism in England heretofore unknown.
> 
> Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, a notorious occultist and co-founder of the Theosophical Society (with Henry Steel Olcott), also popularized occultism and spiritualism. After her came Annie Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, and others who widely promoted their teachings. While Aleister Crowley exemplified the demonic aspects of magic and the occult, Blavatsky and the Theosophists held themselves up as “white” magicians in alignment with ascended Masters and divine truths.
> 
> By these people, who – each in their own way – belittled the Christian faith and held up contrary teachings, the public awareness of spiritualism and occult practices grew.
> 
> Today such beliefs and practices are part of the postmodern spiritual buffet banquet, all meals declared equal, according to one’s taste.
> 
> *----------*
> 
> Although I have learned of some of these quoted items from various sources, I have obtained (and possess) hardcopy originals myself so as to verify them (save the Blavatsky one, as I threw her book into the East River when I became a Christian in 1968 – perhaps I vetted that info from an online edition).
> 
> Rob, sorry to digress from your topic – I just want to enter some factual data into the record. Men proven to be worldly, and disdainful of the Christian faith, who develop textual methodologies which arise from both rationalistic approaches to Bible mss and actual malice toward the Traditional Text of the Church, such men have such strong bias as ought to disqualify them from putting their hands on the Church's Bible, as is the case with Bart Ehrman. But this latter person is apparently the dean of textual criticism today, having inherited the mantle from from his mentor, Bruce Metzger.
> 
> If you would like me to remove this disgressive post I will!


----------



## JimmyH

PuritanCovenanter said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear that. Can you point to any works by BF Westcott that you've personally read demonstrating that he was not a devout believer ? Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I openly admit that what I have read is second hand. Kind of like having a friend who has a scarred hand proclaiming that I shouldn't stick my hand in the fire. I no longer have access to the library and resources I once had access to as my old friend (Jay P. Green Sr.) has passed away. But someone who does have a library has given us much information on this Web site. And concerning matters like these I have found him to be very careful. I will lead you to one of his earlier posts.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...sm-Is-it-Reliable-Video-3?p=964533#post964533
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if I ever get jumped by a gang of thugs in a dark alley, I only hope that Steve is there to help me. An indefatigable adversary. I don't have the volume of Westcott's letters, but I'll see about getting a copy.

If you were to google Westcott & Hort you'll find the Wiki article, and then page after page of KJVO attacks in website after website. This made me curious so I got hold of the commentaries on John's Gospel and epistles. 

I cannot speak about Hort, I've not yet investigated him. Not that I doubt Steve, but I'd rather do my own research rather than accept someone else’s out of hand. Reading the book I linked to in my previous post, his last, I find a believer in the Gospel and Christ. I will continue to read him, and if I find I'm in error in my perception I'll certainly make it known on this board.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Logan said:


> Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used)


To be fair, I am almost positive Luther used the Second edition. Of course no Comma until the 3rd.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

JimmyH said:


> I'd rather do my own research rather than accept someone else’s out of hand.




Most quotes you will find online referring Wescott and Hort unorthodoxy are taken from the following works.



Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Wescott

Volume 1
https://archive.org/details/brookefosswestco00westuoft 

Volume 2
https://archive.org/details/a613719002westuoft

Life and Letters of Fenton John Antony Hort

Volume 1
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen01hortuoft

Volume 2
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen02hortuoft


----------



## JimmyH

Fogetaboutit said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather do my own research rather than accept someone else’s out of hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most quotes you will find online referring Wescott and Hort unorthodoxy are taken from the following works.
> 
> 
> 
> Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Wescott
> 
> Volume 1
> https://archive.org/details/brookefosswestco00westuoft
> 
> Volume 2
> https://archive.org/details/a613719002westuoft
> 
> Life and Letters of Fenton John Antony Hort
> 
> Volume 1
> https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen01hortuoft
> 
> Volume 2
> https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen02hortuoft
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link. I'll look for used copies on bookfinder. Just reading the preface, (first link) by his son Canon FB Westcott, is very revealing. Pages viii and ix mention his son's surprise to learn that his father had suffered some doubts in his younger days. I too have dealt with my doubts, and had to say, "help my unbelief " in my younger days. I don't know about anyone else.


----------



## TrustGzus

How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?

The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it. 

I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

TrustGzus said:


> How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?
> 
> The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it.
> 
> I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.



It was mentioned before that the heart of the issue is not necessarily with W&H, but the philosophy that guide their criticism will have an effect on how they view and select the evidence. Do you think Richard Dawkins would make a good scholar if he was skilled in the original languages?


----------



## TrustGzus

alexandermsmith said:


> The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit





Logan said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?
> 
> It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.
Click to expand...


Along with Logan's valid objection, let's look at your first paragraph. The NKJV does use one of the editions of the TR in its text. However, you state that it's untrustworthy because it offers alternate readings in the margins or footnotes so readers can make choices. The 1611 KJV also offered alternate readings in the margins. Let's use your exact question at this point. This is a trustworthy version?

So, does this mean the KJV was untrustworthy until they quit publishing alternate readings in the margin?

Also, you state that what your are writing is logical. Perhaps, in trying to give it the best read I can, you say this because in other posts you might have given reasons for thinking some edition of the TR is best. However, not knowing what else you might have said, this post without that isn't logically valid. 

You state your conclusion in the first sentence - the KJV because it's the only version based on the TR. No reasons offered for why the TR, no reasons offered why not choices not in the TR. 

Logical writing offers how we get to the conclusion.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

TrustGzus said:


> in any of the various TRs is correct.



Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?


----------



## TrustGzus

Fogetaboutit said:


> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?
> 
> The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it.
> 
> I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was mentioned before that the heart of the issue is not necessarily with W&H, but the philosophy that guide their criticism will have an effect on how they view and select the evidence. Do you think Richard Dawkins would make a good scholar if he was skilled in the original languages?
Click to expand...


So let's ask the question. How do we select which reading to use when a passage has a variant in the Greek?

Current scholars don't just go with W&H because if they did we wouldn't have a Nestle-Aland or UBS text. We would just have and still use W&H. 

So do we just trust every choice the KJV translators made between variants? Do we push it back to the TR? Trust the TR? As Logan said, which TR? I own several TRs and each has variants with the others. 

How do you decide between the variants?

Off to work. Have a good day, Brothers and Sisters.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

I personally like the NKJV, and think they did a good job translating the TR in modern English and I'd say it stays fairly close to the AV. I don't have an opinion which TR is the best or more inspired because honestly I have not studied their differences very closely but my understanding is that they are essentially the same as the different CT editions are. And Joe you are correct the KJV translators did make note of some textual variants in their marginal notes. They also have alternate rendering too, and I find them both helpful tools. I have an RL Allan Brevier KJV(as Dennis would say "It's like buttah) and this edition has the original marginal notes from the KJV translators. They are quite extensive actually and I think should remain in all KJV publications. To be fair though the textual variants notes in the KJV are very limited comaped to the NKJV. I understand the sentiment of "not casting doubt on God's word" but these variants are facts though. I think the marginal notes in the NKJV are an awesome feature and I personally thinks it the best English translation of all the modern bibles but that's only my opinion. It's textual notes and the italics of added words I believe make it an honest translation as it's Daddy is


----------



## Captain Picard

Bill The Baptist said:


> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> in any of the various TRs is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?
Click to expand...


Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Captain Picard said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> in any of the various TRs is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Bill The Baptist said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> in any of the various TRs is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you are seeing this phenomenom from the back to the front instead of from the front to the back.

Dr. White brings up the number of editions of the TR specifically BECAUSE the KJVO advocates always bring up the number of editions of the Nestle-Aland.

The KJVOs fired the first shots in that tete a tete, not Dr. White.


----------



## JimmyH

Bill The Baptist said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> in any of the various TRs is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.
Click to expand...


My impression, correct me if I'm wrong, is that translators/philologists, including Erasmus and the AV translators, have always continued to review and try to improve their translations. I've read that before the discovery of the papyri some scholars theorized that the Koine was 'Holy Ghost' language. As more manuscripts surfaced, the papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 'our' knowledge of the ancient languages improved to the point that revisions, new translations were called for. 

I think that the CT based translations leaving out, or at least questioning some of the verses, and larger portions of text, that were included in the AV, and earlier translations, is the main reason for so much heat, and so little light in these debates. That the advances in philology, geography, and the history of the Bible should be pursued is without question AFAIC.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> in any of the various TRs is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you are seeing this phenomenom from the back to the front instead of from the front to the back.
> 
> Dr. White brings up the number of editions of the TR specifically BECAUSE the KJVO advocates always bring up the number of editions of the Nestle-Aland.
> 
> The KJVOs fired the first shots in that tete a tete, not Dr. White.
Click to expand...


I have great respect for Dr. White and the work that he does, and I understand that he is primarily responded the the arguments of the KJVO crowd. However what is misleading is that the target audience for Wretched for the most part has little understanding of these issues and so while you and I understand these things and we're not misled, most of those who watched do not and thus were misled. The average person who watched Dr. White's presentation likely came away with the impression that the TR is inferior to the CT on account of it being based on only a few manuscripts and having gone through several revisions, when the reality is much more complex than this.


----------



## Logan

Bill The Baptist said:


> He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.



CT people certainly recognize that there are variants, that's what the whole point is. The reason I (and Dr White) bring up TR variants, is because some seem to present the "TR" as though it is one document from which all the Reformation Bibles and of course the KJV, was translated from, and that it 100% represents the autographa, being perfectly preserved without error. If you present it this way, then you must have picked one, because there is no one "TR", it is better described as a family with variants within it. The KJV might even be said to be its own variant, because the translators seem to have relied most on Beza's 1590 edition, but also drew from a variety of other sources, including ancient translations. 

I say this not to indicate that the TR or KJV is garbage, but that if you are saying it is 100% perfectly preserved, you are fantasizing...unless you've picked one particular one for some reason.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> some seem to present the "TR" as though it is one document



Of course in the proper sense of the term it is one document, being printed at a specific time and place, and coming to be known as the TR because of that specific printing.

W&H are not a sideshow. Their approach is still fundamentally the same espoused today, even though more mss., some of earlier date, have come to light. Both eclectic and Byzantine-priority approaches draw attention to this fact in order to show that the W&H theory created a slant which naturally moves in the direction of the Alexandrian text-type. This is documented in the professional academic literature.


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> Of course in the proper sense of the term it is one document, being printed at a specific time and place, and coming to be known as the TR because of that specific printing.



But since no one here means that Elzevir edition and it was printed after the KJV, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the particular point I was making.


----------



## Robert Truelove

A critical approach to the textual problem employing a method like the Byzantine Priority Theory satisfies both the doctrinal concern for a text in all ages (for it is there in the Byzantine, and used throughout the ages of the church even till the present) and a reasonable approach to dealing with the problem of variant readings within it's exemplars.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

TrustGzus said:


> How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?
> 
> The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it.
> 
> I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.


As Reverend Winzer pointed out, it isn't a sideshow. But I can appreciate the sentiment. 

At this point I think it beneficial to share something Steve shared when it comes to looking at those manuscripts where Arianism and Gnosticism were most prevalent and why the Reformers would have gone the way the early Church did. 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> It has been rightly asked of us, In your view, what elevates the Reformation editors, and the texts used in the Reformation, over the early third and fourth century manuscripts that are Alexandrian? Were the Alexandrians not part of the church? Do you see the Alexandrian text-form as illegitimate?....On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written?
> 
> These are good questions, and I would briefly like to respond by quoting from chapter 5 in Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, where he talks about the history and factors involved concerning the copies made from the autographs. Please note that this later version of the book (the online version) is slightly different from the earlier hardcopy book:*We have objective historical evidence in support of the following propositions:*
> 
> 
> The true text was never "lost".
> 
> 
> In A.D. 200 the exact original wording of the several books could still be verified and attested.
> 
> 
> There was therefore no need to practice textual criticism and any such effort would be spurious.
> 
> However, presumably some areas would be in a better position to protect and transmit the true text than others.
> 
> [SIZE=+1]*Who Was Best Qualified?*[/SIZE]
> 
> What factors would be important for guaranteeing, or at least facilitating, a faithful transmission of the text of the N.T. writings? I submit that there are four controlling factors: access to the Autographs, proficiency in the source language, the strength of the Church and an appropriate attitude toward the Text.
> 
> *Access to the Autographs*
> 
> This criterion probably applied for less than a hundred years (the Autographs were presumably worn to a frazzle in that space of time) but it is highly significant to a proper understanding of the history of the transmission of the Text. Already by the year 100 there must have been many copies of the various books (some more than others) while it was certainly still possible to check a copy against the original, should a question arise. The point is that there was a swelling stream of faithfully executed copies emanating from the holders of the Autographs to the rest of the Christian world. In those early years the producers of copies would know that the true wording could be verified, which would discourage them from taking liberties with the text.
> 
> However, distance would presumably be a factor—for someone in north Africa to consult the Autograph of Ephesians would be an expensive proposition, in both time and money. I believe we may reasonably conclude that in general the quality of copies would be highest in the area surrounding the Autograph and would gradually deteriorate as the distance increased. Important geographical barriers would accentuate the tendency.
> 
> So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two (Mark and Romans)—as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven New Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held *none.* The Aegean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst—the text in Egypt could only be second hand, at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable copies would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200 someone looking for the best text of the N.T. would presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to Egypt.
> 
> *Proficiency in the source language*
> 
> As a linguist (PhD) and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a 'perfect' translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve.) It follows that any divine solicitude for the precise form of the NT Text would have to be mediated through the language of the Autographs—Greek. Evidently ancient Versions (Syriac, Latin, Coptic) may cast a clear vote with reference to major variants, but precision is possible only in Greek (in the case of the N.T.). That by way of background, but our main concern here is with the copyists.
> 
> To copy a text by hand in a language you do not understand is a tedious exercise—it is almost impossible to produce a perfect copy (try it and see!). You virtually have to copy letter by letter and constantly check your place. (It is even more difficult if there is no space between words and no punctuation, as was the case with the N.T. Text in the early centuries.) But if you cannot understand the text it is very difficult to remain alert. Consider the case of P66. This papyrus manuscript is perhaps the oldest (c. 200) extant N.T. manuscript of any size (it contains most of John). It is one of the worst copies we have. It has an average of roughly two mistakes per verse—many being obvious mistakes, stupid mistakes, nonsensical mistakes. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the scribe copied syllable by syllable. I have no qualms in affirming that the person who produced P66 did not know Greek. Had he understood the text he would not have made the number and sort of mistakes that he did.
> 
> Now consider the problem from God's point of view. To whom should He entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful transmission of the N.T. Text? If the Holy Spirit is going to take an active part in the process, where should He concentrate His efforts? Presumably fluent speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur the copyists had to be proficient in Greek, and over the long haul. So where was Greek predominant? Evidently in Greece and Asia Minor; Greek is the mother tongue of Greece to this day (having changed considerably during the intervening centuries, as any living language must). The dominance of Greek in the Aegean area was guaranteed by the Byzantine Empire for many centuries; in fact, until the invention of printing. Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453; the Gutenberg Bible (Latin) was printed just three years later, while the first printed Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. (For those who believe in Providence, I would suggest that here we have a powerful case in point.)
> 
> How about Egypt? The use of Greek in Egypt was already declining by the beginning of the Christian era. Bruce Metzger observes that the Hellenized section of the population in Egypt "was only a fraction in comparison with the number of native inhabitants who used only the Egyptian languages."[21] By the third century the decline was evidently well advanced. I have already argued that the copyist who did P66 (c. 200) did not know Greek. Now consider the case of P75 (c. 220). E.C. Colwell analyzed P75 and found about 145 itacisms plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the copyist who did P75 copied letter by letter![22] This means that he did not know Greek—when transcribing in a language you know you copy phrase by phrase, or at least word by word. K. Aland argues that before 200 the tide had begun to turn against the use of Greek in the areas that spoke Latin, Syriac or Coptic, and fifty years later the changeover to the local languages was well advanced.[23]
> 
> Again the Aegean Area is far and away the best qualified to transmit the Text with confidence and integrity. Note that even if Egypt had started out with a good text, already by the end of the 2nd century its competence to transmit the text was steadily deteriorating. In fact the early papyri (they come from Egypt) are demonstrably inferior in quality, taken individually, as well as exhibiting rather different types of text (they disagree among themselves).
> 
> *The strength of the Church*
> 
> This question is relevant to our discussion for two reasons. First, the law of supply and demand operates in the Church as well as elsewhere. Where there are many congregations and believers there will be an increased demand for copies of the Scriptures. Second, a strong, well established church will normally have a confident, experienced leadership—just the sort that would take an interest in the quality of their Scriptures and also be able to do something about it. So in what areas was the early Church strongest?
> 
> Although the Church evidently began in Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread. The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's "letters" (Rev. 2 and 3) is any guide, the center of gravity of the Church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the first century. (The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in A.D. 70 would presumably be a contributing factor.) Kurt Aland agrees with Adolf Harnack that "about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece." He continues: "The overall impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the East. . . . Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church."[24] "The heartland of the Church"—so who else would be in a better position to certify the correct text of the New Testament?
> 
> What about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian church was weak and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century.[25] Aland states: "Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism."[26] He further informs us that "at the close of the 2nd century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly gnostic" and then goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic communities could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being corrupt."[27] Now this is all very instructive—what Aland is telling us, in other words, is that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt *could not be trusted.* Aland's assessment here is most probably correct. Notice what Bruce Metzger says about the early church in Egypt:Among the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses. . . . There are also fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the second century. . . . In fact, to judge by the comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Egypt during the second century; Clement mentions the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Peratae, the Encratites, the Docetists, the Haimetites, the Cainites, the Ophites, the Simonians, and the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second century were orthodox is not known.[28]​
> It is almost enough to make one wonder whether Isaiah 30:1-3 might not be a prophecy about N.T. textual criticism!
> 
> But we need to pause to reflect on the implications of Aland's statements. He is a champion of the Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text-type, and yet he himself informs us that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted and that by 200 the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he argue that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Aland also states that in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century Asia Minor continued to be "the heartland of the Church." This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to protect, transmit and attest the N.T. Text carry over into the 4th century! It happens that Hort, Metzger and Aland (along with many others) have linked the "Byzantine" text-type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. Now really, wouldn't a text produced by a leader in "the heartland of the Church" be better than whatever evolved in Egypt?
> 
> *Attitude toward the Text*
> 
> Where careful work is required, the attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the quality will probably do down. If they understand but do not agree, they might even resort to sabotage—a damaging eventuality. In the case of the N.T. books we may begin with the question: "Why would copies be made?"
> 
> We have seen that the faithful recognized the authority of the N.T. writings from the start, so the making of copies would have begun at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be circulated, and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote and allude to a variety of N.T. books by the turn of the 1st century makes clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter before A.D. 70. Polycarp (XIII) c. 115, in answer to a request from the Philippian church, sent a collection of Ignatius' letters to them, possibly within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently it was normal procedure to make copies and collections (of worthy writings) so each assembly could have a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between the churches and Justin to the weekly practice of reading the Scriptures in the assemblies (they had to have copies).
> 
> A second question would be: "What was the attitude of the copyists toward their work?" We already have the essence of the answer. Being followers of Christ, and believing that they were dealing with Scripture, to a basic honesty would be added reverence in their handling of the Text, from the start. And to these would be added vigilance, since the Apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false teachers. As the years went by, assuming that the faithful were persons of at least average integrity and intelligence, they would produce careful copies of the manuscripts they had received from the previous generation, persons whom they trusted, being assured that they were transmitting the true text. There would be accidental copying mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. It is important to note that the earliest Christians did not need to be textual critics. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, they had only to be reasonably honest and careful. I submit that we have good reason for understanding that they were especially watchful and careful—this especially in the early decades.
> 
> As time went on regional attitudes developed, not to mention regional politics. The rise of the so-called "school of Antioch" is a relevant consideration. Beginning with Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch who died around 185, the Antiochians began insisting upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The point is that a literalist is obliged to be concerned about the precise wording of the text since his interpretation or exegesis hinges upon it.
> 
> It is reasonable to assume that this "literalist" mentality would have influenced the churches of Asia Minor and Greece and encouraged them in the careful and faithful transmission of the pure text that they had received. For example, the 1,000 MSS of the Syriac Peshitta are unparalleled for their consistency. (By way of contrast, the 8,000 MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS.) It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Antiochian antipathy toward the Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of Scripture would rather indispose them to view with favor any competing forms of the text coming out of Egypt. Similarly the Quarto-deciman controversy with Rome would scarcely enhance the appeal of any innovations coming from the West.
> 
> To the extent that the roots of the allegorical approach that flourished in Alexandria during the third century were already present, they would also be a negative factor. Since Philo of Alexandria was at the height of his influence when the first Christians arrived there, it may be that his allegorical interpretation of the O.T. began to rub off on the young church already in the first century. Since an allegorist is going to impose his own ideas on the text anyway, he would presumably have fewer inhibitions about altering it—precise wording would not be a high priority.
> 
> The school of literary criticism that existed at Alexandria would also be a negative factor, if it influenced the Church at all, and W.R. Farmer argues that it did. "But there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used . . . is not known."[29] He goes on to suggest that the Christian school founded in Alexandria by Pantaenus, around 180, was bound to be influenced by the scholars of the great library of that city. The point is, the principles used in attempting to "restore" the works of Homer would not be appropriate for the NT writings when appeal to the Autographs, or exact copies made from them, was still possible.
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> What answer do the "four controlling factors" give to our question? The four speak with united voice: "The Aegean area was the best qualified to protect, transmit and attest the true text of the N.T. writings." This was true in the 2nd century; it was true in the 3rd century; it continued to be true in the 4th century. And now we are ready to answer the question, "Was the transmission normal?", and to attempt to trace the history of the text.
> 
> -------
> 
> Notes
> 
> [21]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 104.
> [22]Colwell, "Scribal Habits," pp. 374-76, 380.
> [23]K. and B. Aland, _The Text of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 52-53.
> [24]_Ibid_., p. 53.
> [25]Roberts, pp. 42-43, 54-58.
> [26]K. and B. Aland, p. 59.
> [27]K. Aland, "The Text of the Church?", _Trinity Journal_, 1987, 8NS:138.
> [28]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 101.
> [29]W.R. Farmer, _The Last Twelve Verses of Mark_ (Cambridge: University Press, 1974), pp. 14-15. He cites B.H. Streeter, _The Four Gospels_, 1924, pp. 111, 122-23.​
> ----------
> 
> I post this fairly lengthy section of Pickering’s to give an idea of the text-critical hypothesis he gives to account for the existence of the Byzantine text, and also to put in perspective the phenomenon of the Alexandrian textform. Remember what Dr. Maurice Robinson said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (From the Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Robinson’s and Pickering’s works (and Bruggen’s as well!) are important advances in textual study, and should not be ignored.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> But since no one here means that Elzevir edition and it was printed after the KJV, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the particular point I was making.



I think it shows the point you are making is not as significant as you are presenting it. The AV itself includes textual marginalia. The "TR" indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants. With the W&H theory a whole new paradigm was created which has never established a base from which to deal with variants. The conservatives at the time pointed this out. "Variants" basically mean totally different things for the two views.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

My weekend is upon me and I have much to accomplish brothers. Please be patient with each other remembering that Christ paid a debt for His Church and has allowed much blood to be spilt for others to come into the fold. We need not tear down each other. The World and her god already wants to do that. Be Encouraged.


----------



## alexandermsmith

TrustGzus said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?
> 
> It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Along with Logan's valid objection, let's look at your first paragraph. The NKJV does use one of the editions of the TR in its text. However, you state that it's untrustworthy because it offers alternate readings in the margins or footnotes so readers can make choices. The 1611 KJV also offered alternate readings in the margins. Let's use your exact question at this point. This is a trustworthy version?
> 
> So, does this mean the KJV was untrustworthy until they quit publishing alternate readings in the margin?
> 
> Also, you state that what your are writing is logical. Perhaps, in trying to give it the best read I can, you say this because in other posts you might have given reasons for thinking some edition of the TR is best. However, not knowing what else you might have said, this post without that isn't logically valid.
> 
> You state your conclusion in the first sentence - the KJV because it's the only version based on the TR. No reasons offered for why the TR, no reasons offered why not choices not in the TR.
> 
> Logical writing offers how we get to the conclusion.
Click to expand...


The KJV offers alternative _translations_ of certain words or phrases in the margins in cases where the translators felt that there was an alternative rendering which could validly be proposed. They still chose a particular rendering, which is in the text. What they are categorically *not* saying is: this word/phrase maybe shouldn't be in the text at all. There's a fundamental difference. Some words/phrases in the original languages can be hard to render exactly in English: the margin notes are merely offering a valid alternative translation, but the rendering in the text is that which the translators thought best fit the context. Similarly, they added words to verses to better express the meaning of the original verse. But they added these words in italics so the reader knew these particular words were not in the original language. Later translations don't italicise these words which means the reader doesn't know what words have been added.

When I said I was making a logical case I meant in terms of steps of logic. I realise I didn't provide the analysis: that has been ably done elsewhere and I don't claim to be an expert. What I was arguing was that, logically, if we are to trust the Bible we are holding in our hands we need to know it is translated from a text which accurately represents the Scripture. Since we don't, in God's providence, have the autographs to translate from, we need to have a text which accurately represents the autographs. And that such a text would have been divinely preserved by God through the generations. This, I believe, is the TR and, as far as I understand, all translations subsequent to the KJV have not been faithful translations of the TR, however much they may have used it as part of their translation process.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

alexandermsmith said:


> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?
> 
> It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Along with Logan's valid objection, let's look at your first paragraph. The NKJV does use one of the editions of the TR in its text. However, you state that it's untrustworthy because it offers alternate readings in the margins or footnotes so readers can make choices. The 1611 KJV also offered alternate readings in the margins. Let's use your exact question at this point. This is a trustworthy version?
> 
> So, does this mean the KJV was untrustworthy until they quit publishing alternate readings in the margin?
> 
> Also, you state that what your are writing is logical. Perhaps, in trying to give it the best read I can, you say this because in other posts you might have given reasons for thinking some edition of the TR is best. However, not knowing what else you might have said, this post without that isn't logically valid.
> 
> You state your conclusion in the first sentence - the KJV because it's the only version based on the TR. No reasons offered for why the TR, no reasons offered why not choices not in the TR.
> 
> Logical writing offers how we get to the conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KJV offers alternative _translations_ of certain words or phrases in the margins in cases where the translators felt that there was an alternative rendering which could validly be proposed. They still chose a particular rendering, which is in the text. What they are categorically *not* saying is: this word/phrase maybe shouldn't be in the text at all. There's a fundamental difference. Some words/phrases in the original languages can be hard to render exactly in English: the margin notes are merely offering a valid alternative translation, but the rendering in the text is that which the translators thought best fit the context. Similarly, they added words to verses to better express the meaning of the original verse. But they added these words in italics so the reader knew these particular words were not in the original language. Later translations don't italicise these words which means the reader doesn't know what words have been added.
> 
> When I said I was making a logical case I meant in terms of steps of logic. I realise I didn't provide the analysis: that has been ably done elsewhere and I don't claim to be an expert. What I was arguing was that, logically, if we are to trust the Bible we are holding in our hands we need to know it is translated from a text which accurately represents the Scripture. Since we don't, in God's providence, have the autographs to translate from, we need to have a text which accurately represents the autographs. And that such a text would have been divinely preserved by God through the generations. This, I believe, is the TR and, as far as I understand, all translations subsequent to the KJV have not been faithful translations of the TR, however much they may have used it as part of their translation process.
Click to expand...


Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, the NKJV was translated from the TR. the presence of footnotes indicating textual variants does not mitigate this fact. In truth, I find this feature extremely beneficial in my preaching ministry because it informs me of occasions where the text I am preaching from differs from the text many in my congregation are reading from. In this way, I can address and even correct these variances so that my listeners can have greater understanding. Commentaries do not always see fit to address every minor variance, and so having these footnotes is very helpful to me.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

TrustGzus said:


> So let's ask the question. How do we select which reading to use when a passage has a variant in the Greek?



If one holds to providential preservation of scriptures as described in the WCF, one of the criteria to select a reading would be to assure the reading in question was used throughout the Church era and not lost for 1500 years or so only to be rediscovered later. If you have variants that have been in use then at that point you investigate which one is older, has the most support from mss, patristic writings, early version etc. or if a reason can be determined as to why a reading was altered.



TrustGzus said:


> Current scholars don't just go with W&H because if they did we wouldn't have a Nestle-Aland or UBS text. We would just have and still use W&H.



They accept the same presupposition adopted by W&H therefore they repeat the same errors. I don't trust Metzger, Aland, Martini etc. more than I trust W&H.



TrustGzus said:


> So do we just trust every choice the KJV translators made between variants? Do we push it back to the TR? Trust the TR? As Logan said, which TR? I own several TRs and each has variants with the others.



KJV translators did not edit the TR, they translated it in English. The rabbit trail of "which TR" has been dealt with already, the question should be which Greek text used by translators is the most faithful to biblical principles in it's compilation, the TR, the CT or the MT.


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> I think it shows the point you are making is not as significant as you are presenting it...The "TR" indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants.



I can only assume you didn't follow the entire conversation, because that's pretty much the point I was making and labored to make clear. But this has been a hot topic with many intermingling dialogues so that's probably where the confusion comes from.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Bill The Baptist said:


> Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, the NKJV was translated from the TR. the presence of footnotes indicating textual variants does not mitigate this fact. In truth, I find this feature extremely beneficial in my preaching ministry because it informs me of occasions where the text I am preaching from differs from the text many in my congregation are reading from. In this way, I can address and even correct these variances so that my listeners can have greater understanding. Commentaries do not always see fit to address every minor variance, and so having these footnotes is very helpful to me.



Not true: "When the NKJV translators claim that their New Testament is based upon the Received Text, this is not entirely true. In a number of places it chooses to agree with the Westcott and Hort Text. It also misses out words found in the Greek, and in some places it adds words without the use of italics...In saying this, I am not suggesting that the faults are always as serious as in other modern versions, and neither are they as numerous, but they do nevertheless run to over 1,200 departures from the Received Text (by alteration, addition, or omission of words)." Alan J. MacGregor, _Three Modern Versions_, The Bible League, 2004, p.29 (hb)

Mr. MacGregor also points out that nine of the "scholars" who worked on the NKJV also worked on the NIV! The NKJV footnotes also make constant reference to the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies editions, which both rely heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus- the basis for Westcott and Hort's text.

There's also the question of motivation for the production of some of these modern translations. Profit often seems to be as important, if not more so.

I would also say that it's not a good situation where different translations are used in a denomination, let alone an individual congregation. How can there be uniformity where people are using Bibles that say different things?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

alexandermsmith said:


> Not true: "When the NKJV translators claim that their New Testament is based upon the Received Text, this is not entirely true. In a number of places it chooses to agree with the Westcott and Hort Text. It also misses out words found in the Greek, and in some places it adds words without the use of italics...In saying this, I am not suggesting that the faults are always as serious as in other modern versions, and neither are they as numerous, but they do nevertheless run to over 1,200 departures from the Received Text (by alteration, addition, or omission of words)." Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions, The Bible League, 2004, p.29 (hb)
> 
> Mr. MacGregor also points out that nine of the "scholars" who worked on the NKJV also worked on the NIV! The NKJV footnotes also make constant reference to the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies editions, which both rely heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus- the basis for Westcott and Hort's text.



I'm not sure what Macgregor is basing this assertion on, but I can assure you that the NKJV was based on the TR. Of course being a translation from the TR, and not simply a revision of the KJV, it will naturally differ in places in regards to structure and word choice. As I stated before, many of us find the inclusion of footnotes regarding variants to be helpful, and so I hardly see how this detracts from the NKJV, nor how it establishes your assertion that it is not in fact translated from the TR. If what you are saying is true, then you are essentially stating that the NKJV translators were liars, because they clearly state in the preface "The editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major critical text and majority text variants readings in the footnotes." If you are indeed making such an assertion, I would suggest that it is necessary that you back it up with something more than an offhand reference to an obscure book.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it shows the point you are making is not as significant as you are presenting it...The "TR" indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only assume you didn't follow the entire conversation, because that's pretty much the point I was making and labored to make clear. But this has been a hot topic with many intermingling dialogues so that's probably where the confusion comes from.
Click to expand...


Your claim was that there are several TRs as if that justified the wide range of variants which have emerged from a different textual base. If you are now going to go back and say there is one TR with limited variants, it will go a long way towards removing the confusion you created by your remark.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Brian,

You said some things in post #43 I think deserve a decent answer and explanation, and you may be edified and confirmed in your concerns by some clear thinking on the topic. You said:
To make a point that the TR is divinely preserved as if it is as true of a statement as “Jesus rose from the dead” just boggles my mind. It’s as if saying that a Bible that does not stem from the TR means that it cannot be used as a means of grace for folks. What happens to a person who picks up an NIV and is taught from the NIV? Must they drop the NIV at the moment of their conversion and seek out a TR-based Bible?

It’s talk like THIS is what is making people question the Bible they have in their lap. It’s not that we’re picking on one or two translations like the NWT. This kind of talk makes it seem like the vast majority of the Bibles on the shelves are not the Bible at all, and are simply satanic propaganda.​ 
About the TR being “divinely preserved” and as much an article of faith as Jesus being raised from the dead, please consider the following from the Westminster Confession that you hold to (note particularly that highlighted in bold) :
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), *being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, *are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them... (1:8)​ 
The importance of this article of our faith—for such it is, being confessional—is that if we do not have a providentially preserved and pure Bible, then the statement “Jesus rose from the dead” has no basis for being an authoritative statement derived directly from the inspired word of our God. This is the Presbyterian take on it (and the Reformed, and Reformed Baptist as well), but it does _*not*_ invalidate other Bibles not of the TR line in their speaking of Christ's resurrection.

So to the second point you rightly brought up: does “a Bible that does not stem from the TR mean that it cannot be used as a means of grace for folks”? It is clear that from the early centuries even until now different regions of the world have had editions or versions of the word of God that were not the Byzantine Greek NT, which is the basic forerunner of the TR (the OT is different in its transmission history), but their versions were other than that. The question would be, “Did they not have an adequately preserved Bible to minister the grace of God to them?” And I would answer from a TR point of view:

There is a preserving of the text (the CT), and there is a preserving of the text (the TR)—the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. Most holders to the TR / AV believe that _minute preservation_ occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James and other language translations) which were to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal. But all those that had Bibles—*of whatever sort*—had *adequately preserved* Bibles.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an _adequate_ preservation as distinguished from preservation in the _minutiae_. The mighty, saving grace of God has been denied to no people because they did not have the TR and its translations! In fact, one can find among the holders of the modern versions godlier men and women than many of the TR and AV holders.

The issue is a matter of both accuracy of translations and the correctness of the variants, not the _legitimacy_ of the respective Bibles in the main, whether CT or AV.

I surely agree with you that much damage has been done—from both sides, actually—delegitimizing people’s Bibles. When I responded in a thread here to James White’s views some years ago, I emphasized the point that we both be careful not to tear down the faith folks have in their Bibles—whatever school of belief they were of textually—as this would be a grievous thing, and would indeed displease our Saviour!

So I do agree with you, Brian, in your very true and wise concern that our faith in our Bibles not be torn down in these discussions.

I just wanted to share these thoughts with you—and do not want to enter into the other conversations going on in this thread. I have other work I must get to!


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> Your claim was that there are several TRs as if that justified the wide range of variants which have emerged from a different textual base.



That was not at all the implication of my stating the fact. I explicitly stated why I brought up the TR variants so I'm baffled why there would be any "confusion."


----------



## Captain Picard

1) I don't think it can be proved that any of the divines of the Reformed confessions meant by "divine preservation" what Ecclesiastical Text proponents say they meant. I'd like solid evidence that the subject noun of "kept through all ages" is the text of the TR, or one of its editions.

2) When people speak of "lost for 1500 years readings", this fails to deal with the fact that the vast majority of differences between the CT and the TR is in additions to the TR, not subtractions from the CT. It would be erroneous, for example, to say that copies of Mark that end at 16:8 or MMS that lack the Pericope Adulterae are "lost for 1500 years"...they weren't lost in the time of the early Alexandrian MMS that bear out those readings, they weren't unknown in the time of the Reformed Confessions or the composition of Erasmus' editions of the TR, and they weren't lost readings in any bible that possessed (for example) all of Mark through 16:8. If anything, it was the composition of the TR that represents a "restoration of lost Greek"...which is exactly what KJVO proponents and many other TR fans claim explicitly or implicitly.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim was that there are several TRs as if that justified the wide range of variants which have emerged from a different textual base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not at all the implication of my stating the fact. I explicitly stated why I brought up the TR variants so I'm baffled why there would be any "confusion."
Click to expand...


You asked "which one is the divinely preserved one?" That is, which TR? Afterwards you concede there is only one, but still keep discoursing as if you spoke accurately, and then you try to trace the confusion to something I said. If you just acknowledged your words were unhappily chosen the confusion would be quickly cleared up.


----------



## MW

Captain Picard said:


> I'd like solid evidence that the subject noun of "kept through all ages" is the text of the TR, or one of its editions.



The Confession states concerning these preserved writings of Old and New Testaments, "The Church is finally to appeal unto them." Unto which text did the Westminster divines make their appeal? That should give concrete evidence.


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> You asked "which one is the divinely preserved one?" That is, which TR? Afterwards you concede there is only one, but still keep discoursing as if you spoke accurately, and then you try to trace the confusion to something I said.



Winzer, I have no interest in continuing to defend myself against confusion over something I didn't say. Here is what I said, and if you find it unclear then I can't help you.



Logan said:


> The reason I (and Dr White) bring up TR variants, is because some seem to present the "TR" as though it is *one document* from which all the Reformation Bibles and of course the KJV, was translated from, and that it *100% represents the autographa, being perfectly preserved without error*. *If you present it this way*, then you must have picked one, because there is no one "TR", *it is better described as a family with variants within it.*


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I want to make one last comment regarding the assertion that the NKJV is not translated from the TR. This assertion is demonstrably false on three fronts. First, it is an assertion that is wholly unprovable. How would one even go about proving such a thing? Merely attempting to reverse engineer a translation against a manuscript or another translation establishes nothing. If one were to do the same with the ESV in comparison with the NASB, they would no doubt discover many of the same differences that Macgregor allegedly found between the NKJV and the KJV. Does this therefore establish that the ESV is not also translated from the CT? Hardly. Pseudo scholarship never helps. Second, such an assertion impugns the reputation of those who translated the NKJV. Dr. Farstad was a man of great integrity and scholarship and it is wholly unwarranted and offensive to suggest that he would knowingly and intentionally mislead as to which manuscript his version was translated from. It is impossible to make the former assertion without also making the latter. Conspiracy theories do not belong is serious scholarship. Finally, such an assertion is wholly ridiculous in light of the nature of the NKJV. If it was not translated from the TR, then from what was it translated? From the CT? How then do we explain the copious variances from the CT that are outlined in the footnotes that do many seem to disparage? From the majority text? Again, how do we explain all the variances that are so clearly catalogued? If one finds the NKJV to be an inferior translation, then I have no problem with someone expressing this, but please do not resort to ridiculous assertions in an effort to needlessly impugn a fine translation.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Winzer, I have no interest in continuing to defend myself against confusion over something I didn't say. Here is what I said, and if you find it unclear then I can't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I (and Dr White) bring up TR variants, is because some seem to present the "TR" as though it is *one document* from which all the Reformation Bibles and of course the KJV, was translated from, and that it *100% represents the autographa, being perfectly preserved without error*. *If you present it this way*, then you must have picked one, because there is no one "TR", *it is better described as a family with variants within it.*
Click to expand...


Here you acknowledge you said "because there is no one 'TR'." When I said, "the 'TR' indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants," you replied "that's pretty much the point I was making." So you stated there is no one TR, and then you claim you were "pretty much" saying the TR indicates an accepted text (singular). This is what created the confusion.


----------



## Logan

Note the words I helpfully bolded: "'TR' as though it is one document", "If you present it this way" the quotes around the "TR" in both places, and the final bolded section.

I can't make myself any more explicit than that and all indications so far are that no one else shares the "confusion". Who are you "clearing thing up" for? I can't help but wonder what you think is profitable in beleaguering me.


----------



## Phil D.

Within the overall context of the thread, how Logan's expression "a [text] family with variants within it" can be construed as saying a "text (singular)" is rather baffling.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> I can't help but wonder what you think is profitable in beleaguering me.



Please don't make this personal again. I have no interest in "beleaguering" you, nor is that my intention. This is a thread discussing facts which affect the way people see the textual issues relating to the Bible, and the Bible is our supreme standard. You made a claim that was misleading. When it was corrected you said the correction is pretty much what you were saying while still standing by your original claim. In the interests of clarity, why not simply confess your original claim was poorly stated? Clarity is profitable when discussing any issue.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Bill The Baptist said:


> I want to make one last comment regarding the assertion that the NKJV is not translated from the TR. This assertion is demonstrably false on three fronts. First, it is an assertion that is wholly unprovable. How would one even go about proving such a thing? Merely attempting to reverse engineer a translation against a manuscript or another translation establishes nothing. If one were to do the same with the ESV in comparison with the NASB, they would no doubt discover many of the same differences that Macgregor allegedly found between the NKJV and the KJV. Does this therefore establish that the ESV is not also translated from the CT? Hardly. Pseudo scholarship never helps. Second, such an assertion impugns the reputation of those who translated the NKJV. Dr. Farstad was a man of great integrity and scholarship and it is wholly unwarranted and offensive to suggest that he would knowingly and intentionally mislead as to which manuscript his version was translated from. It is impossible to make the former assertion without also making the latter. Conspiracy theories do not belong is serious scholarship. Finally, such an assertion is wholly ridiculous in light of the nature of the NKJV. If it was not translated from the TR, then from what was it translated? From the CT? How then do we explain the copious variances from the CT that are outlined in the footnotes that do many seem to disparage? From the majority text? Again, how do we explain all the variances that are so clearly catalogued? If one finds the NKJV to be an inferior translation, then I have no problem with someone expressing this, but please do not resort to ridiculous assertions in an effort to needlessly impugn a fine translation.



Bill I have looked at these similar claims before and found them ridiculous. Even the most "questionable" TR readings are present in the NKJV. Even Rev 16:5 is there, if they were going to divert from the TR, Rev 16;5 would be the time. I have no doubt it was translated from the TR and In my humble opinion does an excellent job doing so. Even Michael Marlowe, a big critical text supporter, highly recommends it for close study, even slightly over the NASB.


----------



## alexandermsmith

If the NKJV has over 1200 differences to the KJV, I fail to see how it can claim to be translated from the same text. Indeed various modern translations which are translated from the same family of texts have differences: because copyright requires these differences so they have to be there. Hardly a ground for trustworthiness. (The CT is also a a diverse groups of texts.)

One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.

Finally, I'm less concerned with the reputation of scholars than I am with upholding the dignity of God's Word. Scholars should not bother meddling with such things if their reputation is so precious to them and should leave well enough alone.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

alexandermsmith said:


> If the NKJV has over 1200 differences to the KJV, I fail to see how it can claim to be translated from the same text. Indeed various modern translations which are translated from the same family of texts have differences: because copyright requires these differences so they have to be there. Hardly a ground for trustworthiness. (The CT is also a a diverse groups of texts.)
> 
> One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.
> 
> Finally, I'm less concerned with the reputation of scholars than I am with upholding the dignity of God's Word. Scholars should not bother meddling with such things if their reputation is so precious to them and should leave well enough alone.



As I said, if you feel that the NKJV is an inferior translation, then I have no problem with that. But please don't make ridiculous and unnecessary allegations that are self-evidently false. There are over 1200 differences because it is a different translation, just as I am sure there are many differences between the NASB and the ESV. The loss of distinction between singular and plural pronouns is indeed regrettable, but has nothing to do with the underlying manuscript. It is simply a translation choice. If you prefer the KJV, as many others do, then make your arguments based on the strength of the translation and not on unproven conspiracy theories.


----------



## Logan

alexandermsmith said:


> One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.



This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Logan said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.
Click to expand...


----------



## alexandermsmith

Logan said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.
Click to expand...


The Preface to the NKJV reads:

"Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: _thee_, _thou_, and _ye_ are replaced by the simple _you_, while _your_ and _yours_ are substituted for _thy_ and _thine_ as applicable. _Thee_, _thou_, _thy_ and _thine_ were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."

Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of _thee_ and _thou_ is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."

Alan J. MacGregor, _Three Modern Versions_, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)

Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

alexandermsmith said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preface to the NKJV reads:
> 
> "Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: _thee_, _thou_, and _ye_ are replaced by the simple _you_, while _your_ and _yours_ are substituted for _thy_ and _thine_ as applicable. _Thee_, _thou_, _thy_ and _thine_ were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."
> 
> Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of _thee_ and _thou_ is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."
> 
> Alan J. MacGregor, _Three Modern Versions_, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)
> 
> Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.
Click to expand...


Alexander,

If you wish to argue that the absence of a distinction between singular and plural pronouns makes the NKJV inferior to the KJV, then I have no objection to this and I would even agree on this point. What I am asking you to do is to stop inferring that this in any way establishes that the NKJV is not also translated from the TR because it does not. The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.


----------



## jandrusk

I thought the presentation was very well done and I see nothing wrong with using the word, "****", when the OT writers routinely used the synomously term "dung". I could thing of several stronger nouns that could have been used  His argument that it was a Q&A session is lame in that he was asked a very specific answer and gave an answer that had nothing to do with the question.


----------



## jandrusk

I would also recommend reading, "Crowned with Glory" by Dr. Thomas Holland, which can be found: http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory...1440521532&sr=8-1&keywords=crowned+with+glory


----------



## JimmyH

alexandermsmith said:


> If the NKJV has over 1200 differences to the KJV, I fail to see how it can claim to be translated from the same text.



In my very basic self study of koine Greek I was surprised to see the variant definitions one word might have within the language. For example ;

επι ( epi) ; (+genitive) on, over, or when ; (+dative) on the basis of, or at; (+accusative) on, to, against or for.

παρα (para) (+genitive) from, (+dative) beside, in the presence of, or with (+ accusative) alongside of, or other than.

κατα (kata) (+gen) down from or against. (+acc) according to, throughout, or during.

Translation may not be as simple as we English speakers imagine. I've read that Greek is a much more nuanced language than Hebrew or English, with richness of meaning. Hence the differences translations have may be as a result of that. Add to that the discovery of the papyri in the late 19th century, and the additional understanding of how words were used in the NT times probably accounts for some differences. The examples above are from Danny Zacharias 'Flash Greek' app.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jimmy,

It's not a matter of nuance, per se, but one of language in general.

A study of just the Genetive form of a noun is mind boggling. It's why some get into debates over whether certain verse speak to faith _in_ Christ or the faith _of_ Christ. The form of the noun won't tell you which it is (nor even knowing the word definitions) but a host of issues factor into the equation (including theological issues).

For instance, the NIV translators did not like to use the word propitiation. I think that is theologically motivated.

I don't much care for a lot of Tremper Longman's stuff but one thing I agree with that he stated is to the effect that every translation is an extended form of commentary by the translators.

The point is well taken that Alexandar is confused about the difference between a textual source and the translation that results.

I think those that some who defend the AV will point out that if we leave aside the manuscript issue for a moment that the interpreters were of a sounder theological sort than some modern translation committees.


----------



## MW

Bill The Baptist said:


> The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue.



I agree, but I think this was just an example of his overall point relating to "differences."

Would you accept that some of the differences in translation reflect an accommodation to a text other than the TR even though the TR is the underlying text of the translation? I am not saying this would have been the deliberate intention of the translators of the NKJV, but it appears to have been the result in at least some places.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

MW said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but I think this was just an example of his overall point relating to "differences."
> 
> Would you accept that some of the differences in translation reflect an accommodation to a text other than the TR even though the TR is the underlying text of the translation? I am not saying this would have been the deliberate intention of the translators of the NKJV, but it appears to have been the result in at least some places.
Click to expand...


Yes I suppose this could be possible or even likely. It is perhaps impossible to do the work of translation nowadays without being at least somewhat influenced by the dominant text critical theories of the present era. That is not, however, what was originally being asserted.


----------



## Robert Truelove

While I prefer the KJV for a number of reasons (mostly literary), I don't hesitate to recommend the New King James Version for folks wanting a solid translation in modern English. The NKJV fits the bill very nicely for that. Arthur Farstad and his team did a fantastic job on it. Farstad was perhaps the most productive textual scholar of the 20th century who was also an advocate for the Traditional Text. 

For those wanting to learn more about the NKJV, I recommend this http://www.amazon.com/The-New-King-James-Version/dp/0785251758

I can certainly find fault with the NKJV, but I can find fault with the KJV as well. If we seek perfection in any particular translation we are asking too much at best and usurping the authority of the word of God in the original tongues at worst. 

My acknowledging the NKJV as an excellent translation in contemporary English in no way robs anything from the venerable King James Version. Personally I think most of the anti-NKJV fits are simply misplaced zeal for the KJV. 

I don't think ANY modern version will replace the beauty and elegance of the KJV because contemporary English cannot accomplish such a thing (for much the same reason that Shakespeare can't be improved upon with contemporary English). This however is a literary observation and not to be confused with the ill-conceived notion that contemporary English is an unfit vessel for Bible translation.

Finally, for those interested, here's my recent unboxing of a Schuyler NKJV...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C_n2MvWUVM


----------



## alexandermsmith

Bill The Baptist said:


> The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.



OK fair enough. However, it is, to my mind, disingenuous to call the NKJV merely an "updating" of the AV. To me, updating means rendering "runneth" as "runs". It is not removing distinctions between plural and singular; nor calling into question whether certain portions of Scripture should even be there; nor using texts other than the TR to solve translation issues.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

alexandermsmith said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK fair enough. However, it is, to my mind, disingenuous to call the NKJV merely an "updating" of the AV. To me, updating means rendering "runneth" as "runs". It is not removing distinctions between plural and singular; nor calling into question whether certain portions of Scripture should even be there; nor using texts other than the TR to solve translation issues.
Click to expand...


I would agree that the NKJV is really a whole new translation and not merely an update, although there was a degree of effort made to keep some familiar language the same.


----------



## Robert Truelove

alexandermsmith said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is present in every Greek manuscript, and so this is a translation issue and not a manuscript issue. Please stop conflating the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK fair enough. However, it is, to my mind, disingenuous to call the NKJV merely an "updating" of the AV. To me, updating means rendering "runneth" as "runs". It is not removing distinctions between plural and singular; nor calling into question whether certain portions of Scripture should even be there; nor using texts other than the TR to solve translation issues.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The NKJV goes way beyond the former "revisions" of the KJV. It's different enough that the name "New King James Version" is warranted to distinguish it from the historic English text.


----------



## iainduguid

alexandermsmith said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preface to the NKJV reads:
> 
> "Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: _thee_, _thou_, and _ye_ are replaced by the simple _you_, while _your_ and _yours_ are substituted for _thy_ and _thine_ as applicable. _Thee_, _thou_, _thy_ and _thine_ were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."
> 
> Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of _thee_ and _thou_ is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."
> 
> Alan J. MacGregor, _Three Modern Versions_, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)
> 
> Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.
Click to expand...


The last comment illustrates precisely the problem with continuing to use an old translation as language moves on. Presumably, for you "thee" and "thou" convey a proper sense of formality in coming to the Great King in prayer, or something to that effect. I respect that motive, but of course in old English "thee" and "thou" were simply ordinary regular terms to address an individual. The Lord of the Manor would have addressed the humblest peasant as "Thee" and "Thou". Even more pertinently, there is no special formal "you" in either Greek or Hebrew by which to address God, in the way that Spanish and German use a more formal plural for strangers or those in authority. So there as absolutely no Biblical reason to address God as "Thee" and "Thou" rather than "You". I doubt anyone is ever in any doubt when they are praying as to whether God is singular or plural. 

In addition, we may lament the imprecision that modern English has over singular and plural you, but we seem unaffected by the equally significant fact that in Greek and Hebrew we can distinguish the gender of a pronoun as well as its number. So in Greek or Hebrew we can say "You (masculine)" differently from "You (feminine);" this is equally significant in Biblical texts, but for some reason God in his wisdom chose to give us a language that doesn't make those distinctions. Perhaps we should be content with the plethora of excellent translations that we have, and be thankful for preachers who read Greek and Hebrew and can make things clear that our translations can't.Having been personally involved in English Bible translation and revision projects, I can only say the process is a lot harder than it looks. Please pray for those who have such monumental responsibilities.


----------



## Robert Truelove

iainduguid said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most significant changes between the KJV and the NKJV is the loss of the distinction between you singular and you plural- a rather significant change, and one which certainly undermines any claim to be based on the same text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the most puzzling textual claims I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Preface to the NKJV reads:
> 
> "Readers of the Authorised Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: _thee_, _thou_, and _ye_ are replaced by the simple _you_, while _your_ and _yours_ are substituted for _thy_ and _thine_ as applicable. _Thee_, _thou_, _thy_ and _thine_ were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons. These pronouns are no longer part of our language."
> 
> Comments Mr. MacGregor (in his "obscure" book, which isn't obscure as I'm holding it in my hand right now and it's easily obtained): "I accept that some brethren may argue that the purpose of the NKJV was to bring the language up to date. I also understand that some may have regarded it as a failure on the part of the NKJV translators if they had not used modern speech. Such brethren may argue that the use of _thee_ and _thou_ is purely a matter of individual preference. This however, brings us back to the issue of placing ease of reading above accuracy. While the above pronouns may not be in everyday use now, they do serve the useful function of showing the reader whether the subject is singular or plural." Referenced is a quote by Dr. Oswald T. Allis: "The important fact is this. The usage of the AV is no ordinary usage of the early 17th Century [language]: it is Biblical usage based on the style of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures... It is undeniable that where the Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the singular, and where they use plural it uses plural... the AV reproduces the style of the text with fidelity."
> 
> Alan J. MacGregor, _Three Modern Versions_, The Bible League, 2004, p.63 (HB)
> 
> Discarding the older pronouns has also undoubtedly contributed to their falling out of use in prayer as well, with "you" being used increasingly frequently nowadays to address God rather than "thee" or "thou" &c.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last comment illustrates precisely the problem with continuing to use an old translation as language moves on. Presumably, for you "thee" and "thou" convey a proper sense of formality in coming to the Great King in prayer, or something to that effect. I respect that motive, but of course in old English "thee" and "thou" were simply ordinary regular terms to address an individual. The Lord of the Manor would have addressed the humblest peasant as "Thee" and "Thou". Even more pertinently, there is no special formal "you" in either Greek or Hebrew by which to address God, in the way that Spanish and German use a more formal plural for strangers or those in authority. So there as absolutely no Biblical reason to address God as "Thee" and "Thou" rather than "You". I doubt anyone is ever in any doubt when they are praying as to whether God is singular or plural.
> 
> In addition, we may lament the imprecision that modern English has over singular and plural you, but we seem unaffected by the equally significant fact that in Greek and Hebrew we can distinguish the gender of a pronoun as well as its number. So in Greek or Hebrew we can say "You (masculine)" differently from "You (feminine);" this is equally significant in Biblical texts, but for some reason God in his wisdom chose to give us a language that doesn't make those distinctions. Perhaps we should be content with the plethora of excellent translations that we have, and be thankful for preachers who read Greek and Hebrew and can make things clear that our translations can't.Having been personally involved in English Bible translation and revision projects, I can only say the process is a lot harder than it looks. Please pray for those who have such monumental responsibilities.
Click to expand...


Iain,

In this context you've nailed it regarding the need to keep translation(s) somewhat current. On the other hand, I've heard people call for an update to the NKJV because of the changes in English since the early 80s. I find that rather silly (and realize the only significant change is the Egalitarian influence on the English language—no more male oriented words as inclusives).

I believe there is wisdom in both retaining the historic English Bible (due to where modern scholarship continues to head) AND using a good modern version as well.


----------



## MW

iainduguid said:


> The last comment illustrates precisely the problem with continuing to use an old translation as language moves on.



That "last comment" was only added as an extra consideration at the end of the post; it should not be treated as if this was the sole or central point being made. The use of singular-plural distinctions in translation and the use of thou and thee in prayer are related in some ways but ultimately two different issues.


----------



## jeclark71

Great conversation here and you see the passion brought out in James White on the issue. Even if he is to (borrow a term) snarky. One brother who has helped me with this very issue is a brother Robert Paul Weiland here on the board and has some very well done video's on you tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNArjGjsw9Q.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Iain: "Perhaps we should be content with the plethora of excellent translations that we have, and be thankful for preachers who read Greek and Hebrew and can make things clear that our translations can't."

Robert: "I believe there is wisdom in both retaining the historic English Bible (due to where modern scholarship continues to head) AND using a good modern version as well."​ 
While fluent in neither Hebrew nor Greek, I have ample lexical tools—and word studies by those who are—to both understand, preach, and teach the word of our God, His Spirit enabling me.

I do put to good use the “plethora of excellent translations we have”, yet my _gold standard_ in textual matters are the texts of my Reformation forebears, which were “by God, [through] his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8). 

I realize that other translations of these texts are possible (including translations of slightly differing texts), though I _trust_ the reliable AV’s translation whereas I don’t have that _level_ of trust in more modern translators’ efforts, though they have value—which I can gladly testify to, as, for example, Iain’s, _Ezekiel: The NIV Application Commentary_, which I love, and has been a help to me. (If I get some spare money, Iain, and spare time, I'll look to get your newer P&R commentary on Daniel as well, as that's an important book to me.)


----------

