# KJV vs. NKJV



## Josh Williamson

Help me understand. For those who believe that the manuscripts that underly the KJV / AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV? 

I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one? 

Thanks in advance. 

Josh


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.


----------



## JimmyH

Here is an interesting, to me, account of the genesis of the TR ..... from which all the fuss is about ... For what it's worth, I like the NKJV and read it as much, but not more, than the AV.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think anyone concerned with this AV superiority debate should read David Norton's history of the KJV and the 1611 "Translators To The Reader", for a better perspective.


----------



## Peairtach

> I think anyone concerned with this AV superiority debate should read David Norton's history of the KJV and the 1611 "Translators To The Reader", for a better perspective.



I don't know why the Translators' Preface isn't published with every KJV or indeed any KJV ? It's much more important than the Epistle Dedicatory.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

Bill The Baptist said:


> Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.



Is this an objection KJV-only folks would raise? My understanding is most of them are Baptists.


----------



## PaulMc

Josh Williamson said:


> I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?



One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Josh,

I for one much appreciate the marginal notes of the NKJV – it is the first go-to resource I have to see what and from whence the variant readings are in the other versions – they are very helpful. One could google for sites which find fault in the NKJV to see criticisms. It is a far better Bible than many others in my view, as it represents the Byzantine text. Still and all, for accuracy I stand by the AV.


----------



## CJW

PaulMc said:


> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.
Click to expand...


This would be my main reason for using the AV over the NKJV.


----------



## Dearly Bought

I would recommend the following pamphlets freely available online from the Trinitarian Bible Society. Mr. Hembd's work is the most comprehensive and quite helpful in my opinion.

The NKJV: A Critique by Malcolm Watts
Examination of the NKJV by Albert Hembd (Part 1, Part 2)
The NKJV and the Song of Solomon by G. Hamstra
What Today's Christian Needs to Know About the NKJV


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think most of us agree that the AV is a wonderful version of the Bible that will likely never be surpassed in terms of accuracy, beauty, and scholarship. That being said, we must make allowance for the fact that language has changed. Those of us who grew up on the KJV have no problem with it, but the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them. I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people and there is no acceptable modern equivalent, unless we employ such colloquialisms as "yall" or "you guys." The truth is that there is no good reason to reject the NKJV. It is an excellent translation from the best texts. Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Bill The Baptist said:


> ...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.


I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.



Bill The Baptist said:


> I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people


I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.



Bill The Baptist said:


> Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.


Actually, this would be quotation of a _translation in another language_. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.


----------



## One Little Nail

Bill The Baptist said:


> I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.



hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.

yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the 
spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
God has had his hand on it Providentially.

I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.

One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows 
the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had 
exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?


----------



## JimmyH

Dearly Bought said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. *I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. * I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand *if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, this would be quotation of a _translation in another language_. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
Click to expand...

Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, _always_ deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.

So "_And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past_" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?

Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.


----------



## Dearly Bought

JimmyH said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. *I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. * I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand *if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, this would be quotation of a _translation in another language_. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, _always_ deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.
> 
> So "_And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past_" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?
> 
> Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

Sir, I do not mean to be combative nor do I hang out with English majors. While I am a student of theology, I am employed full-time in secular work which occupies the majority of my daily life in close proximity to people of many varied backgrounds. I genuinely believe that the majority of the people I encounter would be able to understand what I am saying if I ask, "Who art thou?" They might look at me funny, but I bet they would know what I meant.


----------



## JimmyH

Dearly Bought said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. *I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. * I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand *if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, this would be quotation of a _translation in another language_. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, _always_ deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.
> 
> So "_And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past_" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?
> 
> Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir, I do not mean to be combative nor do I hang out with English majors. While I am a student of theology, I am employed full-time in secular work which occupies the majority of my daily life in close proximity to people of many varied backgrounds. I genuinely believe that the majority of the people I encounter would be able to understand what I am saying if I ask, "Who art thou?" They might look at me funny, but I bet they would know what I meant.
Click to expand...


Forgive me for being combative. These threads get my goat and I allowed that to overcome my discretion.


----------



## Dearly Bought

JimmyH said:


> Forgive me for being combative. These threads get my goat and I allowed that to overcome my discretion.


No ill feelings, brother. May our God bless your Lord's Day worship tomorrow.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

One Little Nail said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
> nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.
> 
> yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
> they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the
> spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
> God has had his hand on it Providentially.
> 
> I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.
> 
> One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
> from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows
> the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
> in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
> to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had
> exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
> RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?
Click to expand...


First of all, I did not say that everyone who prefers the AV is nuts, I was simply pointing out that there are in fact some people who have made the AV an idol, and they are in fact nuts. As for the rest of your post, I cannot begin to address it because for some reason you have a tendency to post unintelligible walls of words, and your latest post is no exception.


----------



## Free Christian

I was a bit disturbed by the Logo used on the NKJV that I saw! I did a search and found the exact same logo used by a rap/metal band called Pod on an album cover. Also the same logo used on a book "The Craft" A witches book of shadows by Dorothy Morrison. It is the same symbol used by many in witch craft and Pagan practices!
I know that the NKJV says it is to represent the Trinity but to use one, exactly the same, that is used by Witches, Pagans and Devil worshippers has me really puzzled!
Now Im not saying its demonic, the NKJV, no way, but the use of it really puzzles me! Anyone else notice it?
One more thing with it. Is God not to be represented by anything, images?
If that is a representation of the Holy Trinity then isn't it breaking that commandment?


----------



## One Little Nail

Bill The Baptist said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
> nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.
> 
> yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
> they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the
> spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
> God has had his hand on it Providentially.
> 
> I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.
> 
> One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
> from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows
> the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
> in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
> to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had
> exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
> RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I did not say that everyone who prefers the AV is nuts, I was simply pointing out that there are in fact some people who have made the AV an idol, and they are in fact nuts. As for the rest of your post, I cannot begin to address it because for some reason you have a tendency to post unintelligible walls of words, and your latest post is no exception.
Click to expand...


why Billy Boy I only posted 4 Paragraphs consisting of 1st Paragraph of 2 lines, 2nd Paragraph of 3 &1/2 lines,
3rd Paragraph of 1 line & 4th Paragraph of 7 shortened lines & used no Archaic words whatsoever.


----------



## One Little Nail

Mr. Bultitude said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an objection KJV-only folks would raise? My understanding is most of them are Baptists.
Click to expand...


aren't most of the Translators Dispensationalist Baptists which would make your above statement even more Ironic.

In Theory this would influence the text as no Translation is Neutral, an example would be 2 Thess 2:7 the he that now restrains is a capitalised "He" inferring that it is The Holy Spirit that restrains the rise of the lawless one(Wicked,KJB). thereby giving support to the Pre-Tribulation Dispensationalism Rapture Theory of the Modified Jesuit Futurism Scheme! 

We should remember that both The Westminster & London Confessions teach The Protestant Historicist 
Doctrine that the Bishop of Rome is that Wicked, Man of Sin or more plainly if you will, Anti-Christ. 

Which brings us to see that The Confessions & Historical Protestant Translations go hand in hand.


----------



## Steve Curtis

JimmyH said:


> Not on the street where I live.


Amen. The assumption that most people can "get" the language of the AV is based on the premise that most people are relatively familiar with basic principles of grammar, have a fairly comprehensive vocabulary, etc. While it is true that most do, it is also true that about 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate (that is, read at below a 5th grade level). For such as these (and the myriad I work with around the world for whom English is a second language), I am grateful that the Word of God has been made more accessible by versions such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc.


----------



## One Little Nail

Free Christian said:


> I was a bit disturbed by the Logo used on the NKJV that I saw! I did a search and found the exact same logo used by a rap/metal band called Pod on an album cover. Also the same logo used on a book "The Craft" A witches book of shadows by Dorothy Morrison. It is the same symbol used by many in witch craft and Pagan practices!
> I know that the NKJV says it is to represent the Trinity but to use one, exactly the same, that is used by Witches, Pagans and Devil worshippers has me really puzzled!
> Now Im not saying its demonic, the NKJV, no way, but the use of it really puzzles me! Anyone else notice it?
> One more thing with it. Is God not to be represented by anything, images?
> If that is a representation of the Holy Trinity then isn't it breaking that commandment?



Sure is brother, Acts 17:29 we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold,
or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


----------



## Dearly Bought

kainos01 said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the street where I live.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen. The assumption that most people can "get" the language of the AV is based on the premise that most people are relatively familiar with basic principles of grammar, have a fairly comprehensive vocabulary, etc. While it is true that most do, it is also true that about 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate (that is, read at below a 5th grade level). For such as these (and the myriad I work with around the world for whom English is a second language), I am grateful that the Word of God has been made more accessible by versions such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc.
Click to expand...

I would point out that grade-level charts for Bible translations pretty universally rank the ESV and NASB at a high school reading level and the NKJV at least somewhere in middle school (generally high school as well). If you're trying to argue against a Bible translation based on illiteracy statistics, it would appear that you'll have to also exclude the very versions which you have referenced.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Dearly Bought said:


> I would point out that grade-level charts for Bible translations pretty universally rank the ESV and NASB at a high school reading level and the NKJV at least somewhere in middle school (generally high school as well). If you're trying to argue against a Bible translation based on illiteracy statistics, it would appear that you'll have to also exclude the very versions which you have referenced.



That may well be the case (I haven't seen such charts, but don't challenge your statement); still, whatever the "grade-level" one would assign to those translations would assuredly be lower than that assigned to the AV. It may well be a "reach" for someone with a 5th grade reading level to grasp the language of, say, the NKJV, but it would be a greater leap to grasp the language of the AV. At any rate, I am less inclined to consider these things theoretically (though, admittedly, I first introduced the illiteracy statistics); I speak, first and foremost, from a practical standpoint: on numerous occasions, I have had folks (in the USA and elsewhere) tell me that they found other translations to be more easily understood than the AV. That is a point of fact, as attested in many, many places on the globe, including America.

As is typical of these endless discussions, however, I doubt that anyone's mind will be changed. Thus, I bow out, noting that I, for one, rejoice in the several theologically-faithful translations available to the English-speaking world (and, yes, I believe that there are a number which are, in fact, faithful _theologically_). As others have said in other threads, I believe that the best version is the one that people actually read, and it has been my experience that more people are able (and willing) to read the Bible in language that better reflects the modern vernacular. I have witnessed the Lord convert many souls through the use of these other versions. If that is in spite of them, I cannot honestly say. Nonetheless, my conscious is clear using them and so, unless and until that changes, I shall continue to do so.


----------



## Romans922

kainos01 said:


> Thus, I bow out, noting that I, for one, rejoice in the several theologically-faithful translations available to the English-speaking world (and, yes, I believe that there are a number which are, in fact, faithful theologically).



Read this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5352045/HasGodIndeedSaid.pdf


----------



## Steve Curtis

Thanks, but I do not feel compelled to pursue this further, so, again,


kainos01 said:


> I bow out


----------



## Romans922

I never said you had to respond on here, I just encouraged you to read it...


----------



## Edward

Free Christian said:


> I was a bit disturbed by the Logo used on the NKJV that I saw!



What are you talking about? Mine has a logo based on the burning bush. Are you suggesting that Satan, not God, spoke from the burning bush?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

One Little Nail said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally love the NKJV, however most of the KJV nuts reject it. The NT is based on the same text as the KJV, albeit with copious footnotes and an occasional correction. The OT is not based on the same texts as the KJV, and that could be part of the objection. Other than that, the main objection would be that the NKJV, like all other modern versions, was not produced under any ecclesiastical authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello Bill, it's not helpful to the conversation if you refer to people who hold to The King James Bible (not Version) as
> nuts,should I refer to you & others who like the NKJV as fruity, would you not be miffed,upset or outraged.
> 
> yes there are people who hold to the KJB who are extreme like Riplinger & Ruckman who hold erronous views but
> they don't represent the whole broad spectrum of people who use the KJB, they are on the extreme right of the
> spectrum holding to things like that KJB Inspiration, while others use it cause of its accuracy,Texts or the Fact that
> God has had his hand on it Providentially.
> 
> I use the KJB & am abit nutty but Im not nutty because I use the KJB.
> 
> One of the problems with the NKJV is like youv'e said its departure in the Old Testament
> from the Masoretic Text, also in the New I believe it departs from TR Readings & follows
> the Majority Text readings which shows a level of Dishonesty from Nelson & all involved
> in the Translation, that if it is not a mere update of Archaic Words then it has NO RIGHT
> to be called a NEW "King James" Bible & also you'll find that as Nelson originally had
> exclusive rights to print the notoriously Liberal Revised Standard Version has slipped in
> RSV readings into the Translation of the NKJV, should I say Jesuitically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I did not say that everyone who prefers the AV is nuts, I was simply pointing out that there are in fact some people who have made the AV an idol, and they are in fact nuts. As for the rest of your post, I cannot begin to address it because for some reason you have a tendency to post unintelligible walls of words, and your latest post is no exception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why Billy Boy I only posted 4 Paragraphs consisting of 1st Paragraph of 2 lines, 2nd Paragraph of 3 &1/2 lines,
> 3rd Paragraph of 1 line & 4th Paragraph of 7 shortened lines & used no Archaic words whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Grammar and style aside, your assertion that it is improper to follow the Majority text rather than the TR is where I would differ from most of those who prefer the AV. I believe that the Byzantine text type is superior to the Alexandrian text type, and I also believe that the Byzantine text type is best represented by the Majority text, and not the TR. I personally would like to see a modern translation based on the MT, which was what the HCSB was originally supposed to be. Those who would hold to a TR reading despite thousands of texts from the same family that disagree are in my mind no better than those who hold to the readings from a few Alexandrian texts over and against the vast majority of textual evidence.


----------



## ZackF

Edward said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a bit disturbed by the Logo used on the NKJV that I saw!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? Mine has a logo based on the burning bush. Are you suggesting that Satan, not God, spoke from the burning bush?
Click to expand...



He may be thinking the BB is a 2nd Commandment violation. It cross my mind too but I thought I was just crazy. Anyway, I am at home sick instead of worshipping with the saints so my mind is wandering in between coughing fits.


----------



## JimmyH

Bill The Baptist said:


> Those who would hold to a TR reading despite thousands of texts from the same family that disagree are in my mind no better than those who hold to the readings from a few Alexandrian texts over and against the vast majority of textual evidence.


This article by Daniel Wallace is a must read ;

https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical


----------



## Edward

KS_Presby said:


> He may be thinking the BB is a 2nd Commandment violation.



Internet digging turned up the witch's book that he referenced. He's talking about the Triquetra - a Celto-Germanic symbol for the Trinity. It's also apparently used by the Reds in Scotland. Scottish Republican Socialist Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## ZackF

Edward said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be thinking the BB is a 2nd Commandment violation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internet digging turned up the witch's book that he referenced. He's talking about the Triquetra - a Celto-Germanic symbol for the Trinity. It's also apparently used by the Reds in Scotland. Scottish Republican Socialist Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Click to expand...



Thanks for this information Edward. I've always wondered why so much of contemporary Scottish independence activism was so hard leftist. Without much research I've passively supported SI based on my own decentralist/libertarian perspectives but couldn't stand the politics of some of the main figures. Now I know why.


----------



## MW

First, for what does one want to use the version? If it is simply a matter of studying the Bible and making use of available tools then any person is free to consult any resource that is available. As far as I know there is no law proscribing the use of any book. Further, there is no reformed church of which I am aware which proscribes the examining of a version of the Bible under pain of discipline. The subject must be kept in this perspective. Anything that is said in favour of one version over another is a matter of recommendation based on the merits of the translation. There are no penal consequences, civil or ecclesiastical, which accompany the recommendation.

Secondly, the church must use a translation in some way, shape, or form. She recommends the Bible to others for their edification and salvation looking to Christ as the Great Prophet to teach His people by His word and Spirit. The reformed minister authoritatively reads from a specific translation from the pulpit and prefaces his reading, implicitly or explicitly, with, Hear the word of the Lord. He also preaches the Word using a specific translation. Usually the church provides pew Bibles for congregants. Evangelistic work often involves supplying Bibles to people who do not have them. All of this entails a wise and discriminating choice of one translation over another on the part of the church and ministry. By the very act of choosing one version over another "superiority" and "preference" are being vested in the translation so far as the authoritative ministry of the church is concerned. It may be that some churches have not consciously thought about it in these terms, but they are nonetheless the inevitable factors involved when an individual's choice must be shut up to the use of one thing over many.

Thirdly, given the fact that a choice must be made, it is in the interests of a confessional church to make her choice based on confessional considerations. Any translation which counteracts the objective of giving "the word of God" to the people in their own written language is not agreeable to the underlying commitment of reformed churches. Further, "the word of God" is more than mere words. It contains the rule of faith and life. The reformed church and ministry has searched the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that what the church confesses is nothing other than what is taught in holy Scripture. If Scripture taught anything to the contrary the church would be bound to repent of her error, repudiate her confession, and issue a new confession to the world; and that new confession would then be adopted on the ground that it is the very truth taught in holy Scripture. This is inevitably the case because the church is built on the truth which Scripture reveals. The true confession of Jesus Christ is the church's only foundation and the true confession of Jesus Christ is infallibly revealed only in the Scripture of truth. Any translation which undermines or overturns the fundamental commitment of the reformed church to the confession of faith only serves to weaken the distinctive nature and function of that church as the pillar and ground of the truth. Likewise, the reformed church recognises the place of ministerial authority and the necessity of using the appointed means in order to come to a proper knowledge of the truths of holy Scripture. Any translation which seeks to take the place of the divinely appointed ministry and means of grace only serves to harm the ministerial authority of the church and to hinder her ability to teach the nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.

Let there be an honest and humble examination of the merits of the different translations. Let the word of God be prized and received in its integrity and authority, let the Westminster Confession be adopted as the confession of the church's faith, let the church and ministry conscientiously undertakes to serve the Lord Christ and to see men embracing the reformed faith, and let the translation be chosen on the basis that it is fully consonant to these great principles. On this basis I believe the Authorised Version is to be preferred over the other translations which are presently available to the English-speaking church. And it is on this basis that it should be recommended to others as the word of God that liveth and abideth for ever.

There are useful articles issued by the Trinitarian Bible Society which show the superior merits of the AV over the NKJV. To summarise, (1) the NKJV falsely claims to be a revision of the KJV. This is blatantly false. It is a new translation based on a different text and incorporating contrary translation principles. It is true that the NKJV departs from the AV less than the modern versions; but it still departs from the AV and gives a contrary meaning in many places. And as it turns out, these departures have proven to be nothing more than the novel speculations of scholars, oftentimes being overturned by more mature consideration. (2) The NKJV fails to distinguish between singular and plural second person pronouns and thus obscures the meaning of the text in literally thousands of places. Knowing the person addressed is basic to understanding the intention of a speaker. This is not a small variation. (3) The NKJV sometimes follows the modern versions in going against the AV to provide doctrinally unsound translations. Undoubtedly a good sense might be put on these deviations where a person is already instructed in the truth, but it is reckless to unnecessarily expose the unlearned to errors. One could multiply examples, but one very significant doctrinal deviation is found in the choice to transliterate rather than translate Sheol and Hades, which leaves the unsuspecting reader with the notion that there are more than two places to which souls go after death. Again, the mischievous theory of doctrinally-neutral translation has made its way into numerous places of the NKJV and resulted in a weakening of the biblical testimony for the doctrines of grace. (4) The additions contained in the headers and footers often lead in a modernist direction. The most notorious example is found in the Song of Solomon, where the reader is directed to interpret the Scripture contrary to the traditional view that this is intended to be an allegory depicting the intimacy of covenant relations between the church and her Shepherd-King.


----------



## JoannaV

One annoying thing about the NKJV (though not a reason to avoid it) is that there are various different editions with varying readings, and these different editions are not readily apparent unlike, for example, the 1984 and 2011 NIV. You may think you are reading the same version as your friend but then discover there are differences. I can't seem to find any information on this, I just know it to be true from experience.  For example, my mother has used the NKJV forever (so an 80s printing I guess) and it differs from the NKJV text on the esword software.


----------



## Free Christian

Hello everyone. Yes I was referring to the use of the Triquetra, not a burning bush! Isnt the use of it using a symbol/image to describe or depict the Godhead unbiblical? 
As I understand, the use of symbols, pictures, images or any such thing to depict or represent God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit is wrong full stop!
Exodus 20 v 4. 
Deuteronomy 5 v 8.
Isaiah 40 v 18 ... To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him? According to the publishers of the NKJV a Triquetra!
Acts 17 v 29 ... Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the GODHEAD is like unto gold, silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
The Bible is clear as a bell on the subject!
The fact that it is used should ring alarm bells in any reformed Christians mind.
Hi Robert from Sydney. Sorry I missed your post and doubled up on Acts 17. A Bible with an image or representation in it cannot be a good thing.
The modern day acceptance of images, symbols and representations has invaded so many churches today that it is a worry.


----------



## Edward

Free Christian said:


> The Bible is clear as a bell on the subject!



You obviously haven't read through some of the threads dealing with that issue.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

JimmyH said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. *I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. * I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand *if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, this would be quotation of a _translation in another language_. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, _always_ deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.
> 
> So "_And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past_" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?
> 
> Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

LOL.  BAM end of argument...


----------



## Dearly Bought

SinnerSavedByChrist said:


> LOL.  BAM end of argument...


Respectfully, I do not find the citation of Ephesians 2:1-3 compelling. I think this extended series of clauses from a Pauline epistle can be rather difficult to understand at first glance in most English translations:

AV


> "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past"



ESV


> "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived"



NKJV


> "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves"



NASB


> "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived"



I see two potential vocabulary issues in the Authorised Version: _quickened_ and _conversation_. Both are glossed in the sidebar of my Westminster Reference Bible from TBS. Beyond that, I've already made my view clear that I think the average English speaker knows what "ye" and "hath" mean.


----------



## Logan

I've been thinking about this quite a bit as I traveled on the plane today and wanted to ask a question, I am not looking to debate, I'm just honestly wondering. I see lots of people saying the KJV is especially important because it makes a distinction between singular and plural pronouns.

It seems important theoretically, but in practice how important or useful is this really?

For example, I was reading large portions of Ezekiel today in the KJV and prophesies are directed against ye, thee, thou, you, etc. and I sat there and asked myself whether I would understand the meaning if "you" were used and I think in every case I did.

I also don't find anybody complaining today about a lack of singular and plural pronouns. No technical or theological writings seem to suffer, and novels don't seem to suffer. I've never heard anyone say they were confused by whether the author they were reading meant a single person or multiple persons.

Is this important to someone studying Greek? I can't claim to be an adept Bible scholar but I've dug in quite a bit off and on and don't ever recall this being important. Am I really missing something or is this something only certain people find helpful?


----------



## Dearly Bought

Logan said:


> I've been thinking about this quite a bit as I traveled on the plane today and wanted to ask a question, I am not looking to debate, I'm just honestly wondering. I see lots of people saying the KJV is especially important because it makes a distinction between singular and plural pronouns.
> 
> It seems important theoretically, but in practice how important or useful is this really?
> 
> For example, I was reading large portions of Ezekiel today in the KJV and prophesies are directed against ye, thee, thou, you, etc. and I sat there and asked myself whether I would understand the meaning if "you" were used and I think in every case I did.
> 
> I also don't find anybody complaining today about a lack of singular and plural pronouns. No technical or theological writings seem to suffer, and novels don't seem to suffer. I've never heard anyone say they were confused by whether the author they were reading meant a single person or multiple persons.
> 
> Is this important to someone studying Greek? I can't claim to be an adept Bible scholar but I've dug in quite a bit off and on and don't ever recall this being important. Am I really missing something or is this something only certain people find helpful?



Take a look at the following passages in the Authorised Version and see if the distinction seems more necessary: Exodus 4:15, Exodus 29:42, 2 Samuel 7:23, Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:31-32, John 3:7, 1 Corinthians 8:9-12, 2 Timothy 4:22, Titus 3:15, Philemon 21-25. For a more in-depth look at these examples and the pronoun issue, check out Archaic or Accurate? published by the Bible League Trust.


----------



## Logan

Thank you for your reply, and sorry to seem thick but I looked at those passages, and then I looked at them in the ESV. I understand the KJV makes a distinction, what I want to know is why some think it is important.

When I read the passages in the ESV I don't think "Man! I wish I knew whether that was a plural or singular you". Does any doctrine rest on this or is it just an interesting point? It doesn't change anything for me. Once again, perhaps I'm being thick.

And when I read the KJV (normally) I don't pay attention to whether it's singular or plural pronouns being used. Am I unique in this? Blissfully ignorant?


----------



## JimmyH

I've been thinking about it too. Here is part 3 of Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek scholar, professor of NT studies, History of The English Bible. https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy

At present I'm convinced that his argument is valid and correct. So I continue to appreciate the KJV for beauty, elegance and a measure of accuracy, but to consider it more accurate than some of the later translations just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I am not knowledgeable enough to refute the professor's claims but I know there are some on here who are and I would be grateful if they would prove to me that Dr Wallace is in error and there are no "problems" with the TR underlying the AV, and with the translation of the AV as it was done by the translators in 1611.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Logan said:


> Thank you for your reply, and sorry to seem thick but I looked at those passages, and then I looked at them in the ESV. I understand the KJV makes a distinction, what I want to know is why some think it is important.
> 
> When I read the passages in the ESV I don't think "Man! I wish I knew whether that was a plural or singular you". Does any doctrine rest on this or is it just an interesting point? It doesn't change anything for me. Once again, perhaps I'm being thick.
> 
> And when I read the KJV (normally) I don't pay attention to whether it's singular or plural pronouns being used. Am I unique in this? Blissfully ignorant?


Take just Exodus 4:15 as an example:

AV


> And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.



ESV


> You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach you both what to do.



NKJV


> Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do.



Who is taught by God? In the NKJV, the lack of any singular/plural distinction makes it appear that God will teach Moses alone. The ESV at least recognizes the plural by translating "you both," although this leaves out any sense of God teaching the nation as a whole which might be implied in the plural. I'm not necessarily arguing that some foundational doctrine such as the Trinity rests upon a singular/plural pronoun distinction. However, I do think that such a distinction is crucial for a right understanding of many passages of Scripture.


----------



## Dearly Bought

JimmyH said:


> I've been thinking about it too. Here is part 3 of Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek scholar, professor of NT studies, History of The English Bible. https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy
> 
> At present I'm convinced that his argument is valid and correct. So I continue to appreciate the KJV for beauty, elegance and a measure of accuracy, but to consider it more accurate than some of the later translations just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
> 
> I am not knowledgeable enough to refute the professor's claims but I know there are some on here who are and I would be grateful if they would prove to me that Dr Wallace is in error and there are no "problems" with the TR underlying the AV, and with the translation of the AV as it was done by the translators in 1611.



Bringing Dr. Wallace's voluminous writings into this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I would just caution you to understand his starting point:


> A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.
> (Inspiration, Preservation, and Textual Criticism)



He adamantly opposes a view of the text of Scripture which begins with the notion of providential preservation as the Westminster Confession teaches.


----------



## Logan

Dearly Bought said:


> Who is taught by God? In the NKJV, the lack of any singular/plural distinction makes it appear that God will teach Moses alone.



I understand that in the KJV one _can_ tell the difference between singular and plural (It's not clear to me in the Hebrew interlinear that this is the case). But it's less clear to me that one _needs_ to. 

I'm glad the ESV made a distinction but even there don't find it "crucial" for a "right understanding". I just fail to see where the Bible reader of today is at a disadvantage.

And let me just say in general that I'm not attacking the KJV, and I don't think anyone on this board is. I enjoy it thoroughly, but I also enjoy other translations. What bothers me is when I'm essentially told I shouldn't enjoy any other translation because (insert reason here). I haven't found any reasons compelling enough, personally. I'm glad others enjoy the KJV enough to use it exclusively and I'm not going to tell them they should use something else.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Dearly Bought said:


> Bringing Dr. Wallace's voluminous writings into this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I would just caution you to understand his starting point:
> 
> 
> 
> A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.
> (Inspiration, Preservation, and Textual Criticism)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He adamantly opposes a view of the text of Scripture which begins with the notion of providential preservation as the Westminster Confession teaches.
Click to expand...


But do you not assume that the providential preservation of which the WCF teaches necessitates your view of the TR and its priority? That is, you deny the possibility that one can believe in providential preservation and yet not TR priority, if I understand you correctly.


----------



## JimmyH

Dearly Bought said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about it too. Here is part 3 of Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek scholar, professor of NT studies, History of The English Bible. https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy
> 
> At present I'm convinced that his argument is valid and correct. So I continue to appreciate the KJV for beauty, elegance and a measure of accuracy, but to consider it more accurate than some of the later translations just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
> 
> I am not knowledgeable enough to refute the professor's claims but I know there are some on here who are and I would be grateful if they would prove to me that Dr Wallace is in error and there are no "problems" with the TR underlying the AV, and with the translation of the AV as it was done by the translators in 1611.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing Dr. Wallace's voluminous writings into this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I would just caution you to understand his starting point:
> 
> 
> 
> A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.
> (Inspiration, Preservation, and Textual Criticism)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He adamantly opposes a view of the text of Scripture which begins with the notion of providential preservation as the Westminster Confession teaches.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I did read his 'starting point' and found his argument very convincing.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Covenant Joel said:


> But do you not assume that the providential preservation of which the WCF teaches necessitates your view of the TR and its priority? That is, you deny the possibility that one can believe in providential preservation and yet not TR priority, if I understand you correctly.



My point above is that Dr. Wallace attacks the notion of providential preservation as a guiding principle altogether. He is not willing to approach textual criticism with guiding theological presuppositions, TR-oriented or not.

I will admit that I believe that the WCF's doctrine of providential preservation is inextricably linked to the Received Text of the New Testament. I don't see this as just an assumption, though. From a simple historical examination of the views of the Westminster Divines, I think the burden of proof would be on a Critical Text advocate to show compatibility with the WCF's teaching on this subject.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Logan said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is taught by God? In the NKJV, the lack of any singular/plural distinction makes it appear that God will teach Moses alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that in the KJV one _can_ tell the difference between singular and plural (It's not clear to me in the Hebrew interlinear that this is the case). But it's less clear to me that one _needs_ to.
> 
> I'm glad the ESV made a distinction but even there don't find it "crucial" for a "right understanding". I just fail to see where the Bible reader of today is at a disadvantage.
> 
> And let me just say in general that I'm not attacking the KJV, and I don't think anyone on this board is. I enjoy it thoroughly, but I also enjoy other translations. What bothers me is when I'm essentially told I shouldn't enjoy any other translation because (insert reason here). I haven't found any reasons compelling enough, personally. I'm glad others enjoy the KJV enough to use it exclusively and I'm not going to tell them they should use something else.
Click to expand...


I believe in verbal plenary inspiration, so I'm not content with knowing the gist of a verse. If there is a "you," I want to know who. If my English translation leads me to mix up the subjects of a Bible verse, it still is problematic to me even if there is no significant doctrine which seems to be affected.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Dearly Bought said:


> My point above is that Dr. Wallace attacks the notion of providential preservation as a guiding principle altogether. He is not willing to approach textual criticism with guiding theological presuppositions, TR-oriented or not.



As you said above, I don't know that we need to parse out his whole articles here (maybe another thread). But it seemed to me (granted, I would need to read it all a bit more closely later) that he was suggesting that the TR-priority preservation doctrine could not be assumed a priori. Would he reject that we can believe that God has preserved his word in the collective witness of the existing manuscripts? 



> I will admit that I believe that the WCF's doctrine of providential preservation is inextricably linked to the Received Text of the New Testament. I don't see this as just an assumption, though. From a simple historical examination of the views of the Westminster Divines, I think the burden of proof would be on a Critical Text advocate to show compatibility with the WCF's teaching on this subject.



Perhaps another thread would be interesting on this subject. Though to some extent, surely there would be some anachronism there. My concern is that if you understand the words of the WCF in that way you seem to be doing, you would have a hard time even applying them to the TR. I.e., "kept pure in all ages" would render the TR itself void given some of the errors in it (e.g., lack of any manuscript evidence for a few readings).


----------



## MW

On the singular/plural distinction, the Gospel of John would be the best place to demonstrate its necessity. Nicodemus was told, YE must be born again. The modern born-again Christian phenomenon is built on the misunderstanding that the individual was the referent. The woman of Samaria said to Jesus, YE say... In modern versions it reads, YOU say, and a reader assumes the referent is Jesus, which would be an error. When Jesus speaks to the disciples he repeatedly addresses one but makes reference to all. This also appears significantly in the other Gospels. The Epistles also include numerous places where the plural is essential to the proper understanding of the letter. In cases where the Epistle is addressed to one person, as in Philemon and 2 and 3 John, a reader who is unaware of a distinction of the pronoun is left entirely in the dark as to the corporate relevance of these letters.

Concerning the views of Daniel Wallace, the rejection of a presuppositional approach to the Scriptures leaves one without any basis for believing the Scriptures are the word of God, that the canon of Scripture is correct, that the revelation of Scripture is infallible, or that one word of the Scriptures has been preserved. The evidential approach requires men to leave off faith in the word of God until it is first proven to be the word of God, but the reality is that it cannot be proven to be the word of God without faith, Hebrews 11:1, 3. Such an approach robs Christians of all certainty and comfort.


----------



## KMK

Luke 22:31,32

KJV



> And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.



NKJV



> And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.


----------



## Covenant Joel

armourbearer said:


> Concerning the views of Daniel Wallace, the rejection of a presuppositional approach to the Scriptures leaves one without any basis for believing the Scriptures are the word of God, that the canon of Scripture is correct, that the revelation of Scripture is infallible, or that one word of the Scriptures has been preserved. The evidential approach requires men to leave off faith in the word of God until it is first proven to be the word of God, but the reality is that it cannot be proven to be the word of God without faith, Hebrews 11:1, 3. Such an approach robs Christians of all certainty and comfort.



So you are saying that you must simply presuppose that the TR is therefore the Word of God (in all its readings) and operate on the basis of that presupposition? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just wanting to understand precisely what you are saying here.


----------



## Somerset

JimmyH said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. *I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. * I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand *if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, this would be quotation of a _translation in another language_. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, _always_ deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.
> 
> So "_And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past_" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?
> 
> Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


The reading age of the AV is about the same as the NIV. It just needs a little effort to start with and surely the Bible is worth a little effort. My mother in law left school at 13 and coped with the AV. I think the look of the text scares people.
Ken
A AV nut and proud of it!


----------



## JimmyH

Having perused my copy of "The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes", section 1.8, on the authority of the Scriptures. I agree that the original autographs are inerrant, but they are no longer known to exist. It is instructive that the author of this celebrated tome, G.I. Williamson chose the NKJV for Scripture proofs throughout the book. I have the greatest respect and admiration for Reverend Winzer and read his posts to my profit. I don't pretend to come near to his education nor his vast knowledge of the Confessions or the Holy Scriptures, but I have to respectfully disagree that relying on modern translations somehow denies the infallibility of Scripture. Nor, as I read it, do I perceive that I am in disagreement with the Confessions in holding this view. Had the Westminster Divines had access to the manuscripts available today, and knew of the origin and genesis of it, would they have chosen the TR ? 

This from the OPC website Q and A (OPC and Bible Translations)


----------



## KMK

JimmyH said:


> Had the Westminster Divines had access to the manuscripts available today, and knew of the origin and genesis of it, would they have chosen the TR ?


----------



## MW

Covenant Joel said:


> So you are saying that you must simply presuppose that the TR is therefore the Word of God (in all its readings) and operate on the basis of that presupposition? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just wanting to understand precisely what you are saying here.



Where did I mention the TR? This thread has been concerned with translation. If the presuppositional approach resulted in a text other than the TR, the confessional principles of translation would still be the same. Were a text like that of Westcott and Hort the true text, it would likely lead to the adoption of a translation like the Revised Version, which seeks to convey the original as accurately as possible; although that translation came to be criticised as being too wooden and unfeeling. The two issues of text and translation are separate, and must be treated as such.

Diverting to the question of the text, there is one main difference between the presuppositional and evidential approaches, and this difference has a strong influence on the outcome. A presuppositional approach begins with the conviction that the word of God is in possession while the evidential approach begins with the conviction that the word of God must yet be found. The presuppositional approach, then, will naturally incline towards a text which is already established and accepted as self-attesting, whereas the evidential approach will naturally incline towards a text which requires the accumulation of evidence and a process of reasoning to prove it. The "approach" is fundamental to the "findings," and already inclines one way or another before any variant reading comes to be handled.


----------



## Logan

Dearly Bought said:


> I believe in verbal plenary inspiration, so I'm not content with knowing the gist of a verse. If there is a "you," I want to know who. If my English translation leads me to mix up the subjects of a Bible verse, it still is problematic to me even if there is no significant doctrine which seems to be affected.



As do I, but no translation can perfectly convey all the nuances of the original language. For example, I don't yet see any complaints against the KJV for not distinguishing between all the shades of "love" or reproducing all the tenses. So the criticism against modern translations for not distinguishing between singular and plural pronouns _seems_ selective. If one is really concerned about it, would they consider using a Hebrew/Greek interlinear? Yet no one (that I know of) advocates that. And why must archaic language be the vehicle? One could come up with a convention where an underlined "you" was plural, if it really is that important.

I'm just concerned that the KJV becomes the reed by which everything is measured. Whatever the supposed reason, the impression I get from its advocates is that all other versions fail principally because they are, by definition, not the KJV.

I agree with Rev. Winzer that we should be seeking the best translation, but "best" will be necessarily subjective. If your conscience leads you to believe that the KJV is the best, by all means use it. I have not found that to be the case myself, and I grew up with the KJV. I find that when I read a chapter in the KJV and then read it again in the ESV, I glean more than if I do it the other way. Personally, I do not find the KJV to be the best. I have studied this carefully and my conscience is clear. I'm glad I have it and read from it regularly, and I'm glad others find it excellent. But I will not make my preference the standard for everyone, regardless of my conviction.

I'd like to share a few quotes I read today.


> "The translation of the _seventy_ dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God."



The translation was not the best, yet it was still the very word of God.

And again:


> Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as, for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by _purpose_ never to call it_ intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one, where _thinking,_ never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where _joy_, never _gladness_, etc.; thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiousity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use on precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?



It seems to me that the exact word would be important, even if it seems that meaning is similar. I appreciate when the ESV and NASB try to reproduce the same word in every instance so the reader knows it is the same underlying Greek or Hebrew word. In this case I find the KJV less helpful, that doesn't mean I dismiss it as a translation though.



> Also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Propuce, Pashe, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.



Though clearly the Papists were trying to obfuscate the Scriptures, this makes it very clear that they wanted even the very least to be able to understand it and be clear to all. If it isn't obvious, the above quotations are from the Translator's preface in the KJV.


----------



## Logan

Dearly Bought said:


> I will admit that I believe that the WCF's doctrine of providential preservation is inextricably linked to the Received Text of the New Testament. I don't see this as just an assumption, though. From a simple historical examination of the views of the Westminster Divines, I think the burden of proof would be on a Critical Text advocate to show compatibility with the WCF's teaching on this subject.



I was doing a bit of reading today and I want to question this. Perhaps Chris Coldwell can comment since he's looked through notes from the Westminster Divines but my impression from reading the Reformers and Puritans is that they had a high view of the autographs, but this idea of "providential preservation" of the specific text of the _Textus Receptus_ was foreign to them. I consider myself confessional and I believe in the providential preservation of the Scripture, but not in the mechanical way you seem to advocate. Actually, I think the evidence leans against that.

Instance Calvin, when talking of 1 John 5:7 he says "But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert anything on the subject." and again in the first part of John 8 "It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches." And yet agrees that there is no problem retaining it. Nowhere does he refer to providential preservation of a specific line of texts in order to make a case for it.

Fast forward to Matthew Henry, coming after the Puritans, who defends the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 passage on various grounds (though he understands there is question about it) but none of the reasons include God's preserving his word miraculously through Erasmus or the English Bible. 

They were aware of textual variants and discussed them. Never that I know of did they dismiss them simply because God had preserved his word in the texts underlying the King James Bible.

See, when Calvin and Henry, and I believe the Puritans read "jot or tittle" not passing away, they understood it as saying it was all important and all would be fulfilled. Calvin says "I answer, the expression shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. "There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish."

So when the confession says "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" and cites Matthew 5:18, I find no problems. The framers were aware of textual issues, I believe some of them even owned manuscripts which were NOT _Textus Receptus_. Beza engaged in textual criticism with texts that were not of the Byzantine family and readings from these were included in the KJV. The Greek underlying the KJV is unique to English-speaking nations, albeit it only differs from earlier versions in a few hundred places. 

But all that to say, I think the framers knew that God had preserved his word (I believe this too) but as far as I know, they didn't tie it to one specific line of texts, nor believed it was word-by-word preservation (thus they claim that only the autographs were inspired). It is pure in that no error has been introduced into our Bibles, but the exact wording I don't see any dogmatism over.

And at the very least, I would be careful about thinking of someone as non-confessional just because they don't hold to the KJV or _Textus Receptus._


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> For example, I don't yet see any complaints against the KJV for not distinguishing between all the shades of "love" or reproducing all the tenses.



The AV includes words like charity, benevolence, kindness, etc. It also uses tense differentiation and many other distinguishing features like will/shall, unto/to, etc., but these qualities are rejected by those who believe the "lingo" (not the language) of the reader justifies a translation qualitatively different from the original. Psalm 22:26-28 shows to whom the kingdom of Christ will be satisfying. Not to those who set God a task, but to those who meekly sit at the feet of Jesus and receive what He is pleased to feed them.



Logan said:


> I'm just concerned that the KJV becomes the reed by which everything is measured. Whatever the supposed reason, the impression I get from its advocates is that all other versions fail principally because they are, by definition, not the KJV.



I can't speak to your impression, but only to your concern. In any other field of labour "the best" sets the standard. That the AV has set a standard is obvious from all the literature on the subject and even from the prefaces to the revised versions which have been made. The translators consciously set out to imitate the AV.



Logan said:


> I agree with Rev. Winzer that we should be seeking the best translation, but "best" will be necessarily subjective.



A confessionally bound individual or organisation is bound to estimate "the best" according to the criteria established in the confession. This is objective, not subjective.



Logan said:


> I'd like to share a few quotes I read today.



Please don't overlook this one: "there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue."


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> A presuppositional approach begins with the conviction that the word of God is in possession while the evidential approach begins with the conviction that the word of God must yet be found.


As a possible objection, someone might argue there are those perceived to be in the "evidential approach" who actually use the other approach. They presuppose we have the word of God in possession.....even in the CT that we currently possess! For we do indeed possess the CT. It would seem that the presupposition needs to be modified to "we are in possession of the word of God and always have been in possession of it"? I'm aware that the Reformers rejected the CT readings though they did not have access to the CT. So perhaps another modification would be to understand the "word of God" as not necessarily attached to the words written on the text types? Or maybe I should just hear your response to such an objection instead of listing possibilities.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> They presuppose we have the word of God in possession.....even in the CT that we currently possess!



If this "CT" is the word of God in possession it has very little realistic substance, as is clear from the critics' own declaration. First, it takes us back to the fourth century. Secondly, it only approximates to what is thought to be the original. Thirdly, it requires conjectural emendation which has no support from any ms.

To clarify, "the word of God" is not a phantom. "God spake." This is an historically realistic fact. "It is written" is an historically realistic fact. When I refer to the word of God in possession I mean something which is actually possessed, can be taken up in the hands, received with faith and love, and laid up in the heart.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> A confessionally bound individual or organisation is bound to estimate "the best" according to the criteria established in the confession. This is objective, not subjective.



Is it your opinion that those who subscribed but continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646 were unconfessional? Or that my elders are breaking their acceptance of the confession when they use the NKJV publicly?

Or is it a matter of conscience?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Going back to the OP for a moment, and Josh’s questions. In post #7 I answered re the NKJV’s margin notes, which I appreciate.

An unfortunate translation / rendering in the NKJV is at Heb 2:16,

AV: For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

NKJV: For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

I won’t go into it save to say that the NKJV (and most other modern versions) depart from the context, which verse 14 shows to be, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same”. And is it true that God does not give aid to angels? I think that is _not_ true. 

As I have said elsewhere, I like the NKJV, though with some reservations.

-----------

But to get to the larger picture that is being discussed *again*, now in the present thread. 

What follows is a brief quote by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, _The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate_, from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’ ”.
Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence… (p 204)​ 
The larger discussion from which this is taken is here.

And this is the issue, as both Rev Winzer and Bryan have brought up. Harvard text critic, E. F. Hills, has put it like this:
Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he _must_ attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (_The King James Version Defended_, page 1)​ 
In my strong desire not to cause unnecessary division in the camp I have focused my attention on the variants, and those numerous issues which arise therefrom, and not on the legitimacy of the different versions, which I grant most all of them.

(The reason I refrain from causing said division is that we shall be having sufficient stress and affliction from our larger cultures and governments in short order, and we need to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” –Philippians 2:3 – so as to have our Lord’s presence among us unquenched).

Some folks don’t like to have the AV (or its Greek _Textus Receptus_ and Hebrew _Masoretic Text_) as the standard; I suppose some would prefer to have no standard at all, and just pick and choose as they see best. I, however, have it as my own standard (coming from a long Reformed tradition of such) and defend – not the _translation_ primarily – but the Greek text used (in our present discussion), and the matter of changed, or more often _omitted_, words and passages.

What I am saying is that the battle is about the variants; whether our Bibles contain all the readings as they were given us originally, or whether a relatively large number of readings are not original.

I know a lot of King James defenders think I “cop out” at this point, but I have a goal *as important* as this textual business, and that is keeping the aforementioned “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” For what profit shall it be to us if we *war and bitterly strive* over our texts and so grieve our Lord’s presence away that we have no strength or heart to endure suffering and bear a godly witness? Thus I grant the legitimacy of other Bibles, but not illicit variant readings.

If one wants to see how I have defended various readings, a good number of them may be found here: Jerusalem Blade's textual posts (a partial compilation).

This may be an interesting and profitable discussion, but let us be aware that it is in His presence we do so, and we should take great care not to disdain others’ Bibles – or persons – but simply seek to know what is genuine and what is not.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This may be an interesting and profitable discussion, but let us be aware that it is in His presence we do so, and we should take great care not to disdain others’ Bibles – or persons – but simply seek to know what is genuine and what is not.



Absolutely Steve, and I appreciate your attitude toward this. As I said above, I respect that others hold to the KJV out of conscience, and I think that is an excellent translation to hold to. But like you I cannot exclude other translations as legitimate, useful, or good. Possibly better in some aspects. But not everyone is like you


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Is it your opinion that those who subscribed but continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646 were unconfessional? Or that my elders are breaking their acceptance of the confession when they use the NKJV publicly?
> 
> Or is it a matter of conscience?



The Confession was not subscribed. At any rate, the AV was the version in public use. When subscription to the Confession was required the AV was still the version in public use.

What the elders of another denomination choose is under the review of their own church. I am told to "judge nothing before the time" with respect to what takes place outside my own sphere of labour. I am simply asserting the whole doctrine of the Confession according to my vows.

A private matter is a matter of private conscience and a public matter is a matter of public conscience.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> If this "CT" is the word of God in possession it has very little realistic substance, as is clear from the critics' own declaration. First, it takes us back to the fourth century. Secondly, it only approximates to what is thought to be the original. Thirdly, it requires conjectural emendation which has no support from any ms.


Thank you. To modify the objection somewhat, not the CT but those extra manuscripts that have been recently discovered are in our possession, so that it is presupposed that the word of God is in our possession through them too. When the objection is framed this way, a problem arises as to what must be done with those many variants that have now been added to the collection of manuscripts and texts in possession. But presupposing the word of God to be found in all the texts in possession, a believing textual criticism can be done taking into account even these texts that have been more recently discovered.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> A confessionally bound individual or organisation is bound to estimate "the best" according to the criteria established in the confession. This is objective, not subjective.





armourbearer said:


> What the elders of another denomination choose is under the review of their own church. I am told to "judge nothing before the time" with respect to what takes place outside my own sphere of labour. I am simply asserting the whole doctrine of the Confession according to my vows.



I am confused as to how these two statements are consistent, is there some nuance I'm missing? Could you please elaborate?





armourbearer said:


> The Confession was not subscribed. At any rate, the AV was the version in public use. When subscription to the Confession was required the AV was still the version in public use.



I am likewise confused as to how this answers the question I asked. I don't know how to phrase it so you will accept it as accurate, but I believe you know what I mean. Weren't there those who continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646? And if they were "confessionally bound", were they being unconfessional by using it?


----------



## Free Christian

Hello Edward. What I have read is the Bible and what It says about images and likenesses. Do you approve of symbols or likenesses or images? A question, not a statement. I read about some debating the cross as a symbol and gathered from it, though I have never approved of or liked images or anything else full stop, that anything in image form that draws our attention to God is wrong. To what shall we liken our God? Any Bible that contains images or symbols and such to represent God or the Godhead has made a mistake in doing so, a big mistake. How many children's illustrated Bibles contain images of Christ? The acceptance of images and likenesses has gained too much widespread acceptance in the Christian world. Do you know why the pagans and occult followers like that Triqueta symbol/image so much? Because to them it represents 3 overlain 6's, 666. Im not saying the symbol used by the NKJV publishers is 666, but it is used by many to represent that very thing. The movie Thor, on his hammer, is that very same symbol/image. To have chosen a symbol that is so popular with occultists which represents to them 3, 6's, 666 is a strange thing to do. In just 5 minutes I was able to find out that it was widely used as such by them. A big publisher didn't?
That those who wrote it thought "hey lets use this symbol to represent the Godhead" has me shaking my head in disbelief. 
Could I ask you just for curiosity sake. Do you think that symbol or any other to represent God is acceptable? Especially on a Bible! And would you use a Bible that has them?


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> I am confused as to how these two statements are consistent, is there some nuance I'm missing? Could you please elaborate?



It is one thing to judge an issue and quite a different thing to judge an office-bearer. An issue merely takes into account all the facts in common knowledge. A person's standing in his denomination depends on a whole range of circumstances which take it beyond the facts of a single issue.



Logan said:


> I am likewise confused as to how this answers the question I asked. I don't know how to phrase it so you will accept it as accurate, but I believe you know what I mean. Weren't there those who continued to use the Geneva Bible after 1646? And if they were "confessionally bound", were they being unconfessional by using it?



Your question assumed historical details which are not factual, so I corrected them before committing myself to an answer. Now you have asked basically the same question.

The AV was the Bible in public use. Other Bibles were obviously used for other things, as they are now, but that is irrelevant. The best allowed translation was the AV.

One thing can be better than other things in its class. I am not sure why this should be such a startling proposition.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> When the objection is framed this way, a problem arises as to what must be done with those many variants that have now been added to the collection of manuscripts and texts in possession.



Who possesses these mss. and texts? I don't.

That word "variant" presupposes the mss. or texts contain something of value before the thing has been evaluated. The presupposition of evidentialism is inclining the process of criticism away from belief that the word of God is in possession and in favour of the assumption that it is yet to be discovered.


----------



## Logan

Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion.



armourbearer said:


> One thing can be better than other things in its class. I am not sure why this should be such a startling proposition.



It's not startling, I just differ that it is objective to say the KJV is the better Bible. There are just too many points on which to decide which is "better". Thus, I differ in saying it is only confessional to use the KJV in this day.



armourbearer said:


> The AV was the Bible in public use. Other Bibles were obviously used for other things, as they are now, but that is irrelevant. The best allowed translation was the AV.



Of course, it didn't help that the Geneva Bible was forbidden to be printed after 1644! (curious, is that where the "best *allowed* translation" statement came from?) Do you happen to have any references for the understanding that the KJV is the "best allowed translation"? Also, do you think confessionally one is tied to the KJV in perpetuity or just in the case where a "better" translation does not happen? I don't think this is your belief but want to make sure I understand.

Edit: As a side note, I found it interesting that FF Bruce cites the Geneva Bible still being in common use for many years in Scotland in particular, one church having the "old version" until 1674. I have done some cursory searches but haven't come up with anyone saying this was unconfessional.

Edit2: Also had forgotten that Cromwell used the Geneva Bible for the Soldier's Pocket Bible in 1643.


----------



## JimmyH

Apropos, AFAIC, to the Geneva Bible being in use, and from what I've read, preferred by many of the Puritans, it is interesting to me that John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, among many others, all endorse the ESV and the latter two publish study Bibles using the ESV as their preferred translation. If I recall correctly they did at one time use the NKJV, and/or the NASB but are now exclusively ESV. 

I've followed threads on this topic in the past, done searches where older threads came up as well. I have observed that the same individuals are those active in threads relating to the AV and/or TR versus everything else. What speaks even more loudly to my 'ear' is the very knowledgeable members of PB who recuse themselves from the debate. That also seems to be consistent in the aforementioned threads.


----------



## Free Christian

Over the years I had diverted away from the KJV. I started with a GNB, then a NIV and finally came to the KJV. But for reasons only that I wanted easier to understand words I put the KJV aside and used a MKJV. I then asked here on this site "was there a new version like the KJV that was faithful to God and doctrine" , or words to that effect. People answered and as they did I looked into these. As well as the one I was using. But the more I searched the more alarmed I became at the blatant dropping of words, verses, butchering of the Lords Prayer and the totally unnecessary changing of words. Along with things in the margins saying "not in some mss", "others omit". To the point at times I had to ask myself "did God really tell us that or not?" "If He did then who gave these people the authority to omit that. And if He did say it then how corrupt is this bible and its translators?" Also I had to ask myself, these should be asked logically by any Christian to one self, "if God did not say these things and this Bible contains it then again how corrupt are they and it?" "How can I follow a Bible that is a mix of Gods Word to me and mans?" "What part is Gods and what parts are mans words?" "Do I have or can I get Gods true Word that has not been corrupted?" After all my searching I was lead back to the KJV. There is no way that God would not have for us a non corrupted version of His Word, no way. To let us have Bibles that are not 100% faithful is inconsistent with Gods very nature.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

JimmyH said:


> I've followed threads on this topic in the past, done searches where older threads came up as well. I have observed that the same individuals are those active in threads relating to the AV and/or TR versus everything else. What speaks even more loudly to my 'ear' is the very knowledgeable members of PB who recuse themselves from the debate. That also seems to be consistent in the aforementioned threads.



If you look up pretty much any subject on this board you will probably find similar trends. If you look up threads discussing Two Kingdom, Theonomy, Covenant Theology, Eschatology, Baptism etc. you will probably see the same members being most active in all of them. This is what is great about boards like this, people have stronger interests in certain areas and have researched it thoroughly therefore you can benefit from people having expertise in different area and can help you gain better understanding in area you haven't had time to study in details. Usually when people refrain from posting it's because they do not have anything new to bring to the discussion, so I'm not sure what was being implied by this comment.


----------



## JM

My children have been raised on the AV. We heard our Pastor preach from it every Lord's Day, used it for devotionals and studies in our home. I would say, because of the language in the AV, my children have a better grasp of English do to their immersion (βαπτίζω) in it. 

That said...we always have a different translation at the table when reading or having our devotionals. We also use smart phones (3 iphones and 2 galaxies) with the ESV. 

Yours in the Lord,

jm


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JM said:


> βαπτίζω



Nice.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Of course, it didn't help that the Geneva Bible was forbidden to be printed after 1644! (curious, is that where the "best *allowed* translation" statement came from?)



It comes from the Westminster Directory for Public Worship.


----------



## JimmyH

*WCF I. 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.

Am I misreading this or would 'modern' English not be considered our "vulgar tongue" , in English speaking countries ? As opposed to Elizabethan English ?


----------



## MW

JimmyH said:


> Am I misreading this or would 'modern' English not be considered our "vulgar tongue" , in English speaking countries ? As opposed to Elizabethan English ?



Elizabethan English is modern English; it is classified as early modern English. You have freely quoted from a 17th century document without any doubt as to the ability of a reader to understand it from a linguistic point of view. You have even included a word that has changed its meaning over time -- vulgar -- without questioning its legitimacy. 
Your own example demonstrates the point that the language of the 17th century is modern English and intelligible to a modern English reader.

For what constitutes the English language, the vulgar language of the English-speaking people, one may consult an English dictionary, and it will be found to include the words of the Authorised Version and their meanings.

The Confession says the translation should be made into the national language, not translated differently to suit each sub-cultural lingo.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it didn't help that the Geneva Bible was forbidden to be printed after 1644! (curious, is that where the "best *allowed* translation" statement came from?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from the Westminster Directory for Public Worship.
Click to expand...


I do know that, ignorant as I may seem. I was wondering if that was one reason "allowed" was put there.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Your own example demonstrates the point that the language of the 17th century is modern English and intelligible to a modern English reader.



No question about that, but with different levels of ease and understanding depending on the individual. I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated. 

You don't hesitate though and that's where I must take my leave.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated.



If the subordinate standard has the ability to outlast the supreme standard on which it is founded something has gone amiss.

The nourishment should be wholesome food, which comes from a right understanding of the word of God, thus placing the priority back on accuracy of translation.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Who possesses these mss. and texts? I don't.
> 
> That word "variant" presupposes the mss. or texts contain something of value before the thing has been evaluated. The presupposition of evidentialism is inclining the process of criticism away from belief that the word of God is in possession and in favour of the assumption that it is yet to be discovered.


Thanks. I'm trying not to drag this out too much, since this thread is technically about translation and not text, but I'm still trying to understand why the presupposition that "we possess the word of God" is sufficient, rather than "we possess and always have possessed the word of God", from the perspective of this particular class of objections I have posted.

I believe the response on the part of the objectors would be: though scholars discovered them, the Church possess them....now anyway. The Church did not always possess them, but value has been placed in them because the Church possesses the word of God, and here are some manuscripts that have the word of God in them. Since the possession of the word of God merely refers to the state affairs in the present rather than the state of affairs at all times, these manuscripts now should be put in the class of texts in which the Church possesses the word of God. And so there is still a presuppositional basis, rather than evidential.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> and here are some manuscripts that have the word of God in them



Once again a pre-judgment is being made before the evidence is examined. Who says these mss. have the word of God in them? This is the problem with the evidentialist approach -- it has presuppositions but its adherents refuse to bring them out into the open.

The problem with an induction is that it only establishes a probability. The high Protestant doctrine of the word of God commences with its self-attesting certainty.

The problem with saying the "church" has mss. which are called the "word of God" but the believer does not have these mss., is that it creates a "word of God" which is not the inheritance of the believer.


----------



## Afterthought

Thanks. The comment concerning induction and certainty brings up yet another side trail, but I'll resist going down that one here.

I think I might be getting it now. Before the new manuscripts were discovered, the church at that present time had to have had the word of God. In order to accept the new manuscripts, the church would have to judge that the word of God was in the new manuscripts too, but in order to do that, the church would have to assume that there are portions of the word of God that can be discovered (and also in case of conflicting readings between the old and the newly manuscripts, that the church did not possess all the word of God beforehand, but I don't think that's what you are getting at here?) or that it can tell that the word of God is in the new manuscripts by induction. Not only does that not establish certainty, but the only way to tell with certainty that the word of God is in the new manuscripts is by comparison with....the word of God the church already has.

But does that history matter for our present, in which the manuscripts are available to the church in our present without having to discover them; that is, could we not just see even these new manuscripts as part of our Providential collection of manuscripts, and then believing we have the word of God, we look into all the Providentially available manuscripts? Indeed, weren't there some manuscripts that went into the TR that were "discovered" from the Greek church? And though the believer might not have these manuscripts, the believer rarely has any manuscripts in the original language and can have the new manuscripts in translations that use them?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> But does that history matter for our present, in which the manuscripts are available to the church in our present without having to discover them; that is, could we not just see even these new manuscripts as part of our Providential collection of manuscripts?



There is general providence and special providence, WCF 5.7. Preservation of Scripture falls under the latter, WCF 1.8. This is evident from the canon of Scripture. General providence has preserved numerous books, canonical and non-canonical, but special providence has preserved canonical books for the church. If perchance one of the books mentioned in Scripture but not a part of the canon were to be found, it would have no claim to canonicity. The text is the matter of which the books are composed, so what applies to the book must apply to the text.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> There is general providence and special providence, WCF 5.7. Preservation of Scripture falls under the latter, WCF 1.8. This is evident from the canon of Scripture. General providence has preserved numerous books, canonical and non-canonical, but special providence has preserved canonical books for the church. If perchance one of the books mentioned in Scripture but not a part of the canon were to be found, it would have no claim to canonicity. The text is the matter of which the books are composed, so what applies to the book must apply to the text.


Ah, I see now. The comparison with the canonical books makes it easier to see. Perhaps I need to study the difference between special and general providence more, but how do the proofs of the WCF show that there is a distinction between special and general providence, and that the preservation of the canonical books/text is under it? 

(Edit: Actually, I think I understand the proofs now. I think the real question is asking for a precise understanding of general and special providence, so as to be able to judge, among other things, whether the church's collection of manuscripts at any particular time actually falls under general providence. It seems that "general providence" would be akin to "the unfolding of events according to natural principles", while "special providence" would be the "the unfolding of events according to God's special care of them, which being a personal goal, is not what would unfold according to natural principles." General providence takes into account everything without mentioning of purpose or end, but special providence takes into account specific things filled with specific purposes and ends.)

I suppose the newer manuscripts could still be used, but only judged to be the word of God insofar as they line up with the word of God the church already had, even as it might if canonical books appeared in some new manuscripts mixed with non-canonical. I suppose that if some horrid disaster occurred such that all of the relevant history of these texts was forgotten, we would be very confused as to what the word of God is. And indeed, since much of the church has accepted the newer manuscripts as the word of God, should the keeping of those manuscripts survive the disaster, much of the church would then conclude that the word of God it had was in those newer manuscripts. I'm not entirely sure how the word of God would be determined then, since on these principles, much of the church would have to accept what it had in those newer manuscripts. Hopefully such never occurs (though it may have somewhat occurred in various periods of history?)!

It seems then that there is no difference between "we possess the word of God" and "we have always possessed it;" the former looks from the perspective of the present when new manuscripts are discovered, while the latter looks at the perspective of history in its entirety.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the subordinate standard has the ability to outlast the supreme standard on which it is founded something has gone amiss.
> 
> The nourishment should be wholesome food, which comes from a right understanding of the word of God, thus placing the priority back on accuracy of translation.
Click to expand...


I agree but the subordinate standard's original language is modern English. It never was in Greek or Hebrew as the supreme standard is. These are two different situations at play not to mention the greater complexity of the latter standard. I find myself getting stumped much more often with the language of the AV than the WCF.


----------



## One Little Nail

KS_Presby said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with our standards being in an outdated firm of English, I hesitate to say the same of something that is the Christian's source of nourishment, to be read daily by the most uneducated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the subordinate standard has the ability to outlast the supreme standard on which it is founded something has gone amiss.
> 
> The nourishment should be wholesome food, which comes from a right understanding of the word of God, thus placing the priority back on accuracy of translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree but the subordinate standard's original language is modern English. It never was in Greek or Hebrew as the supreme standard is. These are two different situations at play not to mention the greater complexity of the latter standard. I find myself getting stumped much more often with the language of the AV than the WCF.
Click to expand...


This goes to show the importance that us KJB Advocates have been trying to make,there was only a
seperation of around 50 years between the production of the 2 mentioned works yet you say the 
language of The KJB has a greater complexity, I take it the latter standard in your comment was 
refering to The KJB, there could not have been so great a change in the English Language in half a
century or so, so what accounts for this? as you say it was from a Greek & Hebrew textual base 
that the Translation was based,does this account for the greater complexity and I would answer yes
as The Translation is written in Bible English & not even the common English of the day. 
thats why it is imperitive to save & hold this translation(KJB) and not dumb it down for the modern palate.
we need to educate ourselves up to it's Standard & not change The Word of God for our own convenience.


----------



## KMK

JimmyH said:


> Am I misreading this or would 'modern' English not be considered our "vulgar tongue" , in English speaking countries ? As opposed to Elizabethan English ?



To the Reformers 'vulgar tongue' basically meant 'not Latin'.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, I’m posting this in reply your questions in your post #60 – pertaining to the historic views of the Church concerning Preservation. Please see attached downloadable paper by Rev Paul Ferguson on the topic (he’d posted this here under the user name _ThomasCartwright_ in 2009, but the attachment from then does not work now).


----------



## One Little Nail

while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV , there was some discussion in relation to the 
underlying manuscript with the KJB being based on the T.R. Textual family & the NKJV on
some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
measure, is it possible for someone to provide links to website or articles which go into
more details into the differences of the two manuscripts,even the differences of the the two
translations, that would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Logan

Thanks Steve, I've gone through most of the paper now (I found a copy online since yours is still pending) and unfortunately find he cherry-picks a lot of quotations that seem to prove his point, and ignores others. He has a clear bias, and only presents quotations that seem to further it. Nevertheless, I found some usefulness so thank you.



> I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
> Eph 4:1--3



I will be honest and say I have not found this discussion to be profitable or convincing. Have we each acted with humility? If I have have acted without humility, gentleness, patience, and bearing with one any of you in love then I ask forgiveness.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Joseph,

If in my post #7 I gave the impression that the NKJV NT derived from "some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text" I'm sorry. Their NT does derive from the TR; I just take exception to some translation.

Logan, thanks for your remarks. I haven't noticed any "lack of humility" in this particular thread. I tend not to contribute much to such textual discussions anymore as most of the content has already been discussed here, though newcomers don’t have the advantage of knowing this, plus they occasionally bring up new ideas.

The subject still remains of profound interest to me, however, and I like to stay abreast of new developments in the field. Yet I have other projects I am devoting my time to currently – I have already spent _years_ in the textual stuff.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

One Little Nail said:


> the NKJV on
> some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
> measure,



This is patently false. The NKJV NT is translated from the TR and any variations are simply footnoted. Many words are translated differently in the NKJV than in the KJV, but this has nothing to do with the underlying text.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV , there was some discussion in relation to the
> underlying manuscript with the KJB being based on the T.R. Textual family & the NKJV on
> some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
> measure



The textual variations are in the Old Testament, as the preface acknowledges.

In the New Testament the Textus Receptus is claimed as the underlying text. Variations from the TR are confined to notes. The use of the notes is not a problem per se. The problem is that the notes reflect a very wide range of variants which are inconsistent with the adoption of the TR. When read in light of the preface's statement about the fluctuating nature of textual criticism, the notes suggest that the TR readings are inconclusive. The preface also undermines the adoption of the TR when it states "The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition."

Overall the posture of the translators towards the text of Scripture was one of uncertainty, which fails to move and induce people to an high and reverent esteem of the Scriptures.


----------



## MW

armourbearer said:


> Variations from the TR are confined to notes.



I should qualify that this statement is based on what is claimed in the preface. There are alleged examples of the NKJV departing from the TR, and it appears to me that some of them at least have followed another text. The issue is complicated by the fact that the translators have not specifically clarified the "TR" they followed, and some translation choices may have only unintentionally followed a divergent text due to borrowing from modern versions.


----------



## Edward

One Little Nail said:


> while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV



Is the switch from KJV to KJB a new technique by KJO folks to try to impart an aura of greater legitimacy to the KJV? I don't think I've noticed that usage before.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

No one on the PB is KJV-O so that doesn't really apply here.


----------



## One Little Nail

Bill The Baptist said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> the NKJV on
> some sort of eclectic T.R./Majority Text with some critical Text readings thrown in for good
> measure,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is patently false. The NKJV NT is translated from the TR and any variations are simply footnoted. Many words are translated differently in the NKJV than in the KJV, but this has nothing to do with the underlying text.
Click to expand...


hello bill I believe that I read somewhere that The NKJV did in fact take some Majority Text readings into the
text but i don't know were, know that their choice of Old Testament text was different, i did mention in a 
earlier post that there were RSV readings brought into the Translation, Matthew states that this was unintentional
in Post 99, but Thomas Nelson did exclusive rights to the RSV for the first 10 years so methinks it was a deliberate
addition.


----------



## One Little Nail

Edward said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> while were still on the subject of KJB vs NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the switch from KJV to KJB a new technique by KJO folks to try to impart an aura of greater legitimacy to the KJV? I don't think I've noticed that usage before.
Click to expand...


Hahaha what are you implying that it is some sort psychological ploy on my part


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hey Logan,

I appreciate your irenic – if dogged – attitude.

I was wondering, what _are_ your basic objections to the TR / AV primacy view? When I say “primacy” I mean that they represent a standard of excellence due to the accuracy of the Greek mss. Are there any other standards one can measure textual editions by? I think it has been shown by Maurice Robinson, Wilbur Pickering (chapter 5, The History of the Text, is excellent), and Jakob Van Bruggen (Bruggen’s book seems to no longer be available online, or very hard to find – and the author unlocatable – so I uploaded it to Scribd) etc, that the foundations of the Critical Text based on Westcott-Hort and Vaticanus / Sinaiticus are no longer sustainable. Apart from the Byzantine / Majority Text view the world of NT textual criticism is in chaotic disarray (see Bruggen especially for this, and also here).

I make clear that although I build on the Byz stance, I go beyond them – if you have considered my views.

Without equivocation my own view is presuppositional. Our entire Christian walk, faith, and understanding is built on God’s word. The same applies to our understanding of His word – it is self-attesting, it needs not man’s testimony, although God has provided that we have evidences to support, in the main, what we take by faith.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I would certainly agree with Steve and Rev. Winzer and others that, all things considered, the KJV is the best available version in English. I would also agree that the vast majority of people could understand the language of the KJV if the time was taken to teach them. The question then becomes, do we have the time to teach them and should we have to teach them? Unfortunately, people today simply have very short attention spans and they will not likely be willing to have to "learn" how to read a Bible before they "learn" what is in the Bible. We can lament this fact all day long, but in the end what is at stake is the gospel. I agree that the KJV is the best available version, but in light of these other factors, I also believe there are several acceptable alternatives. I believe the NKJV to the best among these, and so that is the version I use. It is fine to believe and argue that the KJV is best, but please don't slander and impugn the reputation of a fine man like the late Dr. Arthur Farstad by insinuating that the translators of the NKJV secretly inserted CT readings into the text and then lied about it in the preface. Let's be better than this.


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hey Logan,
> 
> I appreciate your irenic – if dogged – attitude.
> 
> I was wondering, what _are_ your basic objections to the TR / AV primacy view? When I say “primacy” I mean that they represent a standard of excellence due to the accuracy of the Greek mss. Are there any other standards one can measure textual editions by? I think it has been shown by Maurice Robinson, Wilbur Pickering (chapter 5, The History of the Text, is excellent), and Jakob Van Bruggen (Bruggen’s book seems to no longer be available online, or very hard to find – and the author unlocatable – so I uploaded it to Scribd) etc, that the foundations of the Critical Text based on Westcott-Hort and Vaticanus / Sinaiticus are no longer sustainable. Apart from the Byzantine / Majority Text view the world of NT textual criticism is in chaotic disarray (see Bruggen especially for this, and also here).
> 
> I make clear that although I build on the Byz stance, I go beyond them – if you have considered my views.
> 
> Without equivocation my own view is presuppositional. Our entire Christian walk, faith, and understanding is built on God’s word. The same applies to our understanding of His word – it is self-attesting, it needs not man’s testimony, although God has provided that we have evidences to support, in the main, what we take by faith.



Absolutely taken by faith. That said, with the known history of Erasmus's sources for the TR how can we say it has primacy ? This quoted from Daniel B. Wallace, "History of the English Bible" on the text used by the AV translators ;

First, problems with the text.

The Greek text used by these editors was vastly inferior to that of modern translations. It was principally the Stephanus text of 1550 (third edition), which, in turn, relied essentially on Erasmus’ third edition of 1522. The Stephanus text was modified slightly by Theodore Beza who took the text through eleven editions.3 Beza’s 9th edition was used in preparation for the KJV. This Greek text, later known as the Textus Receptus (TR), misses the wording of the original New Testament in about 5000 places. Most of these places cannot be translated, but a few of them are fairly substantial. Once again, all of these Greek texts—from Erasmus to Beza—are essentially the same. They are all essentially the third edition of Erasmus.

To understand the history of the English Bible you have to know a little about the Greek text that stands behind it. Here are some of the facts about Erasmus’ Greek text.

1. With the invention of the printing press and with Greek learning returning to Europe, there was a felt need for the first Greek NT. The rush was on! And the first one done would almost certainly be a sloppy production.

2. The Roman Catholic priest and Dutch humanist, Erasmus, met the challenge. On March 1, 1516 he published the first GNT. Exactly 20 months later the Reformation would begin because Luther had read Erasmus’ Greek text. And when he read Romans in Greek for the first time, he was converted to Christ. In a very real sense, the Reformation began because of the Greek NT. Luther himself said that he never would have challenged the Pope without first reading the Greek NT.

3. Erasmus took his Greek text through five editions. All of them were Latin-Greek diglots, never Greek alone. The reason? Erasmus’ motive was not primarily to produce a Greek NT, but rather to prove that his Latin translation was an improvement over Jerome’s Vulgate (done 1000 years earlier). The Vulgate had been the authorized Bible of the western Church ever since its production.

4. Because he was in a rush, he could find only one copy of the book of Revelation. And that copy lacked the last leaf, Rev 22.16-21. What was Erasmus to do? He decided to backtranslate those final six verses, from Latin into Greek. And as good as Erasmus’ Greek was (he was considered the premier Greek scholar of the sixteenth century), he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS (except, of course, for one that was a copy of Erasmus’ printed text). The most remarkable text is Rev 22.19: “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

But Erasmus’ text had ‘book’ instead of ‘tree’ because the Latin had ‘book’ here: “God will take away from him his share in the book of life.” Erasmus’ text was thus quite defective here. The reason that some Latin MSS had ‘book’ here was no doubt due to the fact that the Latin scribes saw ‘book’ twice in this verse and they accidentally replaced ‘tree’ with ‘book’ in the middle of the verse. This could easily happen in Latin because the words were similar (unlike Greek, which has xuvlon for ‘tree’ and biblivon for ‘book’): the Latin word for tree is ligno and the word for book is libro. Thus, a two letter difference between these two words. The KJV repeated this error, giving rise to the possibility that the Bible teaches that one can lose his salvation (since removal from the book of life would be tantamount to loss of salvation).

5. MS basis: about half a dozen, none earlier than 10th to 12th century. Today we have 5600 MSS, with some as early as 2nd century.


----------



## Logan

Steve,

I didn't really want to be drawn back into this discussion but I'd be happy to give a very, very basic overview of my view and studies. I have not spent nearly as much time on it as you have so it's possible I have some of the minor details wrong but the general history I believe I have a good grasp on.

I would also like to note that I didn't find Daniel Wallace's paper (which Jimmy quoted) to be extremely helpful, because it's clear he has a bias and makes assumptions too.

I would not classify myself as pro-critical text per se. I don't believe that older is necessarily better and I would like to see the church select texts based on slightly different criteria, balancing number of manuscripts with age and not simply "correcting" the vast majority of manuscripts based on one very old text. However, with you, I do believe Bibles based on the critical text to be the very word of God, and have no problem using the ESV or NASB for example, which I am grateful includes passages such as John 8.

At this point, some TR people will say that this makes man the judge of what is God's word and we should have a presuppositional approach. I wish that were true but the facts just don't seem to bear that out. I deeply wish I could just say "Textus Receptus" and no more texts ever should be evaluated. Now note here that I do not believe that there are still words to be discovered or that we have been without God's word until this point. This is what I see as providential preservation. 

At no point do I believe God's people have been without his word. But preservation to the very word and stroke I have not been able to accept, and here is why.

*textual criticism*
No matter whether you are pro-CT, pro-Majority, or pro-TR, each group engages in some form of textual criticism.

The CT group says "let's look at all texts". There is some good reason for this, as one could believe God has preserved all of these texts for a reason, one very important reason is to show that his word was not altered. 

The majority group (as I understand) looks at a slightly smaller subset, looking at what texts were most widely copied and disseminated, mostly Byzantine text types. I don't know of any translation based off of the majority text, but there can be problems with this approach as it just "counts noses" so to speak, and what variation has the most copies, wins, regardless of age or family. As I understand it though, there are problems with Revelation, for example, where there is no clear variation that has the most copies.

Then there is the Byzantine group, an even smaller subset, which looks at those texts that were in use in the Greek-speaking churches, under the presupposition that those that were in common use (not buried in a monastery) would be the Word that God had given to his people. There's benefits to this, certainly, but I don't think TR people are really part of this group. 

There is a smaller subset of the Byzantine, that as I see it, doesn't even accept other texts that were in common use, but only those specific texts which eventually formed the basis of the KJV. It sounds great, that God preserved his word and we no longer have to do any work comparing texts, but I just cannot honestly accept this for reasons that will be explained below. 

And here a legitimate question arises: why throw out thousands of manuscripts, a wealth of Scripture, preserved by God, in favor of Erasmus' six manuscripts that didn't even agree 100% with each other in places they overlapped (as is apparently the TR position)? 

*Some history*
Starting with the Vulgate, we don't know of any Greek manuscripts that fully match this translation. Jerome may have used other sources (older Latin editions) or manuscripts that no longer exist. But people like Augustine, who was not skilled in Greek, used it to great edification. 

So here a question arises for the presuppositionalist: did God not preserve his word, word-for-word in the manuscripts used to produce what was used by the vast majority of the Christian church for hundreds of years? It was, in large part, a poor translation by Jerome. Nevertheless, it was blessed and I believe it to be the very word of God, used to convert millions.

The Waldenses did not have Textus Receptus, was this people group left without the word of God? I don't believe so.

As you know, Erasmus obtained access to about half a dozen manuscripts, all incomplete copies of the New Testament that had some overlap. He used textual criticism to determine which wording he was going to include in his New Testament, although he did not have access to the last few verses of Revelation, and evidently back-translated from the Vulgate (I am aware some question this). One thing we do know: no existing Greek manuscript is identical to these last verses (though some say it must have been lost, that's conjecture). The important thing is that no one manuscript was identical to that which Erasmus produced, it was a compilation of several. The variations were minor, but they are there.

So here a question arises for the presuppositionalist: did everyone up to this point not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God? Or did somehow Erasmus, with his incomplete manuscripts, perfectly (providentially) recreate the exact same text that was in manuscripts used by the church previously but which since have been lost? 

Luther used the second edition of Erasmus for his German New Testament. Erasmus made some corrections to the third edition, including adding the Johannine Comma. So for the presuppositionalist, here a question arises, did God preserve his word in the second edition that Luther used or in subsequent editions that were part of the basis for English translations? One or the other groups does not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God.

Estienne (Stephanus) produced his editions based on Erasmus', and they are, I understand, almost identical, with just a few variations.

However, Beza also produced editions based on Erasmus' and they did have changes in the readings. Beza had access to two additional texts, both Western type (not Byzantine), and one of which he had discovered, unused for many years as I understand it. Now he primarily followed Erasmus, but there were a few variations. 

So for the presuppositionalist, which one was now "jot and tittle" the word of God? Luther using Erasmus' second edition? Others using the third and subsequent? Or those using Beza's? 

Calvin (as I noted earlier) even would make comparisons between Erasmus' text and other texts, commenting on the variations and how older manuscripts would not have certain things. Yet he certainly believed in God's preservation.

Then we come to the King James Version. According to Scrivener, the translators used no one source (though some dispute this because the records were burned). No manuscript in existence ever was completely 100% what underlies the KJV. Scrivener noted places where it used Beza against Erasmus, Erasmus against Beza, or Stephanus against both. Apparently the Vulgate was also used as a source as there are some that don't use any. So at this point we can't say the KJV uses Textus Receptus, but rather that it uses some TR "family" of manuscripts, none of which reflect any one Greek manuscript.

It wasn't until the late 1800s that Scrivener compiled a Greek manuscript based on what underlay the KJV. This is what many people consider the "Textus Receptus" today. Note that this does not 100% follow any other Textus Receptus. There are only several hundred variations I understand.

But once again, the question has to be asked of the presuppositionalist: did any translation using the earlier TRs not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God?

So at some point or another, there will be some people group who did not have "jot and tittle" the very word of God. To assume that God did so in English seems to be very self-aggrandizing. Because of this, I don't believe that God had preserved his word by the stroke. I believe (as do commentators such as Calvin and Henry) that this passage referring to "jot and tittle" meant all of the law would be fulfilled, not the least of God's principles would pass away, and I believe this promise has been fulfilled, even when translations differ on wording, the idea is the same. We do not have corrupted Scriptures.

But this is only a certain subset of presuppositionalists. Others will agree and say "no, not 'jot and tittle'" but he did preserve it in a certain family of texts, the family of Textus Receptus. Some of the issues I brought up earlier remain though, specifically those using the Vulgate and the Waldenses, for example.

*conclusion*
So basically, I would class myself as a presuppositionalist in that I accept that God preserved his word, keeping it pure from corruption, and that his people have never been without his precepts. 

I cannot however accept "jot and tittle" preservation of strokes, words, sentences presuppositionalism. To believe so would be to say that no one has God's true word except English speaking countries (or some other country).

I also cannot accept TR-family presuppositionalism because it also says that we don't have "jot and tittle" the word of God, but that variations between different manuscripts are okay. Why accept Beza's variations and use of Western-type texts but not other Byzantine texts? Once again, what about Luther who used an earlier version of the TR? Did God not preserve his word for the Germans 100%? 

And the TR that is really in use is based on the KJV, not any one Greek manuscript or even one TR. This is why it seems that most TR-preservationists really, in the end, are KJV-preservationists.

Do I believe that pro-TR folks are missing out? No! Certainly not. It has stood up to scrutiny and the few places it varies even from other Byzantine texts are not important in my mind. Those using it are not without God's word. But likewise I see many other reliable translations that also do not leave us without God's word. And I'm glad the translators don't use the critical text "uncritically" and just accept whatever it says but look at the notes and reasons why certain readings are preferred.

And I believe I am in line with the Westminster Confession and what the Reformers understood of God's preservation of his word. They were familiar with the variations between various TRs and I don't find evidence they advocated any one but utilized any they could. It is my understanding that at least several of the Westminster divines owned ancient Greek manuscripts which were highly prized. These of course varied from Textus Receptus. 

So why can't I be a TR-exclusivist? Primarily because, once you understand the facts (it varies itself) and history (one people group or another did not have it or had slightly different versions), it seems to necessitate a view that God preserved his word perfectly for English speaking nations, and no one else for the prior 1500 years and conscience dictates that this is not the case. Does the CT go too far? Undoubtedly so. Do translations _based_ on it go too far? Not all of them, in my estimation, for which I am grateful.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> The Confession says the translation should be made into the national language, not translated differently to suit each sub-cultural lingo.





The Bibles of England by Andrew Edgar said:


> A bill was actually brought into the long Parliament, shortly before its dissolution in 1653, to appoint a committee to review and revise the "new translation," as the King's or authorised version was then termed....It was alleged to be a common stumblingblock to the weak, and a subject of cavil for scoffers, that, in sermons preached and printed, people heard or found it said, "the original bears it better thus and thus." It was accordingly proposed that the committee appointed by Parliament should carefully consider all translations, annotations, and marginal readings that they knew of; and give their approbation to what, "after seriously looking up to the Lord for his gracious assistance in so weighty a work, and advising together amongst themselves, they should judge to be nearest to the text, and to the mind of the Lord."...
> 
> The sudden dissolution of the long Parliament put an end to this scheme. It is evident, however, that the scheme was something more than a pedantic project of some whimsical layman's, which had no countenance either in the Church or country. It was fostered, if not devised, by some of the leading divines of the age. On the proposed committee of review and revision stood the names of Dr. John Owen and Dr. Ralph Cudworth; and on the proposed committee of supervision, the names of *Dr. Thomas Goodwin* and *Mr. Joseph Cary*l. On the committee of review there was the name of a Scotsman also, Mr. John Row, Professor of Hebrew at Aberdeen. This Mr. John was son of the more famous John of Carnock, but was one of the unstable zealots who in those days of ecclesiastical revolt deserted the Presbyterian Church of their fathers and adopted the principles of congregational independence. So ready was he to undertake the duties proposed for him in the bill brought into Parliament, that he had a programme of his committee's procedure, cut and dry upon paper. "For ye bettering of ye Inglish translation of ye Bible (first printed A.D. 1612) . . . five things are to be endeavoured," said Mr. John. These five things are, "a more proper, rational, and dexterous" division of chapters, verses and sentences; an amendment of " needless transposition of words or stories, pretending to Hypall or Synchyses"; the excision of all useless additions "that debase the wisdom of the spirit"; the reparation of " all sinful and needless detractions "; and the introduction of certain specified "mutations and changes." Under several of these heads, detailed explanations and instructions were given. The useless additions to be removed from the Bible were, all the apocryphal writings; all popish prints, plates, and pictures; all prefixes of saint to evangelists and apostles; and all spurious subscriptions of particular epistles. Among the mutations and changes recommended, were, the printing of God's names and titles in capital letters ; magisterial correction of all misprints; *an "idiomatization" of English words not understood in Scotland*; a substitution of English for Hebrew, Greek and Latin terms



Since it was proposed to make English "idiomization" understandable for those in Scotland by revising the translation, perhaps those who framed the confession did consider it important that it be understood in the "sub-cultural lingo" that is spoken where it is read, without need of such things like dictionaries? It's at least possible?


----------



## thbslawson

PaulMc said:


> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.
Click to expand...


If the English-speaking world would simply officially adopt the use of "y'all" we'd resolve this issue


----------



## JimmyH

thbslawson said:


> PaulMc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the English-speaking world would simply officially adopt the use of "y'all"* we'd resolve this issue*
Click to expand...

 I don't see the 'issue' ever being resolved since both sides are thinking "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Seems we are entrenched in our opposing positions ....... In my humble opinion.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

thbslawson said:


> PaulMc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen some people argue very strongly against the NKJV due to the notes in the margins, but is that grounds for not using it? Is there any other argument against it apart from this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One advantage of the AV over the NKJV would be the distinction between singular and plural personal pronouns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the English-speaking world would simply officially adopt the use of "y'all" we'd resolve this issue
Click to expand...


----------



## ZackF

Hey. I am just thrilled that we have been able to civilly keep a KJV thread open. This is a record no?


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Since it was proposed to make English "idiomization" understandable for those in Scotland by revising the translation, perhaps those who framed the confession did consider it important that it be understood in the "sub-cultural lingo" that is spoken where it is read, without need of such things like dictionaries? It's at least possible?



This was a national legislative body, although just the shadow of its former self. I can't think of a fitter body to recommend a "national" project. The aim and spirit of the proposal was very commendable. This is true in the main, although some of the specific revision criteria might have reflected some of the "radical" ideas prevalent at that time, and may have hindered the success of the revision.

The proposal was not to divide the English Bible into many inferior ones, but to revise this national translation in order to make it even better. I consider this to be a much better plan than the "biblical pluralism" which sadly prevails today.

The Scots belonged to a distinct "nation," although subjugated at that time. There was nothing sub-cultural in proposing to give the Scots a Bible in their own language.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> The Scots belonged to a distinct "nation," although subjugated at that time. There was nothing sub-cultural in proposing to give the Scots a Bible in their own language.



As I understand it, it was not a proposal to put it in the Scots language, it was to alter English idioms to be understood by Scots (in English). As opposed to handing out dictionaries.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> As I understand it, it was not a proposal to put it in the Scots language, it was to alter English idioms to be understood by Scots (in English). As opposed to handing out dictionaries.



I certainly don't read anything which opposes the use of dictionaries.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> I certainly don't read anything which opposes the use of dictionaries.



I'm glad you don't, that would be strange literature.


----------



## MW

From B. F. Westcott, A General View of the History of the English Bible, 124-125:



> Some steps indeed were taken for a new version during the time of the Commonwealth. The Long Pariament shortly before it was dissolved made an order (April 1653) that 'a Bill should be brought in for a new translation of the Bible out of the original tongues,' but nothing more was done at that time. Three years afterwards the scheme was revived, and Whitelocke has preserved an interesting account of the proceedings which followed.
> 
> 'At the grand committee [of the House] for Religion, ordered That it be referred to a sub-committee to send for and advise with Dr [Brian] Walton, Mr Hughes, Mr [Edmund] Castle, Mr [Samuel] Clark, Mr Poulk, Dr [Ralph] Cudworth, and such others as they shall think fit, and to consider of the Translations and impressions of the Bible, and to offer their opinions thereon to this Committee; and that it be especially commended to the Lord Commissioner Whitelocke to take care of this business.'
> 
> 'This committee often met at my house,' writes Whitelocke, 'and had the most learned men in the Oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers [made] excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the Translations of the Bible in English; which yet was agreed to be the best of any Translation in the world. I took pains in it, but it became fruitless by the Parliament's Dissolution.'
> 
> With this notice the external history of the English Version appropriately ends. *From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best.* A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jimmy, I have interacted with an essay of Dr. Wallace on this topic extensively here and also here (some repeat of the previous material, but more succinct). Perhaps you know that Dr. Wallace does not hold to the doctrine of Scripture being providentially preserved, which is problematic, as Scripture does promise that. Here are some “myth busters” re Erasmus by David Cloud:

Myth # 1: Erasmus Was A Humanist

Myth # 2: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence

And there will be more on Erasmus below. Sorry, Jimmy, to send you to other places via links, but it wouldn't do to bulk up this thread with such.


Logan, thanks for going to the trouble to write out how you see things. A slight nuance I would introduce regarding a statement of yours – “However, with you, I do believe Bibles based on the critical text to be the very word of God, and have no problem using the ESV or NASB for example” – I could affirm they are “the very word of God” *insofar* as they translated accurately from an intact Greek text that had no omissions or changes from the preserved edition. For example, when the ESV says in Matthew 1:7, 10 that Jesus Christ was descended from Asaph and from Amos rather than Asa and Amon it is decidedly *not* the “very word of God”! This kind of error in the very first page of the NT is not an auspicious beginning!

When you say, “At no point do I believe God's people have been without his word. But preservation to the very word and stroke I have not been able to accept”, I would agree with you that not all had this. And more on it in a moment.

When you talk about the Byzantine Text (which is virtually synonymous with the Majority Text, as this latter is comprised almost entirely of Byz mss) it is important to have an idea of its transmission history, the best treatment of which I have found here in Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_ (taken from his chapter 5).

When you talk of Erasmus’ access to only “half a dozen manuscripts” you are repeating a myth perpetuated up through the halls of sloppy scholarship! I think the link I posted for Jimmy above on the myth that “Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence” would speak to that! And an informative post here: Concerning Erasmus.

You ask a pertinent question on the availability of a perfectly preserved text: “did everyone up to this point not have ‘jot and tittle’ the very word of God?”

The question has also been put in these terms, “If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different text-type – did they not have a preserved and adequate Bible?” And I would answer:

There is a preserving of the text, and there is a preserving of the text — 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. The _minute preservation_ occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James translation) which was 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.

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_.

As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word. When the Lord prophesies, does it have to come about instantly? Is there not sometimes progression, as in the development seen in the Olivet discourse of events from the time Jerusalem fell till the time of the end?

Concerning the statement in the Westminster Confession, 1:8
The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​ 
there is the issue that Benjamin Warfield introduced a new understanding of this section differing from that of the framers, but this is not pertinent at this point. What I want to address concerns what this “kept pure in all ages” entailed. Does it mean that there was a pure text – intact in the sense of the autographic documents – in all generations and all locales? Does it mean every generation and geographical area had an equivalent of an autographic copy? I do not believe so. I believe this means that *the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages*; when in certain textual traditions (I am thinking of the Greek here) some readings were removed they were retained elsewhere – and later restored to the Greek by His providence. The Hebrew and Greek copies – the apographs – the WCF divines had in hand exemplified this.

What you said about Paul Ferguson "cherry picking" his quotes I wonder at. Of course he will find those who illustrate his point, and he contends they are by far in the main; can you counter that with opposing quotes from those time periods?

A view that has come to my attention is the verbal plenary preservation view (VPP). Upon initially hearing of it I thought that as regards the NT it could only have been accomplished through the Waldenses, something which needs further investigation. I have written before (here on PB) of Frederick Nolan and his investigation into the old Italick version. I have studied the Waldensian history before, and this is interesting. From this post (which includes the citations) on Frederick Nolan’s scholarship – and his hunt for ancient mss containing 1 John 5:7 – I excerpt re the Waldensian text:
“To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his preface:​
Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; *as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate.* [5] [Emphasis added]​
In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, *“It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.”* [Emphasis added] [6]”​ 
There have been scholarly studies done on topics such as, _When The KJV Departs From The “Majority Text”_, by Jack Moorman, and, _Where the King James Bible Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598_, by Kirk DiVietro. These are available from Bible For Today, along with many other rare studies.

Let me end the post with this thought: 

As though there were anything unscholarly or wrong with asserting that the Lord will preserve His word, seeing as man does not live by bread alone, but by “*every word*” that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matt 4:4). As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many aeons since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world! 

Consider this: In eternity past in God's omniscience He knew you before ever He created you; fast forward through the creation, the fall in the garden, the long centuries of mayhem and destruction, the toxins introduced increasingly with the advent of the industrial age, the havoc wrought in the human gene pool — and yet through all this, He preserved those molecules and atoms, those strands of DNA and genetic information, that would eventually comprise the person you now are, _and all other human beings_! From His eternal vision of you to your creation and development in time, you are the very person He envisioned before the creation of the world. Talk about providential preservation – down to very molecules and genes! Is this not far more complex a feat than preserving a Book of writings intact through around three millennia? Okay, there was a concerted effort to destroy this Book by the prince of demons, so that made it more complex; but the thought still stands: if He could bring the exact you into being, could He not bring His Book?

If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?

As though it were a far-fetched thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children (Matt 11:25).

About the “English” you mention: It is now pretty much the universal language – and the language of scholarship in most countries around the world. The Greek TR that was the basis for the English KJV was used to translate God’s word into many languages so that the English missionaries could bring the glory of the Gospel of God’s grace to vast multitudes. God used the English-speaking peoples and their Bible to great effect.

More concerning The Waldenses and the Bible (caveat: some of the material was written by Benjamin Wilkinson, who was a Seventh Day Adventist and published _Our Authorized Bible Vindicated_ in 1930, though I would venture to say he was more sound that the apostate Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort, and if his history is accurate, that is what counts).


----------



## One Little Nail

JimmyH said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Logan,
> 
> I appreciate your irenic – if dogged – attitude.
> 
> I was wondering, what _are_ your basic objections to the TR / AV primacy view? When I say “primacy” I mean that they represent a standard of excellence due to the accuracy of the Greek mss. Are there any other standards one can measure textual editions by? I think it has been shown by Maurice Robinson, Wilbur Pickering (chapter 5, The History of the Text, is excellent), and Jakob Van Bruggen (Bruggen’s book seems to no longer be available online, or very hard to find – and the author unlocatable – so I uploaded it to Scribd) etc, that the foundations of the Critical Text based on Westcott-Hort and Vaticanus / Sinaiticus are no longer sustainable. Apart from the Byzantine / Majority Text view the world of NT textual criticism is in chaotic disarray (see Bruggen especially for this, and also here).
> 
> I make clear that although I build on the Byz stance, I go beyond them – if you have considered my views.
> 
> Without equivocation my own view is presuppositional. Our entire Christian walk, faith, and understanding is built on God’s word. The same applies to our understanding of His word – it is self-attesting, it needs not man’s testimony, although God has provided that we have evidences to support, in the main, what we take by faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely taken by faith. That said, with the known history of Erasmus's sources for the TR how can we say it has primacy ? This quoted from Daniel B. Wallace, "History of the English Bible" on the text used by the AV translators ;
> 
> First, problems with the text.
> 
> The Greek text used by these editors was vastly inferior to that of modern translations. It was principally the Stephanus text of 1550 (third edition), which, in turn, relied essentially on Erasmus’ third edition of 1522. The Stephanus text was modified slightly by Theodore Beza who took the text through eleven editions.3 Beza’s 9th edition was used in preparation for the KJV. This Greek text, later known as the Textus Receptus (TR), misses the wording of the original New Testament in about 5000 places. Most of these places cannot be translated, but a few of them are fairly substantial. Once again, all of these Greek texts—from Erasmus to Beza—are essentially the same. They are all essentially the third edition of Erasmus.
> 
> To understand the history of the English Bible you have to know a little about the Greek text that stands behind it. Here are some of the facts about Erasmus’ Greek text.
> 
> 1. With the invention of the printing press and with Greek learning returning to Europe, there was a felt need for the first Greek NT. The rush was on! And the first one done would almost certainly be a sloppy production.
> 
> 2. The Roman Catholic priest and Dutch humanist, Erasmus, met the challenge. On March 1, 1516 he published the first GNT. Exactly 20 months later the Reformation would begin because Luther had read Erasmus’ Greek text. And when he read Romans in Greek for the first time, he was converted to Christ. In a very real sense, the Reformation began because of the Greek NT. Luther himself said that he never would have challenged the Pope without first reading the Greek NT.
> 
> 3. Erasmus took his Greek text through five editions. All of them were Latin-Greek diglots, never Greek alone. The reason? Erasmus’ motive was not primarily to produce a Greek NT, but rather to prove that his Latin translation was an improvement over Jerome’s Vulgate (done 1000 years earlier). The Vulgate had been the authorized Bible of the western Church ever since its production.
> 
> 4. Because he was in a rush, he could find only one copy of the book of Revelation. And that copy lacked the last leaf, Rev 22.16-21. What was Erasmus to do? He decided to backtranslate those final six verses, from Latin into Greek. And as good as Erasmus’ Greek was (he was considered the premier Greek scholar of the sixteenth century), he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS (except, of course, for one that was a copy of Erasmus’ printed text). The most remarkable text is Rev 22.19: “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
> 
> But Erasmus’ text had ‘book’ instead of ‘tree’ because the Latin had ‘book’ here: “God will take away from him his share in the book of life.” Erasmus’ text was thus quite defective here. The reason that some Latin MSS had ‘book’ here was no doubt due to the fact that the Latin scribes saw ‘book’ twice in this verse and they accidentally replaced ‘tree’ with ‘book’ in the middle of the verse. This could easily happen in Latin because the words were similar (unlike Greek, which has xuvlon for ‘tree’ and biblivon for ‘book’): the Latin word for tree is ligno and the word for book is libro. Thus, a two letter difference between these two words. The KJV repeated this error, giving rise to the possibility that the Bible teaches that one can lose his salvation (since removal from the book of life would be tantamount to loss of salvation).
> 
> 5. MS basis: about half a dozen, none earlier than 10th to 12th century. Today we have 5600 MSS, with some as early as 2nd century.
Click to expand...


Ah Jimmy,Jimmy,Jimmy I got to disagree with you, misses the wording of the original New Testament in about
5000 places what so you have a copy of the Original Autographs by your side do you? hahaha give me break
by the way what manuscripts are you claiming to be the originals Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or some other?

That Erasmus had only a few manuscripts to work with is a bold face Lie espoused by The Alexandrian Cult
Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts?
http://biblefortoday.org/Articles/reply.htm
sorry steve double posted your link, hadn't got to your post yet, David Clouds got some good info!
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/textsversionsheader.html
Steve you've got a lot of good stuff on the translation issue defending the Received Text, you should seriously
consider collating it & putting it into print.


----------



## Logan

Steve,

Thank you for your response. I'm only going to reply to a few things and leave it at that.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> When you talk of Erasmus’ access to only “half a dozen manuscripts” you are repeating a myth perpetuated up through the halls of sloppy scholarship! I think the link I posted for Jimmy above on the myth that “Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence” would speak to that!



I read the paper you posted and didn't find it very convincing. It essentially says "when people say Erasmus used only a few manuscripts, that is a lie" and then cites other people who said something similar, but no one attempted to put a number to it. On the other hand, you have W.W. Combs who says Erasmus used specifically 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817, (and where he got them) and Scrivener, who says in "A Plain Introduction to the criticism of the New Testament" vol 2, page 183



> while the only manuscripts he can be imagined to have constantly used are Codd. Evan. 2, Act. Paul. 2 and Paul. 7, with occasional reference to Evan. Act. Paul. 1 and Act. Paul. 4 (all still at Basle) for the remainder of the New Testament, to which add Apoc. 1, now happily recovered, alone for the Apocalypse. All these, excepting Evan. Act. Paul. 1, were neither ancient nor particularly valuable, and of Cod. 1 he professed to make but small account. As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six verses, Erasmus turned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made version,
> which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) in no one known Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text.
> 
> Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in his Annotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course of his travels (e.g. on Heb. i. 3; Apoc. i. 4; viii. 13), yet too indistinctly for his allusions to be of much use to critics. Some such readings, as alleged by him, have not been found elsewhere (e.g. Acts xxiv. 23; Rom. xii. 20), and may have been cited loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3; Heb. iv. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Apoc. ii. 18).



Both Scrivener and Combs are/were KJV proponents.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> 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.



So the progression of purity occurred from Erasmus to the KJV translators and came to culmination with Scrivener's Textus Receptus in 1894? Why was the Bible preserved (in minutiae) in English but not in Greek until 1894?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> What you said about Paul Ferguson "cherry picking" his quotes I wonder at. Of course he will find those who illustrate his point, and he contends they are by far in the main; can you counter that with opposing quotes from those time periods?



Ferguson begins by talking about those who seek to " discredit and overthrow" the Bible's influence, "apostate textual criticism", that the KJV has the "authentic text" etc. He has an agenda, that's not bad, but it certainly colors how he presents the argument. He first quotes people who agree with him 

He then goes on to quote from Reformers who are talking about Sola Scriptura and how our final appeal is to the Scriptures and argues from there that they must have believed in the perfect preservation of the TR. I don't see them holding to the TR, but to the Greek in general.

He talks about the Alexandrian texts being corrupted and cites Calvin saying of Origin that he and others had "seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense." But Calvin is talking about the sense, not actually altering the words.

He cites Calvin's comments on Isaiah 59:21 to show he believed in perfect preservation, yet that is putting words in Calvin's mouth. Elsewhere (as I cited earlier) Calvin comments on passages as not being consistent with "older manuscripts". If he really was for perfect preservation, he would have outright rejected them, no?

He cites Tragelles as saying "After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based." Which is pretty vague and really proves nothing.

But mostly, everything he cites sounds to me like the Reformers answer to Rome that one must appeal to the Greek and Hebrew as opposed to the _Vulgate_. I have a problem with then making the leap to using these quotations to show they believed in perfect preservation of the TR. They only seem so to one already convinced they believed it.

Even the KJV translators including marginal notes with variant readings, which doesn't seem to support the notion that they believed only in the TR (and since they used multiple sources, not just any one TR, that is also indicative).

I also quoted earlier from Matthew Henry, who argues on the inclusion of the Johannine Comma, but not because of preservationist arguments.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many aeons since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world!...If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?



I do not believe that the Almighty cannot preserve his word. The question is not "could" the Almighty preserve his word in the minutiae, but "did" he? The fact is that he allowed many variants. Why? I don't know, but he did. He _could_ have given us thousands of perfect copies that do not differ from each other at all, instead we have thousands of copies which show minor variations but no two are exactly alike. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> As though it were a far-fetched thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children.



So it all comes down to accepting, by faith, that God has preserved his word in the English KJV, which was then used to reconstruct the perfect Greek. The rest of the world had the preserved Scriptures, we have the perfectly preserved Scriptures. I see nothing that requires me to take that leap of faith and not assume that Erasmus had the perfectly preserved Scriptures, or Beza. 

No argument can be convincing for that viewpoint, except to say that since God _can_ preserve his word in the minutiae, then he _must_ have, and since the Puritans used the KJV, that is where it must lie. 

Could not the Papists say the same of the Vulgate and that all the other Greek manuscripts that did not reflect it must have been corrupted?

If I am incorrect then please correct me, but as this time I do not plan to respond as I don't think either of us could bring anything to the table that would be significant to the other. I believe I have a reasonable grasp of your position and just simply do not agree with it or find it convincing, nor do I think this preservation in the minutiae reflects the view of the Puritans. I'd be happy to change my views on that if I can be shown conclusive quotes, rather than general "purity of the Scriptures" quotes. I've been searching but I'm limited since I'm on travel and don't have my library with me!


----------



## Logan

Here are a few things I found.

Calvin, as noted earlier, mentions variants and does not reject them on the grounds of minutiae preservation in the text he is using.

Watson, body of divinity says 
"Nor has the church of God, in all revolutions and changes, kept the Scripture that it should not be lost only, but that it should not be depraved. The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue." But this is in a section talking of the general preservation of Scripture for the church of God throughout all ages, not just in the latter days. So if taken to mean "minutiae" preservation, it proves too much.

Matthew Henry likewise mentions variants and does not reject them on the grounds of minutiae preservation.

Jonathan Edwards put textual critical works in his "Catalogue" and mentions variants in his "Notes". He certainly had a high view of the preservation of Scripture. 

Charles Hodge in his commentary on Romans uses other Greek texts aside from the TR of his day, though he clearly believed in the authority of the Scriptures as the perfect rule of faith and obedience and subscribed to the Westminster Confession completely.

A.A. Hodge Commentary on the Confession
Clarifies what he believes the Confession means in chapter 1 by saying "essential purity" of the Scriptures.

Lastly, if the Westminster Divines meant by "kept pure" that it had been transmitted in the minutiae, this also proves too much, because they say it had been "kept pure", not "made pure", and it has been admitted that historically the church may have had the "preserved" word of God, but not the "minutiae preserved" word of God.

I see some people take Owen to believe in minutiae preservation. I will see if I can find quotes from him on this.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, here is something on Owen excerpted from an earlier post:

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs. 

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, said he found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:​
Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (_The Divine Original_, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​
* Owen’s _Divine Original_: This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.​
This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God _completely_ – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever. And a very strong case could be made for that position also.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_, and _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind_. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, _The Ecclesiastical Text_, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield _redefined_ the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from the bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.​ 
[end excerpt]
--------

I’m preparing to respond to your previous posts, Logan, but can’t post right away as I am so busy.


----------



## DMcFadden

If you want an update to the KJV, Charisma House is doing the heavy lifting now and expects to come out with their product in a few months.



> Charisma House, the book group of Charisma Media, announces an updated translation of the King James Version, under the name Modern English Version (MEV). Accurate :: Modern English Version
> 
> The MEV is the most modern translation produced in the King James tradition in 30 years. This word-for-word translation maintains the beauty of the past yet provides fresh clarity for a new generation of Bible readers.
> 
> The MEV also accurately communicates God's Word anew as it capitalizes references of God, maintaining reverence of the scripture.
> 
> “To Bible readers who value biblical truth, the MEV literally translates God's Word in a way that preserves the message but remains readable for today's world," said Tessie DeVore, executive vice president of Charisma House. "And because of this, we anticipate that the MEV will have broad ecumenical and consumer acceptance."
> 
> Editors of the MEV Bible translation represent institutions such as the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Harvard University, Oral Roberts University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Yale University


.

"Something" tells me that it will not be catching on quickly in the churches represented on the PB.


----------



## Logan

Steve,



I read through "The Divine Original" this afternoon. It is well worth the read and not as difficult as some of Owen's writings. 

While Owen uses some strong language to defend the originals against the charge of the corruption, I was surprised to see (as you mention) that he also acknowledged the variants ("lections", he called them) and even said they "deserved to be considered". The main intent of his writing was to assure people that the huge collection of variant readings that had been made (the "Appendix", he called it), did not invalidate the legitimacy or purity of Scripture. Nowhere did I read Owen rejecting variants based upon the TR (or common text) being the only true text, presuppositionally or otherwise. In other words, I find my view of Scripture's preservation to be in exact accordance with what he presents here.

After this I then went back and read the prefatory note, which agrees with my findings, saying:


The Publisher said:


> It will be new, moreover, to many readers, who have hitherto assumed as true the charge against Owen of ignorant antipathy to the duties and advantages of sacred criticism, when they are told that he not only admitted the existence of various readings, but held that if any others could be discovered from a collation of manuscripts, they "deserved to be considered;" differing in this respect from Dr Whitby, who, at a later period, in 1710, published his "Examen Variantium Lectionum," in opposition to Mill's edition of the New Testament, taking up ground from which Owen would have recoiled, and insisting that every word in the common text stood as originally written. Owen acknowledged and proclaimed the fact, that in spite of all the variety in the readings, not a single doctrine was vitally affected by them. In regard to them, he objected to the unnecessary multiplication of very trivial differences,---an objection of no moment, stated in a single sentence, and never afterwards pressed. He objected further to the practice of Cappell, in making innovations on the received text by the authority of translations only, on the ground that these translations were made from copies _essentially different_ from any now extant....Owen's main objection, however, reproduced frequently in the course of his tract, was against the attempt to amend the text by mere conjecture.



Now Owen contends for various reasons to trust the Scriptures, the very first reason the "providence of God", then "care of the church", the many copies, etc., but then says 


Owen said:


> Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are and have been various lections in the Old Testament and the New...[listing of some] If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they *deserve to be considered*. Men must here deal by instances, not by conjectures
> [here he refers to conjectures of people as to what the original must have said based on things like ancient translations]
> All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church.



Note again the Puritan's understanding of "letter and tittle" does not apparently mean in the minutiae, but in doctrine and truth.

Now these manuscripts in the "Appendix" were not just from the TR were they?, They were, as I understand, the collation of every variant reading, even obvious "mistakes" as Owen complains about. He goes at great lengths to say essentially "let's get the number down, every variant, every obvious scribal mistake, and especially corrupt manuscripts need not be considered."

I agree.

Further, I believe the quote from Letis regarding Owen to be at the least, misleading. At the worst, false.

For example, the "first and most honest course fixed on" is from this paragraph in Owen's "Epistle Dedicatory":


Owen said:


> Among other ways that sundry men have fixed on to exercise their critical abilities, one hath been the collecting of various lections both in the Old Testament and the New. The first and most honest course fixed on to this purpose, was that of consulting various copies, and comparing them among themselves, wherein yet there were sundry miscarriages, as I shall shew in the second treatise. This was the work of Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others, some that came after them finding this province possessed, and no other world of the like nature remaining for them to conquer, fixed upon another way, substituting to the service of their design, as pernicious a principle as ever I think was fixed on by any learned man since the foundation of the church of Christ, excepting only those of Rome. Now this principle is that, upon many grounds, which some of them are long in recounting, there are sundry corruptions crept into the originals, which by their critical faculty, with the use of sundry engines, those especially of the old translations are to be discovered and removed.



Owen is not talking about "minor variants between the various editions of TR" as Letis claims, he is talking about the critical work done in comparing between various Greek manuscripts (of which Erasmus, among others, is an example), and says that this type of comparison (manuscript against manuscript) is the "honest course". Unless this "Appendix" Owen talks about was only TR manuscripts, Letis' assertion is false.


----------



## MW

As argued on numerous other threads, the TR position does not claim there are no genuine variants or that the task of textual criticism is redundant. The TR position is opposed to specific types of criticism which either omit parts of the text or replace it with other readings. The problem is not with textual criticism but with the exalted claims which are made for it by some of its practitioners. Modesty towards and reverence for the sacred word requires that it be handled with more care.

The reformed tradition maintained the FULL text of Scripture and required that it be understood it in its FULLEST sense. There was no concession to minimalism. One will find numerous examples in reformed commentaries and sermons where the Masoretic and Received Texts are expounded together with their variants.

I reiterate, the problem is not that there are recognised variants, but with how the variants are used. It would be well if the method of Calvin, Owen, Henry, et al., were adopted.


----------



## Logan

Rev Winzer,

Thank you, I can agree to that position and would love to see more care taken in textual criticism. It should be the church herself that is making the comparisons. What I can't see is the preservation in the "minutiae", or that the TR is all that is meant by Scriptures being preserved, or that the TR (which one?) should be defended against _any_ variant.

Incidentally, what you say is the "TR position" does not seem to be Steve's or Bryan's positions, as I understand them.


----------



## MW

When the TR is rejected in favour of another text, those who maintain the FULL text are constrained to defend the TR against its opponents.

It is necessary for the good soldier to tenaciously maintain the front line for the sake of the whole territory, but the front line of a battle is not the whole territory being defended.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Logan,

I must admit I was perplexed when I read your remarks on the views of Ted Letis and John Owen; I thought to myself, “Can I really have been such a careless student of these things to so misunderstand what was being said?” And so it was _ad fontes_ (back to the sources) for me!

To start with the most recent, and work my way back on your posts. In your post #124, I would agree with you when you say Owen was of a mind to consider certain variants; in his own words (and these pertain to Hebrew variants in OT texts), “If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies _of credit and esteem_, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered” (emphasis added; p 359). The Appendix you mentioned was of the _Prolegomena and Appendix to the Biblia Polyglotta_, a massive work by Anglo-Catholic Brian Walton listing all variant readings from all available mss extant then, and Owen was willing to consider all of them – as in “at least look them over” – and show that they did not vitiate the position he defended regarding the Reformation Bible and its attack against the claims of Rome to be the sole arbiter of both Biblical text and the meaning thereof. He was not afraid of them.

Logan, you made this statement:
Note again the Puritan’s understanding of “letter and tittle” does not apparently mean in the minutiae, but in doctrine and truth.​ 
This statement warrants some comment, and also qualification, from me. When *I* use the phrase “preservation in the minutiae” it does not mean that there may not be minute differences in the Greek TR mss, such as in spelling or other relatively insignificant ways. It also does not mean that there may not be slight differences in meaning, as in Romans 7:6 (which EF Hills brought up in his writings). It _does_ mean that in multitudes of both small and large places throughout the NT text the readings of the common text are maintained. To show you a couple of places in Owen where he more narrowly defined his meaning of what you term “letter and tittle”, I submit these two excerpts:
The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to *the least iota or syllable*; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority (emphasis added; pp 349, 350).​ 
And again,
That there are in some copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of some good antiquity, diverse readings, in things or words of less importance, is acknowledged. The proof of it lies within the reach of most, in the copies that we have ; and I shall not solicit the reputation of those who have afforded us others out of their own private furniture. That they have been all needlessly heaped up together, if not to an eminent scandal, is no less evident. Let us, then, take a little view of their rise and importance. 

That the Grecian was once as it were the vulgar language of the whole world of Christians is known. The writing of the New Testament in that language in part found it so, and in part made it so. What thousands, yea, what millions of copies of the New Testament then in the world, all men promiscuously reading and studying the Scripture, cannot be reckoned. That so many transcriptions, most of them by private persons, for private use, having a standard of correction in their public assemblies ready to relieve their mistakes, should be made without some variation, is [not to be expected. From the copies of the first ages, others in the succeeding have been transcribed, according as men had opportunity. From those which are come down to the hands of learned men in this latter age, whereof very few or none at all are of any considerable antiquity, have men made it their business to collect the various readings we speak of; with what usefulness and serviceableness to the churches of God others that look on must be allowed their liberty to judge. We know the vanity, curiosity, pride, and naughtiness of the heart of man ; how ready we are to please ourselves with things that seem singular and remote from the observation of the many, and how ready to publish them as evidences of our learning and diligence, let the fruit and issue be what it will. Hence it is come to pass, not to question the credit of any man speaking of his manuscripts, which is wholly swallowed in this Appendix, that *whatever varying word, syllable, or tittle*, could be by any observed, wherein any book, though of yesterday, *varieth from the common received copy*, though manifestly a mistake, superfluous or deficient, inconsistent with the sense of the place, yea, barbarous, is presently imposed on us as a various lection (emphasis added; p 363).​ 
I think it may be ascertained that here it _does_ mean the minutiae of grammar and syntax, and not the figurative “in doctrine and truth”.

You may note also that he talks about unacceptable variances from “the common received copy”, which would be the received text which the Reformers held up against the “Imperial” tradition of Rome, to overthrow their seeking to lord it over the consciences of men.

Indeed, as you rightly say, the “lections” in the Appendix were not all of the TR, but were of every extant variant available to Mr. Walton. Owen gives us a further look at his view of the contents of the Appendix:
As, then, I shall not speak any thing to derogate from the worth of their labour who have gathered all these various readings into one body or volume, so I presume I may take liberty without offence to say, I should more esteem of theirs who would endeavour to search and trace out these pretenders to their several originals, and, rejecting the spurious brood that hath now spawned itself over the face of so much paper, that ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, would reduce them to such a necessary number, whose consideration might be of some other use than merely to create a temptation to the reader that nothing is left sound and entire in the word of God (pp 363, 364).​ 
He again emphasizes that these “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”.

As he ends the section, Chapter III, “Of various lections in the Greek copies of the New Testament”, he begins Chapter IV with these words,
Having now declared in what sense, and with what allowance as to various lections, I maintain the assertion laid down in the foregoing treatise concerning the providential preservation of the whole book of God, so that we may have full assurance that we enjoy the whole revelation of his will in the copies abiding amongst us. . . (p 367).​ 
Be assured he was not talking of the copies Rome was attempting to foist upon the world!

I don’t think I differ much from Rev Winzer’s view, except that I may be a little more liberal (in the modern sense) than he, and not nearly as pithy.

Are you aware, Logan, that Calvin’s view changed as he grew older? Early on he used Simon de Colines’ “renegade edition” (with 150 new readings in it), but most probably returned to Stephanus’ third edition (1550), the “common text” of Owen (see “Theodore Beza As Text Critic”, in Letis, _The Majority Text_). 

In his book, _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind_, Letis has interesting chapters which touch on the Hodges, and Warfield. He was an historian of the Reformation Biblical texts, and has some very interesting work, though I do not agree with all he writes.

I think I will close my post here, though I want to remark on your statements re Erasmus, and other matters, but that will have to wait for another post.


----------



## Logan

Steve,

Respectfully, I think you misunderstand Owen. Perhaps Reverend Winzer can confirm this as I will admit that Owen sometimes confuses me.

In the first quotation, he uses the phrase "least iota or syllable" to speak of the inspired originals, and from there makes a distinction between them and the preserved text we have. (Unless you are just pointing out that Owen can use the word "iota" as meaning the smallest variation).

In the second quotation, he complains that "whatever varying word, syllable, or tittle" that departs from the common text is presented as equally valuable. He is saying _some_ of them are unacceptable (because clearly scribal error, printing errors, and the like), but nowhere claims they are unacceptable simply for departing from the common text (as I pointed out, he says they deserve to be considered).

In the third quotation he is continuing his complaint against the undiscerning consideration of any variation, and many of these “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”, so that those left should be reduced in number and considered. He is not saying that nothing that departs from the common text should be cast aside, otherwise why even compare?

I maintain that Letis' assertion (specifically, what is quoted below) was false, for claiming that Owen, in the quotations he used, was specifically speaking of the TR (Letis inserted "TR" into Owen's quotations, which was certainly misleading, though I wouldn't claim deliberate). I'm pretty sure the quotations I already brought up from Owen prove as much.



Letis said:


> Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”
> 
> This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”
> 
> Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)


----------



## MW

John Owen, Works 16:300-301:



> the providence of God hath manifested itself no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of his own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose... It is true, we have not the Autographa of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists; but the Apographa or "copies" which we have contain every iota that was in them.



Owen made it clear (1) that he contended for the complete preservation of the writing as equally of the doctrine, and (2) that he considered this writing to be preserved in the copies which were available in his own time.

Both the advocates and opponents of the "TR" in the 19th century popularised the name and used it to designate the traditional text underlying the reformation versions of Scripture. Prior to that time writers would rarely have spoken about the "TR" by name. It is one of those post-factum terms. The concept is present without the name by which it came to be recognised.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Owen made it clear (1) that he contended for the complete preservation of the writing as equally of the doctrine, and (2) that he considered this writing to be preserved in the copies which were available in his own time.



Definitely. But Owen also made it clear that he believed certain lections (even those yet to be discovered) deserved to be considered, even while complaining against those that were clear mistakes or derived from ancient translations. I know Owen wouldn't have used "TR", but I am contending Letis is incorrect in asserting that Owen claimed that only variants within the various TR editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, etc. should be considered. 

Would you agree that this statement by Letis is incorrect?
"Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination..."


----------



## One Little Nail

So what Owen then seems to be saying is(point me out if i'm wrong)

i) that the Word or Words of God have been preserved in their entirety in The T.R (keep to The N.T. for arguments sake)

ii) that there are variant readings within this Family ( albeit ever so slight )

iii) that The Word of God is contained & preserved in its entirety within the pale of these Manuscripts & variations

iv) therefore because of reason iii) these Manuscripts & variations deserve to be considered

well why didn't you good folk just say this from the beginning! now since the manuscripts
that underly The KJB /AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV ?

# my Spyware is detecting a thread Hijacking attempt #


----------



## Logan

Robert,

I don't think that is quite correct. Consider this quote:



Owen said:


> Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are and have been various lections in the Old Testament and the New...[listing of some] If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered...All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church.



If Owen believed copies yet to be gathered should be considered, then he cannot be strictly said to be working within the variants of TR manuscripts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan,

To be fair, I must say that perhaps I have very poorly represented Dr. Letis' view with my meager quote of him; so to give you a fuller idea of what he said – and its context – I give a link to that section of his book I quoted from: Theodore P. Letis on John Owen vs Brian Walton (be sure to start at the top).

Sorry if I have contributed to misunderstanding.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Good words from Martin Lloyd-Jones from 1961 on the subject:



> I suppose that the most popular of all the proposals at the present moment is to have a new translation of the Bible.... The argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand its language—particularly the archaic terms. What does your modern man...know about justification, sanctification, and all these biblical terms? And so we are told the one thing that is necessary is to have a translation that Tom, Dick, and Harry will understand, and I began to feel about six months ago that we had almost reached the stage in which the Authorized Version was being dismissed, to be thrown into the limbo of things forgotten, no longer of any value. Need I apologize for saying a word in favor of the Authorized Version? Well, whatever you may think, I am going to do it without any apology.



The Authorized Version and New Translations


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

See also Letis' dissertation:

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D0330119_62453516_13666


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Logan,
> 
> To be fair, I must say that perhaps I have very poorly represented Dr. Letis' view with my meager quote of him; so to give you a fuller idea of what he said – and its context – I give a link to that section of his book I quoted from: Theodore P. Letis on John Owen vs Brian Walton (be sure to start at the top).
> 
> Sorry if I have contributed to misunderstanding.


Steve, I have complete faith and confidence that the text is inerrant in the original manuscripts but how do you 'answer' this fact, I assume it is fact, by Daniel Wallace ?

. Because he was in a rush, he could find only one copy of the book of Revelation. And that copy lacked the last leaf, Rev 22.16-21. What was Erasmus to do? He decided to back translate those final six verses, from Latin into Greek. And as good as Erasmus’ Greek was (he was considered the premier Greek scholar of the sixteenth century),* he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS *(except, of course, for one that was a copy of Erasmus’ printed text). The most remarkable text is Rev 22.19: “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Copied from ; https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JimmyH said:


> he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS



While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.


----------



## Logan

Bill The Baptist said:


> While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.



Bill, is this true that there are thousands of variations in the CT not found in any Greek manuscript or did you mean there are thousands of variations from say, corrupt manuscripts?

I ask as one who does not know Greek and only knows about the CT from what others have written. 

Steve, I don't think you have been unclear or contributed to any misunderstanding. I just don't see how Letis can be correct given other things Owen said in the very same chapter. Given my most recent quote from Owen, for example. It appears Letis only read parts of what Owen said and incorrectly extrapolated from there.


Jimmy, the paper by Wallace may have some good things but there is also much that is inaccurate and he says a lot that reveals his bias. I didn't find it to be very helpful, personally.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Logan said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, is this true that there are thousands of variations in the CT not found in any Greek manuscript or did you mean there are thousands of variations from say, corrupt manuscripts?
> 
> I ask as one who does not know Greek and only knows about the CT from what others have written.
> 
> Steve, I don't think you have been unclear or contributed to any misunderstanding. I just don't see how Letis can be correct given other things Owen said in the very same chapter. Given my most recent quote from Owen, for example. It appears Letis only read parts of what Owen said and incorrectly extrapolated from there.
> 
> 
> Jimmy, the paper by Wallace may have some good things but there is also much that is inaccurate and he says a lot that reveals his bias. I didn't find it to be very helpful, personally.
Click to expand...


I don't have the link at the moment, perhaps Steve does, but Dr. Maurice Robinson, who is professor of Greek at Southeastern Seminary, has documented these variances. They have occurred because the CT is essentially an "eclectic" text, meaning that it was produced from a composite of manuscripts, mainly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Because these two manuscripts disagree so frequently, often the reading that is chosen is one that is a hybrid of the two, resulting in readings that have no precise textual basis in any manuscript anywhere. It is this critical, eclectic text, as published by Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies, that is the basis for most modern versions.


----------



## Logan

Ah, if that is the case (textual reconstruction) then I agree that is a problem. I think Owen would criticize that harshly as well.


----------



## JP Wallace

I believe Bill is largely correct in his description of the CT having readings that are not in any extant manuscript/s - however this is not really a major problem. Rather than trying in this forum to describe why this is not a major problem, I haven't really been following the discussion, and I'm afraid I won't have time to enter into it much, may I reccomend a book?

Rethinking Textual Criticism, this includes a paper by Maurcie Robinson, and others who favour CT with a conclusion by Mosis Silva. It is a very good read, very informative and helpful for anyone interested in textual (lower) criticism, regardless of your position before or after reading it.


----------



## JimmyH

Bill The Baptist said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, is this true that there are thousands of variations in the CT not found in any Greek manuscript or did you mean there are thousands of variations from say, corrupt manuscripts?
> 
> I ask as one who does not know Greek and only knows about the CT from what others have written.
> 
> Steve, I don't think you have been unclear or contributed to any misunderstanding. I just don't see how Letis can be correct given other things Owen said in the very same chapter. Given my most recent quote from Owen, for example. It appears Letis only read parts of what Owen said and incorrectly extrapolated from there.
> 
> 
> *Jimmy, the paper by Wallace may have some good things but there is also much that is inaccurate and he says a lot that reveals his bias. I didn't find it to be very helpful, personally.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have the link at the moment, perhaps Steve does, but Dr. Maurice Robinson, who is professor of Greek at Southeastern Seminary, has documented these variances. *They have occurred because the CT is essentially an "eclectic" text, meaning that it was produced from a composite of manuscripts, mainly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.* Because these two manuscripts disagree so frequently, often the reading that is chosen is one that is a hybrid of the two, resulting in readings that have no precise textual basis in any manuscript anywhere. It is this critical, eclectic text, as published by Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies, that is the basis for most modern versions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that on D. Wallace, I only know him from the credentials as an author and expert in the Greek by reputation. 

*If I recall correctly*, Dr, James White, in a youtube video stated something along the lines of 'there is no extant Greek text of the NT that is not an eclectic text'. I cannot recall if it was the debate with Jack Moorman, or the one with D.A. Waite, one or the other.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JimmyH said:


> 'there is no extant Greek text of the NT that is not an eclectic text'.



True, but when your basis is a manuscript family that is virtually in complete agreement, this eclecticism has little effect. On the other hand, when your basis is a manuscript family that disagrees to the degree that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do, then eclecticism is a problem.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Would you agree that this statement by Letis is incorrect?
> "Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination..."



Letis may have been working with a broad definition of the TR, especially since Beza had worked with a wide range of Byzantine type readings and even some Western variants.

Codex Alexandrinus, after laying dormant for a short time, was starting to receive unorthodox attention, especially owing to the Socinian controversy. Owen took part in this controversy and contributed a solid defence of the orthodox faith. His rejection of indiscriminate readings undoubtedly included many from the Alexandrine family which were thought to undermine the biblical testimony for the divinity of Christ, among other things.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> now since the manuscripts
> that underly The KJB /AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV ?



The problems of translation have been mentioned earlier. As to the text underlying the translation, the problem is in the claim of the NKJV to follow in the line of earlier revisions. Those earlier revisions only touch on superficials. The NKJV does more. It sometimes translates a different underlying text. So what it claims and what it delivers are two different things.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

armourbearer said:


> It sometimes translates a different underlying text. So what it claims and what it delivers are two different things.



As much as I respect you, Rev. Winzer, this is an assertion that simply cannot be proven, at least as far as the NT is concerned.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JP Wallace said:


> I believe Bill is largely correct in his description of the CT having readings that are not in any extant manuscript/s - however this is not really a major problem. Rather than trying in this forum to describe why this is not a major problem, I haven't really been following the discussion, and I'm afraid I won't have time to enter into it much, may I reccomend a book?
> 
> Rethinking Textual Criticism, this includes a paper by Maurcie Robinson, and others who favour CT with a conclusion by Mosis Silva. It is a very good read, very informative and helpful for anyone interested in textual (lower) criticism, regardless of your position before or after reading it.[/QUOTE
> 
> With all due respect, I fail to see how this could not be a major problem. If the Bible is inspired in the original texts, and a particular reading has no basis in the original text, how then can it be considered to be inspired?


----------



## kodos

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> now since the manuscripts
> that underly The KJB /AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problems of translation have been mentioned earlier. As to the text underlying the translation, the problem is in the claim of the NKJV to follow in the line of earlier revisions. Those earlier revisions only touch on superficials. The NKJV does more. It sometimes translates a different underlying text. So what it claims and what it delivers are two different things.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer, it would be very helpful if you could point out instances where the NKJV uses a different text from the TR? I have been using both the AV and the NKJV and this would be helpful for me to know.


----------



## MW

Bill The Baptist said:


> As much as I respect you, Rev. Winzer, this is an assertion that simply cannot be proven, at least as far as the NT is concerned.



It is easily proven. Luke 1:35 is an obvious example. For those who may not know Greek I will simply quote the translations.

English Standard Version (ESV)
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[a] will be called holy—the Son of God.
[a] Some manuscripts add *of you*

Authorized Version
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born *of thee* shall be called the Son of God.

New King James Version
And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.


----------



## MW

Acts 19:39 is another example that is clear from the ESV's notes for those without Greek:

ESV: But if you seek anything further,[a] it shall be settled in the regular assembly.
[a] Some manuscripts seek *about other matters*

AV: But if ye enquire any thing *concerning other matters*, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.

NKJV: But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

For those interested, I updated the Letis link in my post #134 above to include the first 11 pages of his essay on Owen and the textual battles of his day. It's quite an interesting read for those to whom the transmission history of the Textus Receptus, and its use by the Reformers contra Rome, is important.

----------

Jimmy, answering your post #137,

With respect to your questions, did you look at the links I gave in my post # 118? Especially the one “Concerning Erasmus”? There are answers to one of your questions there.

Also, re Rev 22:19, in the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/ thread, put in your browser’s search feature “Revelation 22’s verse 19” for a discussion of that verse.

In this thread responding to Dr. White is this passage:

There are two basic text groupings comprising the varying readings in Revelation – _within the Majority Text camp!_ – as well as some CT readings. The MT groups are the 046 and the Andreas.

Hodges and Farstad in their (_The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text_, p. xxxvi) do admit, “There is no reason why the parental exemplar of the Andreas texttype could not go back well into the second century.” And Hodges says, “…the Textus Receptus much more closely approximates Andreas than 046 – in fact, hardly resembles the latter group at all” (from “The Ecclesiastical Text of Revelation,” _Bibliotheca Sacra_, April 1961, p. 121). [In their edition of the MT, they favored the 046 group, so this is a significant admission.]

From Hoskier’s _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_,
We trace the origin of the B (046) group not further back than 8th or possibly 7th century. Now many cursives are identified with this family group, whereas in the main our Textus Receptus is not, and has at any rate avoided the bulk of this revision (_Apocalypse_ p. xxxvii)

This may be the proper place to emphasize why the Textus Receptus of the Apocalypse is intrinsically good. Apoc. 1, on which it is founded, is an old text. See how it comes out in Hippolytus…

It is actually possible to reconstruct a first-class text from Hipp.—47—and Textus Receptus, and a far better one than that of _any_ of our five uncials. Why? Well, apart from a few idiosyncrasies, which the whole body of subsequent evidence rejects, Hippolytus represents as old a text as we can get. Then 47, also apart from a few distinguishing idiosyncrasies easily identified and rejected owing to lack of other support, is throughout a straightforward, careful witness. And lastly, the Textus Receptus, apart from any instinctive and intrinsic excellence, happens to prove back to the very order of words used by Hippolytus’ codex; in places where _t.r._ disagrees we let 47+Hipp. guide us and they nearly always lead us in the right path, namely with the consensus of general evidence. (Ibid., p. xlvii)​ 
Hoskier’s basic conclusion toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation was:
I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest _number_ of existing MSS in the world _of one type_, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual _numbers_, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (_The John Rylands Bulletin_ 19-1922/23, p 118.)​ 
So, per H.C. Hoskier, the manuscript(s) Erasmus used for Revelation was/were the very best, that is, of the Andreas group of manuscripts as opposed to the 046 group.

I will be posting more on Erasmus shortly, but it should be kept in mind that he kept notes on the various textual readings he came across during his many travels – even if he didn’t have all the manuscripts they came from with him – and he was constantly on the lookout for more mss. In my own mind, without notes, I have mental files on various readings, both in the CT editions and the TR/AV, and I know concerning many readings, which are genuine and which spurious. Very likely Erasmus had any more, both in preparation for his Latin NT and for the Greek.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> now since the manuscripts
> that underly The KJB /AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problems of translation have been mentioned earlier. As to the text underlying the translation, the problem is in the claim of the NKJV to follow in the line of earlier revisions. Those earlier revisions only touch on superficials. The NKJV does more. It sometimes translates a different underlying text. So what it claims and what it delivers are two different things.
Click to expand...


Pastor Matthew, i was basically summing up what i thought John Owens views were in regard to the Quotes
that Logan had posted, as much as i have been enjoying the textual debate that has been raging & have 
posted in Defence of The Traditional Text & KJB, I just thought i would repeat the the original question that 
sarted this thread off & some light humour thrown in with the spyware comment. 

yes i also believe that the NKJV has deviated textualy as well as made some bad & unnecessary word 
choices.


----------



## One Little Nail

Logan said:


> Robert,
> 
> I don't think that is quite correct. Consider this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Owen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are and have been various lections in the Old Testament and the New...[listing of some] If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered...All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Owen believed copies yet to be gathered should be considered, then he cannot be strictly said to be working within the variants of TR manuscripts.
Click to expand...


Brother Logan I believe you are putting words into our dead brothers mouth & since the dead cannot speak
but by their writings the onus is on you to provide quotes that Owen would have supported the Critical Texts.
Owen was a T.R. man, to say "out of ancient copies of credit & esteem" would back this up. Remember
Sinaiticus has 23,000+ corrections at last count, thats not what you would call credit & Esteem. Owen would have
been quite familiar with the work of Fulke, Cartwright, Whitaker & other Reformed Scholars on The Textual Issue
The Reformed Churches unanimously accepted The Masoretic/Received Text as can be seen by its overwhelming
use as The Textual Base of Reformational Bible Translations in all Tongues, & Owens use of it in his works, I've 
only got one more thing to say, If JOHN WEST was a Textual Scholar he would REJECT the CRITICAL Text TOO.


----------



## sevenzedek

armourbearer said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I respect you, Rev. Winzer, this is an assertion that simply cannot be proven, at least as far as the NT is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easily proven. Luke 1:35 is an obvious example. For those who may not know Greek I will simply quote the translations.
> 
> English Standard Version (ESV)
> And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[a] will be called holy—the Son of God.
> [a] Some manuscripts add *of you*
> 
> Authorized Version
> And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born *of thee* shall be called the Son of God.
> 
> New King James Version
> And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
Click to expand...


Where did "εκ σου" (of you/thee) go? It's not even marked in my NKJV as a departure.


----------



## sevenzedek

armourbearer said:


> Acts 19:39 is another example that is clear from the ESV's notes for those without Greek:
> 
> ESV: But if you seek anything further,[a] it shall be settled in the regular assembly.
> [a] Some manuscripts seek *about other matters*
> 
> AV: But if ye enquire any thing *concerning other matters*, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
> 
> NKJV: But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly.



Where did "περι ετερων" (concerning other matters) go?

From the NKJV preface: "Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the footnotes as being opposed by both Critical and Majority Texts."

This departure not only departs from the TR in favor of the CT, it isn't even marked in my copy.

Mr. Winzer is correct.


----------



## Logan

One Little Nail said:


> Brother Logan I believe you are putting words into our dead brothers mouth & since the dead cannot speak
> but by their writings the onus is on you to provide quotes that Owen would have supported the Critical Texts.
> Owen was a T.R. man, to say "out of ancient copies of credit & esteem" would back this up.



Thank you Robert, but if I may, I believe you are putting words into my mouth. I am quite confident that Owen would *not* have been a CT man, but that is not what I was trying to show. I was trying to show that Owen was not a strict TR man, in the sense that Letis was making him out to be. It is clear Owen believed in providential preservation. It is clear he believed God's word had been preserved entire, it is clear that he thought we had the entire word and that it was authoritative. However, it is also clear that he did not hold to a TR-only position (at least in the sense some take it), where, as Letis says he saw "only minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination..." and implies that is only from Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus, etc. This cannot be true if Owen said that those variants yet to be discovered, out of ancient and creditable manuscripts, would deserve to be considered. It commits Owen to more than he took a stand for.

I am not for the CT and against the TR, but neither am I for the TR in the sense that some people are. I am, however, for the truth, and I am disappointed when I see truth being sacrificed, often out of ignorance, simply for the sake of holding one's position.

Steve, I looked through most of Letis' paper you linked to and it was helpful for clarifying Letis' position, but still think my analysis is correct in that he commits Owen to too much. Incidentally, he said "no one been able to determine Walton was a papist", not that this is an important point.


----------



## JimmyH

Frederic G. Kenyon (1936)

The general conclusion to which we seem to be led is that there is no royal road to the recovery of the original text of the New Testament. Fifty years ago it seemed as if Westcott and Hort had found such a road, and that we should depart from the Codex Vaticanus (except in the case of obvious scribal blunders) at our peril. The course both of discoveries and of critical study has made it increasingly difficult to believe that the Vaticanus and its allies represent a stream of tradition that has come down practically uncontaminated from the original sources. Based as they must have been on a multitude of different rolls, it would have been a singularly happy accident if all had been of the same character, and all deriving without contamination from the originals. The uniformity of character which on the whole marks the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is better to be explained as the result of skilled editing of well-selected authorities on a definite principle. Therefore, while respecting the authority due to the age and character of this recension, we shall be disposed to give more consideration than Westcott and Hort did to other early readings which found a home in the Western, Syriac, or Caesarean texts, but we may still believe (though here personal predilections come into play, and others may take different views) that the Alexandrian text gives us on the whole the nearest approximation to the original form of the sacred books.

In this short survey of a great subject, we have endeavoured to give in simple language an outline of the general history of the Bible text, an account of the many discoveries which have modified and extended our knowledge of it, and an indication of the conclusions to which scholarly opinion seems to be tending. It is a fascinating story to those who care for their Bible. It is the life-history of the greatest of books, diversified by interesting episodes which appeal to our human sympathies; and we venture to think that the result is reassuring.* It may be disturbing to some to part with the conception of a Bible handed down through the ages without alteration and in unchallenged authority; but it is a higher ideal to face the facts, to apply the best powers with which God has endowed us to the solution of the problems which they present to us; and it is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.*

The Story of the Bible, by Frederic G. Kenyon (chapter 10)

The Story of the Bible, by Frederic G. Kenyon (complete book)


----------



## Logan

Thanks for that quote Jimmy. I do think it is important to have a strong confidence in God's preservation of the Scriptures and we do have, and always have had, the very word of God. And I've seen nothing to shake that confidence whether one holds to the CT or the TR or something in between.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

armourbearer said:


> Acts 19:39 is another example that is clear from the ESV's notes for those without Greek:
> 
> ESV: But if you seek anything further,[a] it shall be settled in the regular assembly.
> [a] Some manuscripts seek *about other matters*
> 
> AV: But if ye enquire any thing *concerning other matters*, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
> 
> NKJV: But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly.



Neither of the examples you have given are the result of departing from the TR. All translations will occasionally add words or subtract words in order to improve understanding or to make the text flow better. It is obvious in Luke 1:35 that the child will be born to her, and it also obvious in Acts 19:39 that any additional inquiry will involve other matters. The question you must answer is this, why would the editors of the NKJV, who included thousands of footnotes indicating every minor variance between texts, for some inexplicable reason choose not to footnote these passages as variants, and further, if your theory is that the editors wanted to secretly slip in readings from the CT, why did they chose such minor, meaningless passages while leaving intact other passages such as 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 22:19 which virtually all scholars acknowledge as having almost no textual support?


----------



## JP Wallace

Bill The Baptist said:


> With all due respect, I fail to see how this could not be a major problem. If the Bible is inspired in the original texts, and a particular reading has no basis in the original text, how then can it be considered to be inspired?



You misunderstand me, I'm not saying, nor I believe, is anyone that there is no basis for any reading in the original text, but that the original text is not available in it's orignal form and so the reading may not be in any one mss.. However, and you'll have to read the book to get the full argument - what Silva et. al. would assert is that the lack of explicit individual manuscript witness is what you would expect from a multi-copied orginal and is no hindrance to discovering the original text form.


----------



## sevenzedek

Bill The Baptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 19:39 is another example that is clear from the ESV's notes for those without Greek:
> 
> ESV: But if you seek anything further,[a] it shall be settled in the regular assembly.
> [a] Some manuscripts seek *about other matters*
> 
> AV: But if ye enquire any thing *concerning other matters*, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
> 
> NKJV: But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of the examples you have given are the result of departing from the TR. All translations will occasionally add words or subtract words in order to improve understanding or to make the text flow better. It is obvious in Luke 1:35 that the child will be born to her, and it also obvious in Acts 19:39 that any additional inquiry will involve other matters. The question you must answer is this, why would the editors of the NKJV, who included thousands of footnotes indicating every minor variance between texts, for some inexplicable reason chose not to footnote these passages as variants, and further, if your theory is that the editors wanted to secretly slip in readings from the CT, why did they chose such minor, meaningless passages while leaving intact other passages such as 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 22:19 which virtually all scholars acknowledge as having almost no textual support?
Click to expand...


That is an astute observation and I missed it. Perhaps Mr. Winzer will substantiate his point by showing other supposed deviations.


----------



## MW

Bill The Baptist said:


> Neither of the examples you have given are the result of departing from the TR. All translations will occasionally add words or subtract words in order to improve understanding or to make the text flow better. It is obvious in Luke 1:35 that the child will be born to her, and it also obvious in Acts 19:39 that any additional inquiry will involve other matters. The question you must answer is this, why would the editors of the NKJV, who included thousands of footnotes indicating every minor variance between texts, for some inexplicable reason choose not to footnote these passages as variants, and further, if your theory is that the editors wanted to secretly slip in readings from the CT, why did they chose such minor, meaningless passages while leaving intact other passages such as 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 22:19 which virtually all scholars acknowledge as having almost no textual support?



I made a statement; you challenged it; I substantiated the statement. I am not bound to answer any question as to what the editors of the NKJV were doing. They made the claim and failed to deliver on it. They are the ones to whom you should direct your question. I have already stated in an earlier post that it cannot be shown whether this departure was intentional or accidental, as a result of following modern versions. That is as much slack as can be given. They should not have followed modern versions when they claimed to be offering a further revision of the AV. They should have translated the underlying text of the AV.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

armourbearer said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of the examples you have given are the result of departing from the TR. All translations will occasionally add words or subtract words in order to improve understanding or to make the text flow better. It is obvious in Luke 1:35 that the child will be born to her, and it also obvious in Acts 19:39 that any additional inquiry will involve other matters. The question you must answer is this, why would the editors of the NKJV, who included thousands of footnotes indicating every minor variance between texts, for some inexplicable reason choose not to footnote these passages as variants, and further, if your theory is that the editors wanted to secretly slip in readings from the CT, why did they chose such minor, meaningless passages while leaving intact other passages such as 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 22:19 which virtually all scholars acknowledge as having almost no textual support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made a statement; you challenged it; I substantiated the statement. I am not bound to answer any question as to what the editors of the NKJV were doing. They made the claim and failed to deliver on it. They are the ones to whom you should direct your question. I have already stated in an earlier post that it cannot be shown whether this departure was intentional or accidental, as a result of following modern versions. That is as much slack as can be given. They should not have followed modern versions when they claimed to be offering a further revision of the AV. They should have translated the underlying text of the AV.
Click to expand...


As you have pointed out, it cannot be proven what the motivation behind these departures was, and in light of that I believe it is best to refrain from making these kinds of assertions. While you may not say this directly, what can be ascertained from your comments is that you seem to believe that the editors of the NKJV conspired to secretly insert readings from the critical text, while all the while claiming to be using the TR exclusively. I have shown how ridiculous this is in light of how exhaustively they have footnoted even minor variants and how they have chosen to leave even questionable TR readings intact. This assertion is essentially nothing more than a ridiculous conspiracy theory which has no basis in actual fact or reason.


----------



## MW

Bill The Baptist said:


> As you have pointed out, it cannot be proven what the motivation behind these departures was, and in light of that I believe it is best to refrain from making these kinds of assertions. While you may not say this directly, what can be ascertained from your comments is that you seem to believe that the editors of the NKJV conspired to secretly insert readings from the critical text, while all the while claiming to be using the TR exclusively. I have shown how ridiculous this is in light of how exhaustively they have footnoted even minor variants and how they have chosen to leave even questionable TR readings intact. This assertion is essentially nothing more than a ridiculous conspiracy theory which has no basis in actual fact or reason.



I have already said the change in text cannot be ascertained to be intentional, yet you accuse me of creating a conspiracy theory. You are evil surmising. The facts are, the omissions are textual, and the NKJV follows the omissions. There are obviously many cases where changes are due to a smoothing over of the translation, which itself is questionable. But there is no doubt there are cases where the translation follows modern versions in omitting text, and those modern versions omit the text because of a different underlying Greek text.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

armourbearer said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you have pointed out, it cannot be proven what the motivation behind these departures was, and in light of that I believe it is best to refrain from making these kinds of assertions. While you may not say this directly, what can be ascertained from your comments is that you seem to believe that the editors of the NKJV conspired to secretly insert readings from the critical text, while all the while claiming to be using the TR exclusively. I have shown how ridiculous this is in light of how exhaustively they have footnoted even minor variants and how they have chosen to leave even questionable TR readings intact. This assertion is essentially nothing more than a ridiculous conspiracy theory which has no basis in actual fact or reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already said the change in text cannot be ascertained to be intentional, yet you accuse me of creating a conspiracy theory. You are evil surmising. The facts are, the omissions are textual, and the NKJV follows the omissions. There are obviously many cases where changes are due to a smoothing over of the translation, which itself is questionable. But there is no doubt there are cases where the translation follows modern versions in omitting text, and those modern versions omit the text because of a different underlying Greek text.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,

You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar, and I mean that sincerely, and so I certainly do not wish to accuse you of any evil. I simply fail to see how something like this could possibly be accidental on the part of the translators, and so if your assertions are true, than it would most certainly constitute a conspiracy. Regardless, I love the AV and agree with you that it is the best overall translation available in English. I just also happen to believe that the NKJV is an excellent alternative and I fail to understand why it is so needlessly impugned by so many. With that, I will bow out of this discussion and I sincerely apologize if I have misrepresented you or made false accusations. May the Lord strengthen you as you continue to fight the good fight.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, I appreciate that this is where you are stuck: “[It] cannot be true [that he held ‘a TR-only position’] if Owen said that those variants yet to be discovered, out of ancient and creditable manuscripts, would deserve to be considered. It commits Owen to more than he took a stand for.”

And you give this saying of his:
“Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are and have been various lections in the Old Testament and the New…
[listing of some] If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no 
mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered...All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our 
assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church.”​ 
This quote is from pp 358-359 in the hardcopy. In the intervening ellipsis of that quoted he says, “Let any one run them through as they are presented in this Appendix, he will find them to be so small, consisting for the most part in unnecessary accents, of no importance to the sense of any word, that they deserve not to be taken notice of.” A little further he restates Cappellus’ opinion that “they are all trivial, and not in matters of any moment. Besides these, there are no other various lections of the Old Testament.” You will note he is speaking here only of the Hebrew. And then he gives the piece you present, “*If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered*.” [emphasis added]

It will serve us to know what the word “consider” means? “To take into view in examination. . . to observe and examine” reads Webster’s 1828 Dictionary; and what is Owen’s use of it? Does he mean, “Consider for inclusion into – and possibly _displace_ – the common readings, if it be found worthy” ? Or does he simply mean, “observe and examine”? How may we arrive at an understanding? An hermeneutical principle in expositing Scripture is to interpret the unclear in light of the clear (not vice versa), and so may we do in this instance.

For one, this quote of his you mentioned surely militates against non-Byz / TR lections being included into the text, as he insisted “that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church”. We will look in a moment what copies these might be.

As I brought up in post #128, Owen gives us a further look at his view of the contents of the Appendix:
As, then, I shall not speak any thing to derogate from the worth of their labour who have gathered all these various readings into one body or volume, so I presume I may take liberty without offence to say, I should more esteem of theirs who would endeavour to search and trace out these pretenders to their several originals, and, rejecting the spurious brood that hath now spawned itself over the face of so much paper, that ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, would reduce them to such a necessary number, whose consideration might be of some other use than merely to create a temptation to the reader that nothing is left sound and entire in the word of God (pp 363, 364).​ 
He again emphasizes that these variants “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”. But what does he mean by a thoroughly culled number “whose consideration might be of some other use than merely to create a temptation”? If it were of the Vulgate, or sundry translations or versions, or perhaps even Codex D (Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis which Beza gave to Cambridge University and did not use himself, so corrupt did he reckon it), or Vaticanus (of which Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome sent Erasmus many readings), think you he would have availed himself of any of these and their variants? For these were they which Rome sought to use to destroy the Reformation’s weapon against them: Sola Scriptura! This is why an understanding of the historical context in which Erasmus and the other TR editors and the later defenders of the Reformation’s Sola Scriptura is valuable. (This is why Letis’ essay, “Theodore Beza As Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism” is likewise of great value.) Now if there were new manuscripts discovered of the Byzantine text-type Owen may well have considered such, yet these were in the main identical with one other.

I pointed out earlier that as Owen ends the section, Chapter III, “Of various lections in the Greek copies of the New Testament”, he begins Chapter IV with these words,
Having now declared in what sense, and with what allowance as to various lections, I maintain the assertion laid down in the foregoing treatise concerning the providential preservation of the whole book of God, so that we may have full assurance that we enjoy the whole revelation of his will in the copies abiding amongst us. . . (p 367).​ 
He was there talking of the Byzantine / TR textform editions they had in hand. You may be assured he was not talking of the copies Rome was attempting to foist upon the world!

Logan, you are correct (as you referenced Letis) to say Walton was not a papist; sorry if I said he was (if so I will have to find that and change it), but rather an Anglo-Catholic much in sympathy with Rome’s attack against the Puritans whom he felt had done him (Walton) insult and injury.

----------

Jimmy,

You keep searching the internet, and cut and paste views opposing the Reformation view of the received text. Okay, you are entitled to your views, and I wish you well in holding them. Though I must say that your Mr. Kenyon is overly optimistic about the outcome of his methodology. The views of a good number of 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century critics are far less positive:
“The ultimate text, if ever there was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable” (F.C. Conybeare, _History of New Testament Criticism_, 1910, p. 129)

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, _Family 13, The Ferrar Group_, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through (Kenneth Clark, “Today’s Problems,” _New Testament Manuscript Studies_, edited by Parvis and Wikgren, 1950, p. 161).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles_, 1953, p. 9).

“In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must remain a hypothesis” (H Greeven, _Der Urtext des Neuen Testaments_, 1960, p. 20, cited in Edward Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, p. 67.

“... so far, the twentieth century has been a period characterized by general pessimism about the possibility of recovering the original text by objective criteria” (H.H. Oliver, 1962, p. 308; cited in Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, 1993, p. 25).

“The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well nigh impossible. Therefore, we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility’ ” (R.M. Grant, _A Historical Introduction to the New Testament_, 1963, p. 51).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“We face a crisis over methodology in NT textual criticism. ... Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. ... [F]ollowing Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliot (1972ff.), a new crisis of the criteria became prominent and is very much with us today: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread uncertainty as to precisely what kind of compromise ought to or can be worked out between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most—but certainly not all—textual critics have agreed upon is called a ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism ... the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of the frustration that accompanies its use...” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, 1993, pp. 39-41).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​ 
Jakob Van Bruggen’s, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, is an analysis of this sorry state of affairs.

So Jimmy, what kind of Bible is it you will have to hold in your hands? Will you have to say, “Well, I am absolutely certain that the original autographs were thoroughly inspired, and what I have here in hand is the very word of God, except perhaps for this hotly contested passage, and this and this and this. . . . but I hope that some day the full true text will be recovered.”?

I prefer – and have – much more confidence in my Bible than that.

--------------

Re Erasmus, even William Combs relates,
“Beatus Rhenanus, an employee of Froben, wrote a letter to a friend in September in which he reported: ‘Erasmus of Rotterdam, a great scholar, has arrived in Basel most recently, weighed down with good books, among which are the following: Jerome revised, the complete works of Seneca revised, *copious notes on the New Testament....*’ ” (Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, p 7.) [emphasis added]​ 

From David Cloud’s article, What About Erasmus?

*DIDN’T ERASMUS USE A MERE HANDFUL OF MANUSCRIPTS?*

This is the standard line that is given by textual critics and parroted by those who support textual criticism. Consider the following three examples. Kenyon was an influential textual critic, and Carson and Wallace are New Evangelicals who defend textual criticism.

Frederic Kenyon -- “Erasmus used only a handful of MSS...” (_The Text of the Greek Bible_, p. 155).

D.A. Carson -- “Although Erasmus published a fourth and fifth edition, we need say no more about them here. Erasmus’s Greek Testament stands in line behind the King James Version; yet IT RESTS UPON A HALF DOZEN MINUSCULE MANUSCRIPTS, none of which is earlier than the tenth century. ... the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule manuscripts” (D.A. Carson, _The King James Version Debate_, 1979, pp. 35-36). 

Daniel Wallace -- “[Erasmus] only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way” (_Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today_). 

*ANSWER: *

1. Erasmus had knowledge of many manuscripts other than those he used for his first edition. Erasmus “began studying and collating NT MSS and observing thousands of variant readings in preparation for his own edition” (Eldon Jay Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Studies in The Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, edited by Epp and Gordon Fee, p. 18; quoting Bentley 1983: 35, 138). “It is well known also that Erasmus looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with the common faith because it was founded on manuscripts which in the providence of God were readily available” (Edward Hills, _The King James Bible Defended_, p. 198). 

2. Erasmus knew about the variant readings that are known to modern textual critics. 

a. As Frederick Nolan observed: “With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; HAVING DISTRIBUTED THEM INTO TWO PRINCIPAL CLASSES, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition [the Received Text], and the other with the Vatican manuscript [corresponding to the modern critical text]. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in the possession of the Greek church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted" (Nolan, _Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament_, London, 1815, pp. 413-15).

b. “For the first edition Erasmus had before him ten manuscripts, four of which he found in England, and five at Basle. ... The last codex was lent him by John Reuchlin ... (and) ‘appeared to Erasmus so old that it might have come from the apostolic age.’ He was aware of Vaticanus in the Vatican Library and had a friend by the name of Bombasius research that for him. He, however, rejected the characteristic variants of Vaticanus which distinguishes itself from the Received Text. (These variants are what would become the distinguishing characteristics of the critical text more than 350 years later.)” (Preserved Smith, _Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History_, 1923). Erasmus was given 365 select readings from Vaticanus. *“*A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its superiority to the Received Text” (Frederic Kenyon, _Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts_, 1895; S.P. Tregelles, _On the Printed Text of the Greek Testament_; cited from Hills).

c. Erasmus discussed these variants in his notes. *“*_Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament_. Here, for example, Erasmus dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16) (Edward Hills, pp. 198-199).

3. Erasmus also had the textual evidence from the writings of ancient church leaders and from ancient Bible translations. “Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. *‘If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.’* *HE HAD COLLATED MANY GREEK MSS. of the New Testament, and WAS SURROUNDED BY ALL THE COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS, by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine*. ... When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Ecolampadius. Nothing without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb” (J.H. Merle D’Aubigne, _History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century_, New York: Hurst & Company, 1835, Vol. 5, p. 157).

4. Erasmus knew that the manuscripts he selected reflected the reading of the common text, and he was guided by this “common faith.” 

“Long before the Protestant Reformation, the God-guided usage of the Church had produced throughout Western Christendom a common faith concerning the New Testament text, namely, a general belief that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God’s special providence. It was this common faith that guided Erasmus and the other early editors of the Textus Receptus. ...   

“In Erasmus’ day [the common] view occupied the middle ground between the humanistic view and the scholastic view. Those that held this view acknowledged that the Scriptures had been providentially preserved down through the ages. They did not, however, agree with the scholastic theologians in tying this providential preservation to the Latin Vulgate. On the contrary, along with Laurentius Vallas and other humanists, they asserted the superiority of the Greek New Testament text. This common view remained a faith rather than a well articulated theory. No one at that time drew the logical but unpalatable conclusion that the Greek Church rather than the Roman Church had been the providentially appointed guardian of the New Testament text. But this view, though vaguely apprehended, was widely held, so much so that it may justly be called the common view. Before the Council of Trent (1546) it was favored by some of the highest officials of the Roman Church, notably, it seems, by Leo X, who was pope from 1513-1521 and to whom Erasmus dedicated his New Testament. Erasmus’ close friends also, John Colet, for example, and Thomas More and Jacques Lefevre, all of whom like Erasmus sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within, likewise adhered to this common view. Even the scholastic theologian Martin Dorp was finally persuaded by Thomas More to adopt it. In the days of Erasmus, therefore, it was commonly believed by well informed Christians that the original New Testament text had been providentially preserved in the current New Testament text, primarily in the current Greek text and secondarily in the current Latin text. Erasmus was influenced by this common faith and probably shared it, and God used to providentially to guide Erasmus in his editorial labors on the Textus Receptus. ...  

“But if Erasmus was cautious in his notes, much more was he so in his text, for this is what would strike the reader’s eye immediately. Hence in the editing of his Greek New Testament text especially Erasmus was guided by the common faith in the current text. And back of this common faith was the controlling providence of God. For this reason Erasmus’ humanistic tendencies do not appear in the Textus Receptus which he produced. Although not himself outstanding as a man of faith, in his editorial labors on this text he was providentially influenced and guided by the faith of others. In spite of his humanistic tendencies Erasmus was clearly used of God to place the Greek New Testament in print, just as Martin Luther was used of God to bring the Protestant Reformation in spite of the fact that, at least at first, he shared Erasmus’ doubts concerning Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, pp. 193, 197, 199).  

5. This entire issue is a smokescreen.   

a. First, what could it possibly matter that Erasmus used only a few select manuscripts for his Greek New Testament, when the textual critics know full well that these manuscripts represented then and still represent today the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts and lectionaries? Charles Ellicott, the chairman of the English Revised Version committee, admitted that Erasmus’ “few” manuscripts represent the “majority.” “The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus. ... That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them” (Charles John Ellicott, _The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by Two Members of the New Testament Company_, 1882, pp. 11, 12). Obviously, therefore, the exact number of manuscripts that Erasmus used has no relevance to the issue whatsoever. Yet we continually read the following type of statement from those who defend the modern versions: “This approach to the question, however, ignores the thousands of manuscripts that Erasmus did not consider. Some of those might actually contain the words originally penned by the apostles” (Robert Milliman, “Translation Theory and Twentieth-Century Versions,” _One Bible Only?_ edited by Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder, 2001, p. 135). How such a thing could be written with a straight face, I do not know. This type of thing is why we titled our first book on this subject in the 1980s “Myths about Modern Bible Versions.” By the way, Milliman’s statement is another blatant denial of preservation. If the words of God were not available to the Reformation editors and translators, that means they were hidden away from common use by the churches for at least 1,500 years. What type of “preservation” is that?  

b. Second, if to base a Greek New Testament upon a few manuscripts is in actuality something that should not be done, why do the textual critics support the Critical Text when it is based largely on a mere handful of manuscripts? The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, the latest edition of the Westcott-Hort Text, repeatedly questions and omits verses, portions of verses, and individual words with far less textual authority than the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7. Most of the significant omissions are made on the authority of Aleph and B (sometimes both together and sometimes one standing alone), and a bare handful of similar manuscripts and versions. For example, the word “fasting” is removed from the Westcott-Hort Text, the Nestles’ Text, the UBS Text, and all of the modern versions on the authority of its omission in Aleph, B, two minuscules (0274, 2427), one Old Latin, and the Georgian version. The entire last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark are omitted are seriously questioned on the authority of only three Greek manuscripts, Aleph, B, and the minuscule 304 (plus some witness by various versions that were influenced by the Alexandrian Text). Sometimes, in fact, the modern textual critics don’t have even this much “authority” for their changes. For example, the UBS Greek N.T. puts Matthew 21:44 in brackets on the “authority” of only one 3 Greek manuscripts, one uncial (the terribly unreliable D) and two minuscules. 

  6. Concerning the preservation of the Scriptures, our faith is not in man, but in God. Even if the Reformation editors had fewer resources than those of more recent times, we know that the God who controls the times and the seasons was in control of His Holy Word (Dan. 2:21). The infallible Scriptures were not hidden away in some monastic dungeon or a dusty corner of the Pope’s library at the headquarters of Apostasy. The infallible Scriptures were being published, read, and taught by God’s people. 

  “At Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Chicago (1984), Dr. [Stewart] Custer said that God preserved His Word ‘in the sands of Egypt.’ No! God did not preserve His Word in the sands of Egypt, or on a shelf in the Vatican library, or in a wastepaper bin in a Catholic monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. God did not preserve His Word in the ‘disusing’ but in the ‘using.’ He did not preserve the Word by it being stored away or buried, but rather through its use and transmission in the hands of humble believers. At latest count, there were 2,764 cursive manuscripts (MSS). Kenyon says, ‘... An overwhelming majority contain the common ecclesiastical [Received] text.’ ... Kenyon is prepared to list only 22 that give even partial support to the [modern critical] text. ... Are we to believe that in the language in which the New Testament was originally written (Greek), that only twenty-two examples of the true Word of God are to be found between the ninth and sixteenth centuries? How does this fulfill God’s promise to preserve His Word? ... We answer with a shout of triumph God has been faithful to His promise. Yet in our day, the world has become awash with translations based on MSS similar to the twenty-two rather than the [more than] two-and-a-half thousand” (Jack Moorman, _Forever Settled_, 1985, pp. 90-95).

  For more about Erasmus and the Received Text see the book “The Bible Version Question-Answer Database,” “Should 1 John 5:7 Be in the Bible Since It Has Little Support Among the Greek Manuscripts?” This book is available from Way of Life Literature.   

*WHY DID ERASMUS ADD THE JOHANNINE COMMA TO HIS 3RD EDITION GREEK NEW TESTAMENT?  * 

There are two popular myths regarding Erasmus and 1 John 5:7 that are parroted by modernists, evangelicals, and even fundamentalists today who defend the modern versions against the KJV. 

  The first myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert _the Comma Johanneum_, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_, 1st and 2nd editions).  

The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book _Erasmus’ Annotations_ and was repeated by James White in 1995 (_The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy_).   

In _A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8_, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” He has also refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth). In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote: 

  I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book _Erasmus’ Annotations_. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his _Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei_: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety. 

  ‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.’

  From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the _Comma Johanneum_ figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the _Comma Johanneum_. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

  In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).  

Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome’” (Jeffrey Khoo, _Kept Pure in All Ages_, 2001, p. 88). 

  Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “...it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the _Johannine Comma_ in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, _The King James Version Defended_). 

  In the 3rd edition of _The Text of the New Testament_ Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the _Comma Johanneum_ if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, _The Text of The New Testament_, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2). The problem is that this myth continues to be paraded as truth by modern version defenders.

[End David Cloud]


----------



## MW

Bill The Baptist said:


> You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar, and I mean that sincerely, and so I certainly do not wish to accuse you of any evil. I simply fail to see how something like this could possibly be accidental on the part of the translators, and so if your assertions are true, than it would most certainly constitute a conspiracy. Regardless, I love the AV and agree with you that it is the best overall translation available in English. I just also happen to believe that the NKJV is an excellent alternative and I fail to understand why it is so needlessly impugned by so many. With that, I will bow out of this discussion and I sincerely apologize if I have misrepresented you or made false accusations. May the Lord strengthen you as you continue to fight the good fight.



Brother, thankyou for your kind thoughts. The OP asked for reasons why the AV should be preferred to the NKJV. I trust it is not impugning a work of man to show wherein it has come short of something better. But I will leave it there, as you desire. Grace and peace!


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> Pastor Matthew, i was basically summing up what i thought John Owens views were in regard to the Quotes
> that Logan had posted, as much as i have been enjoying the textual debate that has been raging & have
> posted in Defence of The Traditional Text & KJB, I just thought i would repeat the the original question that
> sarted this thread off & some light humour thrown in with the spyware comment.



Sorry for missing your point.


----------



## JimmyH

JimmyH said:


> *I am not knowledgeable enough to refute the professor's claims but I know there are some on here who are and I would be grateful if they would prove to me that Dr Wallace is in error and there are no "problems" with the TR underlying the AV, and with the translation of the AV as it was done by the translators in 1611.*





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jimmy,
> 
> You keep searching the internet, and cut and paste views opposing the Reformation view of the received text. *Okay, you are entitled to your views, and I wish you well in holding them.*



Steve, thank you for the 'Herculean' effort in putting all of that information together on my behalf. I am genuinely grateful. I have stated, for what ever it is worth, that I 'cut my teeth' on the AV, read it more than the other versions, and will continue to do so. But as you point out, I have been posting views "opposing the Reformation view of the received text."

I asked in my quoted post above someone would go to the trouble of proving to me that Dr. Wallace is in error. You've gone above and beyond in attempting to do that AFAIC. I really do appreciate the effort. I confess that other than watching a few debates on youtube, reading threads on PB, and perusing articles on the internet, I haven't delved into those authors whose work you've quoted. 

If you are correct than that leaves me with a stack of ESV, ASV, NASB and NKJV that are paperweights or doorstops at best, heretical works at worst ? As I stated in my quote above, I don't have the base of knowledge that you or Reverend Winzer do, and at my age, it is unlikely that I will attain to it in whatever remains of my life. I look at people such as RC Sproul, William Mounce, Daniel Wallace and on and on.

Since they do have that level of knowledge and expertise, and they accept, indeed in some cases, participated in some of these translations based on the CT, am I to assume all of these luminaries in the Reformed community have been bamboozled ?

My copy of the Trinity Hymnal, published by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, uses Scripture quotations taken from the NIV. I don't particularly like that but it seems that the majority of pastors and scholars are going in that direction. Are they along with the OPC all in error ?

I hope this isn't taken as a 'troll' post because believe me, it is not. I agonize over this debate. God is not the author of confusion so who or what can we attribute this division to if not the adversary ?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

JimmyH said:


> Since they do have that level of knowledge and expertise, and they accept, indeed in some cases, participated in some of these translations based on the CT, am I to assume all of these luminaries in the Reformed community have been bamboozled ?



Jimmy, 

Before you make any hasty decisions, I recommend you read
1 King James Onlyism: A New Sect by James Price
2 The King James Only Controversy : Can You Trust Modern Translations? by James White (Revised ed)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for your reply, Jimmy! By my reading chair I have on a shelf a NKJV, MKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and an old LB (plus other versions on shelves further away), all of which I regularly use to help me either understand portions of my AV better, or see other ways of translating. I also have a few interlinear NTs and one OT (as Logan encourages) to help get at meanings, plus a lot of lexicons, word studies, and commentaries.

The word of God I have and trust I have labored long to ascertain the warrant for that trust, and then to defend it, as loving this edition of the Bible puts one in the sights of many. I seek peace with those who differ with me, and do not try to delegitimize their Bibles; it is accurate translation and true readings I focus on. Still and all, I was born to fight – and my given names, Stephen Mark, mean crown of war – and am up to it, though my primary warfare is simply to declare the word of God in an ungodly world.

A book that states my view pretty well is Thomas Holland’s, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_.

But I know godly men and women who live the Christian life well using other versions, and they are blessed by the Lord in their ways – and they have blessed me as well!

-----

Stephen, I certainly agree that men should not make hasty decisions, but to carefully consider their way. And I have interacted with Dr. White (here) and another textual writer from his ministry, AOMIN (here).


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> *Thanks for your reply, Jimmy! By my reading chair I have on a shelf a NKJV, MKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and an old LB (plus other versions on shelves further away), all of which I regularly use to help me either understand portions of my AV better, or see other ways of translating. I also have a few interlinear NTs and one OT (as Logan encourages) to help get at meanings, plus a lot of lexicons, word studies, and commentaries.
> *
> The word of God I have and trust I have labored long to ascertain the warrant for that trust, and then to defend it, as loving this edition of the Bible puts one in the sights of many. I seek peace with those who differ with me, and do not try to delegitimize their Bibles; it is accurate translation and true readings I focus on. Still and all, I was born to fight – and my given names, Stephen Mark, mean crown of war – and am up to it, though my primary warfare is simply to declare the word of God in an ungodly world.
> 
> A book that states my view pretty well is Thomas Holland’s, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_.
> 
> But I know godly men and women who live the Christian life well using other versions, and they are blessed by the Lord in their ways – and they have blessed me as well!
> 
> -----
> 
> Stephen, I certainly agree that men should not make hasty decisions, but to carefully consider their way. And I have interacted with Dr. White (here) and another textual writer from his ministry, AOMIN (here).



Many thanks Steve !


----------



## Logan

Steve,

Yes, in post #128 you said "by Roman Catholic Brian Walton", perhaps you did mean "Anglo-catholic" then.

Thank you for your copious notes on Erasmus, I'll let someone else reply if they want to.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> For one, this quote of [Owen's] you mentioned surely militates against non-Byz / TR lections being included into the text, as he insisted “that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church”.



No, not necessarily. I want to be absolutely careful that I am not reading my own position into Owen's, I try to read him fairly. With that said, is it possible you are reading your own into Owen's? Let me be absolutely clear that I personally don't care which way Owen went, I don't have a vested interest one way or another, but I am interested in truth for truth's sake.

But I think you are assuming that when Owen says "every letter and tittle", or "purity" that he means what you mean. I'm concerned that we read our own views back into the Puritans or Westminster Divines'. Might that not be the case here? If I may quote from Turretin?



Turretin said:


> The question is not, are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness, or by the Jews or heretics through malice, that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it.
> 
> ...
> 
> Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired, but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity.



Now don't get me wrong. Turretin almost certainly wouldn't have been for the critical text. However, Turretin, while affirming the purity, integrity, and authority of the Scriptures, also offered corrections to the TR (e.g., arguing that "Cainan" in Luke 3:36 should not be there).

So Turretin affirmed the absolute purity, and preservation of the Scriptures while also saying that there were variants and one must work by "collation". 

How do we reconcile this? Or how do you reconcile this? The most sensible way that presents itself to me is to assume that they did not mean pure in minutiae, but pure in essence. Remember too that the Westminster Divines also said that the Scriptures had been "kept" pure in all the ages (not made pure in Erasmus' time). If you take that statement as strictly as you take Owen, it is not true.

If Owen meant only variants that match the TR deserve to be considered (or even "observed", as you suggest), then why even consider them? What would be the purpose or benefit? If it matched, it would be no help, if it varied, it would be rejected.

As I said earlier, Owen contends that a large number, probably a majority, of the variants collected are unnecessary or unhelpful: printing errors, transcription errors, corrupted fragments, etc. it is _these_ that he says are "all trivial", not every variant as you seem to suggest. Likewise, when Owen says “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”, he is speaking derogatorily about those who attempt to "correct" the common reading with ancient translations, such as the LXX and Syriac. He is not speaking about all the variations.

So I see no problem with Owen declaring both that we possess the entire revelation, and that we should consider variants from reputable manuscripts. At the beginning of chapter III he commends the _methods_ of Beza, Stephanus, Cameron, Erasmus, etc. as opposed to the papal method of appealing to the Vulgate. He thought the work that they did was sound, and strongly implies that this sort of work should be continued, instead of the methods being applied in his day.

So Owen also believed in a pure Word, absolutely reliable, while granting variations (even in yet unknown manuscripts) and methods to reconcile them. The integrity of the Word is what Owen contends for, but he does not do so by appealing to the TR as the final authority, but rather to how minor the variations are in legitimate manuscripts. 

This one fact is worthy of consideration: if Owen thought that manuscripts of ancient and reputable origins should be considered, even if discovered some time in the future, then he cannot have been speaking only of manuscripts within the various TR editions, as Letis asserts. And that's what I was trying to say.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Stephen, I certainly agree that men should not make hasty decisions, but to carefully consider their way. And I have interacted with Dr. White (here) and another textual writer from his ministry, AOMIN (here).



Steve, I am aware of your views. I did hold that position myself once. I do stand by the books I mentioned - Price adds to the debate beyond James White.

It may be worthwhile, Steve, for you to have a formal debate with James White as other such as D.A. Waite have done.


----------



## One Little Nail

Here Gary F. Zeolla in an online discussion with a gentleman called Gregg
evaluate some of the differences between The KJB & The NKJV 

Verse Evaluations: KJV vs. NKJV - Part One

Verse Evaluations: KJV vs. NKJV - Part Two


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Logan,

I think I have made my case fairly well for what Owen’s view was on variants coming from textual traditions _other_ than those which the Reformers settled on as the common text to be held forth against Rome’s imperious claims, which was to be found strictly in Erasmus’ 3rd, Stephen’s 1550, and Beza’s 1598 editions – including the manuscripts they used to compile these editions* – and translated into the 1611 Authorized Version, the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling, and the other Protestant versions of the Reformation period.

* Added 11/15/13

It is really amazing to me what you are reading into Owen’s views – which is not congruent with the general understanding of his position – but I will rest with what I have already posted and let those looking on decide for themselves. You may have the last word, if you wish – I'll let you know when I am done. You have been a gracious discussion partner – thanks!

-----------

On another note – re your work trip – how cold was it in the mountains? And what kind of gear did you wear to withstand it? Beautiful pics you took!

-----------

Stephen, I’m afraid Dr. White would likely chew me up in a formal debate, as he’s much quicker thinking on his feet than I am; I am more a pondering (not ponderous I hope!), careful type who prefers to research and write his views. I can speak, as in preaching or lecturing, but am sort of slow with repartee and verbal sparring. 

My purpose is to let those whose trust reposes in the Authorized Version as God’s providentially preserved Bible in English, faithfully translated from the Greek and Hebrew, that they may know one does not have to be an expert in the Greek or Hebrew to defend their sacred trust in this edition of the Scripture. We are not, as Machen used to say, to be under the tyranny of experts. God’s word is for the common man, woman, and child, and if the “scholars” – and even our beloved pastors – tell us we cannot trust the Reformation’s Bible, we can parry off their doubting with His word, which says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4), and that “his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3), His _every word_ being among them, and which we have. We can take that precious promise by faith. I care not if any call me an ignorant babe; I will hold to my God’s word like a bulldog his bone.

About Dr. Price, Stephen – I need not deal with every opponent of the Authorized Bible that puts something in print, need I? Else I would be kept busy till my last breath, and I do have other things to do! Anyway, I have interacted with an essay of James Price here. I don’t want to be stalking the man!

Hopefully this will be my last post in this thread!


----------



## Logan

Thanks Steve, 
I've now read through "Divine Origins" almost completely twice, including Owen's preface which isn't in the 16 vol edition. I have also discovered in my PDF copy (since I don't have my books with me on my trip) that I was reading through his "Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text", and it is especially here that I have been pulling from (so your confusion may be my fault). Looking back at "Divine Origins" I see where you are coming from, reading Owen's slightly later work, "Integrity and Purity", I think you'll see an expansion of his views and see what I'm saying.

And as to "reading into Owen", all I can say is that if I am doing this, then the editor, Rev. William Goold D.D. also did the same, since he said essentially the same thing I am in his note at the beginning of "Integrity and Purity". I came to my conclusion independently of him since I didn't read his note until after.

I am still on my trip (typing from the mountain right now). Gear is pretty much Carhartt overalls and jacket, but most of the time we are inside running diagnostic tests. It is quite beautiful here!

Does anyone have an English translation of Owen's "Pro Sacris Scripturis"? I am led to believe this later work talks even more about his beliefs regarding Scripture.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, likewise myself, I have been working mostly out of the section, “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text”, as can be seen from the page numbers I cite in my quotes. Editor Goold I am not crazy about, as he sets himself over Owen and presumes to critique him. If my memory serves me right I believe he had done this with another Puritan he edited, though I can’t recall now which.

Pro Sacris Scripturis Exercitationes Adversus Fanaticos, John Owen. Here it is in Latin, but I can’t find it translated anywhere.

The Works of John Owen - John Owen - Google Books


----------



## MW

A Defence of the Sacred Scriptures was translated by Stephen Westcott and appended to the volume entitled "Biblical Theology," which was published by Soli Deo Gloria. It is against the fanatical doctrine of "inner light." From memory it does not go into any textual detail, but only provides a general vindication of the perfection of Scripture. Dr. Westcott's Introduction intimates that Dr. Goold did not share Owen's "Biblicalism."


----------



## JimmyH

http://www.christianbook.com/biblical-theology-john-owen/9781877611834/pd/11832

By the Bible Alone! John Owen's Puritan Theology for Today's Church: Stephen P. Westcott: 9780977344246: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think I have made my case fairly well for what Owen’s view was on variants coming from textual traditions other than those which the Reformers settled on as the common text to be held forth against Rome’s imperious claims, which was to be found strictly in Erasmus’ 3rd, Stephen’s 1550, and Beza’s 1598 editions, and translated into the 1611 Authorized Version, the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling, and the other Protestant versions of the Reformation period.



Steve, I know you don't intend to respond but I just can't see this and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. I could see perhaps the Byzantine family of texts but not "strictly Erasmus' 3rd, Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1598 editions." Owen contends strongly for the originals (Hebrew and Greek) and acknowledges many variants. He also commends the _methods_ of those like Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, etc. but I just can't see how he only holds strictly to their editions. If he acknowledges "That there are in some copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of some good antiquity, diverse readings, in things or words of less importance" and doesn't condemn them, what does he mean? 



Owen said:


> [speaking of the Appendix, a collection of all variants known to date] I shall then never fail on all just occasions, to commend the usefulness of this work, and the learning, diligence, and pains of the worthy persons that have brought it forth; nor would be wanting to their full praise in this place, but that an entrance into this discourse with their due commendations, might be liable to misrepresentations. But whereas we have not only the Bible published, but also private opinions of men, and collections of various readings (really or pretendedly so we shall see afterward), tending some of them, as I apprehend, to the disadvantage of the great and important truth that I have been pleading for, tendered unto us; I hope it will not be grievous to any, nor matter of offence, if using the same liberty, that they, or any of them, whose hands have been most eminent in this work, have done, I do with (I hope) Christian candour and moderation of spirit, briefly discover my thoughts upon some things proposed by them.



Why commend it as useful if only Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza are to be considered?

Owen comes up with five complaints (very strong complaints) about the Appendix:
1. vowel points are shown to be added, and thus the Scriptures have been to be "corrupted". He denies this.
2. 800 variations in the Hebrew are presented as legitimate variations, but some of these come from critical amendments and such.
3. That it is claimed Scripture can be "corrected" out of the various ancient translations (who must have had a "true text" where it varies from ours). He denies this.
4. Men can by conjecture restore corrupted texts by interpolation or some such. He denies this.
5. Too many variants are given which really don't deserve a place, such as obvious scribal or printing errors.

I see no complaint that they just don't match the common text and therefore should be rejected. Would that not be the case if only Beza, Erasmus, and Stephens are to be considered?



Owen said:


> It is not every variety or difference in a copy that should presently be cried up for a various reading.


This is one of his primary complaints. He never complains that varieties or various readings are offered up (as one would think he would if only Beza, Erasmus, and Stephens are to be used).



Owen said:


> I am not then, upon the whole matter, out of hopes, but that upon a diligent review of all these various lections, they may be reduced to a less offensive, and less formidable number;


Not done away with entirely, as one would think would be the case if only Beza, Erasmus, and Stephens are to be held to.

He then claims a place of authority, or standard, for the KJV, as I take it, and offers suggestions for improving the Appendix.


Owen said:


> let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use [presumably the Authorized Version], was the public possession of many generations; that upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world, with them that used and understood that language, as far as any thing appears to the contrary. Let that then pass for the standard which is confessedly its right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see, how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings, as we are now surprised withal. For, 1. Let those places be separated, which are not sufficiently attested unto, so as to pretend to be various lections: it being against all pretence of reason, that every mistake of every obscure private copy, perhaps not above two or three hundred years old (or if older), should be admitted as a various lection, against the concurrent consent of, it may be, all others that are extant in the world and that without any congruity of reason, as to the sense of the text where it is fallen out. Men may, if they please take pains to inform the world, wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections, is a course not to be approved 2. Let the same judgment, and that deservedly, pass on all those different places, which are altogether inconsiderable consisting in accents, or the change of a letter, not in the least intrenching on the sense of the place, or giving the least intimation of any other sense to be possibly gathered out of them, but what is in the approved reading: to what end should the minds of men be troubled with them or about them, being evident mistakes of the scribes, and of no importance at all
> 
> .... listing of some more heads ...
> 
> Unto which heads, many, yea the most of the various lections collected in this appendix may be referred; I say, if this work might be done with care and diligence (whereunto I earnestly exhort some in this university, who have both ability and leisure for it), it would quickly appear, how small the number is of those varieties in the Greek copies of the New Testament, which may pretend unto any consideration under the state and title of various lections; and of how very little importance they are, to weaken in any measure my former assertion concerning the care and providence of God in the preservation of his word.



i.e., he is certain that the remaining reliable manuscripts will coincide so close with our present edition as to inspire confidence in it. He is supremely concerned that the Christian have confidence in God's Word. But these manuscripts are not just those from Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus. That much seems clear or I wonder how I can be so misunderstanding him.

I see Owen's view as one that has a high view of Scripture, and desires to harmonize the various readings, not pitting one text against another. But that doesn't mean he would ignore any text outside of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus.

It is certainly arguable over how much variation Owen would have considered "uncorrupted", or which family he would have considered most reliable (if he even thought in families). But while commending the work and method of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus, nowhere does he say their work is all that should be looked at, indeed, his recommendation of their methods seems to be an encouragement to continue it. Once again, I am quite certain he would have rejected the CT, but I have not been persuaded that he held only to Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus. He held to the originals and the methods those men used in comparing them to one another.

Regardless, I think we can both agree that Owen held a high view of Scripture and didn't want anyone's confidence shaken in it. He believed God's people had never been left without the pure, entire Word of God and that it was preserved, and even with various readings, could be found by comparing manuscripts (not by using ancient translations or conjectures). We would do well to listen to his complaints of those seeking to depose God's word, and his commendations of such as Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus.

If anyone else would like to read "Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text" (it is a very good read), especially the first and third chapter, please do.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> A Defence of the Sacred Scriptures was translated by Stephen Westcott and appended to the volume entitled "Biblical Theology," which was published by Soli Deo Gloria. It is against the fanatical doctrine of "inner light." From memory it does not go into any textual detail, but only provides a general vindication of the perfection of Scripture



Thank you very much for that. 

And thank you, Jimmy, for the link. It does look to be like something in response to the Quakers specifically and not have much to do with textual issues.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, alas, I am not ready to bow out and give you the last word – not yet! I simply cannot abide leaving the thread with such misunderstanding being held forth as the truth, and undisputed.

In my post 177, when I said of the common text used by the Reformers, it “was to be found strictly in Erasmus’ 3rd, Stephen’s 1550, and Beza’s 1598 editions”, I amended that sentence by adding, “ – including the manuscripts they used to compile these editions – ” &etc, as likely many of them were still available.

What I object to in your presentation is the statement that Owen was willing to bring in readings from other than the Byzantine majority of manuscripts, then or in the future. I suppose what impels you to think as you do is the lack of a sense of historical context, resulting in your imposing what you think reasonable from a post-Enlightenment 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century view of textual criticism, and “interpreting” Owen in that light.

I gather at this point you have little liking for Dr. Letis’ ideas, seeing him as likewise (along with myself) misinterpreting Owen, and disseminating “false” views. Nonetheless, he has proven himself an astute scholar regarding the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, and you have not.

For the sake of contextualizing the discussion we are having in its proper historical-theological setting, I will post the conclusion of Dr. Letis’ essay, “Theodore Beza As Text Critic: A View Into the Sixteenth Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism”. I have requested of the publisher permission to scan and put the entire essay on Scribd, for such valuable material ought be widely available (the book is out of print), if for no other reason than to prevent modern thinkers from imposing their views onto sixteenth and seventeenth century ways of seeing and thinking about the Scripture and text-critical issues, as you have unfortunately done.

From “Theodore Beza As Text Critic”:


*CONCLUSION: THE INTERPRETATION OF EDWARD F. HILLS CONSIDERED*

I am indebted to the work of Edward F. Hills for providing me with the trajectory of this study. As a text critic who was well exercised in the Enlightenment methodology, he determined that this led to utter skepticism, when attempting to arrive at a consensus text, or when even trying to maintain that such _ever_ existed. He reminds us that Westcott and Hort’s fragile and arbitrary “consensus” was not very long-lived and that
among . . . modernistic and unbelieving scholars skepticism has for many years been the order of the day. So great has been the disagreement among them that for almost a century they have remained unable to complete a new critical edition of the Greek New Testament to replace Tischendorf’s 8th edition of 1869. They cannot decide which readings shall be placed in the text and how the variant readings shall be exhibited. [SUP]l08[/SUP]​ 
It became evident to Hills that the only new consensus waiting to take the place of Westcott and Hort’s, was that there is no consensus, presumably because there never was any. Hence, Hills returned to the Reformers to discover their method. He observed that there was a conscious, theological feature to their praxis that certified that the consensus of the documents themselves, as descriptively found in the MSS that survived the long medieval interlude, would be the consensus that they would perpetuate. This was not just the result of determining this to be the simplest approach to the complex problem, but it reflected their belief (a naive one by today's standards) that this was indeed the _received text, _founded on, according to Hills, what Harnack had called the _common faith. _In Harnack’s discussion of this he determined just what the parameters of belief were which transcended all ethnic, sectarian barriers and united the early Christian communities against Gnosticism.[SUP]109[/SUP] In like manner, Hills maintained, the emerging evangelicalism of the sixteenth century (including Erasmus) was affected by a renewed understanding of this _common faith, _in opposition to the great medieval heresy of papalism, and it is this influence that kept the text intact, while in the notes of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, a critical, humanistic interest in variants was reflected:
In his preparation of the textus receptus Erasmus was . . . guided by the common faith of Christendom. For centuries it had been commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text (primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text) was the true New Testament which had been preserved by God's special providence. In his editorial labors on the New Testament text Erasmus was governed by the common faith. He was not himself, indeed, notable as a man of faith, but his intention was to provide a text which would be purchased by the general public. Hence, he was influenced by the faith of others, and this placed a restraint upon the humanistic tendency to treat the text of the New Testament as he would the texts of other ancient books. What was true of Erasmus was true also of Stephanus, Calvin, Beza and other 16th-century scholars who labored on the _textus receptus._[SUP]110[/SUP]​ 
The renewed _common faith _(the faith held by nearly all evangelicals during the 16th-century renewal) belief that the text handed down by the Byzantine Church was correct is what gave 16th century textual criticism its consensus; and since the Enlightenment, when such a theological control was abandoned, no such consensus has arisen—but for the consensus that the 16th century was wrong. And while the Reformers did not hold to a perfectionist view of this _received text, _as is reflected in their notes, they nevertheless preserved its _form _for purposes of _canonicity._

In conclusion, it is not accurate to judge Beza and the Reformation century as "unscientific" or without a method, by Enlightenment standards; because clearly,
During the Reformation period the approach to the New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in Holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books. [SUP]111[/SUP]​ 
___________

[SUP]108[/SUP] Edward F. Hills, _Believing Bible Study, _2nd ed. (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1977), p. 89.
[SUP]109[/SUP] Adolph Harnack, _History of Dogma, _translated from the 3rd German edition, Vol. 1 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1894), pp. 145-221.
[SUP]110[/SUP] Hills, _Believing Bible Study, _p. 36.
[SUP]111[/SUP] Hills, _King James Version. _p. 63.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What I object to in your presentation is the statement that Owen was willing to bring in readings from other than the Byzantine majority of manuscripts, then or in the future. I suppose what impels you to think as you do is the lack of a sense of historical context, resulting in your imposing what you think reasonable from a post-Enlightenment 21st century view of textual criticism, and “interpreting” Owen in that light.



I will be the first to admit that I know almost nothing about textual criticism of any form, so I would be hard-pressed to even know what post-Enlightenment 21st century textual criticism would look like. I am just reading Owen trying to find out what his views were. I really don't care which way they go as they don't hurt or help any "case" I am trying to make for manuscript tradition. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Nonetheless, [Letis] has proven himself an astute scholar regarding the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, and you have not.



Certainly, and I hope I have maintained some humility in this discussion. I do not pretend to be a brilliant scholar, but taking all that Owen says (not just select sentences), I _just can't see it_. It would seem that his only writings about the "Appendix" would be to say "it's all a pile of rubbish except for those variations that Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus considered" or "because they depart from the common text". But he doesn't. As I said, I could potentially see just Byzantine/Majority texts, but not just the ones used by Erasmus, et al. 

I must admit that not having Rev. Winzer pounce on me has been encouraging, since he seems to do that when I am wrong 
Speaking of him, if he wants to correct me for misinterpreting Owen, then he's welcome to. I found everything in his post #145 agreeable to what I have been saying, and nothing in it that seems to restrict Owen to just Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus, and the texts they used.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> if for no other reason than to prevent modern thinkers from imposing their views onto sixteenth and seventeenth century ways of seeing and thinking about the Scripture and text-critical issues, as you have unfortunately done.



I have endeavored to seek out what their views were. Thus my recent quote of Turretin, Watson, and the like. I am likewise concerned that people impose their views onto those of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. I am trying to read with an open mind, and I have nothing to prove by it. I don't think it is merely a lack of historical context (I have read and love a number of the Puritans), but _if_ so, I have no defense except to say that at least I am being honest. And I'm very sorry we can't see eye to eye on this, it does not seem to be for a lack of trying on either of our parts.


Edit:
Steve, it crossed my mind last night that you may still be thinking of Owen's quote here:


Owen said:


> As, then, I shall not speak any thing to derogate from the worth of their labour who have gathered all these various readings into one body or volume, so I presume I may take liberty without offence to say, I should more esteem of theirs who would endeavour to search and trace out these pretenders to their several originals, and, rejecting the spurious brood that hath now spawned itself over the face of so much paper, that ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, would reduce them to such a necessary number, whose consideration might be of some other use than merely to create a temptation to the reader that nothing is left sound and entire in the word of God (pp 363, 364).



Of which you said:


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He again emphasizes that these variants “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”.



Which variants? Certainly Owen is saying that _some_ of these variants ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, specifically those which he complained about in the _immediately preceding paragraph_. He wants to reduce the number. How do we jump from this to thinking he is saying that _all_ variants should be rejected? Once again, if this is what he meant, it seems that his only comment on the Appendix would be something along the lines of "what need have we of this pile of rubbish that departeth from the received variants of our common text? If any man desireth to compare variants he need only look at those of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus, for there we have all the variants allowed by God and they are small indeed." 

I also note that in another work (Owen's second discussion on the Annotations of Grotius), he rejects a couple of variant readings Grotius had supported, not on the grounds that they didn't agree with the common text (though he does mention that Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were apparently unaware of it), but because they were apparently unknown to the vast majority of manuscripts and didn't have enough support from "ancient copies". I also found he knew of some variants in Hebrews (in his commentary) but rejected them on the grounds that it did not make sense to the passage, not because they weren't of the common text. I wish you knew how many hours I've devoted to trying to see if Owen really meant Erasmus et al. All the more so because I have leisure time during my work trip.


----------



## Logan

Owen said:


> The last place wherein he grants this signification of the word δίκαιος is Rev xxii 11. ὁ δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω ἔτι in 'qui justus est justificetur adhuc' which place is pleaded by all the Romanists. And our author says they are but few among the Protestants who do not acknowledge that the word cannot be here used in a forensic sense but that to be justified is to go on and increase in piety and righteousness.
> _Ans._ But (1.) there is a great objection lies in the way of any argument from these words namely from the various reading of the place. For many ancient copies read not ὁ δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω ἔτι which the Vulgar renders 'justificetur adhuc' but δικαιοσύνην ποιῶν ἔτι 'Let him that is righteous work righteousness still' as doth the printed copy which now lieth before me. So it was in the copy of the Complutensian edition which Stephens commends above all others and in one more ancient copy that he used. So it is in the Syriac and Arabic published by Huterus and in our own Polyglot. So Cyprian reads the words 'de bono patientiae; justus autem adhuc justiora faciat similiter et qui sanctus sanctiora.' And I doubt not but that it is the true reading of the place, δικαιωθήτω being supplied by some to comply with ἁγιασθήτω that ensues. And this phrase of δικαιοσύνην ποιῶν is peculiar unto this apostle being nowhere used in the New Testament nor it may be in any other author but by him. And he useth it expressly 1 Epist. ii. 29 and chap. iii. 7.



Steve, here Owen contends for a reading which is, to the best of my knowledge, outside of the TR. It is definitely not in Stephanus' 1550 or Scrivener's 1894. True, he says that Stephanus also made use of a copy that had this, but his primary reason for preferring it is not it was in a manuscript Stephanus used (after all, Stephanus apparently rejected the reading, if he had it), but that it was in "many ancient copies."

I also was looking through his commentary on Hebrews to find if he considered other readings. He did. Some of them are not from the TR as we have it today, whether they were part of Beza's or Erasmus' or Stephanus' I cannot tell as I don't have access to all of those. I was going to list them out but they are too numerous. If you search for "copies" you will find many, as he often seems to consider "many ancient copies." especially in volume 2 and 4.



Owen on Heb 1:7 said:


> The translation now in the Greek is the same with that of the apostle, only for πυρὸς φλόγα 'a flame of fire,' some copies have it πυρ φλεγον 'a flaming fire,' more express to the original;


Which I don't think is preferred by any textual tradition.



Owen on Heb 10:2 said:


> There is a variety in the original copies, some having the negative particle [greek] others omitting it; if that negation be allowed, the words are to be read by way of interrogation; "would they not have ceased to be offered?" that is, they would; if it be omitted, the assertion is positive; "they would then have ceased to be offered;"


I know of no textual tradition that uses it without the negation, but he seems to treat them as equally acceptable



Owen on Heb 10:23 said:


> The special duty exhorted to. "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, for he is faithful who hath promised." Some copies read [greek] "the profession of our hope," which virtually comes to the same with our version; for on our faith is our hope built, and is an eminent fruit of it: wherefore, holding fast our hope includes in it the holding fast of our faith, as the cause in the effect. But I prefer the other reading, as more suited to the design of the apostle, and his following discourse.


Here he prefers the common reading, but doesn't deny the other (which again, I don't think any textual tradition accepts).

There are many more. Note, I that it appears (on my inept comparison) that some of these readings he is talking about (or even prefers) aren't in the TR, Majority, or Alexandrian texts. Is it still plausible he only held to Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus? I cannot see how.


----------



## JimmyH

I certainly am no scholar either but from my reading of John Owen's 'Integrity And Purity Of The Hebrew And Greek Text' , Of Lections Gathered Out Of Translations, vol 16 BOT Works, this brief excerpt, reading the quoted text below, leads me to the conclusion that John Owen considered the Bible _as he had it_ to be providentially given. your mileage may vary.

"The distemper pretended is dreadful and such as may well prove mortal to the sacred truth of the Scripture. The sum of it, as was declared before, is, "That of old there were _sundry copies extant_, differing in many things from those we now enjoy, according to which the ancient translations were made, whence it is come to pass that in so many places they differ from our present Bibles, even all that are extant in the world ; " so Cappellus ; -- or,"That there are corruptions befallen the text (varieties from the *Greek word I cannot translate*) that may be found by the help of translations ;" as our Prolegomena.

Now whereas the _first translation_ that ever was, as is pretended, is that of the LXX., and that of all others excepting only those which have been translated out of it, doth most vary and differ from our Bible, as may be made good by some thousands of instances, we cannot but be exceedingly uncertain in finding out wherein those copies which, as it is said, were used by them, did differ from ours, or wherein ours are corrupted, but are left unto endless uncertain conjectures.

What sense others may have of this distemper I know not ; for my own part, I am solicitous for the ark, or the sacred truth of the original, and that because I am fully persuaded that the remedy and relief of this evil provided in the translations is unfitted to the cure, yea, fitted to increase the disease. Some other course then, must be taken ; and seeing the remedy is notoriously insufficient to effect the cure, let us try whether the whole distemper be not a mere fancy, and so do what in us lieth to prevent that horrible and outrageous violence which will undoubtedly be offered to the sacred Hebrew verity, if every learned mountebank may be allowed to practise upon it with his conjectures from translations."


----------



## Logan

JimmyH said:


> leads me to the conclusion that John Owen considered the Bible as he had it to be providentially given. your mileage may vary.



I'd certainly agree with that, though specifically in your quotation Owen is arguing against using an ancient translation (like the Septuagint) to "correct" our modern Greek or Hebrew, on the supposition that we now have corrupted copies and the translation used "pure" ones. 

Owen believed what they had to be authoritative, and he also believed the complete Word of God was in the copies of the originals that had been handed down, but he also knew there were variations and believed it to be the proper role of the critic to compare between manuscripts (but not interpolate). This is probably the mildest (and most respectful) form of textual criticism. Thus far I think we are uncontested. The question in discussion is whether Owen's appeal to the "originals" in his day only included that of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the manuscripts they used.


----------



## sevenzedek

JimmyH said:


> I certainly am no scholar either but from my reading of John Owen's 'Integrity And Purity Of The Hebrew And Greek Text' , Of Lections Gathered Out Of Translations, vol 16 BOT Works, this brief excerpt, reading the quoted text below, leads me to the conclusion that John Owen considered the Bible _as he had it_ to be providentially given. your mileage may vary.
> 
> "The distemper pretended is dreadful and such as may well prove mortal to the sacred truth of the Scripture. The sum of it, as was declared before, is, "That of old there were _sundry copies extant_, differing in many things from those we now enjoy, according to which the ancient translations were made, whence it is come to pass that in so many places they differ from our present Bibles, even all that are extant in the world ; " so Cappellus ; -- or,"That there are corruptions befallen the text (varieties from the *Greek word I cannot translate*) that may be found by the help of translations ;" as our Prolegomena.
> 
> Now whereas the _first translation_ that ever was, as is pretended, is that of the LXX., and that of all others excepting only those which have been translated out of it, doth most vary and differ from our Bible, as may be made good by some thousands of instances, we cannot but be exceedingly uncertain in finding out wherein those copies which, as it is said, were used by them, did differ from ours, or wherein ours are corrupted, but are left unto endless uncertain conjectures.
> 
> What sense others may have of this distemper I know not ; for my own part, I am solicitous for the ark, or the sacred truth of the original, and that because I am fully persuaded that the remedy and relief of this evil provided in the translations is unfitted to the cure, yea, fitted to increase the disease. Some other course then, must be taken ; and seeing the remedy is notoriously insufficient to effect the cure, let us try whether the whole distemper be not a mere fancy, and so do what in us lieth to prevent that horrible and outrageous violence which will undoubtedly be offered to the sacred Hebrew verity, if every learned mountebank may be allowed to practise upon it with his conjectures from translations."



Somebody! Please! Where might I find the NMOV (New Master Owen Version)? I had to read that quote twice in order to learn that Owen preferred his own copy of the Bible, as he had it, over those that were translated from corrupted texts that differed from his in some thousands of instances; yea, even from all that were then extant in the world.

What I didn't find was anything concerning providential preservation. But I reckon he would have given assent to such a notion based upon the fact that he was, for his own part, solicitous for the ark, or the sacred truth of the original, and that because he was fully persuaded that the supposed remedy and relief of the evil provided in the translations was unfitted to the cure, yea, rather fitted to increase the disease (so Owen). Owen was very frowny-faced about increasing the disease. And he probably wouldn't have been very excited about having some LXX or ESV for breakfast either. As Steve noted, for his own part, Owen probably held his AV like a dog holds his bone.

I heard that Owen was likened to an elephant because of his girth and grace in expressing complex thoughts—complex ideas; not very concise. I would add to such an idea. Owen is like an elephant because of his impeccable memory. He doesn't forget what he is writing about when he arrives at the final paragraph of a very long sentence.


----------



## JimmyH

sevenzedek said:


> Somebody! Please! Where might I find the NMOV (New Master Owen Version)? I had to read that quote twice in order to learn that Owen preferred his own copy of the Bible, as he had it, over those that were translated from corrupted texts that differed from his in some thousands of instances; yea, even from all that were then extant in the world.


LOL, I didn't find him hard to follow in this instance. Then again, I've read so many authors from that period that the cadences work for me. He breaks his thought progression up with commas, I don't find it that difficult to understand. Reminiscent of my listening to Charlie Patton, Leadbelly, Son House, and like that. The records/CDs used to come with transcripts of the lyrics because the words were unintelligible to the average listener. I listened to them so much that I became able to understand them with no trouble, while other friends of mine couldn't understand them at all. In other words,, read Owen and his contemporaries enough and it becomes easier to follow.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

"This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people started reading not knowing what it was, and they'll continue reading it forever just because, this is the thread that never ends...........................................


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, your example of Owen commenting on Rev 22:11 proves nothing, as you have not shown that the “many ancient copies”, or the copy Stephanus used were not from the Byz Greek. (The apparatus of Stephanus 1550 in _The Englishman’s Greek New Testament_, cites nineteenth century editions supplied by later editors, and is not helpful in finding what either Stephanus or Owen had before them.) You are simply making huge assumptions, and should I be refuting assumptions?

My objection to this example applies to the other examples you have given; you have not shown they are not in the copies or readings the TR editors used.

It should also be borne in mind that there were some Latin readings in the editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza (nor should we forget the Elzevirs and their slightly later editions, 1624-1641), which Erasmus, under the hand of Providence, brought back into the Greek textus receptus, and we do not even know all the versions and mss the TR editors had access to. These would all count as “included in the manuscripts (or readings therefrom) they used to compile their editions”. I think there must remain some things beyond our ken.

Regarding your mention of Owen’s earlier comment on the “usefulness” of the variants (your post # 182), this from Richard A. Muller’s, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ed., may shed some light on that:

____________

*c. The Ancient Versions*

The authentic editions of Scripture are, thus, the Hebrew and the Greek texts, which represent the language of the original authors. In this assertion, coupled with the recognition that the church possessed no original copies of the text, orthodoxy manifested the necessity of textual criticism and, indeed, fostered the detailed technical analysis of the ancient text and versions that would produce such works as the great London Polyglott Bible edited by Brian Walton.[SUP]205[/SUP] Yet, in this process of critical establishment of text, orthodoxy could not—for obvious theological reasons—allow a priority of the ancient versions. Ainsworth, thus, quite carefully argues *the importance of the use of ancient versions in the work of translation and interpretation. The versions, particularly the Chaldee paraphrase and the Septuagint, offer significant interpretations of difficult texts*. Late in the seventeenth century, the eminent orientalist, Pocock, could similarly comment that the Hebrew text was illuminated by inquiry "into such other languages of neere affinity to it, in which the same words are in use, as the Syriacke and Arabick." Nonetheless, the Hebrew text remains prior.[SUP]206[/SUP] . . . . (p 447) [emphasis added]

All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: "the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all Idioms."[SUP]216[/SUP] As for the Chaldee, it is not a translation but a paraphrase and *is of great usefulness as an exposition of the Hebrew*[SUP].217[/SUP] The Greek of the "Seventy-two Interpreters," comments Leigh, had great authority among the Hellenistic Jews and was used by the Evangelists, "when they might do it without swerving from the sense of the prophets."[SUP]218[/SUP] The Syriac and Arabic versions of the New Testament are ancient and “*very profitable for understanding the Greek.*” [SUP]219[/SUP] Leigh finally turns to the Latin translation, commenting that Tremellius’ and Junius’ version is best for the Old Testament while Erasmus and Beza are to be favored for the New.[SUP] 220[/SUP] (pp 449-550)

___________

[SUP]205[/SUP] Brian Walton, ed., _Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, _6 vols. (London, 1657) and _Biblicus apparatus, chronologico-topographico-philologicus: prout ille tomo_ _praeliminari operis eximii polyglotti _(London, 1658).
[SUP]206[/SUP] Ainsworth, _Psalmes, _fol. 2 verso; Edward Pocock, _Commentary on the Prophecy of Hosea _Oxford,1685).

[SUP]216[/SUP] Edward Leigh, _A Systeme or Body of Divinity_, Handling the Scripture Or Word of God; _Treatise, _I.vi (p. 94); London 1654 cf. Mastricht, _Theoretico-practica theologia,_ I.ii.11, citing Ames, _Medulla, _LXXXIV.32-33.
[SUP]217[/SUP] Leigh, _Treatise, _I.vi (p. 95).
[SUP]218[/SUP] Leigh, _Treatise, _I.vi (p. 97).
[SUP]219[/SUP] Leigh, _Treatise_, I.vi (p. 98).
[SUP]220[/SUP] Leigh, _Treatise_, I.vi (p. 99).

______________

So there is indeed some legitimate use for the variances, as Owen indicated was the case for him, apart from inclusion into the “common edition” the Reformers and post-Reformation divines treasured, and which they already possessed amongst themselves.


----------



## JimmyH

Bill The Baptist said:


> "This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people started reading not knowing what it was, and they'll continue reading it forever just because, this is the thread that never ends...........................................


 "It ain't over 'til it's over." Yogi Berra ( how's that for theology ?)


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Logan, your example of Owen commenting on Rev 22:11 proves nothing, as you have not shown that the “many ancient copies”, or the copy Stephanus used were not from the Byz Greek.



Steve, respectfully, I don't know if you've been reading my posts fairly. Have I ever said they weren't from the Byzantine texts? In fact, in post #185 I said:



Logan said:


> As I said, I could potentially see just Byzantine/Majority texts, but not *just* the ones used by Erasmus, et al.
> 
> [I was referring my earlier statement in post #182]
> 
> I could see perhaps the Byzantine family of texts but not "strictly Erasmus' 3rd, Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1598 editions."



I allow they _could_ be from just the Byzantine family, though if it was that important one would think Owen would specifically mention it, and would want to know whether the text he was looking at had also looked at by one of those three (but he doesn't). Wouldn't he say in his Hebrews commentary something like "I know this variant isn't found in the common text, but it's acceptable because I found out that Erasmus looked at a manuscript that had it."?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> My objection to this example applies to the other examples you have given; you have not shown they are not in the copies or readings the TR editors used.



Once again, I don't know whether that is the case or not, but that's not my intention to prove. I do think it's clear it's not in the various *editions* of the TR, however.

My entire discussion has been to say that Letis is wrong in saying Owen would only have allowed variants that were found in the various *editions* of the TR. If you agree with that, we're done. I don't see where I've made assumptions on that. But if you want to move the finish line to say that Owen only included all the Byzantine manuscripts and that I'm "assuming" that is not the case, that's no longer Letis, that is you. Or if you want to claim Owen would only have used the variants that were in the manuscripts Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza _used_, that again is you, not Letis. I'd admit either of those could be possibilities, yet I think it would be up to you to prove Owen would have restricted himself as such, as that's a pretty specific claim, and Owen never mentions just those three but always several others who employed the same *methods*. 

I'm really not sure what you'd be trying to prove at that point, though.


To reiterate, I have only been claiming that this quotation from Letis, is false about Owen. I don't accuse Letis of doing so intentionally. I have bolded those areas I had problems with. 


Letis said:


> Owen saw only the minor variants between the *various editions of TR* as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” *Within the confines of these editions* was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”
> 
> This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to choose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [*within the providentially preserved editions of the TR* –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the *minutiae of differences among the TR editions* –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the *activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity*, or, as Owen says, “another way.”
> 
> Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)



I am sorry you seem to be exasperated over this. I've never wanted to argue with you and I'm certainly wanting this to be over! I feel rather pedantic holding to such specific point.


----------



## tleaf

As a "lay reader" of these many posts, may I jump in to say that the bottom line of all this is: Can I be assured that I have the Word of God in my hands?
My Authorized Version has had 400 years to be criticized, critiqued, convoluted and cast aside....and yet it remains!!
To what purpose do we keep straining at gnats?

Blessings to all.


----------



## JimmyH

tleaf said:


> As a "lay reader" of these many posts, may I jump in to say that the bottom line of all this is: Can I be assured that I have the Word of God in my hands?
> My Authorized Version has had 400 years to be criticized, critiqued, convoluted and cast aside....and yet it remains!!
> *To what purpose do we keep straining at gnats?
> *
> Blessings to all.


 Which raises the question, as to whether it is straining at or straining out ? Translation wise ...... Straining Gnats and Camel Swallowing


----------



## sevenzedek

JimmyH said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody! Please! Where might I find the NMOV (New Master Owen Version)? I had to read that quote twice in order to learn that Owen preferred his own copy of the Bible, as he had it, over those that were translated from corrupted texts that differed from his in some thousands of instances; yea, even from all that were then extant in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I didn't find him hard to follow in this instance. Then again, I've read so many authors from that period that the cadences work for me. He breaks his thought progression up with commas, I don't find it that difficult to understand. Reminiscent of my listening to Charlie Patton, Leadbelly, Son House, and like that. The records/CDs used to come with transcripts of the lyrics because the words were unintelligible to the average listener. I listened to them so much that I became able to understand them with no trouble, while other friends of mine couldn't understand them at all. In other words,, read Owen and his contemporaries enough and it becomes easier to follow.
Click to expand...


I had that problem with the KJV. After a while, I just got used to it. I've been switching back and forth between the KJV and the NKJV.

Owen is challenge for as well, but get better at it as I stumble along. His work is actually good practice for holding thoughts in context.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

JimmyH said:


> Which raises the question, as to whether it is straining at or straining out ? Translation wise



An even bigger question Jimmy. I like the ESV. Can I use my ESV with confidence?


----------



## sevenzedek

tleaf said:


> As a "lay reader" of these many posts, may I jump in to say that the bottom line of all this is: Can I be assured that I have the Word of God in my hands?
> My Authorized Version has had 400 years to be criticized, critiqued, convoluted and cast aside....and yet it remains!!
> To what purpose do we keep straining at gnats?
> 
> Blessings to all.



The question of whether we actually have God's word in our hands is one of the questions that this thread ultimately addresses.

I would characterize this conversation with foxes rather than gnats.

Song of Songs 2:15
Catch us the foxes,
The little foxes that spoil the vines,
For our vines have tender grapes.

You're fellowship with us and Christ is one of those tender grapes we seek to preserve. Of course, I have mostly been an observer in this thread. The heavy lifting is being done by those other wordy, and helpful guys.


----------



## JimmyH

Stephen L Smith said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which raises the question, as to whether it is straining at or straining out ? Translation wise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An even bigger question Jimmy. I like the ESV. Can I use my ESV with confidence?
Click to expand...

I am a mere babe in Christ, unschooled in these matters, having to rely on the learning of those who've gone before. I was saved through reading a Schofield Reference Bible (KJV) and have continued to use a KJV as my main Bible ever since then. At that time, in 1986, I had to use the '84 NIV to help me to understand portions that were too difficult for me in the KJV. So while I continue to use the KJV as my main Bible, the David Norton New Cambridge Paragraph being my current text of choice, I also continue to read the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and even the 1984 NIV at times.

Steve and Reverend Winzer are convincing advocates for the AV and,the underlying text. In one sense they are 'preaching to the choir' when it comes to me, OTOH, since Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, in many of his sermons, that "in this instance, the RV got it right", or (paraphrasing) in that instance "the RSV has the correct reading", I will continue to read other translations for my own edification. I find it difficult to believe that scholarly men of God such as R.C; Sproul or John MacArthur would continue to publish study Bibles bearing their names, in the ESV translation, if it were not a reliable text. Whichever text, "I place my hope on nothing less than Jesus Blood and Righteousness, when all around is sinking sand, On Christ the solid rock I stand." Just in my exceedingly humble opinion.


----------



## sevenzedek

Stephen L Smith said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which raises the question, as to whether it is straining at or straining out ? Translation wise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An even bigger question Jimmy. I like the ESV. Can I use my ESV with confidence?
Click to expand...


You may use the ESV with as much confidence as Jesus had with the LXX.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

sevenzedek said:


> You may use the ESV with as much confidence as Jesus had with the LXX.



So how does this logically follow?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hey Logan, I'm willing to let it rest as is if you are. I must say you are a dogged opponent, much as I am!


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hey Logan, I'm willing to let it rest as is if you are. I must say you are a dogged opponent, much as I am!



That's probably best, especially as what Owen believed on this point isn't really critical to anyone's spiritual growth or salvation. I will agree I can be dogged, though I've not really considered myself an "opponent" in this discussion as we are both of the same mind in a huge number of things I'm sure. Thank you for being patient with me!


----------



## sevenzedek

Stephen L Smith said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may use the ESV with as much confidence as Jesus had with the LXX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this logically follow?
Click to expand...


I understand that the LXX is not widely held by some to be an extremely accurate translation of the OT, yet, as it is also widely held by some, Jesus quotes from the LXX authoritatively. The conclusion I draw from this is that God will hold us accountable to what we know; even if our translation is perceived to be flawed. 

Here, I am not arguing for any errors of the ESV, but that the issue of Jesus' quoting from the flawed LXX means that we are still accountable to what we know from translations; even when they might appear somewhat flawed.

Whether or not there are flaws in the ESV, we are still held accountable to the gospel message in it. In other words, I think the primary question God asks is not about what translation or manuscript type we use (TR, CT, ESV, KJV, NKJV), although this is an important issue.

In the light of this issue, I am still sticking to my guns in preference to the TR translations over the CT translations, but I am not so blind as to think that a person cannot be sanctified unless the use the translation that accords with my convictions. While I may not agree with CT translations, CT bibles are NOT to be considered trash-worthy.

Personally, I enjoy the ESV very much, but I stay away from it because it does not align with my convictions. We all see and know in part. Everyone is going to come away from these issues with different convictions. I respect that.


----------



## One Little Nail

Yes there is enough truth within the Critical Text Family of Bibles to save a man but their corruptions
make them unreliable for The Word of God is needed that a Man of God be thoroughly furnished unto
all good works if the Words of God are missing it will hinder our sanctification

Brother Logan I still can't for the Life of me see that there would be any new Texts that would be completely
or substantially different from the Received Text as there found in one stream of manuscripts that have their support
in the various Uncials, Cursives, Lectionary & Church Father readings as well as the earliest Translations
like the Old Italic not vulgate that support the Traditional Textual readings, as opposed to any corrupted 
manuscripts like Aleph & Codex B (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus) or the derived Critical Texts, that would be discovered
that could have been used by Owen or others for that matter to bring any great difference in The Scripture readings 
that we possess, God's promise of a Providential Preservation & its derived Inspiration from the Originals would have 
ensured that we've had The Word of God substantially all along.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jon,

When you say that “Jesus quotes from the LXX authoritatively” that is not quite accurate, for it is the four evangelists that render His words in Greek (unless you would have the Messiah of the Jews speaking Greek to the Pharisees, Scribes and priests, which is unlikely – although I would venture to say He could speak that language, it being the common language of the Roman Empire), with this proviso (in bold italic):
The Greek of the "Seventy-two Interpreters," comments Leigh, had great authority among the Hellenistic Jews and was used by the Evangelists, *"when they might do it without swerving from the sense of the prophets." *[SUP]218[/SUP]
_________

[SUP]218[/SUP] Richard A. Muller’s, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2,_ p 449, citing Edward Leigh, _A Systeme or Body of Divinity_, Handling the Scripture Or Word of God; _Treatise, _I.vi (p. 97).​ 

These threads go quite into the topic:

*LXX Discussion thread* (Many issues concerning the Septuagint): LXX Discussion


*Do NT authors quote the LXX? thread* (Further consideration of Septuagint issues): Do NT authors quote the LXX?


Owen was of the view that where the NT appears to quote the LXX when it contradicts the Hebrew, it was “Christian” scribes who altered the LXX to conform to the NT readings.


----------



## sevenzedek

Steve,

If you say that Jesus did not quote the LXX, it is enough for me to question my other sources.

Stephen,

Perhaps what I say concerning the ESV is correct for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Logan

sevenzedek said:


> If you say that Jesus did not quote the LXX, it is enough for me to question my other sources.



I think Steve is just making a minor correction: Jesus may not have quoted from the LXX (he probably didn't speak to the Jews in Greek), but the Apostles did when writing down Jesus' words.

So the correction would be that that _apostles_ quote from the LXX authoritatively.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

One Little Nail said:


> Yes there is enough truth within the Critical Text Family of Bibles to save a man but their corruptions
> make them unreliable for The Word of God is needed that a Man of God be thoroughly furnished unto
> all good works if the Words of god are missing it will hinder our sanctification



I would take it then that you would discard the King James Bible. After all it calls into question a number of key texts. Its center column reference in Luke 10:22 suggests an addition to the word of God. It suggests a deletion in Luke 17:36. It suggests a variation at Acts 25:6. It questions some of the text at 1 John 2:23. In Revelation 16:5 it follows Beza's conjectural emendation and NOT the Received Text. It looks like the King James Bible itself is 'naughty' by your textual standards!


----------



## Logan

Here we go again...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, I agree that the evangelists and apostles may have used the LXX Greek _when it was in agreement with the Hebrew_ (a ready-made translation), though I'm not aware of them using it when translating Jesus' words, though it is possible (as when He quotes the OT); do you know of any instances?

__________

Stephen, are you saying the center column references in your KJB are what is questioning the text? From whence came these marginal notes? . . . And I did discuss Rev 16:5 in my thread responding to James White.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Logan said:


> Here we go again...



If you want this subject dropped I am happy with this. it is just that some criticisms of the critical text have been made that can be challenged


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Stephen, are you saying the center column references in your KJB are what is questioning the text? From whence came these marginal notes? . .



It means you should ban KJV bibles with marginal notes 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> And I did discuss Rev 16:5 in my thread responding to James White.



The reason why I mentioned previously the REVISED ed of his book was that White does DOCUMENT the problem. In reality I have not yet seen a CONSISTENT defense of why one should defend the KJV at this point when it departs from all textual traditions - Byzantine, Critical and Received Texts.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> do you know of any instances?


Steve, aside from possibly Mark 7:6--7, no I am not, offhand. I was trying to clarify your statement and may have introduced a confusion of my own! I should have worded that more carefully.

Stephen, if you'd like to continue the conversation that's certainly fine. I'd probably be interested in reading but I'm going to try to stay away for a while


----------



## MW

Stephen L Smith said:


> Can I use my ESV with confidence?



The 1677/89 Confession, following the Savoy and Westminster, states Jesus is the "only begotten Son." May I ask how you can maintain this confessional truth with confidence when it is omitted by the ESV?


----------



## sevenzedek

What is the record for the number of posts?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, thanks – you were clear, and there was no confusion – I was just curious; I’ll check that passage in Mark out.


Stephen,

You said, “It means you should ban KJV bibles with marginal notes ” – to which I have no comment. As far as Rev 16:5, if you haven’t looked at what I said to Dr. White (which thread I referenced twice), what more shall I say? Besides, why prolong this thread with more off-topic topics? [But nonetheless, you do ask good questions.]


----------



## Stephen L Smith

armourbearer said:


> The 1677/89 Confession, following the Savoy and Westminster, states Jesus is the "only begotten Son." May I ask how you can maintain this confessional truth with confidence when it is omitted by the ESV?



The ESV has a good accurate translation of Monogeses so I fail to see what the problem is. Though, one can fire darts both ways. The Jehovah's Witnesses and like cults would be *much* happier with the KJV translation of 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13 than that of the ESV!


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> As far as Rev 16:5, if you haven’t looked at what I said to Dr. White (which thread I referenced twice), what more shall I say?



If the response is substantial, it would be helpful to have a link rather than looking through 6 pages of thread


----------



## MW

Stephen L Smith said:


> The ESV has a good accurate translation of Monogeses so I fail to see what the problem is.



The translation leaves the confessional statement without biblical basis. The same applies to 8.6, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."



Stephen L Smith said:


> Though, one can fire darts both ways. The Jehovah's Witnesses and like cults would be *much* happier with the KJV translation of 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13 than that of the ESV!



Thomas Adams: "Tit. ii. 13. Here can be no distinction of persons thought on: for it is the great God that appears in judgment; but no person of the Deity properly appears in judgment at the last day, but Jesus Christ. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son," John v. 22: therefore Christ is there called the great God. For the Mediator betwixt God and man, is perfect God and perfect man; and yet not two, but one Christ: one not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person, as Athanasius."

The notice of a visitation from the great queen and our head of state Elizabeth would not naturally be interpreted as referring to two entities. If anything the ESV detracts from the fulness of the original by making both nouns relational when one should be absolute.

The same applies to 2 Pet. 1:1. Thomas Adams: "Here is then full testimony that Christ is God, against the Arians."


----------



## Free Christian

I know the JW'S definitely don't like the KJV, full stop, they like the others as they can use them greatly against reformed teachings, but no way do they like the KJV. I have had enough experiences with them to be able to say that!


----------



## Stephen L Smith

armourbearer said:


> The notice of a visitation from the great queen and our head of state Elizabeth would not naturally be interpreted as referring to two entities. If anything the ESV detracts from the fulness of the original by making both nouns relational when one should be absolute.



I don't think the argument follows at all. The ESV gives the clearest rendering in the text of the deity of Christ.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I use my ESV with confidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1677/89 Confession, following the Savoy and Westminster, states Jesus is the "only begotten Son." May I ask how you can maintain this confessional truth with confidence when it is omitted by the ESV?
Click to expand...


Matthew are you referring to John 1:18 ,the Critical Text translated literally is the only begotten God(god) 
which stinks of Arianism, a begotten god wake up folks, the Not Inspired Version says God the one & only
while the ESV has no one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, so what we have
here is God the one & only & God;the only God in the NIV & ESV respectfully are basically denying the
Deity of The Father at worst since in this verse it is Jesus that is the "one & only" God or at best they are
maybe stating some form of Modalism/Sabellianism correct me if I'm wrong and plain english is not plain english.


----------



## One Little Nail

Logan said:


> Here we go again...



what's a matter Logan have you suddenly got a weak stomach


----------



## One Little Nail

Stephen L Smith said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is enough truth within the Critical Text Family of Bibles to save a man but their corruptions
> make them unreliable for The Word of God is needed that a Man of God be thoroughly furnished unto
> all good works if the Words of god are missing it will hinder our sanctification
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would take it then that you would discard the King James Bible. After all it calls into question a number of key texts. Its center column reference in Luke 10:22 suggests an addition to the word of God. It suggests a deletion in Luke 17:36. It suggests a variation at Acts 25:6. It questions some of the text at 1 John 2:23. In Revelation 16:5 it follows Beza's conjectural emendation and NOT the Received Text. It looks like the King James Bible itself is 'naughty' by your textual standards!
Click to expand...


Stephen you've only mentioned a handful verses the last count for the Sinaiticus by Oxford university was
25,000 corrections not to mention the differences between Vaticanus & Sinaiticus runs in the Thousands
& if you were to put the KJB alongside the NIV in the N.T. the NIV would have that many fewer words that
it would be like removing the book of 1 & 2 Peter but maybe you run out of fungers to count them.
the Nestle/Aland Greek Text of the NIV is shorter than the Textus Receptus by 2886 words!
http://www.kingswaybaptist.co.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zN2i0qsJ1ig%3D&tabid=319

I know what Text I will be sticking too.


----------



## Logan

One Little Nail said:


> what's a matter Logan have you suddenly got a weak stomach



Naw, I just have seen no indication the participants in this thread would even consider changing their views.

While I'm here, you asked me a question earlier and I think you've misunderstood what I was saying on Owen. I don't see anything to indicate Owen would have supported the CT (probably the opposite), or texts that substantially differed (though that's a subjective term) from the TR. I was merely trying to point out that it doesn't appear Owen restricted the bounds of Biblical criticism to only those _editions_ printed by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, but perhaps would have restricted himself to the larger Byzantine collection. In other words, I don't see strict adherence to the TR (and most people by that apparently mean Scrivener's 1894) as the only confessional position.


----------



## sevenzedek

I put more confidence in the Reformers and their forerunners than in Eusebius, Wescott/Hort, Origen's school, and the like. Could you imagine David asking the Philistines to compile the existing sacred texts of his day?


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> Matthew are you referring to John 1:18 ,the Critical Text translated literally is the only begotten God(god)
> which stinks of Arianism, a begotten god wake up folks, the Not Inspired Version says God the one & only
> while the ESV has no one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, so what we have
> here is God the one & only & God;the only God in the NIV & ESV respectfully are basically denying the
> Deity of The Father at worst since in this verse it is Jesus that is the "one & only" God or at best they are
> maybe stating some form of Modalism/Sabellianism correct me if I'm wrong and plain english is not plain english.



Robert, there are definitely theological issues with John 1:18. I was only concentrating on the truth contained in the statement, "only begotten Son," which appears five times in the AV -- four times in reference to Christ, and once in reference to Isaac, who was a type of Christ. This teaching is denied by some who are otherwise orthodox on the divinity of Christ.


----------



## Free Christian

sevenzedek said:


> I put more confidence in the Reformers and their forerunners than in Eusebius, Wescott/Hort, Origen's school, and the like. Could you imagine David asking the Philistines to compile the existing sacred texts of his day?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

One Little Nail said:


> Stephen you've only mentioned a handful verses the last count for the Sinaiticus by Oxford university was
> 25,000 corrections not to mention the differences between Vaticanus & Sinaiticus runs in the Thousands
> & if you were to put the KJB alongside the NIV in the N.T. the NIV would have that many fewer words that
> it would be like removing the book of 1 & 2 Peter but maybe you run out of fungers to count them.
> the Nestle/Aland Greek Text of the NIV is shorter than the Textus Receptus by 2886 words!
> http://www.kingswaybaptist.co.za/Lin...g=&tabid=319
> 
> I know what Text I will be sticking too.



I am genuinely interested ion this subject but think I will bow out at this point to manage some health challenges. It does mean this kiwi swallows his pride and give the last word to an Aussie


----------



## One Little Nail

Logan said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's a matter Logan have you suddenly got a weak stomach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I just have seen no indication the participants in this thread would even consider changing their views.
> 
> While I'm here, you asked me a question earlier and I think you've misunderstood what I was saying on Owen. I don't see anything to indicate Owen would have supported the CT (probably the opposite), or texts that substantially differed (though that's a subjective term) from the TR. I was merely trying to point out that it doesn't appear Owen restricted the bounds of Biblical criticism to only those _editions_ printed by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, but perhaps would have restricted himself to the larger Byzantine collection. In other words, I don't see strict adherence to the TR (and most people by that apparently mean Scrivener's 1894) as the only confessional position.
Click to expand...


Thanks for clearing that up Logan, I'd have to disagree with you on the Confessional position as I think
the T.R. is the Reformational & Confessional Text Base chosen, anyway we'll have to agree to disagree,

I once had a moderator can a thread where I suggested The Textus Receptus should be used in a Congregations 
Worship as this conforms to the Regulative Principle of Worship & therefore the use of any other Textual Sources
like Wescott & Hort, Nestle/Aland,United Bible Societies or any other Critical Text be considered as Idolatry in 
Worship but I guess they found this a little to heavy hitting,still think this was logical & good & necessary 
consequence at least John Knox would have agreed with me! 

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/

The NKJV vs. The KJV1611 by Dr. Sam Gipp
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J5_50wNml40

Is the NKJV an Improvement Over the KJB? by Sam Gipp
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uvwGRws51HU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuvwGRws51HU

Pastor Matthew Winzer aka armourbearer mentioned that the Nestle/Aland Novum Testamentum-Graece
had reintroduced Textus Receptus readings into it's text, so I'd lke to post a link that supports this Quote:
http://www.daystarpublishing.org/Reintroductions-of-the-Textus-Receptus-Readings-in-the-the-Nestle-Aland-Novum-Testamentum-Graece.html
http://www.daystarpublishing.org/skin1/modules/HTML_Editor/editors/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Reintroductions%20sample.pdf


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew are you referring to John 1:18 ,the Critical Text translated literally is the only begotten God(god)
> which stinks of Arianism, a begotten god wake up folks, the Not Inspired Version says God the one & only
> while the ESV has no one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, so what we have
> here is God the one & only & God;the only God in the NIV & ESV respectfully are basically denying the
> Deity of The Father at worst since in this verse it is Jesus that is the "one & only" God or at best they are
> maybe stating some form of Modalism/Sabellianism correct me if I'm wrong and plain english is not plain english.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert, there are definitely theological issues with John 1:18. I was only concentrating on the truth contained in the statement, "only begotten Son," which appears five times in the AV -- four times in reference to Christ, and once in reference to Isaac, who was a type of Christ. This teaching is denied by some who are otherwise orthodox on the divinity of Christ.
Click to expand...


I found this over at David Cloud's Way of Life Website in an article entitled THE PROBLEM WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS The Problem with New Age Bible Versions
were he is critiquing Gail Riplingers book of the same name, in regards to John 1:18 

I don’t believe that John 1:18 should read “the only begotten God.” That is a gnostic corruption.* 

[* John Burgon demonstrated that the “the only begotten God” reading in John 1:18 in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts can be traced to Valentinus (Burgon and Miller, Causes of Corruption, pp. 215, 216). “The Gnostics said that Christ was ‘the Beginning,’ the first of God’s creation, and Valentinus referred to Him as ‘the Only-begotten God’ and said that He was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons)” (Jay Green, The Gnostics, the New Versions, and the Deity of Christ, 1994, p. 74). In the Received Text there is no question that the Word is also the Son and that both are God. The Word is God (Jn. 1:1); the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14); the Word is the Son (Jn. 1:18). By changing Jn. 1:18 to “the only begotten God,” Valentinus and his followers broke the clear association between the Word and the Son.]

This I believe is the truth on the corrupt Critical Text reading of John 1:18


----------



## Logan

No conspiracy is necessary to explain that at all. As I understand it, many manuscripts contracted common terms (nomina sacra) and the difference between the two contracted terms could be almost indistinguishable: horizontal lines written on papyrus (leaves), which have leaf lines running through them.

But it's not just one or two manuscripts that have that. At least 10 manuscripts from before the 4th century contain this, and not just from Alexandria either. And this reading is supposedly quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and Origen, Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory-Nyssa, Heracleon, Hilary, Irenaeus, Jerome, Origen, Ps-Ignatius, Ptolemy, Serapion, Synesius, Tatian, Theodotus, Valentinius, and Arius.

Whether it is the correct reading could be debated, but that it was a conspiracy I find a bit far-fetched.

Also surprised at Sam Gipp references. He's been pretty extreme and unreliable. I wouldn't go to him for a defense of anything.


----------



## One Little Nail

I find sam has some good stuff, including strong faith in the Word of God & its preservation,there is some good
factual material you'll just have to spit the bones out .

I earlier mentioned that the NKJV had introduced Critical Text Readings, Matthew also said that it had also through the
borrowing of reading from other translations I believe, here is a link to an article which proves it has changed its readings
from the 1979 edition to the 1982 edition bringing more & more readings in line with the NASV & NIV.
NKJV Word Changes - Another King James Bible Believer
A HISTORY OF MY DEFENCE OF THE KING JAMES VERSION by Edward Hills http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP12.htm
NKJV Counterfeit http://www.av1611.org/NKJV.html


----------

