# Why side with the KJV



## Angelo V. (Jul 28, 2014)

Quick question: why should I transition from the ESV to the KJV of the Bible? What advantage is there in abiding in the Majority text versus the critical text behind the ESV? Thank you all


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 28, 2014)

You may wish to do a search ("advanced search" upper right) for previous threads on this topic,
and see this topic discussed passionately and informedly.

Let me say they are both suitable translations.
KJV often often says it best and most profoundly; great for memorization.
ESV is readable yet literal, good for reading in groups and worship.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 29, 2014)

Well, if the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me!


----------



## Free Christian (Jul 29, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> KJV often often says it best and most profoundly


Wouldn't it then follow that it would then be best for Worship if one believed that to be the case, giving, using and offering God our best?


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 29, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > KJV often often says it best and most profoundly
> ...



You also may wish to read some of the earlier, detailed posts on this topic, relating to the _textus recepticus_, etc.

The ESV is more readable and understandable in many settings, e.g. small groups, family devotions, etc. That's not to say KJV is not useful there as well- it's a great primer in the English language, its riches, depths and the root derivations of many words and phrases, etc.

While the newer ESV is a better translation, the original NIV (not the recent one) is quite useful as well.


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2014)

The basic argument from a reformed perspective is from WCF 1:8:

"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*..."

It has become my position that the Critical Text that the ESV is based on does not match with this part of the confession (especially its Scripture proofs).


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 29, 2014)

Angelo V. said:


> What advantage is there in abiding in the Majority text versus the critical text behind the ESV?



Here's a tread with high level answers to a similar question:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/calling-all-experts-textus-receptus-vs-critical-text-72470/

This tread might also be helpful

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/not-kjvo-kjvp-81126/

And if you have a lot of time on your hands you might want to look through these

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-48676/


----------



## Logan (Jul 29, 2014)

Textus Receptus (TR) has the advantage that it is the "traditional" text, meaning it was the basis of Bible translation since the time of the Reformation. The "providential preservation" view in essence will accept this text as that which God preserved to be used by his church, mostly disregarding any evidence of supposed late additions like 1Joh 5:7. It is largely a position of faith. It is, as Edward Hills said, the position of maximum assurance, meaning that yes, there are variations within various TRs, and critical editions of the TRs have been made (using the KJV, the Majority text, the Stephanus or Erasmus text, etc), but these variations are still minor. It is sometimes seen as the "safe" view if unsure.

It has a disadvantage in that yes, the differences are minor between various texts, but they are still there, there is no standard TR unless you count the one reverse-engineered from the KJV by Scrivener. Things like 1John 5:7 are included despite only being found in Latin manuscripts prior to the 14th century, sometimes under the belief that it was lost, but providentially regained and is genuine. I also think this view suffers from a narrow view of "preservation": depending on what TR one considers pure (or even if it's just from the Byzantine family) then that means that there were always Christians in every age who had "corrupted" Bibles, especially those prior to the TRs from the 16th century on. I think this is counter to the intent of the WCF cited above.

The CT has the advantage that it looks at all manuscript evidence and not just ones that came from a certain family (byzantine mainly). It also believes in providential preservation but has a broader view of "preservation". I would like to point out that even the TR is a "CT" in some sense: Erasmus compared manuscripts and tried to correct the scribal errors he saw.

It has the disadvantage in that it is often worked on by unbelieving scholars and in the interest of being "academic", some passages that may be of doubtful origin are omitted or put into footnotes, depending on the translation. I would prefer to err on the side of caution rather than believing we can reconstruct what was originally written. When in doubt, leave it. Another disadvantage is that sometimes the reading is given to older manuscripts, regardless of the overwhelming evidence from the rest of the manuscript tradition. Perhaps undue weight is placed on antiquity rather than what has obviously been carefully copied.

I would like to stress though that whichever side you end up falling on, that I strongly believe that you still have the Word of God. The differences are so minor, most of them not even translatable that which translation you pick affects you far more than which textual tradition. After studying the issue quite a bit I have been even more strongly convinced that God preserved his word for us and that what we have today, whether CT or TR is God's word and is profitable and able to build one up.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 29, 2014)

Angelo V. said:


> Quick question: why should I transition from the ESV to the KJV of the Bible? What advantage is there in abiding in the Majority text versus the critical text behind the ESV? Thank you all



I have spent countless hours on here reading old threads on textual criticism and the translation issue. If you search or look in the Translations and Manuscripts forum you will find a lot of information. Armourbearer and JersulamBlade have done an excellent job in arguing their position with conviction yet charity.


----------



## KMK (Jul 29, 2014)

Angelo V. said:


> Quick question: why should I transition from the ESV to the KJV of the Bible? What advantage is there in abiding in the Majority text versus the critical text behind the ESV?



All things being equal, I believe the KJV is slightly superior to the ESV. But, there are so many other variables when it comes to making a transition. How long have you been using the ESV? How old are you? Which version does your pastor use?


----------



## clark thompson (Jul 30, 2014)

Angelo V. said:


> Quick question: why should I transition from the ESV to the KJV of the Bible? What advantage is there in abiding in the Majority text versus the critical text behind the ESV? Thank you all



Most people prefer the KJV because of its history.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 3, 2014)

*The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011*

The Guardian Newspaper has this review of Gordon Campbell's The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011



​
Part way through this history of the King James Bible, Gordon Campbell turns his attention from the 17th century to our own age. "It would be difficult now," he writes, "to bring together a group of more than 50 scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterised the KJV translators. We may live in a world with more knowledge, but it is populated by people with less knowledge."

Campbell's book demonstrates that this conclusion is depressingly accurate. The King James Version was, first and foremost, an unbelievable feat of scholarship: its translators were fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic and Ethiopic, as well as being expert theologians and Bible historians. It was also an organisational feat, which brought together Britain's leading scholars in tiers of companies and committees, and which entailed a concerted effort by cohorts of printers, typesetters and bookbinders.

But the story of the King James Version is also a political story, about a monarch determined to assert his authority by setting his seal on every Bible in the land. There had been English translations of the Bible before the King James Version, produced by the likes of William Tyndale, who was condemned by Thomas More for "discharging a filthy foam of blasphemies out of his beastly brutish mouth", and who eventually burned at the stake for his efforts. The King James Version, however, was a state project, which celebrated the King as its God-like "principal mover and author". Rules were drawn up for massed teams of experts to follow, and factions formed and rivalries festered as scholars in Oxford, Cambridge and London raced to outdo each other. When the King James Version was eventually published, those academics who had been denied a slice of the action rushed to condemn it in print. One particularly bitter reviewer thought the translation so hopeless it should be burnt, and another loftily dismissed it as a botched rehash of older versions.

Despite some dissenting voices, the King James Version was a huge success. Today it is the all-time bestselling book in the English language, and in 2011 it will have been continuously in print for 400 years. Gordon Campbell's "affectionate biography" has been published to mark this anniversary alongside a new edition of the Bible itself. Both are published by Oxford University Press, one of the King James Version's original printers. Campbell is an academic treading a delicate line between book history and storytelling, and at times dry textual detail predominates. Yet he remains fully aware of the dangers of this, and successfully makes the case for his own scholarly rigour. A section titled "Punctuation", for example, acknowledges that the prospect of such a discussion "may make the reader's eyes glaze over", but also notes that "the issue has long been a battleground, and cannot be ignored, though it can be treated with merciful brevity".

There are enough good anecdotes in Bible to compensate for the occasional discussion of punctuation and paragraphs. In the 18th century, new editions of the King James Version were notable mostly for the errors introduced by drunken printers' employees, who were quite capable of rendering "parable of the vineyard" as "parable of the vinegar", earning one edition the sobriquet "Vinegar Bible". Other 18th-century King James detractors pointed to the already ludicrous obscurity of its language. In 1759 Matthew Pilkington published a greatest-hits of the most ridiculous bits, including the remarkable "Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and makes kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls".

In fact, the language of the King James Version was archaic even by 17th-century standards. Its translators may have been very brilliant, but they were also conservative and slightly out of touch, and Campbell is sceptical about the notion that their translation had a long-lasting impact on the English language. It was certainly the means by which various 16th- and 17th-century expressions, such as "salt of the earth" and "at their wits' end" survived through the centuries, but Campbell's account shows that the importance of the King James Version does not rest on its linguistic legacy. It enabled 17th-century men and women to read the Bible in their own language, it remains at the heart of the English-speaking Christian tradition, and today it continues to be celebrated as one of the great works of English literature. For Gordon Campbell, though, its significance is finally more personal. "It is the King James Version that has been loved by generations of those who have listened to it or read it to themselves or to others; other translations may engage the mind, but the King James Version is the Bible of the heart."


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 3, 2014)

It's simple - the critical text is based on earlier manuscripts that are closer in time to the originals. And not just Sinaiticus or Vaticanus - there are also papyri like P66 and P75.

You should listen to some of James White's sermons on textual issues and textual criticism. This is a good one, and you can find more here by just browsing through the pages.

There is _no _Greek manuscript in existence that matches the KJV, and the KJV translators had to engage in textual criticism. The KJV translators used the editions of the Greek New Testament produced by Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Estienne (Stephanus) and Theodore Beza. They had to make decisions about what textual variants to include. In the 1800s, Frederick Scriviner produced a version of the Textus Receptus that he got by looking to what the KJV translators and included, and choosing those textual variants for his Greek edition of the TR. So this edition is ultimately based on the KJV. 

BibleBuyingGuide.com's review of the TBS edition of the TR states that it follows the 1598 Beza edition and corresponds to the 1894 and 1902 Scrivener editions. 

If you listen to James White's sermons on textual criticism, you'll understand this. And I have switched back and forth from Majority Text/TR only to Critical text several times and have read investigated both sides of the topic.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 16, 2014)

Did I fail to mention that...



KMK said:


> The words of the confession are often taken straight from the KJV. If you are not already, it might be helpful to study the confessions using the KJV.


 
thats another reason why you may want to side with _*The Authorised Version*_, oops sorry thats *King James Bible* to my american friends.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 16, 2014)

Fortunately we can have the best of both worlds. Using the KJV and more recent translations based on the CT. I have been doing that for years and I have found it helped me to more clearly understand some of what seemed obscure to me in the older translation. Recently reading "The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism," by D.A. Carson, I was surprised to find so brilliant a scholar as Carson is, saying that the 1984 NIV was the best English translation. I dusted off my copy and put it back to work. I think for those of us unable to read the Bible in the original language fluently, comparing the translations is beneficial.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 16, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Fortunately we can have the best of both worlds. Using the KJV and more recent translations based on the CT. I have been doing that for years and I have found it helped me to more clearly understand some of what seemed obscure to me in the older translation. Recently reading "The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism," by D.A. Carson, I was surprised to find so brilliant a scholar as Carson is, saying that the 1984 NIV was the best English translation. I dusted off my copy and put it back to work. I think for those of us unable to read the Bible in the original language fluently, comparing the translations is beneficial.




Great to have you back Jimmy, were have you been? 

this just shows me that even the so called brilliant scholars like Carson are fallible & are quite capable of having a judicial blindness upon themselves. if I remember correctly, he stated that the NIV would not be a good pulpit Bible as he believed a more Literal offering was required.

Jimmy you should be quite familiar with the arguments on the Translations Forum as you've been a regular contributor, so to to say comparing translations would be beneficial when usually 2 entirely different manuscripts are used with Translations like the KJB & NIV, would be misleading as there is only 80% commonality between the text base. 

It may be beneficial to compare them to see the differences between them but not to define the difference in the Biblical Text nor to get a clearer understanding of it.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 16, 2014)

Brother Robert, I took a hiatus being wearied by these arguments over which family of texts is God's Word. I give you the last word in this conversation.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 16, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> There is no Greek manuscript in existence that matches the KJV, and the KJV translators had to engage in textual criticism.



Since the CT is an eclectic text, there is also no Greek manuscript in existence that matches the CT.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 16, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I was surprised to find so brilliant a scholar as Carson is, saying that the 1984 NIV was the best English translation.



For many years, Carson's father was a pastor in Quebec, thus among French speakers. If I'm not mistaken, Carson's preference for a more dynamic theory of translation is influenced by this experience. I think he actually now uses and recommends the NIV 2011.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 16, 2014)

With regard to the AV, some advantages include the fact that it is the traditional text. (Out of all of the churches that recite the Lord's Prayer every Lord's Day, how many exclude the part that is not in the critical text, for example. Why recite it if one is convinced that it is no part of Scripture? I have seen one OPC congregation that If I recall correctly recited it as it is found in the ESV, but I suspect it is very much in the minority.) 

Some of the KJV language is echoed in the WCF (and thus the Savoy and 2nd LCBF). This is why the proof texts in the OPC's edition of the Westminster Standards are in the KJV even though few OP pastors preach from it, etc. 

There are more reference works that use the KJV, and many are freely available online. 

And last but not least, the alleged problems (or issues) with the KJV are very well known by this point. Not so for the moving target that is the ESV, for example, which seems to change a few hundred words with "text editions" that come about every 5 years or so.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 16, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no Greek manuscript in existence that matches the KJV, and the KJV translators had to engage in textual criticism.
> ...



The point of textual criticism is to recover the original text, and that's what the CT is supposed to do. Yes, there is no manuscript that we know that exactly matches the CT, but the CT is based on older and more reliable manuscripts that the TR. 

The reason that this is important is that KJV Only folk will attack the modern practice of textual criticism, yet the KJV translators engaged in textual criticism themselves.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 17, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> The point of textual criticism is to recover the original text, and that's what the CT is supposed to do. Yes, there is no manuscript that we know that exactly matches the CT, but the CT is based on older and more reliable manuscripts that the TR.



Really, if we have "Lost" the original text & it hasn't been providentially preserved then we need The Lord to re-Inspire it because there is no chance of man being able to recover something if he doesn't know what he has to recover.

Micheal you're statement above confirms all that is wrong with the "_Critical Text Theory_" it is an unbelieving statement to say that the Scripture "originals" need to be recovered as it denies a promised preservation of the text. 

the Text is Infallible so it could not have been lost, it was faithfully preserved through the providence of God, as the confessions state. Just as the Hebrew Text was preserved by the Jewish Church in the Old Testament, so the Greek Church
faithfully preserved the Greek Text of the New Covenant, the T.R. Text that the Protestant Churches used is basically a sub branch of the Byzantine family of manuscripts. 




MichaelNZ said:


> The reason that this is important is that KJV Only folk will attack the modern practice of textual criticism, yet the KJV translators engaged in textual criticism themselves.



T.R. Textual Criticism is of an entirely different species of Criticism than what modern C.T. Criticism is, and is based on entirely different principles as your'e statement above _belie's._


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 17, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > The point of textual criticism is to recover the original text, and that's what the CT is supposed to do. Yes, there is no manuscript that we know that exactly matches the CT, but the CT is based on older and more reliable manuscripts that the TR.
> ...



I'm not James White so any answer I can give will obviously be inferior to what he would tell you. He could answer all of your questions about textual criticism.

Regarding the TR, are you aware that the last page of Erasmus' one manuscript of Revelation was missing, and he back-translated the Greek text from the Latin Vulgate? Or that he didn't want to include the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) but was pressured to include it by the Papists? The Comma is found only in 8 late manuscripts. Four of these have it as a marginal note. The majority of these manuscripts originate from the 16th century. The earliest manuscript, Codex 221, comes from the 10th century and includes the Comma in a marginal note added sometime after the original composition. 

Also, what do you mean by the Textus Receptus? Are you referring to the five editions of Erasmus, the 1550 Stephanus text and the Beza text? These are what the KJV translators used. Or are you referring to F.H.A Scrivener's TR, which he produced by choosing the reading that the KJV translators used?



> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that this is important is that KJV Only folk will attack the modern practice of textual criticism, yet the KJV translators engaged in textual criticism themselves.
> ...



Please explain. I'd be interested to hear.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 17, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> I'm not James White so any answer I can give will obviously be inferior to what he would tell you. He could answer all of your questions about textual criticism.
> 
> Regarding the TR, are you aware that the last page of Erasmus' one manuscript of Revelation was missing, and he back-translated the Greek text from the Latin Vulgate? Or that he didn't want to include the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) but was pressured to include it by the Papists? The Comma is found only in 8 late manuscripts. Four of these have it as a marginal note. The majority of these manuscripts originate from the 16th century. The earliest manuscript, Codex 221, comes from the 10th century and includes the Comma in a marginal note added sometime after the original composition.
> 
> Also, what do you mean by the Textus Receptus? Are you referring to the five editions of Erasmus, the 1550 Stephanus text and the Beza text? These are what the KJV translators used. Or are you referring to F.H.A Scrivener's TR, which he produced by choosing the reading that the KJV translators used?



Micheal the 1 John 5:7 story was that Erasmus supposedly promised his friend to put it in his Greek text if his friend could find 1 Greek manuscript that contained it, this has been proven to be an old wives tale so to speak as a current Erasmus scholar by the name of De Jonge, I believe, has debunked it, this has even been acknowledged by the late Bruce Metzger, the Dean of modern "critical" textual criticism, in his The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, unfortunately Messr White seems to ignore this information as he keeps repeating the misinformation. Wallace on the <i>Comma Johanneum</i> at 1 John 5.7 | TGC

Erasmus traveled throughout all of Europe and was acquainted with many manuscripts he didn't just have a handful at his discretion. The KJB Translators seemed to have used the 1598 Beza predominately, though they had various translations at their behest, though by Textus Receptus Or Received Text I am basically referring to the family of Manuscripts, even the KJB could be considered an English Variant! 




One Little Nail said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that this is important is that KJV Only folk will attack the modern practice of textual criticism, yet the KJV translators engaged in textual criticism themselves.
> ...





MichaelNZ said:


> Please explain. I'd be interested to hear.



Well the " you're statement above" was in reference to you saying that


MichaelNZ said:


> The point of textual criticism is to recover the original text, and that's what the CT is supposed to do.


 this is starting Textual Criticism from an Unbelieving or Infidel point of view rather than Believing that God has Providentially Preserved His Word, through the Church I might add, as He has Promised to do so. So the Biblical Text has basically always existed & doesn't need to be reconstructed.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 20, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that this is important is that KJV Only folk will attack the modern practice of textual criticism, yet the KJV translators engaged in textual criticism themselves.
> ...





MichaelNZ said:


> Please explain. I'd be interested to hear.



Well the " you're statement above" was in reference to you saying that


MichaelNZ said:


> The point of textual criticism is to recover the original text, and that's what the CT is supposed to do.


 this is starting Textual Criticism from an Unbelieving or Infidel point of view rather than Believing that God has Providentially Preserved His Word, through the Church I might add, as He has Promised to do so. So the Biblical Text has basically always existed & doesn't need to be reconstructed.

Thought I'd add more to this from Edward Hills Introduction to THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED


*INTRODUCTION

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND CHRISTIAN FAITH*


Old books have sometimes been likened to little ships which have sailed across the tides of time, bearing within themselves their precious freight of ancient knowledge and culture. None of these books, however, has enjoyed an uninterrupted voyage over the century stretching seas. The vessels which commenced the journey have perished, and their cargoes have been subject to frequent re-shipment in the course of their perilous passage. The original manuscripts of these ancient works have long since been lost, and they have come down to us only in copies and copies of copies, which were produced by the pens of scribes during the progress of the intervening ages. And just as cargoes of merchandise are likely to incur damage whenever they are transferred from one vessel to another, so the copying and recopying of manuscripts has resulted in some damage to their cargoes of words, which are commonly called their texts. Textual criticism, therefore, is the attempt to estimate this damage and, if possible, to repair it.

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.



*1. The Importance Of Doctrine*

The Christian Church has long confessed that the books of the New Testament, as well as those of the Old, are divine Scriptures, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and at a later period by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

The Scriptures are perfect, inasmuch as they were uttered by the Word of God and His Spirit." So wrote Irenaeus (1) in the second century, and such has always been the attitude of all branches of the Christian Church toward the New Testament.

Since the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the New Testament has in all ages stimulated the copying of these sacred books, it is evident that this doctrine is important for the history of the New Testament text, no matter whether it be a true doctrine or only a belief of the Christian Church. But what if it be a true doctrine? What if the original New Testament manuscripts actually were inspired of God? If the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the New Testament is a true doctrine, then New Testament textual criticism is different from the textual criticism of ordinary books.

If the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament Scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of the Scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special, providential control over the copying of the Scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God's people in every age. God must have done this, for if He gave the Scriptures to His Church by inspiration as the perfect and final revelation of His will, then it is obvious that He would not allow this revelation to disappear or undergo any alteration of its fundamental character.

Although this doctrine of the providential preservation of the Old and New Testament Scriptures has sometimes been misused, nevertheless, it also has always been held, either implicitly or explicitly, by all branches of the Christian Church as a necessary consequence of the divine inspiration of these Scriptures. Thus Origen in the third century was expressing the faith of all when he exclaimed to Africanus, "Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died!" (2)

If, now, the Christian Church has been correct down through the ages in her fundamental attitude toward the Old and New Testaments, if the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of these Scriptures are true doctrines, then the textual criticism of the New Testament is different from that of the uninspired writings of antiquity. The textual criticism of any book must take into account the conditions under which the original manuscripts were written and also those under which the copies of these manuscripts were made and preserved. But if the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures are true, then THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS WERE WRITTEN UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND THE COPIES WERE MADE AND PRESERVED UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UNDER THE SINGULAR CARE AND PROVIDENCE OF GOD.



*2. Two Methods Of New Testament Textual Criticism*

The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not so believe. The man who regards these doctrines as merely the mistaken beliefs of the Christian Church is consistent if he gives them only a minor place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so minor as to leave his New Testament textual criticism essentially the same as that of any other ancient book. But the man who holds these doctrines to be true is inconsistent unless he gives them a prominent place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so prominent as to make his New Testament textual criticism different from that of other ancient books, for if these doctrines are true, they demand such a place.

Thus there are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the consistently Christian method and the naturalistic method. These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.

Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. And the result of this equivocation has been truly disastrous. Just as in Pharaoh's dream the thin cows ate up the fat cows, so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a spiritual famine. The purpose of this book, therefore, is to show that in the King James (Authorized) Version we still have the bread of life and in demonstrating this to defend the historic Christian faith.

In the world, which He has created, and in the holy Scriptures which He has given God reveals Himself, not merely information about Himself, but HIMSELF. Hence the thinking of a Christian who receives this divine revelation must differ fundamentally from the thinking of naturalistic scholars who ignore or deny it. In this book we shall endeavor to prove that this is so, first in the field of science second in the realm of philosophy, and third in the sphere of Bible study, and especially in New Testament textual criticism.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Aug 20, 2014)

Some have said that the KJV will sometimes leave phrases in Psalms more literal like Ps 2 "I poured out my King on Mt Zion" instead of try to rephrase it
Some like that to get an idea what the original said. 

But the ESV is fine as far as I'm concerned and both can be profitable


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> Micheal the 1 John 5:7 story was that Erasmus supposedly promised his friend to put it in his Greek text if his friend could find 1 Greek manuscript that contained it, this has been proven to be an old wives tale so to speak as a current Erasmus scholar by the name of De Jonge, I believe, has debunked it, this has even been acknowledged by the late Bruce Metzger, the Dean of modern "critical" textual criticism, in his The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, unfortunately Messr White seems to ignore this information as he keeps repeating the misinformation.



Robert,

The link you provided says this:


> Even de Jonge admitted that his research was not complete, and critically that the earliest source in which the tale about Erasmus and the comma was put into print involved too many volumes for de Jonge to sift through. So, there remains the possibility that Erasmus did make just such a claim, but it is buried in unaccessed volumes. Be that as it may, the consensus of scholarly opinion is that, until further revelations come to light, de Jonge’s position that Erasmus never made such a promise must stand.



de Jonge's original letter (not necessarily research or proof, but which is now being quoted against the story) is:



> Dear Mr. Maynard, Leiden, 13 June 1995
> 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 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.
> 
> 
> ...



It is certainly possible the story may have altered somewhat in the repeating of it (it still remains in the realm of possibility). The main facts remain the same, however: Erasmus did not put in 1Jo 5:7 because he hadn't yet seen it in the Greek. Later he inserted it when presumably he saw it in a Greek copy. It also remains that 1Jo 5:7 is about as poorly attested in the originals as one can get, with it not appearing in any manuscript for the first 1000 years, and only a handful (out of hundreds) in the 100 years before Erasmus. Turretin, for example, accepted it as original but specially note that this was because he was under the (erroneous) understanding that it appears in every copy. There may certainly be other reasons to accept 1Jo 5:7 but this story doesn't really have bearing on it one way or the other.

Edit: I wanted to add that Edward Hills also agreed with this story in his "King James Bible Defended":



> Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 20, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> I'm not James White so any answer I can give will obviously be inferior to what he would tell you. He could answer all of your questions about textual criticism.



How do you know he could answer all our questions? This is the problem I have with many followers of James White, it's OK to listen to him but you should at least verify his assertions and make sure you understand both side of the issue before declaring him infallible. I have posted a link above with a partial compilation from Steve Rafalsky (Jerusalem Blade) posts in which he responds in details to many of James White assertions. 



MichaelNZ said:


> If you listen to James White's sermons on textual criticism, you'll understand this. And I have switched back and forth from Majority Text/TR only to Critical text several times and have read investigated both sides of the topic.



What material have you read, and from what angle are you approaching this subject? Do you understand the different philosophies fueling each position? Are you looking a this solely from an "older is better" point of view, do you think the Holy Sciptures should be "reconstructed" by unbelieving paleographers and scholars? I'm asking because if you read material by John Burgon (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, and The Revision Revised) it might help you to see the flaws in the claims made by many modern CT advocate concerning "manuscript evidence", and if you read Edward Hills book "the King James Version Defended" it might give you an idea of the philosophy guiding many of us who prefer to side with the Traditional Text/AV.


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> What material have you read, and from what angle are you approaching this subject? Do you understand the different philosophies fueling each position? Are you looking a this solely from an "older is better" point of view, do you think the Holy Sciptures should be "reconstructed" by unbelieving paleographers and scholars? I'm asking because if you read material by John Burgon (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, and The Revision Revised) it might help you to see the flaws in the claims made by many modern CT advocate concerning "manuscript evidence", and if you read Edward Hills book "the King James Version Defended" it might give you an idea of the philosophy guiding many of us who prefer to side with the Traditional Text/AV.



Etienne, I've read Hill's book and much material regarding this subject. Hills is correct that textual criticism should be performed with a believing attitude in the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures. But that's not really what is at stake here. All Reformed advocates of the CT believe this.

Hills believed that the TR was a position of "maximum certainty", that one can never have perfect certainty because there are variants within the TR and the manuscripts behind it. Yet one could have maximum certainty among these variants. The CT advocate looks at the body of all manuscripts that belonged to all Christians everywhere, not just one family. 

Both parties believe in preservation. Ultimately the TR advocates go with what they call "faith", believing that this is the line which God preserved. The CT advocates try to be studious and apply the same principles of criticism as the TR advocates, but to a broader set of manuscripts, yet don't make the mistake of thinking that they don't have faith or belief in preservation.

I agree that the church should be in charge of the CT, but in a sense they are, when they look at the evidence put forward for decisions in the CT and sometimes go against those decisions, choosing to go with an alternate variant for reasons of faith. I don't think it's fair to believe that Christians blindly use the CT when doing modern translations.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 20, 2014)

Logan said:


> Etienne, I've read Hill's book and much material regarding this subject. Hills is correct that textual criticism should be performed with a believing attitude in the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures. But that's not really what is at stake here. All Reformed advocates of the CT believe this.



Maybe but to believe that scriptures have been preserved and then accept an eclectic text is a contradiction and a logical fallacy. 



Logan said:


> Hills believed that the TR was a position of "maximum certainty", that one can never have perfect certainty because there are variants within the TR and the manuscripts behind it.



Since I don't approach this issues via the empiricist mindset (which I don't believe any believer should) maximum certainty is fine with me.




Logan said:


> The CT advocate looks at the body of all manuscripts that belonged to all Christians everywhere, not just one family.



This is a misleading statement, they have a different approach, they give more weight to the Alexandrian family (especially Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) because of their supposed aged (and again lets remember that paleography is far from and exact science) and ignore the majority of MSS from other families. They also ignore the different philosophies that might have influenced the variant readings, and even invent theories to try to explain away the readings which have the most support from the majority of MSS (conflation theory).



Logan said:


> I don't think it's fair to believe that Christians blindly use the CT when doing modern translations.



I'm not saying they blindly use the CT, I'm just saying that many have been deceived into accepting a secular approach to compiling and translating Scriptural texts.


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Maybe but to believe that scriptures have been preserved and then accept an eclectic text is a contradiction and a logical fallacy.


So you say. I've mentioned Dr Greg Bahnsen as one who accepted an eclectic text and believed in preservation, yet didn't consider that a contradiction and a logical fallacy. Even Erasmus' product was something of an eclectic text, was it not? Likewise all those Reformers who believed the text had been preserved, but still compared the various manuscripts, or Owen who said that any error could be corrected because the entirety of Scripture was found in the whole?



Fogetaboutit said:


> Since I don't approach this issues via the empiricist mindset (which I don't believe any believer should) maximum certainty is fine with me.


Then you end up with the assumption that "what I have is the perfectly preserved word of God." Which is fine, but then you have to work backward and say, like Hills, that when Erasmus used Latin readings, it must have been providential to preserve the true reading (regardless of the Greek evidence). Or, in other words, that evidence really does not matter at all in the end, you accept by faith that by the mere fact of it being commonly used, it must mean that it can never be improved or corrected. You then end up with an argument that sounds suspiciously similar to that of Rome, which said that the Vulgate was the providentially preserved Word of God, because it had been in use for so long that God must have intended it to be the rule. Regardless as to whether that argument is over the original languages or not, the Reformers rejected this logic (the same logic the "analogy of faith" approach relies on) and instead, based both on faith _and_ empiricism, claimed that the Greek Scriptures had not been corrupted, but even if there were errors, they could be studiously compared and the result retained as authoritative.

Actually, Hills criticized both Erasmus and Calvin for this approach:


> In short, there appears in Calvin as well as in Erasmus a humanistic tendency to treat the New Testament text like the text of any other book. This tendency, however, was checked and restrained by the common faith in the current New Testament text, a faith in which Calvin shared to a much greater degree than did Erasmus.



At the same time, oddly (in my view at least) Hills takes the view that Erasmus left in some "blemishes", but providentially retained some others that were from the Latin. How does Hills know which are blemishes and which were "providentially intended"?


> but he overlooked some of it, and this still remains in the Textus Receptus. These readings, however, do not materially affect the sense of the passages in which they occur. They are only minor blemishes which can easily be removed or corrected in marginal notes. The only exception is book for tree in Rev. 22:19, a variant which Erasmus could not have failed to notice but must have retained purposely. Critics blame him for this but here he may have been guided providentially by the common faith to follow the Latin Vulgate.



I am just very leery of the idea that just because something has been commonly used for a while, that this means God intended for all scholarship to cease. Here's an example: Luther used Erasmus' original Greek NT which did not contain 1 Jo 5:7. Would it have been okay for the Germans, who presumably used this as their "TR" for quite some time, to say that obviously 1 Jo 5:7 does not belong because why would God have allowed them to be without it? Or does this "faith" only work in the English language? That is why I believe a broader "faith" is required in God's preservation, otherwise it becomes too exclusive and makes it as though God has left a huge host of his people without the same preserved Scriptures as the English-speaking world enjoyed.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 20, 2014)

I find it interesting that there are 5,079 members of PB, with 571 classified as active members. Out of that group perhaps a dozen, give or take a few, continually participate in the ongoing debate on the TR versus the CT. Doing a forum search with the keyword 'KJVO' there are 166 results, doing the same for Textus, there are 326, and Erasmus yields 329 results. I wonder if all of this has changed the viewpoint of anyone who entered therein ?


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2014)

Probably not Jimmy!

I want to be absolutely clear, as I've said before, that I certainly do have a soft spot for the TR. I understand the reasons behind wanting it to be the sole text, I completely sympathize with a desire for continuity. I even read from the KJV as my primary personal Bible. 

That being said (going back to the OP), I don't think any believer is at a disadvantage in using either the ESV (critical) or KJV (TR), and when it all gets down to it, the differences are so minor as to not be noticeable. I have used the ESV for years in a congregation that uses the NKJV and my wife grew up using the KJV in a congregation that did the opposite and neither of us felt ourselves to be at a disadvantage one way or the other (oddly, she's using the ESV primarily now while I still switch back and forth between KJV and ESV). I am glad to have many brothers and sisters in Christ who are well-fed on both.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 20, 2014)

Logan said:


> That being said (going back to the OP),* I don't think any believer is at a disadvantage in using either the ESV (critical) or KJV (TR)*, and when it all gets down to it, the differences are so minor as to not be noticeable.



I agree that the differences are minor. Where 'modern' translations, such as the ESV, or NIV, bracket, footnote, or even delete certain verses/words, these either do not effect doctrine, or in the case that they do, the doctrine is realized in other verses, within those CT based translations that are not bracketed, footnoted, or deleted. Reading the ESV, NIV (1984), along with the NKJV and NASB, as well as the AV, is an advantageous practice In my humble opinion.

Perhaps I'm being simplistic but ...... verses such as 1 Corinthians 10:25 are difficult for 21st century folks to understand because of archaisms that are all through the AV.

AV ; Whatsoever is sold in the *shambles*, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1984 NIV ; "Eat anything sold in the *meat market* without raising questions of conscience,"

I wonder how many people pass over archaic words such as "shambles" without bothering to look up the meaning ? Reading modern translations, along with the AV, is as I have said before, the best of both worlds.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 20, 2014)

Logan said:


> So you say. I've mentioned Dr Greg Bahnsen as one who accepted an eclectic text and believed in preservation, yet didn't consider that a contradiction and a logical fallacy. Even Erasmus' product was something of an eclectic text, was it not? Likewise all those Reformers who believed the text had been preserved, but still compared the various manuscripts, or Owen who said that any error could be corrected because the entirety of Scripture was found in the whole?



Erasmus' text might have started as somewhat eclectic but the text quickly stabilized after a few revisions (not to mentioned the variant reading between these editions were nowhere close to what the CT brought upon us). The CT on the other hand rejected this stable foundation and adopted a philosophy that basically says the text will be perpetually eclectic since the adopted text can be overthrown at anytime by any newly discovered manuscript. 




Logan said:


> Then you end up with the assumption that "what I have is the perfectly preserved word of God." Which is fine, but then you have to work backward and say, like Hills, that when Erasmus used Latin readings, it must have been providential to preserve the true reading (regardless of the Greek evidence). Or, in other words, that evidence really does not matter at all in the end, you accept by faith that by the mere fact of it being commonly used, it must mean that it can never be improved or corrected. You then end up with an argument that sounds suspiciously similar to that of Rome,



What about early version in other languages or quotations that predate any Greek MSS, what do you make of those, you accuse me of adopting Romish stance regarding the TR while you do the same with Greek MSS. Where is the rule that says that only Greek MSS can be considered for determining the validity of a verse?



Logan said:


> I am just very leery of the idea that just because something has been commonly used for a while, that this means God intended for all scholarship to cease.



I have never advocated that all scholarship should cease but if there's no reason to update the text why should we waste money just for the sake of giving some scholars a job. Again without going into endless debate about specific verses, can you honestly tell me that you believe the CT has better evidence and has produced a superior product than the TR (as a whole not the 1 or 2 reading you might disagree with)? Technically I'm not saying that the TR can never be improved on but the fact and the matter is every scholar keep trying to improve the CT since that where the money is. If some faithful orthodox scholars believe their would be genuine reason to update the TR (using the same philosophy as the original compilers) and this would an initiative of orthodox Reformed Churches and not the pet project of a few individual I would not necessarily object, but this has nothing to do with modern textual criticism and the new translation movement.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 20, 2014)

Logan said:


> the differences are so minor as to not be noticeable



I notice differences pretty much every time a portion of the New Testament is read from a new version while I follow in my AV.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 20, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I find it interesting that there are 5,079 members of PB, with 571 classified as active members. Out of that group perhaps a dozen, give or take a few, continually participate in the ongoing debate on the TR versus the CT.



The almost identical comment has been answered in the following thread at post 76

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-vs-NKJV-81000/index2.html


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2014)

Etienne, I'm not looking to get into a debate but I will try to answer a couple of your questions.



Fogetaboutit said:


> Erasmus' text might have started as somewhat eclectic but the text quickly stabilized after a few revisions (not to mentioned the variant reading between these editions were nowhere close to what the CT brought upon us)



I find arguments like this to be a bit baffling, because anything could "stabilize" over time. If that were a valid argument then I could say the Westcott-Hort 1881 text is superior because it stablized entirely without any revisions (by definition) and there were no variations between editions at all. Likewise, any variation for the TR would make it no longer the TR, and by definition the TR must be stable. Look into the CT more and you will find that almost nothing changes between editions except adding more manuscript evidence. It's been quite stable for a while, if stability is a criteria.



Fogetaboutit said:


> Where is the rule that says that only Greek MSS can be considered for determining the validity of a verse?



Well, that was definitely a Reformation belief, but how about WCF 1.8?

With respect to your last point, I've talked to you before about passages such as 1Jo 5:7 and you demonstrated that you thought there was sufficient evidence for it. If that is the case, then you're really not going to be swayed one way or the other so it's not very fruitful for me to go over it again. The fact is, nearly all "faithful orthodox scholars" do believe there is a genuine reason to update the TR, which is why they don't use it any more (unless you'd define that as being "unfaithful"). That's not a good reason for or against it though. The biggest bonus of the modern CT editions is that it presents the evidence, not just the final judgment. So when it is translated into modern translation there is a lot of comparison and weighing of that evidence by godly individuals. Even Reformed individuals. It's a red herring to make a sweeping statement that the CT is used in modern translations (as if it were without thought) when the evidence is carefully weighed by believing scholars in the translation, and there are numerous places where they disagree with the judgment of the CT.

Here's another rather odd (in my opinion) comment from Hills regarding 1Jo 5:7.



> Thus on the basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability as we consider the internal evidence.
> ...
> Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church.



This is strange because Hills pleads for the TR based upon its being providentially preserved, and we know it is providentially preserved because it's been in use for so long and God wouldn't have allowed it unless this were his pure word. However, what about the poor Greek churches here that apparently lost the Johannine Comma for over 1000 years? Would they not have just as much right to claim that since God did not preserve it in their commonly used texts, that it therefore must have not been part of the canon? It is a position of claimed "faith" in God's providence, but why faith in the complete preservation for the English-speaking world (or Reformation-era, perhaps) and only "mostly" for the Greek?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 20, 2014)

Logan said:


> I find arguments like this to be a bit baffling, because anything could "stabilize" over time. If that were a valid argument then I could say the Westcott-Hort 1881 text is superior because it stablized entirely without any revisions (by definition) and there were no variations between editions at all.



Not sure I follow your argument, Westcott-Hort text didn't have any revision? Nestle-Aland is at the 28th edition. The TR was the accepted ecclesiastical text (at least for protestant churches) from 1633 to 1881.



Logan said:


> Likewise, any variation for the TR would make it no longer the TR, and by definition the TR must be stable



Who said this? if it could be demonstrated that errors were made by the editors of the TR and that those errors could be consistently demonstrated through all of the material available to us today using criteria based on sound scriptural principles (unlike the criteria used by the editors of the CT which give more weight to a handful of contradicting MSS) then why not. 




Logan said:


> Well, that was definitely a Reformation belief, but how about WCF 1.8?



What I'm saying is that if a reading is found in a late Greek MS and not found in the estimated oldest Greek MS, but is found early version and quotations predating this supposed oldest Greek MS then it does add weight to it's validity and should not be discarded. (John Burgon gives many example where this happened in the revised text in "The Revision Revised"). 



Logan said:


> With respect to your last point, I've talked to you before about passages such as 1Jo 5:7 and you demonstrated that you thought there was sufficient evidence for it



What I did demonstrate in the previous thread was a quotation from Hoskier which disproved the faulty allegation that it only exited in the latin vulgate. I did agree with you that the evidence is not as overwhelming as most of the other variant reading at odds between the CT an TR. 



Logan said:


> The fact is, nearly all "faithful orthodox scholars" do believe there is a genuine reason to update the TR, which is why they don't use it any more (unless you'd define that as being "unfaithful").



As you said yourself this is not a good reason since majority opinions certainly does not determine truth. I would say that most of these scholars have been deceived into accepting a faulty view of scripture since it has crept into most seminaries.



Logan said:


> It's a red herring to make a sweeping statement that the CT is used in modern translations (as if it were without thought) when the evidence is carefully weighed by believing scholars in the translation, and there are numerous places where they disagree with the judgment of the CT.



What are the criterias for this careful weighing? What are the considerations to anoint a MS as "Best" as so many footnotes assert.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 20, 2014)

Hi Logan,

I personally don’t have a problem with accepting that some readings were excised from the text during the doctrinal wars after the accession of Constantine to the throne of the empire. That a very few readings were altered in the Byz does not militate against God’s providential preservation, which He determined to fully realize later. When God makes a promise must it come true according to our timetable? If He provides His word for the Greeks, and for the Egyptians, and for the Gauls, in respective texts adequately preserved such that they can save souls and sustain churches through the centuries, why do we now in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] cavil against the idea that He _fully_ brought His promise to pass at the time of modern printing, the great missionary movements, and the hunger of the Protestants for a precise and sure text to withstand the onslaught of Rome?

You may find this old post on Frederick Nolan and 1 John 5:7 interesting: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/johannine-comma-37481/#post465749


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2014)

Etienne, I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at and I don't want this discussion to become unfruitful. Perhaps I'm referring to things you're unfamiliar with but it doesn't appear like you miss my meaning a few times, if I'm being unclear then I apologize.

I will say that my mention of the Westcott-Hort *1881* text as by definition "stable" was to make a point about using something as part of the definition. If the TR were to be revised in any way, it would no longer be the TR. Therefore the TR is by definition "stable" and to make a case for it use based on its stability seems kind of self-defeating to me. Also, once again, look into what the various CT editions actually are. Do you know how much difference there is between say, NA28 and NA20? One of the main purposes of the new editions is to list newly catalogued manuscripts, not new variants (of which one rarely pops up and even more rarely is considered as having any weight). There is far more "stability" than you may realize and I don't think there have been any significant alterations in the last 100 years or so. Nevertheless, I don't think that speaks well or ill of it, it just is.




Fogetaboutit said:


> What I'm saying is that if a reading is found in a late Greek MS and not found in the estimated oldest Greek MS, but is found early version and quotations predating this supposed oldest Greek MS then it does add weight to it's validity and should not be discarded. (John Burgon gives many example where this happened in the revised text in "The Revision Revised").



I think that is where many Reformed folk would differ with Burgon, who, being a high-church Anglican, placed weight on the text being passed down through bishops (actually Hills differed with Burgon on this). It can add weight but should not be considered as evidence against the Greek, likewise with ancient translations.

And once again, I am surprised at this view because its proponents usually criticize the CT for "discovering lost readings", yet according to this view, the Greek church apparent lost readings that were later recovered from the Latin?


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hi Nolan,
> 
> I personally don’t have a problem with accepting that some readings were excised from the text during the doctrinal wars after the accession of Constantine to the throne of the empire. That a very few readings were altered in the Byz does not militate against God’s providential preservation, which He determined to fully realize later. When God makes a promise must it come true according to our timetable? If He provides His word for the Greeks, and for the Egyptians, and for the Gauls, in respective texts adequately preserved such that they can save souls and sustain churches through the centuries, why do we now in the 21st cavil that He brought His promise to pass at the time of modern printing, the great missionary movements, and the hunger of the Protestants for a precise and sure text to withstand the onslaught of Rome?



I take it that this is directed at me? 

I wonder though, Steve, if someone couldn't then say they believe that God brought his promise to pass in the 20th century with the rise of the CT and an even greater effort at translation into various languages?


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 21, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I notice differences pretty much every time a portion of the New Testament is read from a new version while I follow in my AV.


 Me too. In fact a while ago I was doing some verse comparisons on a site that allows you to check the verses between Bibles. Some from the KJV that I put in the search to compare came up with nothing. Either the others were not listed as having it or the ones that had that verse as a footnote did not show them to compare. I wonder at times, and I don't know, but does the Koran have the same problems? One versions saying this was said and another saying perhaps it was not? Maybe Mohamed said this but earlier ms don't have it? Some with Mohamed's words in full and others with portions left out? Like we have in so many different versions? Do the Bibles the Jews read from have the same problems or is it just with those that Speak of Jesus?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 21, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > I notice differences pretty much every time a portion of the New Testament is read from a new version while I follow in my AV.
> ...


I had heard a report that most, if not all, of the textual variants of the Koran were deliberately destroyed to preserve one theological view. Apparently that is not quite correct. Here is a website google yielded with more info for anyone interested ; Textual Variants of the Qur'an.

In our English Bible translations when we find verses bracketed, footnoted, or even omitted from our modern translations, such as the NIV, ESV, it is my understanding that those verses are not supported by the earliest manuscripts. The aim of textual criticism to be as precise as possible in finding the original manuscripts through investigating the extant copies. I've read that the Hebrew Scriptures were much more carefully copied than those of the Greek NT, so there is not the same amount of controversy over the OT as we find in the NT.

In reading the NT, and comparing back and forth between the AV, NIV, ESV ..... I do not find a great deal of difference, other than the plain English of the modern translations. Just IME.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 21, 2014)

Thanks Jimmy. Had often wondered at times about those things. There are quite a few variations that I have seen in the Old Testament in regards to our Christian Bibles though like, and I cannot recall exactly the scripture, where one version says 3 cattle and another says 1 was brought to somewhere. 
Here's an example with the NKJ and the KJV in the Old Testament.
Genesis 2 v 18 NKJ ......I will make him a helper comparable to him. KJV ....I will make him a helpmeet for him.
Proverbs 16 v 10 NKJ ..Divination is on the lips of a king. KJV.. A divine sentence is in the lips of the king.
Proverbs 18 v 8 NKJ .. The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles. KJV .. The words of a talebearer are as wounds.
Proverbs 25 v 23 NKJ .. The north wind brings forth rain... KJV .. The north wind driveth away rain.
2 kings 23 v 29 NKJ ... Necho king of Egypt went to the aid of the king of Assyria. KJV ..Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria.
Do the Jewish Bible versions have such outrageous variations as those, or the Koran?
Really though, just saying not aiming this comment at you, these are far from just little differences and are far from even being similar!
I am often dumbfounded when I hear people say, again no one here just in general, that there are really no differences in Bible translations!


----------



## Logan (Aug 21, 2014)

Brett, are any of those textual differences, or translational differences? Hebrew can be tricky.

What difference (in meaning, not words) do you see in the first two examples you give? I admit I see none.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 21, 2014)

Logan said:


> I will say that my mention of the Westcott-Hort 1881 text as by definition "stable" was to make a point about using something as part of the definition. If the TR were to be revised in any way, it would no longer be the TR. Therefore the TR is by definition "stable" and to make a case for it use based on its stability seems kind of self-defeating to me.



Well to clarify my position, when I speak of the TR I speak of all it editions (the latest being most complete of course). We went over this in the past a few times already. Likewise when I talk of the CT I'm usually referring to all editions as well which include the original Wescott-Hort and the following Nestle-Aland/UBS editions since they accept and adopt the original philosophy of Westcott and Hort. I do not believe that to say the TR cannot be updated is accurate, but it certainly is not prone to drastically change with the discovery of a few new MSS. This is what I'm getting at and I'm pretty sure you understand this as well. The original Revision was fueled by the discovery of Sinaiticus, most of the other Alexandrian MSS were known to exist already, but this one manuscript was enough in the eyes of these men to completely re-edit the Greek text of the New Testament because of it's supposed age. If we follow their philosophy if a new "older" manuscript would be discovered and scholars deem it to be older and more accurate then all the ones we know about, what would stop them from completely rebuilding the text once again. Remember that the Alexandrian MSS do not agree on most of the alterations, therefore if a new MS deemed older and "better" appears and would agree with some of the reading of Vaticanus and some of the readings of Sinaiticus but not in the same places, according to this philosophy we're back to square one. This is what I mean when I say this philosophy essentially created a perpetually eclectic text since the witness of a very few MSS can overthrow the vast consensus of all other MSS as long as paleographers and scholars come up with some reason to believe theses MSS are "better".




Logan said:


> And once again, I am surprised at this view because its proponents usually criticize the CT for "discovering lost readings", yet according to this view, the Greek church apparent lost readings that were later recovered from the Latin?



Again what I'm getting at is that if the "vast majority" of Greek MSS agree on one reading, and then a very few supposedly older Greek MSS differ, then going to even older sources like quotations and versions can certainly be beneficial and should not be ignored because of the fact that it is not a Greek MS.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 21, 2014)

Yes, Logan, sorry, I had Nolan on my mind initially, but quickly corrected it!

The problem, as I see it, with asserting that God brought His promise to pass in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century (the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] really) with the rise of the CT, is that upon examination the CT mss – particularly Aleph and B, the primary exemplars – with claims to be neutral, and the oldest and most reliable, are notoriously corrupt and witness against each other. When we have in Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10, in the exemplar B, Asaph and Amos instead of Asa and Amon as Christ’s ancestors, with Metzger and co. claiming the errors were made by Matthew in the apostolic original and the correct readings in other mss were made by scribes doing damage control, it is beyond credible to me. 

This brief history of the early text and its transmission by Wilbur Pickering from his _The Identity of the New Testament Text_ is far more convincing in my eyes (Pickering is of the Majority Text school).


----------



## Logan (Aug 21, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> The original Revision was fueled by the discovery of Sinaiticus, most of the other Alexandrian MSS were known to exist already, but this one manuscript was enough in the eyes of these men to completely re-edit the Greek text of the New Testament because of it's supposed age.



Walton's Polyglot was published in 1657, containing many (if not all) the variants that had been collected up to that point. John Mill published 30,000 variants he had collected in 1707. Bengel, 1725 published a text which had been compared with various readings, Wettstein 1731, Griesbach built off of these two with his apparatus in 1771. There was desire then to begin using these to verify and/or correct the TR, as all of these use the TR as their base. Lachmann broke with the TR by starting with older manuscripts (instead of just adding variants to the TR). So there were a number of attempts throughout the years, but none of them became widely used and none were considered the "TR". Tischendorf labored on such a project even before Sinaiticus I believe, but it was admittedly a catalyst because it was so ancient and so complete, but it's not like it started with Sinaiticus at all.

To some extent, the efforts of Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf were welcomed by the Christian world because many recognized (or thought they did) that the TR did not always have the most well-attested reading, regardless of Sinaticus or any of the Alexandrian texts. Very few who had studied the issue thought that the TR could not be improved upon.

Now again, I'm not arguing whether that is right or wrong, but it's far more nuanced than just saying that Sinaiticus caused men to jump ship and abandon the TR.


----------



## Logan (Aug 21, 2014)

Thanks Steve. Yes, I cannot conceive a Christian believing in "orthodox corruption" or that the originals were with error. It's something that is intuitively known by all Christians as being based on the nature of God.

At the same time, I don't really see the disconnect between a "providential" view for the TR vs the CT. 

For the TR, Hills could say that providentially, "true readings" had been inserted from the Latin where they had been lost in the Greek, yet without introducing new corruptions.
For the CT, someone could say that providentially, "true readings" had been inserted even from a seemingly "corrupt" manuscript where they had been lost in the Greek, yet without introducing new corruptions.

Both views seem equally valid to me, if we are going to use Hills' analogy of faith.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 21, 2014)

Logan said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > The original Revision was fueled by the discovery of Sinaiticus, most of the other Alexandrian MSS were known to exist already, but this one manuscript was enough in the eyes of these men to completely re-edit the Greek text of the New Testament because of it's supposed age.
> ...



Would these men be considered Orthodox Reformed Scholars? Most Reformed believers reject Higher Criticism, even many of the advocates of the critical text reject higher criticism as heretical. What weight does that bring into the issue. I'm sure you can also find a list of Jesuits or Catholic Scholars that would assert similar things. It doesn't validate the faulty approach to Scriptural Criticism. Why did the Reformed Scholars reject these editions up to 1881. (and I would say later than that, the revised versions were not a success a first, it took a while to bring people to accept these revised texts and versions). But the propaganda around Sinaiticus helped to get these views more broadly accepted.


----------



## Logan (Aug 21, 2014)

Etienne, you're jumping from what I'm saying into something else. My entire point is to say that textual criticism did not revolve around Sinaiticus, there's a whole history leading up to it.

Even Scrivener, who most associate with collating the TR many use today (from the KJV), had many things to say about readings he thought should be corrected. I posted lots of quotations from him here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/highlights-scriveners-introduction-criticism-new-testament-81739/

You keep saying things like "would these men be considered Orthodox Reformed Scholars?" If that is important to you then why do you not care that nearly all "Orthodox Reformed Scholars" today do not use the TR? Why dismiss it with "they are just misled"? In which case, I can't see anything that would change your mind. If "Orthodox Reformed Scholars" accept the TR, you point to that and say that attests to the TR. If they don't, they are misled. It seems you are ready to explain away anything that doesn't coincide with your view. I ask yourself to humbly look at what you've written and tell me if anything, any evidence at all, would change your mind. If so, what is it? If you're not going to listen or say "that's interesting" or "good point" (though it's quite possible I haven't made any good points!) but just have a rebuttal, if you've already made up your mind, or would like to take such things primarily on faith, that's fine with me, I won't dissuade you from it. But in that case I'm quite sure it's not going to be fruitful to continue the discussion.

As I said, I'm not trying to debate, but it seems like you want to.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 21, 2014)

Logan said:


> Etienne, you're jumping from what I'm saying into something else. My entire point is to say that textual criticism did not revolve around Sinaiticus, there's a whole history leading up to it.
> 
> Even Scrivener, who most associate with collating the TR many use today (from the KJV), had many things to say about readings he thought should be corrected. I posted lots of quotations from him here:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/highlights-scriveners-introduction-criticism-new-testament-81739/
> ...



This goes both ways, you keep avoiding my question regarding the philosophy behind the modern critical view. You yourself said that the scriptures should not be determined by unbelievers because as reformed believers we understand that an unbeliever will naturally be at enmity against God. There's no such thing as a neutral approach to scriptures. You keep coming back to a list of variants to cast doubt on the Received Text, yet I doubt that the CT fixed all these doubts, Am I not correct. You seem to be unable to see that your view will never accept any text of scriptures as infallible (without redefining the term infallible). I could return the question to you, is there anything that would make "you" change you view, or at least admit that it's rooted in skepticism.


----------



## Logan (Aug 21, 2014)

I'm done.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 21, 2014)

I was listening to a sermon by D.A. Carson in which he gave an example of a pastor who receives a phone call at night. It is from an 80 some year old women, one of his parishioners, who is on her death bed.

"Pastor, I am dieing, will I go to heaven ?"she asks ......... "Well," he replies,"Which is your confession of faith, and which Bible translation do you read ?"


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 21, 2014)

Logan said:


> What difference (in meaning, not words) do you see in the first two examples you give? I admit I see none.


Hello Logan how are you. Now whilst ill admit the first two are close and call them what you may, translational or textual, what about the last 3?
See any there? How would one preach on those or explain to someone with a KJV if that preacher was using the NKJ?
Hebrew must really be tricky if it leaves one with the impression that aiding is the same as going up against another or that a wound is like a tasty trifle? 
Does the wind bring forth the rain or drive it away? Tricky indeed.


----------



## Logan (Aug 21, 2014)

I looked into it for you and confirmed (as far as I know) that these are not textual differences, but the way in which the word was translated.

For Prov 18:8, the word the KJV translates as "wounds", Strongs says means "to gulp greedily". JFB says of the word in the KJV, "not sustained by the Hebrew; better, as 'sweet morsels,' which men gladly swallow." Note that this word only appears here and Prov 26:22, and in both cases it is talking about "going into the belly".

For Prov 25:23, the word the KJV translates as "driveth away", it also translates 4 times as "bring forth", 4 times as "travail", 6 times as "pain" 2 times as "calve" etc. So it's apparently not a stretch even for the KJV to translate that word as "brings forth". Strongs gives many meanings, including "to dance". 

For the last, 2Ki 23:29, the Hebrew (as near as I can tell it) is something like "went up king". This is the most confusing to me and I don't really have an answer. The NASB and ESV both say "went up to the king of Assyria", without saying whether it was for or against. Older translations say "against" while newer say "aid" or "help". This doesn't appear to be a textual issue either though I see why translators picked one or the other.

So yes, it can be a very tricky job, especially with a language like Hebrew. I've heard that Proverbs are especially difficult.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 22, 2014)

Hello Logan. I understand where you are coming from. But not every person out there is highly educated nor has access to information with which to see what is meant. They may simply have a Bible to read, I would imagine in the millions world wide. It helps to have a faithful translation. I wonder why the same Bible later chooses to say in 2 Chronicles 35 v 20 on the same subject "fight against".
First it was to aid, then fight against.
I look at it like this, a person, your average person like myself, should be able to know they have a faithful translation without having to get all different various ones available, Bible aids, know Hebrew and Greek or be a Biblical scholar so as to cross check one with another, read this, and study that to know what the verses are actually saying.
Sure the odd word, not everyone knows what all words mean so a dictionary is helpful, but to need to check all out in such a way through languages, various versions and so on doesn't seem right to me. Nor do I imagine myself that this is how the Lord intended it to be. I often think of 1 Corinthians 1 v 26 when I see that there appears at times a need for all that.


----------



## Logan (Aug 22, 2014)

Do you believe it is possible that the KJV could have mistranslated a word? 

I believe it is a faithful translation. I also believe the ESV is a faithful translation. But neither is perfect.


----------



## jandrusk (Aug 22, 2014)

Watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wep1KFb3wns


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2014)

Let's consider the attestation of Scripture by Scripture itself. Why do we believe the Scriptures are inspired? Because Scripture itself states it plainly and quotes itself as inspired. Since later Scriptures make this attestation of earlier Scriptures, it must include within it the belief in the preservation of Scripture. What is inspired is also preserved, according to the self-attestation of Scripture. When Moses is quoted 1400 years later, or David is quoted 1000 years later, it is always on the presupposition that what was written has been preserved in its original purity. Now the question is, Which text-critical theory gives the greatest weight and place to the attested preservation of Scripture? Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal? I do not think it is difficult to decide once the doctrine of preservation is accepted as an essential part of the self-attestation of holy Scripture. It is undoubtedly true that there are difficulties connected with the work of textual criticism regardless of which view one takes. But these difficulties should not decide one's position. The testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should decide that point.


----------



## Logan (Aug 22, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?



I don't think those are the only possible viewpoints.


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2014)

Logan said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?
> ...



What sui generis will you devise for us?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 22, 2014)

Reverend Winzer, in this brief example from William Milligan DD in his commentary on Revelation, from the Expositors Bible, circa 1889, on page 7 Professor Milligan gives this exposition ;

1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

"The true reading of the original is not that of our Authorised Version, "Into Him that washed," but "Unto Him that loosed" us from our sins. We have received not merely the pardon of sin, but deliverance from its power."

Looking at the translation of the ASV, ESV, and NIV, I note that their translation of that verse agrees with Dr. Milligan's . I'm not questioning the inerrancy of Scripture with this example, but I'm seeing this, from Professor Milligan, as a prime example of how the AV, or any translation, can be improved for clarity of the meaning the Apostle was trying to convey, and if that is recognized, should be improved upon.


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I'm seeing this, from Professor Milligan, as a prime example of how the AV, or any translation, can be improved for clarity of the meaning the Apostle was trying to convey, and if that is recognized, should be improved upon.



Jimmy, How does this relate to what I said? I am failing to see any connection.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 23, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I'm seeing this, from Professor Milligan, as a prime example of how the AV, or any translation, can be improved for clarity of the meaning the Apostle was trying to convey, and if that is recognized, should be improved upon.
> ...


Reverend Winzer, perhaps it doesn't apply to your post ...... rather to the OP's question of adhering to a CT translation as opposed to moving to a RT text translation. I'm only asking if you would agree that in some instances the AV, or any other translation, may be improved upon ? The aforementioned example being one of a few I've run across, in the opinion of those commentators I've been reading. Bruce Metzger's works tell us that through textual criticism we can come close to the original autographs. So if that is the case, and through a more complete understanding of the Koine,by the papyri discovered in Egypt for example, we can better discern the meaning of the Scriptures, can't we attempt to do that in our day and time ?


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Reverend Winzer, perhaps it doesn't apply to your post ...... rather to the OP's question of adhering to a CT translation as opposed to moving to a RT text translation. I'm only asking if you would agree that in some instances the AV, or any other translation, may be improved upon ? The aforementioned example being one of a few I've run across, in the opinion of those commentators I've been reading. Bruce Metzger's works tell us that through textual criticism we can come close to the original autographs. So if that is the case, and through a more complete understanding of the Koine,by the papyri discovered in Egypt for example, we can better discern the meaning of the Scriptures, can't we attempt to do that in our day and time ?



Jimmy, if there is some dispute as to the meaning then appeal is to be made to the Greek. I can only see where you have appealed from one translation to another. Do you have some evidence from the Greek that one is better than another?

May I ask, When will you know you have come close to the original and fulfil Metzger's dream? It looks to me like boatmen rowing against the tide where every row leaves them farther away. For every row of criticism there is a new discovery which pushes them away from the shore.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 23, 2014)

Logan said:


> I believe it is a faithful translation. I also believe the ESV is a faithful translation.


Hi Logan. How can they both be considered the same? When comparing Mathew 17 v 21, 18 v 11, 19 v 9 or Mark 6 v 11, 11 v 26 or Luke 9 v 56 or John 5 v 4 even Acts 8 v 37 with the KJV and ESV. How can two so different Bibles be considered the same? Either God said something or He did not. If one shows He did and another suggests or shows He did not, how can they both be faithful? If I wrote something that said something and later saw two translations of what I wrote with one giving all accounts of the original and another with things left out then how could I declare both faithful? Say I went fishing and camping and caught 5 trout in a river and told a couple of friends, Joe and Jack, and later hear someone say "I heard Joe said you went fishing and camping and in a river caught 5 trout" and then another say "I heard Jack say you went fishing in a lake and caught two fish" How can they be the same? How can they both be faithful when they give different accounts of the original?


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 23, 2014)

Sounds like 6 of one & half a dozen of the other


----------



## Logan (Aug 23, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I will be honest and say that it bothers me to receive what seems an uncharitable reply.

I don't know of any CT-users on this board who would hold with your first category of belief, as you seem to intimate, but would fall under some subset of the second belief: i.e., that the Scriptures have been faithfully transmitted through means of the church, and yet that "there is no doubt but that in the copies we now enjoy of the Old Testament there are some diverse readings, or various lections. But yet we affirm, that the whole Word of God, in every letter and tittle, as given from him by inspiration, is preserved without corruption. Where there is any variety it is always in things of less, indeed of no, importance. God by his providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word." (Owen, Divine Originals)

(i.e., there are some variants in some copies that we'll never really be certain about, yet the entirety of the original is still preserved in them.).

And 

"If any other [lections] 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 conjectures. 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." (Owen, Integrity and Purity).

I believe that Scripture is found in a diligent comparing of all the readings, preserved through all ages, in all churches everywhere. Not just the readings preserved by one branch of the church and compiled during one period of late church history. Both views admit of some uncertainty, yet neither believes the originals are lost.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 23, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Reverend Winzer, perhaps it doesn't apply to your post ...... rather to the OP's question of adhering to a CT translation as opposed to moving to a RT text translation. I'm only asking if you would agree that in some instances the AV, or any other translation, may be improved upon ? The aforementioned example being one of a few I've run across, in the opinion of those commentators I've been reading. Bruce Metzger's works tell us that through textual criticism we can come close to the original autographs. So if that is the case, and through a more complete understanding of the Koine,by the papyri discovered in Egypt for example, we can better discern the meaning of the Scriptures, can't we attempt to do that in our day and time ?
> ...


I hadn't thought of 'going to the Greek' myself since I assumed Professor Millgan's credentials would have made that presumptuous on my part, but I will give it the best I can from my admittedly limited experience in that field, I need all the practice I can get.

The word translated 'washed' in the AV, and 'loosed' in the RV, is λυσαντι. The ESV interlinear translates it 'freed.' Looking in BGAD I could not find it, nor in Liddel-Scott, so I was somewhat puzzled.

The closest I came was λυσιος, which Liddel & Scott define as a verb meaning 'releasing, delivering'. The ESV Interlinear keys to Strong's # 3089 which shows 'λυω' defining it as "to loose", among other similar variables.

So I'm assuming that λυω is a root and the word in the text derives from it. So I go to a copy of the Byzantine textform, edited by Robinson and find the same λυσαντι but with a footnote that defines it as 'λυοω lit. (or merely ceremonially), I wash, bath,(the body); :mid: of washing, bathing one's self; met: I cleanse from sin.

My curiousity piqued I go to Farstad/Hodges Majority textform, and find λουσαντι, not exactly the same word in Farstad's majority text, and footnoted ; λουσαντι (majority); λυσαντι (TR) ; ελουσεν (Coptic i.e. Egyptian)

Back to BGAD and I find the same info as is footnoted in the Robinson Byzantine with lexical info by Dodson. So I went back to Liddel & Scott and the closest I can find is λυσιος, a verb meaning releasing or delivering.

Still in L&S for λουσαντι the closest I can come is λουσις, defined as washing, bathing. For the Coptic reading, ελουσεν the most I could find was a reference, in the Robinson & House Analytical Lexicon, to Strong's # 3068 which defines the root of the word as bathing/washing.

So since going through this exercise I am more confused than I was when I started but perhaps a bit wiser. I will no longer be so quick to assume. Thank you Reverend Winzer for prompting me to spend the time and effort.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 24, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I hadn't thought of 'going to the Greek' myself since I assumed Professor Millgan's credentials would have made that presumptuous on my part, but I will give it the best I can from my admittedly limited experience in that field, I need all the practice I can get.
> 
> The word translated 'washed' in the AV, and 'loosed' in the RV, is λυσαντι. The ESV interlinear translates it 'freed.' Looking in BGAD I could not find it, nor in Liddel-Scott, so I was somewhat puzzled.
> 
> The closest I came was λυσιος, which Liddel & Scott define as a verb meaning 'releasing, delivering'. The ESV Interlinear keys to Strong's # 3089 which shows 'λυω' defining it as "to loose", among other similar variables.





JimmyH said:


> in this brief example from William Milligan DD in his commentary on Revelation, from the Expositors Bible, circa 1889, on page 7 Professor Milligan gives this exposition ;
> 
> 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
> 
> ...




Having checked my PocketSword App KJB with Strongs Numbers it turns out that the Textus Receptus does indeed use a different Greek word to the Revised (text) Version, it being


> Strong's # 3068 λούω [LOU/W] {loúō} \loo'-o\
> a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively):--wash.



The KJB does not in fact mistranslate λυσαντι as washed as it uses an entirely different greek word, which does indeed mean wash, if you have 2 differing Texts that have different Greek words in places you'll find that they'll have a different meaning,
I'm sure the RV does accurately translate the greek word it uses as loosed.

The question now becomes not which text has translated its greek words the most accurately but which version uses the correct greek text & greek word in that place, and I would have to side with the KJB.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 24, 2014)

Logan said:


> Where there is any variety it is always in things of less, indeed of no, importance. God by his providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word." (Owen, Divine Originals)


Hello Logan. Did he mean, or write that to also encompass, the removal of entire sentences and passages? What I mean is are those entire sentences and passages which are omitted by some like the ESV of no importance? Does that quote apply to those omitted sections also?



Logan said:


> I believe that Scripture is found in a diligent comparing of all the readings, preserved through all ages, in all churches everywhere


 Where does that leave the poor and unlearned, those without the resources or knowledge with which to do so? Wouldn't just having 1 truly faithful version suffice?
Why should I for example need to get all different versions and compare them, being that you say from "all churches everywhere", some of which may very well be corrupt churches using highly corrupted versions, to come to an understanding of what Gods Word says? Is that like saying all versions lead to the truth?
That seems like a pretty complicated way to arrive at it!


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2014)

Logan said:


> I will be honest and say that it bothers me to receive what seems an uncharitable reply.



It is regrettable that you can be so easily bothered and find uncharitable intent in the most harmless of challenges. A sui generis is simply a position which brings together conflicting principles. As you had suggested that there is such a position I challenged you to devise it for us. I can understand the challenge might be too great for you, but there was nothing uncharitable in my remark, unless of course setting you a difficult challenge is to be looked upon as uncharitable.

Concerning your contention that there is another position which brings together the conflicting principles, it is well known that the "neutral text" of Westcott and Hort deliberately laid aside the text which was handed down through the agency of the church, and it was done so with the thought of "restoring" the original to the church. One will find that B. B. Warfield shared this view. The present day eclectic approach which underlies the critical text has gone even farther away from the agency of the church. It is simply false to assert that one can adopt critical text principles and maintain the agency of the church in providential preservation.


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> So since going through this exercise I am more confused than I was when I started but perhaps a bit wiser. I will no longer be so quick to assume. Thank you Reverend Winzer for prompting me to spend the time and effort.



Sorry you had to go through that, Jimmy. This is the difficulty the minister faces as he has to wrestle with these questions week in week out.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 24, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > So since going through this exercise I am more confused than I was when I started but perhaps a bit wiser. I will no longer be so quick to assume. Thank you Reverend Winzer for prompting me to spend the time and effort.
> ...



On the contrary Reverend Winzer, I genuinely do thank you for stimulating me to go through the exercise, even if that wasn't your intent. I really did learn that there is much more to this than meets the uneducated eye. Hats off to those ministers who, week in and week out, have the awesome responsibility of rightly dividing the word of truth for their flock.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 25, 2014)

I've posted this from another thread as it has relevance to this thread...

apparently what helps the KJB's * readability * is the fact there are over 900 verses in the King James Bible that contain only one syllable words. Here's one, and what could be simpler, Jesus wept.

Here is a weblink that shows its Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level:
A Red Herring, "The Readability of the KJV"

And what was the result? The King James Bible literally “blew the doors off” the ESV! The following verifiable scientific results do not lie. 

DESCRIPTION ......................................KJB.. ESV 
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Lower Easier to Read) 4.32 8.22 
Sentence Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) .........29 ..61 
Vocabulary Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) ........2 ..10 
Short Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........10342 3441 
Simple Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........5728 2301 
Big Words (Lower Easier to Read) ................7020 13478 
Average Words per Sentence (Lower Easier to Read)8.78 18.82 

As you can see from our easy to verify results, the readability statistics of the much aligned "hard-to-understand" King James Bible clearly knocks the ESV out of the park!

also another thing when reading the KJB apparently you need to know a smaller vocabulary as well, which I suppose is its *comprehensibility* 
Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand Than The Others?

The national bestseller, The Story of English, writes of the simplicity of the King James Bible: 

"The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teaching in homely English for everyman." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 113) 

Did I also fail to mention it's a better Sounding Bible, yes *Listenability*! 
so what could be better for a Family & Pulpit Reading Bible?

One of the amazing personalities of the King James Bible is it’s poetic beauty. Nothing ever penned in the English language can match it’s sound and rhythm. For a work of it’s volume and serious subject matter – the poetic splendor defies human logic. The very sound of reading of the King James Bible bears the resemble of a music concerto. It’s timbre grabs you, as it’s melody sings God’s word. What an amazing book! 

It’s worth noting the emphasis the King James translators placed, not only on the readable text of the King James Bible, but also it’s sound. Before the King James Bible was published and after the initial translation work was completed, a re-working took place, The Story of English describes this unique process, "they were to go through the text, re-working it so that it would not only read better but sound better, a quality for which it became famous throughout the English-speaking world." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 112)


----------



## jgilberAZ (Aug 25, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> The question now becomes not which text has translated its greek words the most accurately but which version uses the correct greek text & greek word in that place, and I would have to side with the KJB.



That is the crux of the matter, In my humble opinion.

I tend to think that the version that has been copied and copied and copied the *fewest* number of times (ie, the oldest manuscripts), would likely yield a more accurate representation of the originals.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 25, 2014)

jgilberAZ said:


> I tend to think that the version that has been copied and copied and copied the fewest number of times (ie, the oldest manuscripts), would likely yield a more accurate representation of the originals.



The problem is we cannot know how many generations a MS is the product of. Nor is it accurate to conclude that a if a MS is older that it has fewer generations between it and the autograph than a later MS. If a MS was copied in the year 1500 from a MS that dates from circa 150, then it holds the same place as the MS that was copied from the same text in the year 151. While there is a vast difference in their age, they nonetheless are the product of same number of generations in the process of transmission. It is conversely true that an earlier MS may be the product of more copies than a later MS. We really cannot say definitively how many generations of copied MSS lie between any particular MS and its autograph based solely on its age. It is therefore unsafe to base all of our conclusions in the area textual criticism merely on the age of the MSS. Unfortunately, that has been the received wisdom for more than a century.


----------



## Logan (Aug 25, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> It is regrettable that you can be so easily bothered and find uncharitable intent in the most harmless of challenges. A sui generis is simply a position which brings together conflicting principles. As you had suggested that there is such a position I challenged you to devise it for us. I can understand the challenge might be too great for you, but there was nothing uncharitable in my remark, unless of course setting you a difficult challenge is to be looked upon as uncharitable.



Reverend Winzer, I attempted to act in a Christian manner by saying that your former remark bothered me (instead of bottling it up). Your response (which could have been simply "that was not my intent") now seems condescending; perhaps you find humor in that, but I will once again say that the way you have related to me does bother me. Maybe I am too sensitive, but if that is the case, would you mind at least trying to treat me as a weaker brother?

I believe the heart of the difference is that you promote a view of preservation that admits of no alternatives, and see all other views as invalid. For this reason, you will not discuss anything on any grounds but your own, which is fine, but it makes further discussion unfruitful. However, I would like to say that I believe that view is too narrow, to the point where Erasmus, Beza, Estienne, etc., had they held its, would not have been able to produce what they did. I also think there is a problem in this interpretation of preservation of believing that the texts were "kept pure in all ages", for apparently some things were lost to the Greek manuscripts for a thousand years, only to be inserted back in by the Latin.

I have been reading about the history of the Geneva Bible and all the translation and textual work that went on in Geneva at that time, with numerous editions of the Greek being printed by Estienne and Beza as they compared manuscripts and sought to correct readings based on textual criticism. There appears to be an almost constant analysis of the text to see whether the reading is correct or no. The idea of a static text that could not be corrected does not appear to have been an option for them, though certainly there was a reverent approach as well that I admire and hope our own translators follow.

I believe there is a danger in declaring a view of preservation and then holding to it regardless of evidence. Many KJVO people hold to a view of preservation that says the Greek can't really be trusted and yet accept "by faith" that the KJV is the providentially preserved word of God, regardless of any evidence. I think the question should not be "what do I think God should have done" but rather "how did God do this?". I believe in providential preservation because it is an extension of my belief in the nature of God. However, God did not preserve every single manuscript without error (though he certainly could have). Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume that is how he did it, regardless of the evidence. Likewise, I cannot just assume that God preserved his word through one group of Western Europeans and the variants they collected (especially since they didn't seem to believe this themselves), until I have looked at the evidence. It is certainly possible, but I cannot accept that view based on what I know. I can certainly sympathize with those who do hold it.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2014)

Logan said:


> Maybe I am too sensitive, but if that is the case, would you mind at least trying to treat me as a weaker brother?



Logan, a weaker brother in Scripture is not one who is "too sensitive," but one who feels himself bound by Old Testament commandments of God wherein others consider themselves to be free. You are not the weaker brother.

I am genuinely sorry you are always taking offence at my manner. In my honest opinion, you are far too sensitive. If you are going to discuss an issue, discuss the issue, and leave personal things out of it.



Logan said:


> you will not discuss anything on any grounds but your own



Nonsense! If you can't meet the challenge, simply say so. Stop trying to deflect your inadequacies onto me.



Logan said:


> There appears to be an almost constant analysis of the text to see whether the reading is correct or no.



This is not denied. It has already been recognised on numerous threads. The fact that there are variants and difficulties is part of the work of criticism regardless of the stream one works with.



Logan said:


> Likewise, I cannot just assume that God preserved his word through one group of Western Europeans



The Byzantine text is eastern.


----------



## chuckd (Aug 26, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Let's consider the attestation of Scripture by Scripture itself. Why do we believe the Scriptures are inspired? Because Scripture itself states it plainly and quotes itself as inspired. Since later Scriptures make this attestation of earlier Scriptures, it must include within it the belief in the preservation of Scripture. What is inspired is also preserved, according to the self-attestation of Scripture. When Moses is quoted 1400 years later, or David is quoted 1000 years later, it is always on the presupposition that what was written has been preserved in its original purity. Now the question is, Which text-critical theory gives the greatest weight and place to the attested preservation of Scripture? Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or *is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?* I do not think it is difficult to decide once the doctrine of preservation is accepted as an essential part of the self-attestation of holy Scripture. It is undoubtedly true that there are difficulties connected with the work of textual criticism regardless of which view one takes. But these difficulties should not decide one's position. The testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should decide that point.



I believe this is a good view. It is bothersome that the Greek text continually changes every few years. Often churches will attempt to straddle the fence on this issue and accept the latest Greek text and say "the original is inspired." Do we have the original? "No." So what good is that statement?

The TR view is new to me and it makes sense. My question for TR is with the bolded above. Again, I'm new to it so don't know the history, but has the TR text been faithfully transmitted through means of the church? That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 26, 2014)

chuckd said:


> Again, I'm new to it so don't know the history, but has the TR text been faithfully transmitted through means of the church? That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?


The Vulgate was the dominant text for a thousand years up until Erasmus. Here is a brief overview of the history of the TR. 

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This from the Wiki on the KJV; King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[124] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[125] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. 

For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[126] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[127]"


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 26, 2014)

Hi Logan,

With regard to the view of preservation held by some here (myself included) you say,
“I would like to say that I believe that view is too narrow, to the point where Erasmus, Beza, Estienne, etc., had they held it, would not have been able to produce what they did.”​ 
Rightly they considered the variant readings, and text critical issues. I think the point is that what they came up with, and the King James Bible translators sifted through and used (along with other translations, language versions, etc), resulted in a Greek (and also Hebrew) edition (back-translated into a text compiled by Scrivener’s 1894 Greek) resulting in the Greek Received Text and the English-language AV. Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were part of the process of God’s providentially preserving His word.

And then you continue,
“I also think there is a problem in this interpretation of preservation of believing that the texts were ‘kept pure in all ages’, for apparently some things were lost to the Greek manuscripts for a thousand years, only to be inserted back in by the Latin.” (Post #80)​ 
This you quoted is from the Westminster Confession 1:8 (the 1689 Baptist Confession reading virtually the same),
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...​ 
I want to say concerning this “kept pure in all ages”, what I think it 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, or even one area in each generation? 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.

In other words, God, even though He had _adequately_ (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. Yes, later even CT-based Bibles went out to the nations (though causing great confusion in some areas, as I learned when I taught in Africa). Still, they did good in the main, giving even more peoples the word of God.

As I said earlier in the thread, the Reformation Protestants desired “a precise and sure text to withstand the onslaught of Rome”, and this they had in the Received Hebrew and Greek Texts and its English translation. Were they wrong? Was Rome right after all? Was the Roman Catholic _Vaticanus_ the best MS as they would later claim?

The alternative to this view is that we in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century have an uncertain text, provisional at best, and are dependent on academicians (not all of whom are even believers) to sort it out for us. Some of the “best” textual scholars are pessimistic the NT text can ever be discerned or restored, as noted in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] post of this thread.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 26, 2014)

chuckd said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Let's consider the attestation of Scripture by Scripture itself. Why do we believe the Scriptures are inspired? Because Scripture itself states it plainly and quotes itself as inspired. Since later Scriptures make this attestation of earlier Scriptures, it must include within it the belief in the preservation of Scripture. What is inspired is also preserved, according to the self-attestation of Scripture. When Moses is quoted 1400 years later, or David is quoted 1000 years later, it is always on the presupposition that what was written has been preserved in its original purity. Now the question is, Which text-critical theory gives the greatest weight and place to the attested preservation of Scripture? Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or *is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?* I do not think it is difficult to decide once the doctrine of preservation is accepted as an essential part of the self-attestation of holy Scripture. It is undoubtedly true that there are difficulties connected with the work of textual criticism regardless of which view one takes. But these difficulties should not decide one's position. The testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should decide that point.
> ...


I think the key here is "transmitted through means of the church". For that we have only the TR textual tradition. Now when and if I pray, the church takes up the need for a new translation or modification of its existing translation, we will all be quite blessed. When the pastor states "this is the Word of God" we should be able in good conscience to make an affirmation accordingly, not sit in judgment of the same.


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2014)

chuckd said:


> That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?



It might help to liken it to the truth of the gospel in the church. The church had it, but it took a Luther with the help of others to bring it out into the open. Once brought out it caused a division. The reformation churches held to the truth and the Romanist church opposed it. In the same way, the church has always had the preserved Word, but it took the agency of some men to bring it out into the open. At that point the Reformed embraced it and the Romanists opposed it.

Just to clarify, the received text position does not deny there are variants and difficulties. But these are addressed from the point of view that the word has been preserved for the church. This is in direct contrast to those who engage in criticism with the thought that the word has been corrupted and must be restored to a tolerable approximation to the original.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 26, 2014)

Some food for thought
The Comma Johanneum, Reformed Baptists, and Doing Apologetics | Alpha and Omega Ministries


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Some food for thought
> The Comma Johanneum, Reformed Baptists, and Doing Apologetics | Alpha and Omega Ministries



"Doing Apologetics" might just get to the heart of the problem. Apologists are natively concerned with what unbelievers think and how to make them think better of Christianity. Pastors are concerned to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers. An "apologist" is not a distinct ministry of the New Testament church.

Dr. White states regarding the position of Turretin and co.: "What they have to say isn't all that relevant anymore." Roman Catholics would say that what they said never was relevant.

Some food for nourishment:

(1) Certain "variants" were rejected because they were outside the mainstream, even though the mss. containing the "variants" might not have been discovered or examined.

(2) There are certain canonical principles which steer the reading of evidence. If a new book was found which could be traced back to the pen of the apostles it would not be considered as canonical because it has not been received as such by the church. If the church were to make a new canon it would effectively remove itself from the claim of being "catholic" (universal). What applies to a book applies to the text. The last twelve verses of Mark are not that much different to one of the smaller epistles of the New Testament.

(3) The Scriptures are the rule of faith and life. The critics said for a long time that the new criticism does not alter the "essential" doctrines of the church. In recent years that has not been the case. Both evangelicals and non-evangelicals have started to concede that "essentials" are affected. But even where essential doctrines are not apparently affected, it is beyond dispute that other doctrines which are included in "the whole counsel of God" are affected by the alterations.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 26, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I am too sensitive, but if that is the case, would you mind at least trying to treat me as a weaker brother?
> ...




Still when a brother feels your talking to him in a disrespectful way the least you could do is show some love and class towards him. Instead this very arrogance is the reason why he probably won't be too intent on listening to any more of your arguments.


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2014)

Zach Rohman said:


> Still when a brother feels your talking to him in a disrespectful way the least you could do is show some love and class towards him. Instead this very arrogance is the reason why he probably won't be too intent on listening to any more of your arguments.



"Arrogance." Where is your love and class? I see double standards at work here. This is what happens when people will only maintain truth with respect to persons.

Show me the person who is willing to sacrifice self for the sake of defending the truth, and I will listen to that person.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 26, 2014)

Your zeal for truth is causing you to talk to your brothers in such a way that is hurtful. When your brother brought it to your attention in love you told him he was too sensitive and basically that if he was going to be that sensitive not to debate. There are ways to debate in love but when a brother lovingly brings something like that to your attention you should listen. Knowledge puffs up and one of the biggest problems with reformed circles is zeal for knowledge and truth but a lack of application in that truth. Simply being kind and respectful to your brother who wanted to debate in love.

Also maybe arrogance was a little too strong of a word. I can't judge your intents here. Just simply saying your posts were coming off a little strong and were coming off as unloving


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2014)

Zach Rohman said:


> Your zeal for truth is causing you to talk to your brothers in such a way that is hurtful.



It doesn't seem to bother you how a derogatory word like "arrogance" might be hurtful to your brother.

I haven't said anything about my brother apart from confirming his suggestion that he was being too sensitive. It is regrettable that anyone should take offence at my method of sticking to the facts and requiring others to do so.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 26, 2014)

I actually edited my post before you even posted that confirming that I may have used too strong of a word


----------



## MW (Aug 27, 2014)

Zach Rohman said:


> I actually edited my post before you even posted that confirming that I may have used too strong of a word



I personally don't care what you call me. I've been called worse. I happily accept it as a part of my joy in bearing the cross. But so far as your own standards are concerned, in addressing one who is supposed to have "hurt" his brother, you have done "hurt" to your brother. I think you should quit while you are behind. It would be better if you did not make such derogatory judgements on others which suppose you have an ability to look into the heart, and simply leave brethren alone to discuss the issues at hand.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 27, 2014)

Brother, I was not trying to make a judgment on your heart. And I am sorry if I came off as offensive as well. That definitely was not the way I wanted to handle bringing that up to you. 

Sometimes though, you can come off very offensively even when you don't mean to, and you can hurt people in debates. Zeal for truth should never cause you to devalue people. I am by no means saying you were purposely devaluing anyone. Just try to consider people and how you are coming across. 

Much love brother, I will leave you all to your discussion


----------



## chuckd (Aug 27, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> > That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?
> ...



I like the analogy. How are (were) the variants addressed from the TR point of view? It seems variants of a singularity would be a contradiction.


----------



## MW (Aug 27, 2014)

chuckd said:


> I like the analogy. How are (were) the variants addressed from the TR point of view? It seems variants of a singularity would be a contradiction.



To continue the analogy, we might think of Calvin coming after Luther and systematically clearing up some of the truths relative to the grace of the gospel. The Lutherans adhered to their interpretation of Luther while the Reformed regarded themselves as following a more consistent Luther. Likewise, there is the preserved word, but different views on what that looks like when it comes to some specifics. The criticism and discussion, however, proceeds on the basis of the text which has come down from former ages. The fundamental belief is _ad fontes_, and that the fountains have been preserved. Whereas the fundamental belief of Romanists was that the fountains were corrupted.


----------

