# One More Textus Receptus Critique Question



## Imputatio (Jul 23, 2022)

I have one more question, but don’t want to muddy the other thread I just posted. 

Is it true or not that the creation of the TR involved textual critical work that modern TR defenders call illegitimate when it is done today?

Those who put together the TR, and the subsequent TR tradition, did they not use textual criticism to arrive at their decisions?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 23, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I have one more question, but don’t want to muddy the other thread I just posted.
> 
> Is it true or not that the creation of the TR involved textual critical work that modern TR defenders call illegitimate when it is done today?
> 
> Those who put together the TR, and the subsequent TR tradition, did they not use textual criticism to arrive at their decisions?


yes it was textual criticism. But the field of textual criticism, and its underlying axioms, largely shifted in the 19th century.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 23, 2022)

No. It was expressly collation and not textual critical principles. John Owen and a great deal of others during that time period went to great lengths to prove this against some textual critics (Walton, etc.) of that time period.

They had manuscripts we no longer have and also wrestled with the three main contested passages. But that was NOT text criticism as defined today, which has a different epistemological presupposition underlying it which seeks to undermine Westminster's definition of providential preservation. Collation is indeed different than modern text criticism.

What is often the case today, is that people read their own principles back into the Reformation era. But more careful scholarship is honest and states the differences -- honest scholarship can be found with Muller and Ron Hendel (who actually criticized the Reformation view). At least both were honest with what they believe.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 3


----------



## Before (Jul 23, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I have one more question, but don’t want to muddy the other thread I just posted.
> 
> Is it true or not that the creation of the TR involved textual critical work that modern TR defenders call illegitimate when it is done today?
> 
> Those who put together the TR, and the subsequent TR tradition, did they not use textual criticism to arrive at their decisions?


If I understand your question correctly, I believe all translations used textual criticism (even Jerome) in deciding which body of manuscripts to use. A big difference is that the Critical Texts weren't known at the time of the compilation of the TR.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jul 23, 2022)

No. TR proponents do not call textual criticism illegitimate, and of course engage in it too (in a sense). The substance of the TR critique of CT methodology is basically that CT methodology ultimately gives priority to rules of textual criticism over the doctrine of preservation (though of course proponents of CT on this board still affirm that doctrine, though I daresay that's a minority position among CT proponents as a whole).

Of course there is more nuance to it than that, for instance there are also critiques of the priority CT gives to certain things within their scheme, but those critiques are not unique to TR proponents, so I think the above is the main bone of contention between TR specifically and CT.


----------



## Jake (Jul 23, 2022)

You're going to get different answers from different folks because of definitions. One way you could answer this question is to look at some of what into the process of creating the TR. The TR went through many editions during Erasmus's life and then was continued afterwards by Beza and others. The compilers of the TR did a lot of work to compare different manuscripts, translations, and other resources. Even many of the most disputed differences that we now look at as between the TR and the Critical Text today are actually variants that exist within the TR. One example is the Johannine Comma (I John 5:7), which was not included in early editions of Erasmus's TR or Bibles based on it (like the Luther Bible) but was included in later editions. Another is Beza's Emendation (Revelation 16:5) which is included in the KJV but not several earlier TR Bibles like Tyndale to name one. 

If you define textual criticism very narrowly, then it is a discipline that emerged in the 19th century. If you define it broadly as several ways of interacting with textual differences to produce a single text, then many of the same practices were done prior to the 19th century with the creation of the TR (and arguably, even earlier textual comparison work by early church theologians like Origen) follows a lot of similar ideas. I think those who say the TR is using textual criticism are using the term broadly to emphasize continuity in many practices, in contrast to some who emphasize preservation so much that they miss some of the critical eye applied to bringing together a multitude of sources.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Redneck_still_Reforming (Jul 23, 2022)

Before said:


> A big difference is that the Critical Texts weren't known at the time of the compilation of the TR.


Not exactly true. Yes, papyri and other manuscripts hadnt been found but one of the touchstones of CT, Codex Vaticanus, was known. Erasmus, through his connections, used it in his Greek NT but rejected its readings as spurious. While that is only one of many, it is in essence 50% of the CT evidence whereby they judge all other texts.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 23, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I have one more question, but don’t want to muddy the other thread I just posted.
> 
> Is it true or not that the creation of the TR involved textual critical work that modern TR defenders call illegitimate when it is done today?
> 
> Those who put together the TR, and the subsequent TR tradition, did they not use textual criticism to arrive at their decisions?


Here's an article, and a website which should answer some of your questions, follow the link below to read the balance of that particular page. Much good stuff on this site.
Textual Criticism is Nothing New​On this page I quote some comments from Augustine, Jerome, and Erasmus which show that textual criticism (the critical evaluation of various readings of the manuscripts) of the New Testament is not a modern invention. Even in ancient times, writers like Augustine and Jerome were faced with the problem of deciding between alternative readings in the manuscripts, and they made decisions on the basis of text-critical principles which sometimes correspond to those of modern scholars.



Textual Criticism is Nothing New


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 23, 2022)

For what it is worth, I personally have found it unhelpful and unnecessarily contentious to view this subject from a 20,000 foot altitude. Instead of fretting over whether the critical text or received text is the superior, I look at the manuscript evidence for individual verses (with the aid of Accordance Bible study software and technical commentaries) as I study them. I have found that there are several passages that excite emotional debate and we all know which ones those are (the longer ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, the Johannine Comma and the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer and maybe, for some, Revelation 16:5). I may have left out something, but in my experience, those seem to be the passages over which people get excited. I have found if I simply concentrate on the particular text that I am studying and come to a conclusion about it, there is no reason to debate such issues as the philosophy of textual transmission and so forth. Personally, I have yet to find any differences between the CT and TR that threaten any single doctrine of the faith. For example, is the Johannine Comma original to John? In my opinion the overwhelming testimony of the manuscript evidence is that it is not original. Among other things, it was not once mentioned during the Council of Nicaea. But, whether or not it is original changes nothing. We have the same doctrine of the Trinity with it or without it. If we had only the Byzantine manuscripts or only the Alexandrian manuscripts, we would still have the word of God. God has preserved his word. Don't worry. Be happy.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Before (Jul 23, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> Personally, I have yet to find any differences between the CT and TR that threaten any single doctrine of the faith.


Would that be the major concern or would the fact that there have been pieces of text *either added or omitted* be a greater concern?
Especially in the light of such texts as... Mt 5:18 or Rev 22:18-19.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Redneck_still_Reforming (Jul 24, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> For what it is worth, I personally have found it unhelpful and unnecessarily contentious to view this subject from a 20,000 foot altitude. Instead of fretting over whether the critical text or received text is the superior, I look at the manuscript evidence for individual verses (with the aid of Accordance Bible study software and technical commentaries) as I study them. I have found that there are several passages that excite emotional debate and we all know which ones those are (the longer ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, the Johannine Comma and the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer and maybe, for some, Revelation 16:5). I may have left out something, but in my experience, those seem to be the passages over which people get excited. I have found if I simply concentrate on the particular text that I am studying and come to a conclusion about it, there is no reason to debate such issues as the philosophy of textual transmission and so forth. Personally, I have yet to find any differences between the CT and TR that threaten any single doctrine of the faith. For example, is the Johannine Comma original to John? In my opinion the overwhelming testimony of the manuscript evidence is that it is not original. Among other things, it was not once mentioned during the Council of Nicaea. But, whether or not it is original changes nothing. We have the same doctrine of the Trinity with it or without it. If we had only the Byzantine manuscripts or only the Alexandrian manuscripts, we would still have the word of God. God has preserved his word. Don't worry. Be happy.


If you look at the TBS pamphlets, especially the Textual Key to the New Testament and the literature about different verses, you may find why people seize on differences (ex. 1 Tim. 3:16 God vs. Him). There is, to me a difference and I personally believe it does impact doctrine but I do not worry my brothers or sisters at church with my crazy opinions because it would be rather divisive and unwise. PS. _I once spoke about it with a fellow but that was permitted by the teacher of our Sunday School class being a one-on-one conversation._

One thing I have heard from TR advocates is that if the TR has no substantial differences doctrinally, why do we need a CT? I also see a reverse, if the CT doesn't impact doctrine, why have people defended and insisted on the old TR? There is probably a logical fallacy in here on my part but it shows me that there must be a difference, otherwise men like Mark Ward and James White wouldn't be so vocal. 

I see this debate as an intermural debate among Christians for the most part (notable exceptions exist). But when you begin to get to the fringes, liberalism begins to seep into the CT position (Metzger, Eherman) and gnostocism seeps into the KJVO position (notice, not the TR position, they arent the same even though we often get lumped in the debate with Gipp et all). My pastor and favorite preachers all are CT men so I have respect for their work and dont insist that it anathemizes a person as some would do.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Jul 24, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> For what it is worth, I personally have found it unhelpful and unnecessarily contentious to view this subject from a 20,000 foot altitude. Instead of fretting over whether the critical text or received text is the superior, I look at the manuscript evidence for individual verses (with the aid of Accordance Bible study software and technical commentaries) as I study them. I have found that there are several passages that excite emotional debate and we all know which ones those are (the longer ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, the Johannine Comma and the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer and maybe, for some, Revelation 16:5). I may have left out something, but in my experience, those seem to be the passages over which people get excited. I have found if I simply concentrate on the particular text that I am studying and come to a conclusion about it, there is no reason to debate such issues as the philosophy of textual transmission and so forth. Personally, I have yet to find any differences between the CT and TR that threaten any single doctrine of the faith. For example, is the Johannine Comma original to John? In my opinion the overwhelming testimony of the manuscript evidence is that it is not original. Among other things, it was not once mentioned during the Council of Nicaea. But, whether or not it is original changes nothing. We have the same doctrine of the Trinity with it or without it. If we had only the Byzantine manuscripts or only the Alexandrian manuscripts, we would still have the word of God. God has preserved his word. Don't worry. Be happy.


I didn't expect Bobby McFerrin to be quoted on pb.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 24, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> For what it is worth, I personally have found it unhelpful and unnecessarily contentious to view this subject from a 20,000 foot altitude. Instead of fretting over whether the critical text or received text is the superior, I look at the manuscript evidence for individual verses (with the aid of Accordance Bible study software and technical commentaries) as I study them. I have found that there are several passages that excite emotional debate and we all know which ones those are (the longer ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, the Johannine Comma and the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer and maybe, for some, Revelation 16:5). I may have left out something, but in my experience, those seem to be the passages over which people get excited. I have found if I simply concentrate on the particular text that I am studying and come to a conclusion about it, there is no reason to debate such issues as the philosophy of textual transmission and so forth. Personally, I have yet to find any differences between the CT and TR that threaten any single doctrine of the faith. For example, is the Johannine Comma original to John? In my opinion the overwhelming testimony of the manuscript evidence is that it is not original. Among other things, it was not once mentioned during the Council of Nicaea. But, whether or not it is original changes nothing. We have the same doctrine of the Trinity with it or without it. If we had only the Byzantine manuscripts or only the Alexandrian manuscripts, we would still have the word of God. God has preserved his word. Don't worry. Be happy.


I would humbly submit that you can only say it makes no difference in doctrine because you are standing on 1800 years of non-Alexandrian text in use by the church. We may well have a very different “orthodoxy” if the Alexandrian texts had won the day. 

w/r/t 1Jn 5:7, while it wasn’t cited at Nicea, it was cited at Carthage a century and a half later with no evidence of a peep regarding its authenticity.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 24, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> w/r/t 1Jn 5:7, while it wasn’t cited at Nicea, it was cited at Carthage a century and a half later with no evidence of a peep regarding its authenticity.


I wasn't aware of this. Can anybody point me to a reference? I can find no such citation in my copy of _The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Redneck_still_Reforming (Jul 24, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I would humbly submit that you can only say it makes no difference in doctrine because you are standing on 1800 years of non-Alexandrian text in use by the church. We may well have a very different “orthodoxy” if the Alexandrian texts had won the day.


I have often thought this but never saw anyone else posit it this well. I have been reading JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrine and it seems that Alexandria was ripe with heresy and heterodox Christian thought. Is that true? If so, wouldn't that explain some alterations?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 24, 2022)

Redneck_still_Reforming said:


> I have often thought this but never saw anyone else posit it this well. I have been reading JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrine and it seems that Alexandria was ripe with heresy and heterodox Christian thought. Is that true? If so, wouldn't that explain some alterations?


No doubt there were heresies floating in the air at Alexandria. But though Arius came from Alexandria, so did his foil, Athanasius. No doubt, there were heresies floating around Asia Minor and the Byzantine empire as well. I personally find none of that line of discussion particularly helpful when I look at specific verses. 

Tangentially, I sometimes meet Christians who have the notion that the early church was pure and the model to be followed in every respect. I don't think that idea squares very well with Paul's writings to the Corinthians nor with John's address to the 7 churches in his Revelation. The purest church in history had sinners sitting in the pews, wheat and tares growing side by side. I think we make much more progress climbing down out of the clouds to look into the specific differences in the texts. To the extent that I have done that, I find the differences to be insignificant.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2022)

Redneck_still_Reforming said:


> I have often thought this but never saw anyone else posit it this well. I have been reading JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrine and it seems that Alexandria was ripe with heresy and heterodox Christian thought. Is that true? If so, wouldn't that explain some alterations?



No. Athanasius was from Alexandria. His bishop and mentor, Alexander, was the first to hold the line against Arius.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Physeter (Jul 24, 2022)

Redneck_still_Reforming said:


> I see this debate as an intermural debate among Christians for the most part (notable exceptions exist). But when you begin to get to the fringes, liberalism begins to seep into the CT position (Metzger, Eherman) and gnostocism seeps into the KJVO position (notice, not the TR position, they arent the same even though we often get lumped in the debate with Gipp et all). My pastor and favorite preachers all are CT men so I have respect for their work and dont insist that it anathemizes a person as some would do.


I have also seen Sabellianism and Oneness seeping into the KJVO position as well. I have family members that are into KJVO. When I saw these heresies springing up, I ran the other way.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 24, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> No. Athanasius was from Alexandria. His bishop and mentor, Alexander, was the first to hold the line against Arius.


I’m confused by this statement. Athanasius was from Alexandria, therefore Alexandria didn’t have heresy?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I’m confused by this statement. Athanasius was from Alexandria, therefore Alexandria didn’t have heresy?



No. It's merely that Alexandria wasn't a unique hotbed of heresy. Yes, it had heresy, but it also had *the* leading defenders of orthodoxy. By that logic, Alexandrian texts could just as well produce orthodoxy.

And the main opponents of later Alexandrians, the Antiochians, were Nestorian heretics. It's best to judge an issue based on the merit of the case than on its location.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 25, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> w/r/t 1Jn 5:7, while it wasn’t cited at Nicea, it was cited at Carthage a century and a half later with no evidence of a peep regarding its authenticity.


I'm not sure that this comment is quite right. There doesn't appear to be an obvious citation or quote of the King James Version of 1 John 5:7.

Perhaps someone can shed some light on this. I'm not sure that I am correctly following the argument. As I understand the issue, the comment above refers to a quotation by Cyprian.

First, Gregory of Nazianzus writes:

"_For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are *Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood*?_"

Philip Schaff remarks: "This is the famous passage of the Witnesses in 1 John 5:8. In some few later codices of the Vulgate are found the words which form verse 7 of our A. V. But neither verse 7 nor these words are to be found in any Greek Ms. earlier than the Fifteenth Century: nor are they quoted by any Greek Father, and by very few and late Latin ones. They have been thought to be cited by S. Cyprian in his work on the Unity of the Church; and this citation, if a fact, would be a most important one, as it would throw back their reception to an early date. But Tischendorf (Gk. Test. Ed. 8, ad. loc.) gives reasons for believing that the quotation is only apparent, and is really of the last clause of verse."

In plain English, Gregory quotes John 5:8, not the disputed passage in the King James version 1 John 5:7.

In his Treatise I, Cyprian writes:

"_He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one._”

If I understand the argument correctly, the question is, is Cyprian alluding to Gregory of Nazianzus's quote, or is he alluding to a Greek manuscript, now lost to history, that contains the disputed phrase in the King James Version (1 John 5:7, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.). Cyprian's remark is not a direct quote of the disputed text. Some take it to be an allusion to it, but many do not.

Jerome did not include the verse in his translation (though much later versions of the Latin Vulgate did pick it up).

The matter is in doubt. I personally am persuaded by the manuscript evidence that Erasmus' inclusion of the text (not in his original translation, but added in subsequent editions) and the subsequent inclusion of the disputed text in the King James Version are not authentic to the original Greek manuscript.

My major point is that the issue is inconsequential. Our understanding of the Trinity is informed by many other texts. The inclusion of 1 John 5:7 doesn't change our understanding of the doctrine and neither does it's omission. God has preserved his word.

Let each person be persuaded in their own mind.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 25, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> is Cyprian alluding to Gregory of Nazianzus's quote, or is he alluding to a Greek manuscript, now lost to history, that contains the disputed phrase in the King James Version



If we are talking about the famous Cyprian of Carthage, he predated Nazianzen by 100 years.


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 25, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> If we are talking about the famous Cyprian of Carthage, he predated Nazianzen by 100 years.


So, then, when Schaff writes, "They have been thought to be cited by S. Cyprian in his work on the Unity of the Church...", the pronoun "they" must refer to the disputed text in 1 John 5:7, not to the quote by Gregory.

If that is the case (and it certainly appears to be), then I really don't see the point of Shaff's footnote remarks on Gregory's citation of 1 John 5:8. I don't see how they can relate at all to either 1 John 5:7 or to Cyprian's quote. That's one of my problems.

The other problem I am having is locating a quotation of 1 John 5:7 "at Carthage." I presume it is the quote above by Cyprian (which is at best a possible allusion, not a quote).


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 25, 2022)

It was in the orthodox defense statement drawn up by Eugenius in response to the Synod called by the Arian king in 484. 

As to the Cyprian quote (250), he says it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that “these three are one”. Modern scholars, assuming 1 Jn 5:7 to be a very late addition, argue that Cyprian was interpreting verse 8, even though that’s not what he says. He uses a scripture citation formula. Furthermore, there are statements dating back to ca. 500 who cite Cyprian as quoting verse 7.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JH (Jul 25, 2022)

I've said it before, but again I don't think 1 John 5:6-9 makes any sense if verse 7 is omitted. The flow of the passage is thus interrupted, since it contrasts heavenly and earthly witnesses, a lesser to greater argument.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 25, 2022)

I want to add, that I recognize the historical evidence surrounding 1 Jn 5:7 is sparse. But to listen to modern textual scholars speak, you would think it was invented after AD1300.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

It’s strange seeing those of the TR camp appeal to evidence in order to justify a particular reading. 

I thought it was a position of faith in God’s preservation, and making decisions by weighing evidence was a CT thing. 

Or is it that once you presuppose the TR, you’re allowed to fill in the gaps with any evidence you choose—even weak evidence like that for the Comma—because “all evidence proves the TR.”


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> It’s strange seeing those of the TR camp appeal to evidence in order to justify a particular reading.
> 
> I thought it was a position of faith in God’s preservation, and making decisions by weighing evidence was a CT thing.
> 
> Or is it that once you presuppose the TR, you’re allowed to fill in the gaps with any evidence you choose—even weak evidence like that for the Comma—because “all evidence proves the TR.”


That's a slightly caricatured way of looking at it, but in a sense, yes (though not any evidence you choose, just the evidence that actually exists). Is it any more strange than the whole discipline of apologetics? After all, our position is faith in God's existence, so why bother with evidences?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> It’s strange seeing those of the TR camp appeal to evidence in order to justify a particular reading.
> 
> I thought it was a position of faith in God’s preservation, and making decisions by weighing evidence was a CT thing.
> 
> Or is it that once you presuppose the TR, you’re allowed to fill in the gaps with any evidence you choose—even weak evidence like that for the Comma—because “all evidence proves the TR.”


The argument for the TR is theologically a priori, not fideistic.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 26, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> That's a slightly caricatured way of looking at it, but in a sense, yes (though not any evidence you choose, just the evidence that actually exists). Is it any more strange than the whole discipline of apologetics? After all, our position is faith in God's existence, so why bother with evidences?


The thing with the TR is that the evidence methodology is not consistent: the science/methodology to justify 1 Jn 5:7 / Longer ending / Eph 3:9 are all different. Then the TR proponent would say their view does not rely on evidence. Then the question is thrown back - why then talk about evidence? (No sarcasm is meant here. It is just the logical outworking of a non-TR guy viewing the views of the TR position: why would TR guys talk about evidence when its a priori presuppositional view and we must admit the talk of evidence would only muddy the TR view)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 26, 2022)

Hello William,

It is as Neil says, a bit of a caricature – a slight distortion of sorts – as we operate on _Scripture-based_ presuppositions regarding the TR view of preservation, yet will bring in evidences _*to confirm and illustrate*_ the cogency of this method. There's nothing at all amiss in discussing the faulty view of "the oldest mss are the best" – with examples of the glaring flaws – and examples of the soundness of "the oldest *readings* attested by wide geographical circulation, and numerous sources". 

Although sometimes our "evidences" _are_ scant, and disputed. It is here that we sometimes go by simple faith, or with but slender threads of evidence. In truth, evidences of some sort can be found for almost all contested passages, words, etc.

Cogent evidences are more a fruit of sound presuppositions. For instance, it is by the sheer word of God in Genesis 1 and 2 that we know about the beginning of all things – the days of creation, its length, etc, and the special creation of man – even though we do not go by evidences but by the word of the LORD. There are, however, more and far better evidences that accord with this special creation, than those supposed evidences that accord with the Big Bang and the eternality of matter views.
____

John, our evidence "methodology" need not at all be what you call "consistent", but _prn_, that is, as needed. It is_ internally_ consistent with our unique Biblical method.

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 26, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> So, then, when Schaff writes, "They have been thought to be cited by S. Cyprian in his work on the Unity of the Church...", the pronoun "they" must refer to the disputed text in 1 John 5:7, not to the quote by Gregory.
> 
> If that is the case (and it certainly appears to be), then I really don't see the point of Shaff's footnote remarks on Gregory's citation of 1 John 5:8. I don't see how they can relate at all to either 1 John 5:7 or to Cyprian's quote. That's one of my problems.
> 
> The other problem I am having is locating a quotation of 1 John 5:7 "at Carthage." I presume it is the quote above by Cyprian (which is at best a possible allusion, not a quote).



I think so too. Your quote had me thinking about that Schaff quote. He was a great (one of the greats) historian, but he did swing and miss a few times.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello William,
> 
> It is as Neil says, a bit of a caricature – a slight distortion of sorts – as we operate on _Scripture-based_ presuppositions regarding the TR view of preservation, yet will bring in evidences _*to confirm and illustrate*_ the cogency of this method. There's nothing at all amiss in discussing the faulty view of "the oldest mss are the best" – with examples of the glaring flaws – and examples of the soundness of "the oldest *readings* attested by wide geographical circulation, and numerous sources".
> 
> ...


Brother,

The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with “cogent evidences.” There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges. 

And to John’s point about the inconsistent standards for differing TR evidence, I believe you do your position a disservice when you appeal to these things. 

If it is a belief in God’s preservation, then say that and hold to it. But to then bring in these poor, inconsistent “evidences,” well it just doesn’t add up. Are you not affirming the consequent?


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I have one more question, but don’t want to muddy the other thread I just posted.
> 
> Is it true or not that the creation of the TR involved textual critical work that modern TR defenders call illegitimate when it is done today?
> 
> Those who put together the TR, and the subsequent TR tradition, did they not use textual criticism to arrive at their decisions?



One might use this thinking to blow open the canon. 

"Is it true or not that the selection of the books in the canon of scripture involved critical work that modern canon defenders call illegitimate when it is done today? Those who put together the canon, and the subsequent canon tradition, did they not use criticism to arrive at their decisions?"

The point is that there comes a time when the matter is accepted as settled by the Church Universal as a body. The confessional "kept pure and preserved" position recognizes this and adopted the then ecclesiastically accepted text (the TR) as final. In some sense, the product of Westminster Assembly and the "Three Forms of Unity" are a "work of the Church" similar to the early Councils as they are both confessed and owned creedally by Protestant churches. Such could not have happened earlier until the invention of the printing press which providentially aligned with the fall of Constantinople, the release of innumerable copies of manuscripts and the Protestant Reformation. In many ways, our modern critical questioning of this [gainsaying?] is in keeping with the spirit our age which seeks to remove the restraint of God's Word and introduce uncertainty. We then sit as judges over God's Word and dismiss or accept portions of scripture rather than submitting to it. 

In short my argument does take on the form of "if the TR was authoritative for the Reformers, it is authoritative for me". And while many in the "Confessional Bibliology" camp circle around WCF 1:8 _[by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical]_, I think we who subscribe to the WCF [and LBC 1689] need to be assert/argue 1:6 as well... [u_nto which nothing at any time is to be added [or altered], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men]_ In my humble opinion, the archaeologist's shovel and the critic's scalpel come within the scope of this limiting phrase.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Brother,
> 
> The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with “cogent evidences.” There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges.
> 
> ...


This doesn’t refute the argument, it only changes the frame of reference to “by faith we receive God’s revelation in scripture as truth”, and then the same argument applies - we are still able to appeal to evidences.

What you need to prove is that the TR’s appeals to evidences are inconsistent - I don’t think they are.

Your last paragraph is exactly what we do - we state and acknowledge that the TR position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jul 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> The thing with the TR is that the evidence methodology is not consistent: the science/methodology to justify 1 Jn 5:7 / Longer ending / Eph 3:9 are all different. Then the TR proponent would say their view does not rely on evidence. Then the question is thrown back - why then talk about evidence? (No sarcasm is meant here. It is just the logical outworking of a non-TR guy viewing the views of the TR position: why would TR guys talk about evidence when its a priori presuppositional view and we must admit the talk of evidence would only muddy the TR view)


I don’t see why this is a valid argument - the evidences may be different, that doesn’t mean they are inconsistent.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> This doesn’t refute the argument, it only changes the frame of reference to “by faith we receive God’s revelation in scripture as truth”, and then the same argument applies - we are still able to appeal to evidences.
> 
> What you need to prove is that the TR’s appeals to evidences are inconsistent - I don’t think they are.
> 
> Your last paragraph is exactly what we do - we state and acknowledge that the TR position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.





Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I don’t see why this is a valid argument - the evidences may be different, that doesn’t mean they are inconsistent.


Thanks for responding, brother.

1) Believing proponents of the CT also “state and acknowledge that the [CT] position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.” The disagreement is upon the means of said preservation. 

The TR camp seems to think they have sole ownership of the word “preservation;” when in actuality, they possess a very narrow, limited sense of the word. Ultimately we have to agree to disagree on this point.

2) Regarding the inconsistency of the TR’s appeals to evidence (@Logan is really good on this point, I believe):

If you applied to the Comma the standard used to “prove” the inspiration of the longer ending of Mark—that standard would actually disprove the Comma.

If large manuscript attestation is claimed to prove the ending of Mark, it follows that the nearly zero attestation to the Comma proves that it is…real? No. To turn around and say “don’t worry about the manuscripts for the Comma” is inconsistent. 

I’ll try to say it a different way. 

The same standard is not used to judge all of the evidence in the same way. It is an inconsistent standard; a moving target depending upon which text is in question. 

Essentially, you can’t change the standard or criteria of a judgment depending upon which text is in question, and then call all of it “consistent argumentation.” 

The rules get changed when they don’t go in favor of the next text; and then maybe changed back for the next one after that.

That’s what I mean by inconsistency. 

Others are better than me at explaining this point. Hopefully that makes sense. If anyone can say it better please do chime in.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Thanks for responding, brother.
> 
> 1) Believing proponents of the CT also “state and acknowledge that the [CT] position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.” The disagreement is upon the means of said preservation.
> 
> ...


Except, the standard, or criterion by which we believe all of these texts is in fact the same - it's the doctrine of preservation. Like apologetics generally, the apologetic against the CT's attack on these scriptures is necessarily different, because the CT uses different criteria to attack them. How we get from that to saying it's the TR position that is inconsistent, I'm not quite sure.

And yes, I've had this debate with Logan before - he is certainly one of the most gracious, fair and logical opponents of the TR position (not a proponent of the CT as I understand it) I've come across, and I dont really intend to get into the whole debate in-depth here again.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Except, the standard, or criterion by which we believe all of these texts is in fact the same - it's the doctrine of preservation. Like apologetics generally, the apologetic against the CT's attack on these scriptures is necessarily different, because the CT uses different criteria to attack them. How we get from that to saying it's the TR position that is inconsistent, I'm not quite sure.
> 
> And yes, I've had this debate with Logan before - he is certainly one of the most gracious, fair and logical opponents of the TR position (not a proponent of the CT as I understand it) I've come across, and I dont really intend to get into the whole debate in-depth here again.


Fair enough, discussion terminated. Thanks for your time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2022)

Now this is a good thread. I love how you guys are talking with each other. Thank You. Great thread. Keep it up.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> 1) Believing proponents of the CT also “state and acknowledge that the [CT] position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.” The disagreement is upon the means of said preservation


This is not true. “Confessional proponents” should, but “believing proponents” do not necessarily. See Dan Wallace, or for that matter a _majority_ of professing Christians.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> This is not true. “Confessional proponents” should, but “believing proponents” do not necessarily. See Dan Wallace, or for that matter a _majority_ of professing Christians.


Ah, understood.

When discussing this issue we should always strive to engage with the best of the other side. At least try to. Or else we’d be bringing up KJVO arguments. 

So I’m talking about the Confessional proponents.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Before (Jul 26, 2022)

Am I safe to assume that someone had tampered with the text, either added or omitted, either the TR or CT camp? Or is there a third possibility?
This is what troubles me more than anything else.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 26, 2022)

Before said:


> Am I safe to assume that someone had tampered with the text, either added or omitted, either the TR or CT camp? Or is there a third possibility?
> This is what troubles me more than anything else.


Is there an option for carelessness which is not an evil intentioned tampering?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

Or human error despite all efforts against carelessness.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 26, 2022)

Well Jesus and the Apostles lived in a time of different textual traditions and they did not make a big deal out of it.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Well Jesus and the Apostles lived in a time of different textual traditions and they did not make a big deal out of it.


This is a pure assertion. Please support that they had multiple variants to choose from.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 26, 2022)

"Our Lord and his apostles confronted OT variants qualitatively similar to the ones that confront us, yet they did not hesitate to rely on the authority of Scripture. These difference did not prevent Jesus from saying that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), nor Paul from confessing that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). Why should the contemporary church, which is built upon Christ and his apostles, hesitate any more than they to confess the reliability and inspiration of Scripture?" Bruce Waltke

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> He’s referring to the existence of not only the Hebrew text, but the Septuagint also, correct?


Yes. DSS / Proto-Masoretic / Samaritan Pentateuch as well. To think that the apostles lived at a time with one standardized text is quite simply, far-fetched.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Yes. DSS / Proto-Masoretic / Samaritan Pentateuch as well. To think that the apostles lived at a time with one standardized text is quite simply, far-fetched.


I’d love to learn more. Can you point me in the right direction?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I’d love to learn more. Can you point me in the right direction?


http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/an-introduction-to-old-testament-textual-criticism/ This would be a simple overview. The least one can gather is that at the time of Christ there were various Jewish groups and various Old Testament textual traditions. And within these traditions, manuscripts would have variances (such as what we see in NT Greek manuscripts).

I am confused by @gcdugas 's assertion I was making a seemingly baseless assertion. Is not what I said pretty well-known? Can someone correct me if wrong?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/an-introduction-to-old-testament-textual-criticism/ This would be a simple overview. The least one can gather is that at the time of Christ there were various Jewish groups and various Old Testament textual traditions. And within these traditions, manuscripts would have variances (such as what we see in NT Greek manuscripts).
> 
> I am confused by @gcdugas 's assertion I was making a seemingly baseless assertion. Is not what I said pretty well-known? Can someone correct me if wrong?


Thanks I’ll check it out.


----------



## Before (Jul 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Is there an option for carelessness which is not an evil intentioned tampering?


Yes there is that option, but when a large section such as John 7:53–8:11 is either added (TR) or omitted (CT), 'carelessness' seems unlikely.


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> "Our Lord and his apostles confronted OT variants qualitatively similar to the ones that confront us, yet they did not hesitate to rely on the authority of Scripture. These difference did not prevent Jesus from saying that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), nor Paul from confessing that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). Why should the contemporary church, which is built upon Christ and his apostles, hesitate any more than they to confess the reliability and inspiration of Scripture?" Bruce Waltke



Another baseless assertion. This time it is a citation but it is still baseless. What evidence do you have to support this?


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/an-introduction-to-old-testament-textual-criticism/ This would be a simple overview. The least one can gather is that at the time of Christ there were various Jewish groups and various Old Testament textual traditions. And within these traditions, manuscripts would have variances (such as what we see in NT Greek manuscripts).
> 
> I am confused by @gcdugas 's assertion I was making a seemingly baseless assertion. Is not what I said pretty well-known? Can someone correct me if wrong?



That article starts off with the correctly with the [preserved] Masoretic Text but then he compares it to the LXX [a translation] and then brings in the Syriac Peshitta which is another translation. We can agree that the original authors of the OT wrote in a singular language, not Hebrew AND Greek simultaneously. Therefore the LXX is nothing more than a translation from Hebrew to Greek. We can say the same for the Latin Vulgate. Show me different textual families in the Hebrew and you might have an argument but until you do, all you have is conjecture and a baseless assertion, no matter how many people cite it or say the same thing.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 26, 2022)

What would be your view? Did the apostles live in a time where there were no variances? Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic? Side question: Why would the apostles quote the LXX?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 27, 2022)

John Yap said:


> What would be your view? Did the apostles live in a time where there were no variances? Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic? Side question: Why would the apostles quote the LXX?


The Apostles would quote the LXX or free translate into Greek because that was the language they spoke daily just as preachers today in America don't preach from the Greek but use English translations. Obviously Paul spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40) but he wrote his epistles in Greek because that was the language of the congregations. There is no reason to believe that Paul or the other Apostles ONLY had access to the LXX and not copies of the various books in the Masoretic Text. But there is every reason to conclude that the Masoretic Text they had access to was uniformly copied throughout the generations without variants.

_Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic?_ No. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't date back before Christ and were not necessarily copies of the Masoretic Text.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 27, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> No. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't date back before Christ and were not necessarily copies of the Masoretic Text.


You need more than an assertion here. Every source I’ve ever read on the DSS indicates many of them are up to 100 years or more before the time of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 27, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> You need more than an assertion here. Every source I’ve ever read on the DSS indicates many of them are up to 100 years or more before the time of Christ.


Most scholars date the Dead Sea scrolls to between 200 BC and 100 AD.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 27, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> _Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic?_ No. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't date back before Christ and were not necessarily copies of the Masoretic Text.


Some of the DSS are copies of what became the Masoretic text. The 11Q Isaiah A scroll is virtually identical with the Lenigrad manuscript from 1000 years later, exploding the previous scholarly consensus that a text couldn't possibly be copied accurately over that time period. On the other hand, not all of the DSS match the Masoretic text. Some line up with the same set of variants that we find in the Septuagint.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 27, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> That article starts off with the correctly with the [preserved] Masoretic Text but then he compares it to the LXX [a translation] and then brings in the Syriac Peshitta which is another translation. We can agree that the original authors of the OT wrote in a singular language, not Hebrew AND Greek simultaneously. Therefore the LXX is nothing more than a translation from Hebrew to Greek. We can say the same for the Latin Vulgate. Show me different textual families in the Hebrew and you might have an argument but until you do, all you have is conjecture and a baseless assertion, no matter how many people cite it or say the same thing.


Translations can be used in textual criticism, though caution is necessary. Sometimes the differences may be due to a free translation, or even a misunderstanding of the original word, but at other times it is pretty obvious that they are reading a different base text (or in the case of unpointed Hebrew, they are reading a different set of vowels. You can see this easily by comparing English translations of the NT. In many places, the differences are due to translation approach, but there are plenty of places where the differences are due to different text critical decisions - i.e. they are witnesses to different Greek texts. In the case of the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls now sometimes give us direct evidence of the different Hebrew text.

By the way, as in the NT, this is not just micro differences. The Septuagint of Jeremiah is about 10% shorter than the MT and (in my view) attests a different edition of his collected prophecies (probably earlier, but not on that account necessarily "better")

OT text criticism is its own field and I just wanted to clarify a few basic facts. Of course, different people will deal with those facts differently.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 27, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> You need more than an assertion here. Every source I’ve ever read on the DSS indicates many of them are up to 100 years or more before the time of Christ.


I withdraw my assertion... for now.


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 27, 2022)

My shop teacher in 8th grade told me, "If you keep your mouth shut everyone will think you're stupid, if you open your mouth everyone will know you're stupid." Early '60s before everyone got a passing grade regardless, and a prize win or lose. So at the risk of confirming his statement I'm going to put in my two bits, based on my experience.

I was very disturbed 40 years or so ago when I was told the NIV was a CT translation, and if not unintentionally erroneous, it was purposefully so. Eventually this started me on the literature pertaining to the TR vs CT English translations. I was convinced between D.A. Carson, and James White that I could safely read the latter, though missing verses, verses in brackets with footnotes did continue to make me uneasy.

Two things came to reassure me of the reliability of the CTs. One was doing the M'Cheyne 1 Year Bible Reading Plan for the past 8 consecutive years, and the other was beginning to self learn koine Greek. I hasten to add that I don't 'know' Greek, but I do know some Greek, and where to go to figure out a verse if I don't know it.

In the 8 years I've followed the reading plan I've used a different English translation each of those years. I've followed Gordon Fee's advice (How To Choose A Translation For All It's Worth) and used a Formal Equivalent (literal) and a Functional Equivalent (dynamic) in my daily/nightly reading of the plan. I've read the KJV year one, followed by the Geneva 1599, '95 NASB, NKJV, 2011 NIV, '89 NRSV, ESV, and this year the NLT.

As a result of reading these translations, comparing them, I'm personally satisfied that the CT based texts are 'close enough' to the TR based texts for me to have confidence I've got the Inspired Word of God in either text base. F.J.A. Hort said that the only major differences between the W&H translation and the TR made up 1/60th of the text.

We know what those controversial portions are by and large 1John 5:7-9, the women taken in adultery in John , and the three versions of the long ending of Mark. Still controversial to this day. I continue to read the KJV, I started with it, verses I've memorized are all from that text, and I even still pray in the language of the KJV ... a habit I cannot overcome. (I've decided I am okay with it) So I'm not anti KJV by any stretch of the imagination.

Something I ran into recently that some here might find interesting is an example of where a little Greek can help you out. I heard it said that Galatians 3:28 was mistranslated in the KJV. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, *there is neither* male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

So I went to my Readers Edition of the GNT and sure enough, 'neither' (ουτε) is not in the text at that point but (ουκ) 'no/not.' So then I went to Bible Hub to compare that verse in different English Translations, and the only two I found which got it as it is in the koine Greek are the ASV 1901, and the ESV. The literal translation is "no male and female."

I suppose my point in bringing up that verse is to say that the venerable KJV is not the providentially preserved word of God in its entirety. I'm with B.B. Warfield, and many other greats of the Reformed Faith who accepted the RV as a reasonable revision of the AV. Whether it is Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul ... on and on. I trust my Bible and you should too.

https://biblehub.com/galatians/3-28.htm

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 2


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 27, 2022)

> Jimmy H. wrote... _I suppose my point in bringing up that verse is to say that the venerable KJV is not the providentially protected word of God in its entirety. _



No one is asserting this. Why must people constantly muddy the waters like this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 27, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> No one is asserting this. Why must people constantly muddy the waters like this?


I don't see it as muddying the waters. It is not an uncommon assertion I've read in past debates on this board and elsewhere.


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 27, 2022)

Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the _providentially protected word of God in its entirety. _Or find anything resembling that. You ARE muddying the waters, unintentionally, carelessly or willfully.


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 27, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the _providentially protected word of God in its entirety. _Or find anything resembling that. You ARE muddying the waters, unintentionally, carelessly or willfully.


Brother ... I assume .... if the one sentence out of the many offends you I am sorry. 

That said ... as I said in my previous answer to your criticism, I've been on this board for a lot of years, and been through this debate ad infinitum over the years, and that assertion, I assure you, has been made on this board in the past. If your next move is to ask me to prove it I won't bother. I've got other fish to fry. 
I've no more to say on the matter. Good day.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 27, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the _providentially protected word of God in its entirety. _Or find anything resembling that. You ARE muddying the waters, unintentionally, carelessly or willfully.


I don’t like your tone in this thread, brother. Especially here it comes off as disrespectful to your elder.


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 27, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I don’t like your tone in this thread, brother. Especially here it comes off as disrespectful to your elder.


Really? The tone police has arrived? A firm resistance to the interjection of an extraneous common smear that the TR position is the KJVO position is offensive? There is nothing disrespectful in my comment. It is however, firm. For what it's worth, I'd wager that Jimmy and I are within a few years in age so I'm not some punk mouthing off to one several decades older than I. 

Learn the difference between firm, forceful and disrespectful before you presume to lecture another about tone. Your presumption is very.... well, it can only be described as disrespectful.


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 27, 2022)

JimmyH said:


> Brother ... I assume .... if the one sentence out of the many offends you I am sorry.
> 
> That said ... as I said in my previous answer to your criticism, I've been on this board for a lot of years, and been through this debate ad infinitum over the years, and that assertion, I assure you, has been made on this board in the past. If your next move is to ask me to prove it I won't bother. I've got other fish to fry.
> I've no more to say on the matter. Good day.



I accept your apology. I'm not "offended". I'm just trying to keep the thread on track. As you said, the matter of KJV "preservation" has intruded on past threads so guarding against it, even firmly so, shouldn't be a surprise or unwelcome.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 27, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Really? The tone police has arrived? A firm resistance to the interjection of an extraneous common smear that the TR position is the KJVO position is offensive? There is nothing disrespectful in my comment. It is however, firm. For what it's worth, I'd wager that Jimmy and I are within a few years in age so I'm not some punk mouthing off to one several decades older than I.
> 
> Learn the difference between firm, forceful and disrespectful before you presume to lecture another about tone. Your presumption is very.... well, it can only be described as disrespectful.


Digging in your heels even further is a great way to end all discussion. Can’t say I didn’t try.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 27, 2022)

Please ratchet back if you see that you have gone too far, so that the thread may remain open. Please keep the conversation charitable toward one another.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 28, 2022)

Hello again William,

You said (post #33), “The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with ‘cogent evidences.’ There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges.”

If I am talking about the Scriptures which undergird their own preservation in the minutiae, then these are also “direct words from Scripture”, equal to the creation account. For instance,

Jer 26:2, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word”​​Deut 6:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”​​Isa 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”​​And then Jesus, in Matt 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”​
It is evident that the LORD holds His prophets to conveying the words He gives them accurate even to the minutiae, neither adding nor omitting a bit. Now shall He, who requires such fidelity from His messengers, do less Himself? In His providential preservation of His words (“*every word*” of which we must “*live by*”), is He not able and willing to do what He says? We hold He is.

These “poor, inconsistent ‘evidences’ ” you refer to, how can you speak of them so when you have no idea what they are? Nor which Scriptures they pertain to? You are answering a matter before you even hear of it! (Prov 18:13)

William, then you say this, “And to John’s point about the inconsistent standards for differing TR evidence, I believe you do your position a disservice when you appeal to these things.

“If it is a belief in God’s preservation, then say that and hold to it.”

You may believe what you wish, but I can defend my position whatever your beliefs are – that’s the whole point of apologetic discussions. In my signature you may see in Textual Posts some of my defenses using a variety of methods, all of which are presuppositionally based. Even Van Til, though a staunch presup man, used evidences when it appropriately suited him.

Please, William, don’t try to school me in how to present my arguments. So far they have been effective, even though I have met some keen opponents who might differ!

All of this notwithstanding, I do appreciate your strong interest in this topic. It is an important matter.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## En Kristo (Jul 28, 2022)

Post #66


gcdugas said:


> Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the _providentially protected word of God in its entirety. _Or find anything resembling that.



Post #73


Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is evident that the LORD holds His prophets to conveying the words He gives them accurate even to the minutiae, neither adding nor omitting a bit. Now shall He, who requires such fidelity from His messengers, do less Himself? In His providential preservation of His words (“*every word*” of which we must “*live by*”), is He not able and willing to do what He says? We hold He is.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 28, 2022)

En Kristo said:


> Post #66
> 
> 
> Post #73


I’m rather sure Steve is talking about manuscripts, not the AV.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 28, 2022)

Taylor is correct that I am talking about the original mss.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jul 28, 2022)

My concern in the matter of the text is primarily epistemological. 

Of far greater importance than the actual differences between the TR and the CT is how we think about and approach the subject of the text. The purely empirical approach to the text as found within the critical establishment replaces the authenticity of the text in hand as preserved by God with a text authenticated by human reason. With flawed human reason as the ultimate source of authentication, one cannot be truly certain about any of it as new discoveries and changes in methodology leave ANY reading with the chance of future emendation. 

In this way, the CT, and more accurately the praxis from which it is derived is an anti-canon which completely severs the matter of the text from canonical concerns. In the moving of this goal post, the questioning of some canonical books is now starting to show up in academic studies. Indeed, this is prevalent in almost all significant works/studies being done in the realm of the Christian canon.

We are quickly moving away from the Biblical & confessional understanding that the Scriptures are self-authenticating as we are creating a new Magisterium out of human reason.

Reactions: Like 11 | Love 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 28, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> My concern in the matter of the text is primarily epistemological.
> 
> Of far greater importance than the actual differences between the TR and the CT is how we think about and approach the subject of the text. The purely empirical approach to the text as found within the critical establishment replaces the authenticity of the text in hand as preserved by God with a text authenticated by human reason. With flawed human reason as the ultimate source of authentication, one cannot be truly certain about any of it as new discoveries and changes in methodology leave ANY reading with the chance of future emendation.
> 
> ...


Without dealing with any specifics, the main reason I have come to the Byzantine/TR position is not really textual, but rather theological and philosophical, so your comment here resonates with me.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again William,
> 
> You said (post #33), “The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with ‘cogent evidences.’ There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges.”
> 
> ...


I find none of that convincing nor strengthening your position, brother. But I appreciate your zeal.


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 28, 2022)

The above exchange with En Kristos, Jerusalem Blade and Taylor is why my post #66 was so forceful in an effort to keep the thread on track. Just about every thread on the TR eventually conflates the TR with the KJV or KJVO and then descends into chaos. Evidently my firmness ruffled the feathers of one or two but here we can see why it was necessary to guard against sloppy thinking.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> The above exchange with En Kristos, Jerusalem Blade and Taylor is why my post #66 was so forceful in an effort to keep the thread on track. Just about every thread on the TR eventually conflates the TR with the KJV or KJVO and then descends into chaos. Evidently my firmness ruffled the feathers of one or two but here we can see why it was necessary to guard against sloppy thinking.


Brother, my feathers aren’t ruffled, I just don’t care to talk to people with attitude. Not enough time in the day.

Secondly, do you think this is some kind of battleground, and you need to use force like you are up against an enemy?

We are all brothers here who are in complete agreement about the essentials of the faith. 

Instead of using force to keep the thread on track, perhaps words seasoned with grace and love would do a better job.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2022)

Folks, a moderator has already made a general appeal to settle it down. Stay to the subject and let the moderators worry about tone and inappropriate behavior. If folks can't reign it in, the thread will be shut down. 


Jeri Tanner said:


> Please ratchet back if you see that you have gone too far, so that the thread may remain open. Please keep the conversation charitable toward one another.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 28, 2022)

Graham, your labors and your attitude are appreciated.

It is easy to tear down, diss, and criticize – anyone can do that – but to labor in study and to love a topic, to the end of edifying, is more difficult. This thread deserves to be put to rest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 28, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> The above exchange with En Kristos, Jerusalem Blade and Taylor is why my post #66 was so forceful in an effort to keep the thread on track. Just about every thread on the TR eventually conflates the TR with the KJV or KJVO and then descends into chaos. Evidently my firmness ruffled the feathers of one or two but here we can see why it was necessary to guard against sloppy thinking.


I think one issue is that a lot of TR proponents themselves conflate the TR and KJV. It could be this is not purposeful, but it seems to be a minority of those holding to the TR position that do not also hold to the KJV as the only text that is approved to use. It seems many TR proponents will then go on to criticize other texts based on the TR (e.g. NKJV). I do agree though it is not far to say this is the case for all TR proponents.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 28, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Graham, your labors and your attitude are appreciated.
> 
> It is easy to tear down, diss, and criticize – anyone can do that – but to labor in study and to love a topic, to the end of edifying, is more difficult. This thread deserves to be put to rest.




Thank you Steve. I want the thread to stay on track. I especially appreciate Robert Truelove's recent comments about methodology and epistemology. I hope that gets developed further on this thread.

Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Robert Truelove's comment at last addresses enlightenment rationalism and modern methodology. Rationalism dispenses with the doctrine of inspiration and preservation and treats holy writ in the same manner as they treat mere human writings.



> How much evidence have we that these copyists were either over-zealous or knavish? Do we know that the pair of sleepy monks who were droning over a given place in Mark, knew anything, or remembered anything, or cared anything, at the time, for the parallel place in Matthew? But the chief objection to this canon is that, like some others which evangelical critics have adopted from the mint of infidel rationalism, its sole probability is grounded in the assumption that the evangelists and apostles were not guided by inspiration. Let us adopt the Christian hypothesis, that the scenes of our Savior’s life were enacted, and his words spoken, in a given way, and that the several evangelists were inspired of God to record them infallibly; and the most harmonizing readings will obviously appear to us the most probable readings. https://sites.google.com/site/evangelictheology/d/dabney/dabneydis1/d0000001/untitledpost



Back in the pre-snowflake era, men could sling around rhetoric like "infidel rationalism" without being lectured to about their "tone". I'm trying to season this with grace as Aspiring Homesteader encouraged me to do. It is not meant to be a rebuke but rather an exhortation that we be a little more "durable" when things get rather direct. It's not "attitude" people sense. It is the kind of forceful manly rhetoric that used to characterize Christian debate and doctrine. I humbly suggest we re-acquaint ourselves with puritan writings and see the manner in which they dealt with their interlocutors. It would shock most contemporary Christians, even those who view themselves as Reformed. Our effeminate age simply cannot handle directness. We have unwittingly become a "fragile" generation. It is a sad characterization of our age but we need to recognize it when we see it and guard against it, in others and in ourselves.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Thank you Steve. I want the thread to stay on track. I especially appreciate Robert Truelove's recent comments about methodology and epistemology. I hope that gets developed further on this thread.
> 
> Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Robert Truelove's comment at last addresses enlightenment rationalism and modern methodology. Rationalism dispenses with the doctrine of inspiration and preservation and treats holy writ in the same manner as they treat mere human writings.
> 
> ...


@NaphtaliPress, how am I at liberty to respond to implications of effeminacy and being a snowflake based upon a misjudged desire to see a fellow brother respected? 

I don’t want to go beyond the moderators’ wishes.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 28, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> @NaphtaliPress, how am I at liberty to respond to implications of effeminacy and being a snowflake based upon a misjudged desire to see a fellow brother respected?
> 
> I don’t want to go beyond the moderators’ wishes.


See post #82

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> @NaphtaliPress, how am I at liberty to respond to implications of effeminacy and being a snowflake based upon a misjudged desire to see a fellow brother respected?
> 
> I don’t want to go beyond the moderators’ wishes.


Please just drop it. Your noting it is sufficient to record objection.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Please just drop it. Your noting it is sufficient to record objection.


Okay, thanks for responding.


----------



## Jake (Jul 28, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871).


I've studied much more of the Old Princeton/early OPC guys on the issue of textual criticism, who were accepting of the new findings in textual criticism and were able to support in a Reformed bibliology perspective.

Is it fair to say that the Southern Presbyterians differed as a whole on this topic from the Princeton men, or was Dabney an anomaly? I can check out this article if I can find it, but I have not read Dabney, et al on the topic.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 28, 2022)

Jake said:


> Is it fair to say that the Southern Presbyterians differed as a whole on this topic from the Princeton men, or was Dabney an anomaly? I can check out this article if I can find it, but I have not read Dabney, et al on the topic.


Not sure about any consistent differences between North and South, but I will say Dabney is particularly helpful on the issue of modern textual criticism. He’s probably the main reason I think the way I think on it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 28, 2022)

Actually most TR men take a very dim view of Warfield and his "capitulation" to the modernists while he was at Princeton. Ted Letis has a whole section of his book named The Ecclesiastical Text on Warfield. Sadly Warfield was squishy on evolution also.





__





Preservation






web.archive.org

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 28, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Actually most TR men take a very dim view of Warfield and his "capitulation" to the modernists while he was at Princeton. Ted Letis has a whole section of his book named The Ecclesiastical Text on Warfield. Sadly Warfield was squishy on evolution also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This work by Milne also addresses Warfield: https://www.amazon.com/Westminster-...ward+Milne&s=books&sr=1-2&tag=puritanboard-20


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 29, 2022)

Hello again, Graham,

What with all the talk of KJVO, TR, etc, I want again (as I have done in the past) to clarify my nuanced view of the Bible and its versions. I call what I hold to as KJV _priority_ – or _preferred_ – as being the best English translation of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It – the KJV – is not the clearest or easiest to read, but it is the most accurate in my view.

That said, please note that I deeply appreciate the modern versions, even those based on the Critical Text, such as the NIV (1984), NASB, ESV, NLT, and the older Living Bible and the Amplified.

Now that I am in Cyprus re-planting the Reformed Church I planted and pastored in 2006 till 2011, I find that I no longer have (with a couple of exceptions) native English-speakers, but almost entirely Nigerian men and women, who, although they do speak good English (having learned it in their schools), are not familiar with the English even of the modern versions. It is difficult for them to understand – perhaps it is the spiritual-theological concepts. So I have to teach and preach very carefully so as to be understood.

I now value even more the modern versions – not only the NKJV, MKJV, MEV roughly based on the TR – but the CT-based versions as well. I find myself of two minds, as it were, an academic – that is, a studied text-critical approach – and a pastoral approach, wherein I strive to have my men and women understand in the deeps of their hearts and with clarity in their minds the word of God, and His message – in all its genres, the historical narratives (including early Genesis), the poetry, the wisdom writings, the prophetic, apocalyptic, epistolary, and the historical-biographical Gospels. The modern versions are helpful to my flock in enabling them to understand. I want them to read on their own, not just me teaching and explaining.

I'm making clear my KJV/TR views so that new-comers to the Board may understand the nuances involved.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 2


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 29, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again, Graham,
> 
> What with all the talk of KJVO, TR, etc, I want again (as I have done in the past) to clarify my nuanced view of the Bible and its versions. I call what I hold to as KJV _priority_ – or _preferred_ – as being the best English translation of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It – the KJV – is not the clearest or easiest to read, but it is the most accurate in my view.
> 
> ...


Steve, I appreciate your challenge, and the challenge for many of us. But for all your dabbling with the CT and modern translations it is clear that you would not hold that 1John 5:7-8, Long Mark, John 7:53–8:11 etc. are to be excluded. I would imagine that your "KJV priority" view is actually closer to what most TR folks practice. I use biblehub.com and when I want to do a deep dive into a verse I click on the verse number, then it takes me to the various translations. Rather than closing the window, I Ctrl+click the "INT" which opens the interlinear, I also Ctrl+click the "Greek" and from there go to Parallel Greek to see the TR versions. So in all that traveling, I expose myself to lots of material and discover lots of variants. But in my mind I always consider the TR to be "authentical" to use the language of the WCF. But along the way I do glean what I can. But when a variant comes up and I have to "go to the bank" as to what I am going to trust, it is always the TR. I would imagine this is close to what you do in private but the challenges for a preaching bible is difficult for you when abroad.

I do think that the KJV is the version that is most in the zeitgeist of the "aggregate public lexicon". Whenever we recite the Lord's prayer in church, or think of the 23rd Psalm or think of The Great Commission, or 1Cor 13, or the Beatitudes or a whole host of passages, we default to the KJV in our minds simply because the KJV has for over 400 years worked its way into the public consciousness. In my humble opinion, this is something we should hang onto. There is a real benefit of having a common translation for our culture rather than this confusing smorgasbord of numerous competing versions. I understand even a Mark Ward position about "intelligibility" as a starting point but not as a final destination. I think we should all aim towards being adept and comfortable in the "archaic" language of the KJV and hold it as our common translation. Why? First off, why should we leave the sheep at a 5th Grade level of development? Shouldn't we all try to elevate our game? So the KJV is admittedly challenging, but then so is trigonometry, organic chemistry, calculus, and we all should want to be adept in those even if we rarely use them. Everyone should know how to drive a manual transmission, change a tire, clean and dress a wound, bait a hook and a whole host of ordinary skills. We should all resist "the downgrade". Moreover, we will never comprehend the puritans unless we elevate our game. Isn't this forum called "The Puritan Boards"? And yet we have folks advocating that we remain at a low level where we could never read and understand them. Crazy! Their syntax, locution, vocabulary etc. are all on the same level as the KJV. Additionally, by stretching ourselves in this manner, we are able to understand the challenging syntax of the psalter and the metrical psalms. If one is determined to remain at the 5th Grade NIV/ESV level, they are robbing themselves of great riches from the puritans, the psalter and they are embracing "the downgrade" of culture and remaining at a low level themselves. Do as thou will.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871).



Graham,

Thank you for recommending this article. I went back and started reading it. I have not finished it, as it is long and gets hard to follow (the edition I have has no footnotes and a lot of references to scholars with only a last name and no other identifiers) but I hope to go back and read the whole article.

While you’re right it does have some harsh language sprinkled in, I was also presently impressed by the introduction which starts with establishing common grounds between the two camps (basically TR and CT, though he has more nuisance later). I thought these were good points on which he said we can all agree, and as someone who has moved from a Majority Text position to one where I accept as best translation work like the NASB, I found them to be good points often lost in this discussion:

“No one claims the Textus Receptus” as represented “ipsissima verba” or inspired in every case.
The TR contains “all essential facts and doctrines” and that even with the “most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS” that “not a single doctrine of Christianity… would be thereby expunged.”
The various readings are counted by the “hundred thousand” yet are “nearly all exceedingly minute and trivial” and overall are in agreement with the TR.
Criticism only slightly changes the TR, and increasingly the number of places it differs is quite small and mostly confirms the TR.
I would say I agree with these points, although he makes certain assumptions about the TR in how he phrases some points and can be a little harsh in getting the point across. Even so, he finds common ground in a helpful way, and I think many of us should be able to resonate with this as we are mostly in denominations and churches that have a mix of positions on this issue. For my part, I have been in churches that have made transitions (NKJV → ESV at the first Reformed church I was at, NKJV→ KJV at the second) and have been okay staying under the preaching of the word despite differences , mainly because of points 2 and 3 that Dabney makes.

I may go back and review the whole article and post it here on the PB but it will take a bit of time to get through.


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Actually most TR men take a very dim view of Warfield and his "capitulation" to the modernists while he was at Princeton. Ted Letis has a whole section of his book named The Ecclesiastical Text on Warfield. Sadly Warfield was squishy on evolution also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand that the TR guys would not appreciate Warfield as much on this topic. I was wondering if the divide was present among the conservative/orthodox Northern Presbyterians versus the Southern Presbyterian theologians as whole.

The APC is an interesting denomination, and not only because of their view of Warfield whom they attack quite a bit on their site. I guess being a result of several splits down from the OPC they don't take kindly to some of the mainstream views in the denomination. Probably the only denomination to ever be teetotalers, a custom version of the Westminster Standards friendly to premillenialism and even that tends towards dispensationalism, TR-onlyists, and strict on RPW. I'm not sure if they still exist.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 29, 2022)

Hello Graham,

I find nothing at all to disagree with in your post. In fact, I seek to mold the young men I'm discipling in my own style, retaining the TR-based Bibles (one of them uses the NJKV – and yes I'm aware of its flaws) as the "gold standard", and using the modern versions for clarity via shades of meaning, yet holding to the AV for accuracy.

When I read or study the Scripture on my own I refer to the Hebrew or Greek, lexical aids, commentaries, etc, as well looking at how the modern versions deal with a word or turn of phrase. Always, for verbal _accuracy_ I adhere to the AV. (I don't have such wide choices of aids to choose from as my library is back in the states, though I have some Bibles, lexical aids and commentaries on my computer. If we can sell our home in NY we will relocate here and I will bring my books, DV.)

As I said above, I find myself wearing two hats, one as scholar, the other as pastor and shepherd. In other churches I have co-pastored or taught in – churches that already used a variety of Bible versions – I had to walk this careful line between scholar and pastor, not tearing down the CT-based Bibles many used (their very life-lines to their Savior!), yet speaking truth to them. How did I do that? By looking at the variants (when they occasionally came up) – are they true or are they false? – and examining each one in turn. Affirming their Bibles in the main, but disputing the variants. Having a knowledge of the textual issues pertaining to each I was able to do this. I was determined not to be a divisive element within the churches I sought to nurture and disciple.

In today's church situation it is not always easy to both nurture and guide souls in the truth.
_____

Jake, I gather from the points you derived from Dabney you assert the TR has errors, and that even with the divergent CT and TR views there is "not a single doctrine of Christianity [that] would be thereby expunged". Re this latter, I would say that the doctrine of the divine providential preservation of Scripture in the minutiae is "expunged".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

Would it be possible to explain why the KJV is the best and not something like the NKJV? The NKJV is based more on the schrievner TR and as far as I can tell, is the preferred TR. I don't believe using a more modern English text (just talking about TR texts now) is akin to being at a 5th grade level. Are there special powers imbued within the old English, is it just a preference, or is there something legitimately better about the KJV translation? When Dr Riddle was going through the schrievner TR and giving examples on the differences between it and the KJV, in almost every case the NKJV matched up with it. Also, the KJV has errors in it like talking about Easter before that was even a thing and I would argue as a reformed Christian is still not a thing. The NKJV does not have these issues.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

I would hasten to add that our conversation states that the word should be translated into the vulgar language of the people. There will come a day and I think it might already be here where the language of the KJV is no longer in line with that. Unless we reform society and that type of English is what starts being readily taught again.

Also with the NKJV, if the reason it is not as good is because it has textual notes, so does the KJV in the 1611 edition I have. I think there are other editions that have these notes as well. Regarding the 1611 edition, I wonder why this isn't the edition being pushed for rather than the 1700 version. Some may not be aware but the English used in the newer KJV editions are different with the 1611 being even more archaic.


----------



## kodos (Jul 29, 2022)

For some of these reasons Jason, while I am KJV "preferred", I am not KJV "only". My commitment is to the TR. 

But I do love the KJV, and I seem to love it more and more each day. Personally, I find Scripture memorization to be so much easier for me in the KJV. I also seem to preach better from it and find thoughts and phrases in it that I glossed over in my NKJV (for whatever reason), I also like being able to distinguish thou/you, etc. But I used the NKJV for the better part of a decade as my only Bible. 

But for me the commitment is to the TR. I have no interest in what might be found in a trashcan tomorrow and if John 1:1 will be expunged in the "oldest and best" manuscript that someone might find.

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## aaronsk (Jul 29, 2022)

After I made the change from CT to TR I started doing homework on the translations available and that research showed the KJV to be the best option. I still use others but the KJV is my main. TBS has some articles on the NKJV. The KJV is not old english but still of early modern english. The thee’s/thou’s are not even found in the letter to the king written by the KJV translators, they are included to better keep the sense of the original languages by having distiction between plural and singular “you”. For that reason I now prefer them, not because they are old or sound holy but rather they are accurate (John 3 is an example of where this can matter a bit). 

TBS NKJV Pt 1


https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/An-Examination-of-NKJV-Part-1.pdf



TBS NKJV Pt 2


https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/An-Examination-of-NKJV-Part-2.pdf



To be clear I still use an NKJV at times as well and am aware of the flaws. But as I use the KJV the more those things that intimidate folks have become some of my favorite bits! I will admit though, there are some old words that could be updated though they are still understandable and able to be looked up in a dictionary. Perhaps its just me but I used a dictionary a lot when reading the ESV as well. All of the modern printings of the KJV I have used have the lesser used terms defined right on the page. Some of those terms turn out to be great fun to look up and see why they chose that particular word.

The TBS articles I think do take issue with some of the notes being present but I find them helpful. so although they make a principled point, I think for most- real life is a bit more nuanced. They are useful especially in bible studies when both traditions are in use. 


retroGRAD3 said:


> Would it be possible to explain why the KJV is the best and not something like the NKJV? The NKJV is based more on the schrievner TR and as far as I can tell, is the preferred TR. I don't believe using a more modern English text (just talking about TR texts now) is akin to being at a 5th grade level. Are there special powers imbued within the old English, is it just a preference, or is there something legitimately better about the KJV translation? When Dr Riddle was going through the schrievner TR and giving examples on the differences between it and the KJV, in almost every case the NKJV matched up with it. Also, the KJV has errors in it like talking about Easter before that was even a thing and I would argue as a reformed Christian is still not a thing. The NKJV does not have these issues.





retroGRAD3 said:


> I would hasten to add that our conversation states that the word should be translated into the vulgar language of the people. There will come a day and I think it might already be here where the language of the KJV is no longer in line with that. Unless we reform society and that type of English is what starts being readily taught again.
> 
> Also with the NKJV, if the reason it is not as good is because it has textual notes, so does the KJV in the 1611 edition I have. I think there are other editions that have these notes as well. Regarding the 1611 edition, I wonder why this isn't the edition being pushed for rather than the 1700 version. Some may not be aware but the English used in the newer KJV editions are different with the 1611 being even more archaic



Also Easter shoud be understood as passover - the issue was the word for passover didn’t exist way back when and so some of the old translations used the word Easter. These usages were replaced throughout the KJV (as the references these older translations) but seems to have been missed in one spot. 

Not sure why the quotes went to the bottom nor how to move them to the top of the post while on my phone - sorry haha.

Also for fear of muddying this thread - Ill not reply further in this vein of thought here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

I suppose maybe all you TR guys should get together and put together the definitive TR text in modern English. That might be a good endeavor.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jake, I gather from the points you derived from Dabney you assert the TR has errors, and that even with the divergent CT and TR views there is "not a single doctrine of Christianity [that] would be thereby expunged". Re this latter, I would say that the doctrine of the divine providential preservation of Scripture in the minutiae is "expunged".


Here is the full quote from Dabney. His 2nd point is considerably shorter than points 1, 3, and 4 so I can quite it in full. The source I found is on a sectarian site that I don't think is allowed to link here, but I'm sure it can be found elsewhere.

"But, second: This received text contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers; for if it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS. or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact, would be thereby expunged."

Here Dabney does not address the doctrine of preservative directly, and starts with the premise of assuming the TR to be the best text. As I read on I'll let you know if he addresses this topic.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 29, 2022)

Is there demand for tbs to have their own translated version of the tr? Just update the archaic words which by definition are those they themselves define in their Westminster reference bibles or their own word list.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I suppose maybe all you TR guys should get together and put together the definitive TR text in modern English. That might be a good endeavor.


I remember something very helpful re: a new translation of the TR from Rev. Matthew Winzer who used to be on the board (MW, worth looking up his thoughts also on old threads). He explained that any new translation should arise out of times of reformation. The sense is, that there is the greatest spiritual unity, wisdom, and faithfulness in the church in those times, and generally the blessing of the magistrate in providing/allowing rather extraordinary opportunity; the KJV came out of such times given by God, and we ought to pray for and wait for the wind of the Spirit to blow and bring again such a time, and for the sake of the unity of the church and the good of God's people we should continue using the common Bible and Psalter (translated faithfully into other languages of course) compiled in those times of blessing.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

I have given a lot of thought to the question of the archaic language of the KJV. I have found throughout my Christian life many misunderstandings about early modern English. I remember sitting down and explaining to a native English speaker, raised in a PCA church who had attended private Christian school how some of the features of Early Modern English worked so that he could more easily memorize WSC questions. He did not know what the "-th" endings meant or what the different pronoun forms related to "you" meant. I have a family member who is KJV only that I've discussed Scripture with a lot, but he's not very well educated and frequently make mistakes related to the language of the KJV which he does not understand. And I've found many who have neglected Bible reading because of the difficulty of the KJV. This is not to mention those who are not native English speakers who will struggle. Overall, I strongly believe that "therefore [the Scriptures] are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come" (WCF 1:7), while noting an irony that when I quote this statement to many they get confused on what vulgar means as the word has changed considerably in common usage since the mid-17th century. I think at some point the KJV is not truly in the vulgar language and it starts to interfere with understanding and use of the Bible.

I agree that we would be in a better state if we had a standard Bible translation in use in our language and society. As mentioned, many well known passages are frequently used in the KJV even in churches which use newer versions (though I'll note that the version of the Lord's Prayer starting with "Our Father who art in heaven" used by many seems to date from a BCP version rather than the KJV). We now have so many versions in use that it's hard to find agreement.

I also agree we should be teaching up and preparing to read other great literature and theological documents created during the early modern English period, including our Standards and Puritans. That said, I still think slightly edited versions of these are helpful, such as Banner of Truth and others slightly updating the language of the Puritans or the OPC's modern language version of the Standards.

The KJV also was a Bible of its time. We can point to ways in which it transcended time, such as including some archaic language for the 17th century. We can all be thankful that the Bible was updated since 1611. I have a 1611 re-print of the KJV and it is very difficult to read between the archaic spelling and the Gothic type, not to mention other updates which were made. It also includes idioms of the day that were not the most literal translation like "gave up the ghost," "God save the king," and "God forbid." 

When my church in the FCC switched from the NKJV to the KJV on recommendation of the presbytery, my pastor was hesitant because he found the language difficult and knew we had many people who were not well educated in early modern English in the congregation. He frequently would re-read the passage as he exposited in the NKJV after doing the public reading in KJV, which I think was a good enough solution.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I suppose maybe all you TR guys should get together and put together the definitive TR text in modern English. That might be a good endeavor.


If such an undertaking were to be done, it ought to be done by the Church not random peoples...

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Is there demand for tbs to have their own translated version of the tr? Just update the archaic words which by definition are those they themselves define in their Westminster reference bibles or their own word list.


TBS is producing an updated version of the 1909 Reina Valera Bible in Spanish, with one main reason being to address language change in the last 100 years in Spanish. Here is an article from someone at TBS explaining why: http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Trinitarian_Revision_1909.html

"The overwhelming majority of changes being made to the RV 1909
Bible, however, do not involve translational changes, but rather involve
changes in syntax (the order in which words are placed in a sentence) and
grammar that reflect the norms established by the Real Academia Española,
the universally recognised body governing the Spanish language and its
usage."


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> If such an undertaking were to be done, it ought to be done by the Church not random peoples...


That would make the most sense to me. However, even within the church, I believe you would want to focus on finding the best of the best when it comes to the biblical languages and making sure the person is orthodox.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

Jake said:


> TBS is producing an updated version of the 1909 Reina Valera Bible in Spanish, with one main reason being to address language change in the last 100 years in Spanish. Here is an article from someone at TBS explaining why: http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Trinitarian_Revision_1909.html
> 
> "The overwhelming majority of changes being made to the RV 1909
> Bible, however, do not involve translational changes, but rather involve
> ...


Seems like the KJV could benefit from this treatment as well if the NKJV and MEV are considered inferior. I personally feel the NKJV is the solution.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 29, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Graham,
> 
> I find nothing at all to disagree with in your post. In fact, I seek to mold the young men I'm discipling in my own style, retaining the TR-based Bibles (one of them uses the NJKV – and yes I'm aware of its flaws) as the "gold standard", and using the modern versions for clarity via shades of meaning, yet holding to the AV for accuracy.
> 
> ...




Well it appears you have decent access to an internet connection so I'd recommend BibleHub.com for almost everything. Language tools, Strong's etc. several versions, lot's of commentaries and more such as maps. It also appears that we practice the same approach. I dare speculate that after a season of a few years you try to elevate the reading level of your members one by one so that they may be able to read the puritans profitably. And getting them to read the KJV, alongside modern versions at first, is a way to teach them how to use a site like biblehub and to learn how to do word and grammar studies on their own.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> If such an undertaking were to be done, it ought to be done by the Church not random peoples...


The KJV was commissioned by the Civil Magistrate, though it was translated by churchmen. It would be nice to have a Bible with an official status that did not try to limit Puritan influence like was instructed of the KJV, since there were concerns about the Geneva Bible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I suppose maybe all you TR guys should get together and put together the definitive TR text in modern English. That might be a good endeavor.




I understand the appeal to such but it is my opinion, and just an opinion, that there should be one translation that is considered the standard in the culture for memorization, citing and most preaching. Why toss away all that the KJV has achieved as a cultural standard in literature and the impact it has had on our default lexicon? No one tosses away the KJV when it comes to the 23rd Psalm or the Lord's Prayer and each have their peculiarities. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death... the "shadow of death" is the place/age where "death reigns" until the immortality of the general resurrection (Rom 5:14). And "Hallowed be thy name" is a word/phrase/concept that will drive every early student to the dictionary and more to get the full flavor of it.

So I want to maintain and, um, er, "preserve" all those gains into culture that the KJV has achieved. Even Richard Dawkins, who in _The God Delusion_ denies the God of the Bible but insists we should remain acquainted with KJV phraseology and imagery in order to understand our cultural past, cites more than 100 expressions to underscore its pervasive presence. 









Phrases from the King James Bible


A list of common phrases contained in the King James Bible




www.theguardian.com













How the King James Bible changed the world


By Dr. Philip Jenkins 400 years after the KJV was first published, a Baylor expert examines the ways in which the translation shaped the English-speaking world.




www.baylor.edu













The influence of King James Bible on English literature


A brief discussion of the King James Bible's influence on English literature.



www.britannica.com




____________________________________________________________________________


All that I just wrote above is getting to the outer limits of this thread. But as long as we are on the topic of translations, and Steve might find this particularly interesting, I'm going to advocate for the "formal equivalence" method of translation over the "dynamic equivalence" method that many have lapsed into without much thinking on the subject. 



> We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, *the majesty of the style,* the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. - WCF 1:5



In my humble opinion, the only way to maintain "the majesty of the style" is to use formal equivalence. Rhythm, cadence, idioms, sequence of thought (not word order), reverence and loftiness are usually lost in translations based on dynamic equivalence.


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 29, 2022)

Another thing on the "difficult language" of the AV... 

It is part of the calling of preachers to explain/interpret the scriptures and often this presents an opportunity to go a little deeper into the text and grammar during a sermon. Often we can profit greatly when asking ourselves "Why did they translate it that way?" For instance, the AV translators (and the NASB, ASV) kept the idiom "lower parts of the earth" intact in Eph 4:9 to clue us in to Ps 139:15. The ESV and the NIV completely miss this and hence the reference to Christ's incarnation in Mary's womb is never made in the minds of the reader.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> I understand the appeal to such but it is my opinion, and just an opinion, that there should be one translation that is considered the standard in the culture for memorization, citing and most preaching. Why toss away all that the KJV has achieved as a cultural standard in literature and the impact it has had on our default lexicon? No one tosses away the KJV when it comes to the 23rd Psalm or the Lord's Prayer and each have their peculiarities. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death... the "shadow of death" is the place/age where "death reigns" until the immortality of the general resurrection (Rom 5:14). And "Hallowed be thy name" is a word/phrase/concept that will drive every early student to the dictionary and more to get the full flavor of it.
> 
> So I want to maintain and, um, er, "preserve" all those gains into culture that the KJV has achieved. Even Richard Dawkins, who in _The God Delusion_ denies the God of the Bible but insists we should remain acquainted with KJV phraseology and imagery in order to understand our cultural past, cites more than 100 expressions to underscore its pervasive presence.
> 
> ...


I don't see why the KJV has to be the standard. Other translations that came before it achieved greatness as well. I think sometimes the KJV still has some mythology around it where there is something super special about it (I am using colorful language here and not trying to insult people). There will come a time where the language cannot be understood anymore (100-200 years from now perhaps). As confessional Presbyterians (thinking about the confession that talks about translating the Bible into known languages) we have to be willing to recognize this and plan for the future rather than holding to a specific translation. I am sympathetic to the TR position and have no issue if that is to be the standard, but as the years roll on, there has to be a willingness to continue to translate the TR into an understandable format for the people in the pews. I am not saying we need to get rid of the KJV. It is a valuable part of our history. However, we should not be afraid of new translations either (based on the TR in the context of this thread). The church should not have it's own special language that cannot be understood by the general population. Isn't this the same thing the Vulgate eventually was/is guilty of?


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 29, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> All that I just wrote above is getting to the outer limits of this thread. But as long as we are on the topic of translations, and Steve might find this particularly interesting, I'm going to advocate for the "formal equivalence" method of translation over the "dynamic equivalence" method that many have lapsed into without much thinking on the subject.
> 
> In my humble opinion, the only way to maintain "the majesty of the style" is to use formal equivalence. Rhythm, cadence, idioms, sequence of thought (not word order), reverence and loftiness are usually lost in translations based on dynamic equivalence.


Graham, I can assure you that modern translators have done a great deal of thinking on the subject of how best to translate works from one language into another - far more, surely than the translators of the KJV ever did!

The reality is that no translation is ever completely formal in its equivalence since words have different semantic ranges in different languages, each language has its own word order, etc. There is a range of positions that may be adopted, and every translation (except perhaps an interlinear, which isn't really a translation) chooses at times to adapt the word order, syntax and translation of particular words to achieve dynamic equivalence. The alternative is "dynamic inequivalence", where the words in the target language misrepresent the sense of the source language even though they are a "literal" translation. For example, rendering "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" into Russian as "The vodka is excellent but the meat is rotten" (this may be an apocryphal example, but it makes the point. That's why interlinears are so dangerous in the hands of those with little linguistic knowledge. The CSB, of which I was part of the translation team, aims not for formal or dynamic equivalence but "optimal equivalence", recognizing that the approach needed may vary from verse to verse.

Different points on the equivalence spectrum have different advantages and present different challenges for the preacher. If he is using a more formal equivalence translation like the NASB, he will more often have to say, "Now the Greek here really means, [quote dynamic equivalence translation here]". If he is using a more dynamic translation, he will find himself saying more often "The Greek here literally says [quote formal equivalence translation]." With the KJV, you simply multiply the necessary explanations for the preacher, since the preacher has to be concerned not merely with translation from Greek to English but translation from KJV English to contemporary English in addition.

I have preached from all kinds of translations, including a paraphrased NT with an 850 word vocabulary in Africa to people with very limited English; it doesn't get much more dynamically equivalent than that. The Spirit works through his Word and a good preacher who knows his people knows what needs to be explained and what doesn't. But it is undoubtedly easier for some people (many people in some contexts) to read the Bible for themselves from more dynamic equivalent translations. And we should certainly give thanks to God that we have such a plethora of versions in our own language, when so many of his people have few Bibles available to them in their own tongue.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Graham, I can assure you that modern translators have done a great deal of thinking on the subject of how best to translate works from one language into another - far more, surely than the translators of the KJV ever did!



Can you provide proof of this assertion? 



iainduguid said:


> Different points on the equivalence spectrum have different advantages and present different challenges for the preacher. If he is using a more formal equivalence translation like the NASB, he will more often have to say, "Now the Greek here really means, [quote dynamic equivalence translation here]". If he is using a more dynamic translation, he will find himself saying more often "The Greek here literally says [quote formal equivalence translation]." With the KJV, you simply multiply the necessary explanations for the preacher, since the preacher has to be concerned not merely with translation from Greek to English but translation from KJV English to contemporary English in addition.



I think this is a major assumption. Based on my experience from preaching from the ESV for many years, then the NASB for many years, then the NKJV for 2 years, and now the KJV for the last 2 years... from ESV > NASB > NKJV > KJV over that time I have needed to make less and less comments about Hebrew/Greek to the congregation. I rarely have need to explain KJV words to the congregation. My children (9 and 13 now) read from the KJV (and have for the last couple years) and understand it as any children reading the Bible would be expected to understand, it is actually surprising to me how well they did at first. Perhaps we look at KJV language and think it is so hard when it really isn't.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> I think this is a major assumption. Based on my experience from preaching from the ESV for many years, then the NASB for many years, then the NKJV for 2 years, and now the KJV for the last 2 years... from ESV > NASB > NKJV > KJV over that time I have needed to make less and less comments about Hebrew/Greek to the congregation. I rarely have need to explain KJV words to the congregation. My children (9 and 13 now) read from the KJV (and have for the last couple years) and understand it as any children reading the Bible would be expected to understand, it is actually surprising to me how well they did at first. *Perhaps we look at KJV language and think it is so hard when it really isn't.*


This may be true of individuals brought up in a church that regularly preaches from the KJV, but I don't believe this is true for the society at large, especially with the public schools the way they are and some individuals being functionally illiterate. The Bible should be a book that anyone should be able to pick up, read, and understand the gospel at a minimum. Once in church, I believe the standard can be changed for what is expected, but there needs to be some considerations for evangelism to the population at large, even if it is just someone picking up God's word on their own.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Can you provide proof of this assertion?


P1: The more languages one has to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew requires more thought.
P2: Modern translators have had to translate into many more languages than the translators for the KJV.
Therefore, modern translators have put in more thought.

This is not a difficult thing to discern.

It's not stating that the KJV translators were lazy. It is only noting that they had one linguistic context in which they translated.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> This may be true of individuals brought up in a church that regularly preaches from the KJV, but I don't believe this is true for the society at large, especially with the public schools they way they are and some individuals being functionally illiterate. The Bible should be a book that anyone should be able to pick up, read, and understand the gospel at a minimum. Once in church, I believe the standard can be changed for what is expected, but there needs to be some considerations for evangelism to the population at large, even if it is just someone picking up God's word on their own.



My congregation is not used to the KJV, and a good amount of them are young or new believers. They are not having issues with the KJV. If there are people who are functionally illiterate, it doesn't matter the translation. But we do have some who are not as well educated and also those who have learning disorders. Since I've ministered with all those translations already cited, I have found no difference whatsoever in understanding KJV from ESV. In evangelism, it is not the Word that needs to change, it is the way to minister with that Word that needs to change. We have new believers who have come to faith under a "KJV ministry", they are not educated more than public school. They have no issue with understanding. So again, I think this often used critique is not in line with what I at least have experienced.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 29, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> After I made the change from CT to TR I started doing homework on the translations available and that research showed the KJV to be the best option. I still use others but the KJV is my main. TBS has some articles on the NKJV. The KJV is not old english but still of early modern english. The thee’s/thou’s are not even found in the letter to the king written by the KJV translators, they are included to better keep the sense of the original languages by having distiction between plural and singular “you”. For that reason I now prefer them, not because they are old or sound holy but rather they are accurate (John 3 is an example of where this can matter a bit).
> 
> TBS NKJV Pt 1
> 
> ...


“Easter“ in our Bibles comes from Tyndale. It derives from German. “Passover” also comes from Tyndale, it was a word invented by him for the OT feast. For the people of Tyndale’s day, the words became synonymous (Easter already being the common English term for passover season). Fast forward to the KJV, “Easter” fell out of the scriptures entirely in favor of the consistent “Passover,” except in that one verse. I’m guessing it was an oversight by the translators/printer and for some reason never got changed in the last update (1769?).


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> My congregation is not used to the KJV, and a good amount of them are young or new believers. They are not having issues with the KJV. If there are people who are functionally illiterate, it doesn't matter the translation. But we do have some who are not as well educated and also those who have learning disorders. Since I've ministered with all those translations already cited, I have found no difference whatsoever in understanding KJV from ESV. In evangelism, it is not the Word that needs to change, it is the way to minister with that Word that needs to change. We have new believers who have come to faith under a "KJV ministry", they are not educated more than public school. They have no issue with understanding. So again, I think this often used critique is not in line with what I at least have experienced.


That could be. However, I believe I am being reasonable when I state the KJV language is not what is spoken by the society at large. I also still do not understand why the KJV has to be insisted on so much by some. If you are a TR proponent that is one thing, but why ALWAYS the KJV as well? I understand the argument for the Thy/Thou/Ye, but that seems to be functionally it. We have words for that in modern English as well: "You" versus "You all". Why not use that type of terminology in a new translation?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> P1: The more languages one has to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew requires more thought.
> P2: Modern translators have had to translate into many more languages than the translators for the KJV.
> Therefore, modern translators have put in more thought.
> 
> ...


I didn't take it as modern translators were translating into many different languages, but from one language (original) to a modern language. Most translators, I am assuming, know Hebrew/Aramaic and/or Greek and then their own native language (English, Spanish, Korean, etc.). Most people don't know the original languages and then many other languages in which to translate into. So if how you take it is how he meant it, that's fine. But I didn't read Mr. Duguid as saying that.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> That could be. However, I believe I am being reasonable when I state the KJV language is not what is spoken by the society at large. I also still do not understand why the KJV has to be insisted on so much by some. If you are a TR proponent that is one thing, but why ALWAYS the KJV as well? I understand the argument for the Thy/Thou/Ye, but that seems to be functionally it. We have words for that in modern English as well: "You" versus "You all". Why not use that type of terminology in a new translation?


I'm not insisting upon KJV. I'm simply stating that I believe it is a major assumption on the part of Mr. Duguid to say what he said in post #117.



Eyedoc84 said:


> “Easter“ in our Bibles comes from Tyndale. It derives from German. “Passover” also comes from Tyndale, it was a word invented by him for the OT feast. For the people of Tyndale’s day, the words became synonymous (Easter already being the common English term for passover season). Fast forward to the KJV, “Easter” fell out of the scriptures entirely in favor of the consistent “Passover,” except in that one verse. I’m guessing it was an oversight by the translators/printer and for some reason never got changed in the last update (1769?).



https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/Acts12verse4 is a good summary of this.


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 29, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> P1: The more languages one has to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew requires more thought.
> P2: Modern translators have had to translate into many more languages than the translators for the KJV.
> Therefore, modern translators have put in more thought.
> 
> ...


Well, I might put that differently, since many of the translators of the KJV would have been familiar with translation in several languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc). But the field of linguistics from which terms like "formal equivalence" and "dynamic equivalence" come did not exist in the 17th century, so by definition, they hadn't thought explicitly about such topics.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Well, I might put that differently, since many of the translators of the KJV would have been familiar with translation in several languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc). But the field of linguistics from which terms like "formal equivalence" and "dynamic equivalence" come did not exist in the 17th century, so by definition, they hadn't thought explicitly about such topics.


What about the kind of language that the Scottish speak?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> That could be. However, I believe I am being reasonable when I state the KJV language is not what is spoken by the society at large. I also still do not understand why the KJV has to be insisted on so much by some. If you are a TR proponent that is one thing, but why ALWAYS the KJV as well? I understand the argument for the Thy/Thou/Ye, but that seems to be functionally it. We have words for that in modern English as well: "You" versus "You all". Why not use that type of terminology in a new translation?


The English of the KJV was never spoken by society at large.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> The English of the KJV was never spoken by society at large.


I believe that only strengthens the point I am trying to make then.


----------



## kodos (Jul 29, 2022)

Since switching to the KJV, our congregation has only grown, and hardly anyone who attends has been exposed to the KJV before (most of our congregation has no Reformed background and often no Christian background). We do not mandate that our congregation use it privately or in their homes, however, and tell them that in the inquirer's class. But our pulpit translation is the KJV and the uneducated and unbelievers who come - while many vociferously disagree that a man must be born again - they never misunderstand the message of the preaching: that a man must be born again.

Lest I find myself going into a tangent - the problem for most Reformed men is not the unintelligibility of the translation they use, but rather that they _preach unintelligibly _to the demographic several here are concerned about re: the KJV's language. Their sermons are more high-minded Biblical theology with the use of systematic theology terms without explanation, and not the kind of _plain preaching _you see in the Bible. This leaves unbelievers and the uneducated scratching their heads and heading over to the local megachurch where they can at least understand what the preacher is saying (though it is probably all wrong).

This kind of unintelligibility in preaching has been a greater hindrance to the gospel going to the less educated in Reformed pulpits than the KJV. And this has been my experience in the Reformed churches.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

kodos said:


> Since switching to the KJV, our congregation has only grown, and hardly anyone who attends has been exposed to the KJV before (most of our congregation has no Reformed background and often no Christian background). We do not mandate that our congregation use it privately or in their homes, however, and tell them that in the inquirer's class. But our pulpit translation is the KJV and the uneducated and unbelievers who come - while many vociferously disagree that a man must be born again - they never misunderstand the message of the preaching: that a man must be born again.
> 
> Lest I find myself going into a tangent - the problem for most Reformed men is not the unintelligibility of the translation they use, but rather that they _preach unintelligibly _to the demographic several here are concerned about re: the KJV's language. Their sermons are more high-minded Biblical theology with the use of systematic theology terms without explanation, and not the kind of _plain preaching _you see in the Bible. This leaves unbelievers and the uneducated scratching their heads and heading over to the local megachurch where they can at least understand what the preacher is saying (though it is probably all wrong).
> 
> This kind of unintelligibility in preaching has been a greater hindrance to the gospel going to the less educated in Reformed pulpits than the KJV. And this has been my experience in the Reformed churches.


I am fairly well-educated (I think), and I still have some problems with a very few certain passages in the KJV when it comes to comprehension (as I think most folks here will confess). However, what you said here is really the crux of the matter—namely, _does the man who preaches preach intelligibly_? In the end, a preacher preaching unintelligibly from the NLT will be utterly ineffective. Some of my favorite preachers, on the other hand, preach very plainly from the KJV—e.g., Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joel Beeke, Henry Mahan, etc.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Seems like the KJV could benefit from this treatment as well if the NKJV and MEV are considered inferior. I personally feel the NKJV is the solution.



Same here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Seems like the KJV could benefit from this treatment as well if the NKJV and MEV are considered inferior. I personally feel the NKJV is the solution.


As I noted earlier, the KJV had language modernization in 1769 already, primarily around spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, but there were also some translational changes based on manuscript evidence and updating of some words. There is a decent summary here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

Many of the editions of the KJV around actually incorporate a few additional changes past 1769 as well, including many of which are based on the 1900 Cambridge edition which actually has a very small number of translational/textual differences. The 1900 edition actually has translational differences in a few places and most published KJV versions I have are based on the 1900 Cambridge text.

Webster in 1833 made a revision of the KJV which was quite minor, but got rid of some of the old idioms in the KJV, introduced some new American idioms, and changed a few words to make it more modern and conforming to American English patterns.

There have been a multitude of small revisions of the KJV (much smaller than the NKJV) over the years like the MKJV, KJV2000, etc. but none have gained enough traction to be readily available in print.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I am fairly well-educated (I think), and I still have some problems with a very few certain passages in the KJV when it comes to comprehension (as I think most folks here will confess). However, what you said here is really the crux of the matter—namely, _does the man who preaches preach intelligibly_? In the end, a preacher preaching unintelligibly from the NLT will be utterly ineffective. Some of my favorite preachers, on the other hand, preach very plainly from the KJV—e.g., Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joel Beeke, Henry Mahan, etc.


Yes, I'm thankful that men that preach from the KJV preach in the vulgar tongue and take time to explain the KJV when it is not in the vulgar tongue. That's certainly the case of my last pastor who preached from the KJV. I've listened to Joel Beeke quite a bit and while I've not heard him reference other translations, he's often careful to explain unfamiliar words or phrases.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase (Jul 29, 2022)

My wife uses the NKJV, so I am not too hard on it. But the NKJV rendition of the Song of Solomon forces an interpretation, and a bad one at that. Further it does not have the cadence, beauty, or precision of the second person singular/plural that the KJV has. Using the KJV has shaped my prayer life and bible memorization more than I ever did when using the ESV - and I do not think that is mere coincidence. For instance, I am convinced of the propriety of using the second person singular in prayer, and having a bible version which does the same makes it far more natural. The KJV is not perfect, but it is time tested and I do not see it going anywhere anytime soon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

MChase said:


> My wife uses the NKJV, so I am not too hard on it. But the NKJV rendition of the Song of Solomon forces an interpretation, and a bad one at that. Further it does not have the cadence, beauty, or precision of the second person singular/plural that the KJV has. Using the KJV has shaped my prayer life and bible memorization more than I ever did when using the ESV - and I do not think that is mere coincidence. For instance, I am convinced of the propriety of using the second person singular in prayer, and having a bible version which does the same makes it far more natural. The KJV is not perfect, but it is time tested and I do not see it going anywhere anytime soon.


I am glad the KJV helped you in your walk with God, but this type of commentary worries me a bit. It makes it seem yet again that the KJV is imbued with some sort of special power that apparently other translations just don't have including the original language texts. Many of the things you say about the KJV could be true of another translation for another person. Also, with the praying in second person, that is great that you like to do this, but this requirement does not come from scripture. If there is something in the original Greek and Hebrew that I am missing, I would welcome correction, but when using language like "convinced" it makes it seem like you drew this from scripture as a Biblical command.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MChase (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I am glad the KJV helped you in your walk with God, but this type of commentary worries me a bit. It makes it seem yet again that the KJV is imbued with some sort of special power that apparently other translations just don't have including the original language texts. Many of the things you say about the KJV could be true of another translation for another person. Also, with the praying in second person, that is great that you like to do this, but this requirement does not come from scripture. If there is something in the original Greek and Hebrew that I am missing, I would welcome correction, but when using language like "convinced" it makes it seem like you drew this from scripture as a Biblical command.



Certainly there is no special power in the translation, but a translation can be more memorable than another. For instance, when the ESV came out many were praising its readability.

It is not a direct requirement to be sure, but I do think it is wise and best practice. For instance, I have heard a rather prominent presbyterian minister who is surely a quite godly man pray something like, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit we praise you for..." Is the you there singular or plural? It is not clear in this case. There was even a man with some theological acumen arguing in a facebook group that we should refer to God as 'them' and not 'he'. That is troubling.

Here is Dr. William Young on the subject.








Address to God in Prayer


William Young Young argues for addressing God with the language of ‘thou’ and ‘thee’. From The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine, Summer, 1989. HT: The Puritan Board &nb…




reformedbooksonline.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 29, 2022)

MChase said:


> Certainly there is no special power in the translation, but a translation can be more memorable than another. For instance, when the ESV came out many were praising its readability.
> 
> It is not a direct requirement to be sure, but I do think it is wise and best practice. For instance, I have heard a rather prominent presbyterian minister who is surely a quite godly man pray something like, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit we praise you for..." Is the you there singular or plural? It is not clear in this case. There was even a man with some theological acumen arguing in a facebook group that we should refer to God as 'them' and not 'he'. That is troubling.
> 
> ...


Modalism, tritheism, and unitarianism are not concerns I currently have with my pastors. I trust that they are praying to our one God. I find that legalism and self righteousness seem to be far more prevalent in reformed circles. Not accusing anyone here at all, just stating my experience. I myself have been guilty of both in the past and it is still something I have to be on guard for.


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 29, 2022)

MChase said:


> It is not a direct requirement to be sure, but I do think it is wise and best practice. For instance, I have heard a rather prominent presbyterian minister who is surely a quite godly man pray something like, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit we praise you for..." Is the you there singular or plural? It is not clear in this case.


This is a curious exemplar to use. After all, in 1 John 5;7 "the three" in the first half of the verse modifies a plural Greek verb, but it is clear from the second half of the verse that "the three" in question are "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost". So there is Biblical precedent for a plural (as well as singular elsewhere) construal of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are not Unitarians. 

Moreover, since "you" in modern English can be either singular or plural, why would you choose to construe it in a way that seems to you problematic, when it was perfectly possible to understand it in the way you think God ought to be addressed? Was my use of "you" in this last sentence in any way grammatically unclear to you?

Finally, it seems to me a little odd that some who insist that "Thou" is a more personal and intimate address to God in prayer are also insistent on formality and reverence in the rest of their approach to God in worship (suits, ties, etc.). 

I do, however, recognize the advantage of being able to distinguish between singular and plural in Biblical interpretation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MChase (Jul 29, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> This is a curious exemplar to use. After all, in 1 John 5;7 "the three" in the first half of the verse modifies a plural Greek verb, but it is clear from the second half of the verse that "the three" in question are "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost". So there is Biblical precedent for a plural (as well as singular elsewhere) construal of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are not Unitarians.
> 
> Moreover, since "you" in modern English can be either singular or plural, why would you choose to construe it in a way that seems to you problematic, when it was perfectly possible to understand it in the way you think God ought to be addressed? Was my use of "you" in this last sentence in any way grammatically unclear to you?
> 
> ...



To be clear, I’m not denying that we can speak of God being three. That’s not the issue. The issue is clarity and precision. God isn’t addressed as a ‘them’ but a ‘he’. For instance, WCF doesn’t say “God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of themselves…”


----------



## MChase (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Modalism, tritheism, and unitarianism are not concerns I currently have with my pastors. I trust that they are praying to our one God. I find that legalism and self righteousness seem to be far more prevalent in reformed circles. Not accusing anyone here at all, just stating my experience. I myself have been guilty of both in the past and it is still something I have to be on guard for.



Nor do I. Though I don’t think theology proper is at a high point in our day. We ought to be precise because we serve a precise God.


----------



## aaronsk (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I believe that only strengthens the point I am trying to make then.


Hi Brother, 

I think the point here is that the KJV was meant to reflect the original languages in the way it was written. Although the NT was written in coversational greek that doesn’t mean its meaning is best conveyed in conversational english. The text (original) was written at a fixed point in time and its meaning tied to words of that time (speaking of the greek). 

Trying to keep up with the constantly changing english vernacular is not an easy task requiring constant revision (what is a woman?). The example there seems silly but Webster has been changing definitions regularly and words have seen meaning change in the public sphere frequently in the last few years. Think about how we are required now to interact with people in our professional environments. The KJV is modern english (vulgar) though not in what is commonly spoken on the street (yet it is accessible). 

Once again Im not saying the KJV uses the best word in every place today but it is accurate and readable. I wouldn't be opposed to a revision that updated a few words and got rid of the th/st endings but kept a distinction with “you”. The NKJV came close but waviered in its original intent and thus it didn’t succeed in replacing the KJV with a “more modern” translation of the TR.

Though I must make the point that if the KJV english was never spoken as street vernacular is an argument against it then it would follow that the argument would lead to it aught to never have been used at all. Thus it seems to me this point is best suited as an argument for its usage rather than against. 

Perhaps this should be a new thread. As it is a bit off the point of the main thread. 

If I am helping someone with doctrine and they use and ESV, I use the ESV and include any sidelined readings; as I’m not KJVO but TR and prefer KJV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Jul 29, 2022)

MChase said:


> To be clear, I’m not denying that we can speak of God being three. That’s not the issue. The issue is clarity and precision. God isn’t addressed as a ‘them’ but a ‘he’. For instance, WCF doesn’t say “God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of themselves…”


Of course. But that doesn't match your example. To match your example, it would have to say "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit hath all life..." (or in more contemporary language "has") which sounds odd to me. Wouldn't we say "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have all life..."?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I believe that only strengthens the point I am trying to make then.


 If that’s true, then your argument should be that the KJV was always a bad translation.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 29, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> If there is something in the original Greek and Hebrew that I am missing


The Hebrew and Greek distinguish singular and plural pronouns. I think that was his point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 29, 2022)

Reading through some John Owen currently. I think the KJV is easier.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Amen 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> The Hebrew and Greek distinguish singular and plural pronouns. I think that was his point.


To be fair, that wasn’t the point he was making. He was saying that he has been convinced of the use of the older English second person pronouns when addressing God. While Hebrew and Greek does distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, there is nothing in the Hebrew and Greek that directs us to use archaic English second person pronouns when addressing God, as if it were somehow more reverent.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> To be fair, that wasn’t the point he was making. He was saying that he has been convinced of the use of the older English second person pronouns when addressing God. While Hebrew and Greek does distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, there is nothing in the Hebrew and Greek that directs us to use archaic English second person pronouns when addressing God, as if it were somehow more reverent.


Amen. While I am someone who prays "in the King's" in private, family, and from the pulpit, it is in no way imprecise, irreverent, or inaccurate to address God in modern English. That is the English we speak. Many other languages share the same feature (no differentiation between singular and plural second person pronouns).

The same logic could be used to say that we shouldn't address the second person of the adorable godhead as "Jesus", since that is a modern English and imprecise form of His true name "Yeshua (Aramaic)/Yehoshua (Hebrew)". The name "Jesus" is how the Hebrew word "Jehovah saves" (Yehoshua/Joshua) has come into English. So is it imprecise or inaccurate to say "Jesus" therefore? I think not. And if is not imprecise to use the modern English equivalent of a Hebrew word through Aramaic and Greek to address or refer to the second person of the Trinity, nor is it imprecise to use the modern English equivalents of the Greek sú (you sg) and umeís (you pl) to address the godhead.

Additionally, There are many languages that make no distinction between plural and singular, as I mentioned above. What are they to do? Has God not given them a way of addressing him? Do they have to invent new vocabulary to address God properly? Maybe they should learn English and adopt a 400+ year old translation as their Bible?

Again, this is coming from someone who has adopted the use of archaic forms in prayer for almost a decade. My prayer life, habits, form, and style have been shaped by the KJV, the valley of vision, Henry's prayer book, the collects from the Scottish Psalter, Knox's collects, the collects from the book of common prayer, and the prayers of Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, and Dr Beeke.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Northern Crofter (Jul 29, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> The thee’s/thou’s are not even found in the letter to the king written by the KJV translators, they are included to better keep the sense of the original languages by having distiction between plural and singular “you”. For that reason I now prefer them, not because they are old or sound holy but rather they are accurate (John 3 is an example of where this can matter a bit)


Even if I was not convinced of the TR for many other reasons, this (the inclusion of singular and plural) is the main practical reason that I, too, use an older TR version. 

I grew up on the AV, but when I found the Geneva was republished, I switched. I cannot see why anyone would want to be associated with anything propagated by the wicked King James if there is a worthy alternative - I would think one would want to read any book banned by such a wicked ruler, but especially if it was a Bible translation. "When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee" (Prov.23.1). 

I would venture that most at the Westminster Assembly - especially the Scots commissioners - (and most of the Puritans you admire for that matter) were not using the AV. 

Plus the Geneva's notes are incredible, especially in a devotional setting - you can hear the echo of Calvin and Knox (you will sometimes find verbatim phrases in Calvin's writings). 

If you are not familiar with the Geneva, I encourage you to try it. If already use the AV, it won't be much of a switch, other than that you will now be testifying against the wickedness of King James.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I cannot see why anyone would want to be associated with anything propagated by the wicked King James…


Chad Van Dixhoorn told our class that James I was actually fairly solidly Reformed, and only _after_ the KJV became an openly wicked individual.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## MChase (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> To be fair, that wasn’t the point he was making. He was saying that he has been convinced of the use of the older English second person pronouns when addressing God. While Hebrew and Greek does distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, there is nothing in the Hebrew and Greek that directs us to use archaic English second person pronouns when addressing God, as if it were somehow more reverent.


No, that was exactly the point I was making. If there were a more common English way to distinguish between the second person singular and plural I would happily use it.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 29, 2022)

As a KJV user myself, may I ask the KJV users here, would you give anything to assist a youth (or anyone new to the KJV really) in reading the KJV? To assist reading words like "not in chambering and wantonness" or "and, as he was wont,". 
When I begun reading the KJV, I did so with Logos software infront of me with other translations to guide me. I know that is not the best or accessible way to do it. One way is the TBS Westminster reference bible which shows helps.


----------



## kodos (Jul 29, 2022)

John Yap said:


> As a KJV user myself, may I ask the KJV users here, would you give anything to assist a youth (or anyone new to the KJV really) in reading the KJV? To assist reading words like "not in chambering and wantonness" or "and, as he was wont,".
> When I begun reading the KJV, I did so with Logos software infront of me with other translations to guide me. I know that is not the best or accessible way to do it. One way is the TBS Westminster reference bible which shows helps.



Many of our youth in the congregation have the Westminster Reference Bible which helps with some of these unfamiliar words, or "false friends", as some have put them. Also, Matthew Poole's division of the chapters at the beginning of each chapter, and John Brown's cross references make it a very helpful "study bible" which allows Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

MChase said:


> No, that was exactly the point I was making. If there were a more common English way to distinguish between the second person singular and plural I would happily use it.


I can appreciate that your conscience is convinced on this matter, but there is nothing in Scripture that requires prayers to use formally distinct pronouns to distinguish between second person singular and plural.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## kodos (Jul 29, 2022)

kodos said:


> Many of our youth in the congregation have the Westminster Reference Bible which helps with some of these unfamiliar words, or "false friends", as some have put them. Also, Matthew Poole's division of the chapters at the beginning of each chapter, and John Brown's cross references make it a very helpful "study bible" which allows Scripture to interpret Scripture.



Also, forgot to mention this, it is our pew Bible as well - so those who are unfamiliar can also look up the words easily.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Physeter (Jul 29, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again, Graham,
> 
> What with all the talk of KJVO, TR, etc, I want again (as I have done in the past) to clarify my nuanced view of the Bible and its versions. I call what I hold to as KJV _priority_ – or _preferred_ – as being the best English translation of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It – the KJV – is not the clearest or easiest to read, but it is the most accurate in my view.


I will have to say I agree with this perspective. It is my personal favorite. I don't recommend it for people that struggle with language skills or reading. I have a younger sister that deals with disabilities. One of the simpler to read translations would be better for her.


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 30, 2022)

John Yap said:


> As a KJV user myself, may I ask the KJV users here, would you give anything to assist a youth (or anyone new to the KJV really) in reading the KJV? To assist reading words like "not in chambering and wantonness" or "and, as he was wont,".
> When I begun reading the KJV, I did so with Logos software infront of me with other translations to guide me. I know that is not the best or accessible way to do it. One way is the TBS Westminster reference bible which shows helps.



Reformation Heritage Books keeps JP Green's children's James Bible in print. I will have my children cross reference that if they are stuck, or transition from it to the KJV. They can also be given word lists (many Bible contain such lists, as in the margin of the Westminster reference Bible mentioned above). They can be taught how to look things up in a dictionary also. But nothing will beat their father explaining these dead words, archaic words, and false friend words as they appear in daily family worship, and their minister in his pulpit ministry.

When I was teaching my former congregation how to read the KJV I pointed them to these resources, as well as told them to look at the passage in the NKJV if they were stuck. This is one of the many benefits of the KJV, it helps us to slow down sometimes and meditate on the word. Often, regardless of the translation, we often read large passages thinking we understood something when we actually didn't, we only understood what we thought the passage was saying, but may have misunderstood entirely. Learning to read the KJV or GNV helps break this habit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Northern Crofter (Jul 30, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Chad Van Dixhoorn told our class that James I was actually fairly solidly Reformed, and only _after_ the KJV became an openly wicked individual.


There is quite a bit of revisionist history these days (especially in England - not so much in Scotland) re James VI/I - nevertheless, his "Black Acts," his unBiblical reasoning for the divine right of kings, his forcing Protestantism into the Scottish highlands and islands were less about reformation and more about ethnic cleansing, his subduing of Romanism in England also had little to do with reformation and more to do with anger after the failed Gunpowder Plot, and of course his long history of adultery, sodomy, and pedophilia, were long before the AV. Yes, he got worse after the AV was published, but the seeds were simply sprouting - as you stated, he became "an *openly *wicked" person after the AV. He was still a wicked ruler prior to the AV.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 30, 2022)

Does the wickedness of a ruler negate the good God providentially guides under him? I can’t remember the details but a new translation of the Scripture was very much wanted by the Puritans and other godly men at the time. It was an unexpected concession the king made to them, at a time when most of the desired reforms in the church were shot down.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Does the wickedness of a ruler negate the good God providentially guides under him? I can’t remember the details but a new translation of the Scripture was very much wanted by the Puritans and other godly men at the time. It was an unexpected concession the king made to them, at a time when most of the desired reforms in the church were shot down.



It wasn't too unexpected. King James wanted a bible that didn't have the anti-episcopalian comments in it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 30, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Does the wickedness of a ruler negate the good God providentially guides under him? I can’t remember the details but a new translation of the Scripture was very much wanted by the Puritans and other godly men at the time. It was an unexpected concession the king made to them, at a time when most of the desired reforms in the church were shot down.


Amen. But it is true that James saw it as politically advantageous to concede to the Anglicans who wanted a revision of the bishops Bible. There were a handful of puritans who also wanted to have a new translation as a way to further reform and purify the Church of England. James conceded to this and one of his stipulations was that this new translation contain no "Lutheran notes" (referring to the Geneva) and that certain words be translated in a way that would not go against his doctrine of the divine right of kings (I.e. "episkopos" must be translated as "bishop" etc). God used his wickedness to produce a world transforming translation, but his intention/motivation certainly was not in favor of the puritans. The puritans by and large hated and rejected the AV for many *a few* decades.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Jul 30, 2022)

The 1611 KJV certainly doesn't feel like a Puritan work. It has strange illustrations (I'm not sure if any are 2nd commandment violations, but I'd prefer to not have to guess), church calendars with holy days (a full calendar with holy days menitoned, a table for finding Easter, the psalms and lessons instructions include special for holy days, a lessons for holy days section, and a general list of holy days "these to be observed for Holy"), and the Apocrypha (not only having it there, but with cross references to it throughout the Old and New Testaments such as Hebrews 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26). Thankfully most of this was removed in the 1769, but the textual sticking points (bishops, etc.) remain.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 30, 2022)

Hi Jake, here's a post (and a couple others of mine in the thread) re the use for "Easter" in the AV: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/easter-in-acts-12-4-av-is-it-justifiable.87452/#post-1083686


----------



## Taylor (Jul 30, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> There is quite a bit of revisionist history these days (especially in England - not so much in Scotland) re James VI/I - nevertheless, his "Black Acts," his unBiblical reasoning for the divine right of kings, his forcing Protestantism into the Scottish highlands and islands were less about reformation and more about ethnic cleansing, his subduing of Romanism in England also had little to do with reformation and more to do with anger after the failed Gunpowder Plot, and of course his long history of adultery, sodomy, and pedophilia, were long before the AV. Yes, he got worse after the AV was published, but the seeds were simply sprouting - as you stated, he became "an *openly *wicked" person after the AV. He was still a wicked ruler prior to the AV.


Either way, I don’t really have a dog in this fight since saying that because James I was bad the therefore the KJV is bad is committing the genetic fallacy.

With regard to Van Dixhoorn, I would personally be very hesitant to accuse someone like him—who with regard to seventeenth century England has forgotten more than most of us will ever know (he taught our seminary-level course with not a single page of notes)—of engaging in revisionist history. He is an exceptionally careful historian whose clout is well deserved. Of course, that doesn’t mean he is always right, but I am personally hesitant to level such an accusation at someone like him without serious documentation to back it up.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Jul 30, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hi Jake, here's a post (and a couple others of mine in the thread) re the use for "Easter" in the AV: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/easter-in-acts-12-4-av-is-it-justifiable.87452/#post-1083686



In my post I was referring to the prefatory material contained in the volume of the 1611, not the text itself.


https://imgur.com/SyxqVTW


The point was showing it doesn't look like a Puritan volume. That's certainly not a slight against the translation work of the text itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Jul 30, 2022)

Jake said:


> the Apocrypha (not only having it there, but with cross references to it throughout the Old and New Testaments such as Hebrews 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26



Interestingly, the 1560 Geneva, the original Puritan Bible, similarly cross-references Matthew 27:43 with Wisdom of Solomon 2:18 (although it has a typo indicating Wisdom 2:28, which does not exist). The 1599 Geneva omits all cross-references to the Apocrypha.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 30, 2022)

Thanks, Jake! As it was brought up earlier as an error (by others), I figured I would lay to rest that mistaken allegation as to its linguistic status.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 30, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> It wasn't too unexpected. King James wanted a bible that didn't have the anti-episcopalian comments in it.


He had one


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jul 30, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> f course his long history of adultery, sodomy, and pedophilia


Of course, this may also be guilty of historical revision. I’ve read reputable historians who dispute this, claiming most of it is slander from critics. Although given his effeminacy and upbringing, I wouldn’t doubt if it was true.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 30, 2022)

James VI/I was actually highly respected by many Reformed divines as a defender of orthodoxy against the Remonstrants. For those interested, here are a handful of sources to read:









Lewis Bayly on King James I


Writing to Charles, Prince of Wales (later King Charles I), Lewis Bayly told him to follow the example of his father, King James I, whom Bayly considered a great defender of the Reformed faith: How…




reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com













Robert Baillie on King James I and Arminianism


The hopes of the Arminians in England were but small so long as K[ing]. James did live, for that good Prince both in word and writing did threaten to burn these Hereticks if any of them should appe…




reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com













Pierre Du Moulin on the Synod of Dort and James I


When writing to the States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries (the Netherlands), the French Reformed theologian, Pierre Du Moulin, commended both the Synod of Dort and King James …




reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com













King James I and the controversy among the Huguenots over Christ’s active obedience


The Westminster divine, Daniel Featley, quoted the below letter of King James I to the French Reformed Synod of Privas in 1612, urging them to drop the controversy between Pierre Du Moulin and Dani…




reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 4


----------



## Physeter (Jul 30, 2022)

I am just as dubious about the attacks on the character of James I as I am on the character of Westcott and Hort.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 30, 2022)

Why was the collation of texts only acceptable up until Erasmus’ day?

What Scriptural warrant is there for freezing the process ever since?

Why is text critical work allowed within the Byzantine text-type, but no other?

Why can there not be a broader basis for God’s preserved word than the Byzantine text-type?

Why does the TR position on God's providence not allow for any good manuscripts to be hidden? Why do they have to be used in the church?


----------



## gcdugas (Jul 31, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Why was the collation of texts only acceptable up until Erasmus’ day?
> 
> What Scriptural warrant is there for freezing the process ever since?
> 
> ...



The following is a skeleton form of answers to your very honest questions. Each could be expanded into a book length and has been but I'm skimming at 30,000ft.

1. The collating was largely done before Erasmus. Erasmus was the first one who put the entire Greek NT canon to print. So the answer really is that until then they were still hand copying manuscripts. Therefore it is the invention of the printing press when manually transmitting the text ceased. 

2a. It could and has been argued that the process [of collation] was frozen prior to 1516 and Erasmus mostly "assembled" things rather than deciding on anything. 

2b. We could also ask this question as to the books in the Canon. Why was the process "frozen" in the 4th Century A.D.?

3. Because of the great uniformity of the manuscripts and their wide use in the churches for more than 1,300 years. 
See E. F. Hills https://www.amazon.com/Text-Time-Reformed-Testament-Criticism-ebook/dp/B07DB7ZBLC
See John "Dean" Burgon https://www.amazon.com/Revision-Revised-Dean-William-Burgon/dp/1888328010 especially pgs 312-316

4. Doctrinal error and tampering. The Alexandrian text family evidences Gnostic tampering. The Patristics don't cite them not do other churchmen since. The Arian controversy also plays into this as they used Alexandrian texts to support their heretical doctrines. 








Arianism: Its Teaching and Rebuttal - Credo Magazine


Sudden chaos overtook Alexandria in 318. A riot broke out and people streamed into the street chanting, “There was a time when Christ was not!” Historical Background The slogan expressed an idea that had become popular: that Christ was a created being. But that idea was opposed by another group…




credomag.com





5. Use in the Churches is the PRIMARY evidence of Providence. God has always preserved His Word for His people. The WCF and LBC 1689 both cite Matt 5:18 (not one jot or tittle shall perish) as a proof text for the assertion of preservation in 1:8.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 31, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> 4. Doctrinal error and tampering. The Alexandrian text family evidences Gnostic tampering. The Patristics don't cite them not do other churchmen since. The Arian controversy also plays into this as they used Alexandrian texts to support their heretical doctrines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not sure what the Credo website reference does. It doesn't mention anything about text tradition. We've already established, maybe in this thread or in another, that Alexandria gave rise to both a pro-Athanasian group and a pro-Arian group.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 31, 2022)

Hello Rut @Grumman Tomcat ,

Concerning your doubt re the characters of Westcott and Hort, please consider this (excerpted from a paper of mine) :

*On Westcott and Hort*

Westcott and Hort (henceforth W&H), are either revered as fathers of modern textual criticism, or reviled as men unworthy to lay hands on the Book of God, and enemies of the Faith; are there verifiable facts to clarify the record?

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), both began their academic careers as students of Trinity College at Cambridge University. Westcott was Hort’s senior by three years at the college, and was his tutor in Classics after Hort began his graduate studies there in 1849-50, beginning what was to be a lifelong friendship and collaboration in various endeavors, most notable of which was their Revised Greek Text of the New Testament, published in 1881. Westcott was also tutor, in 1848, to two other Cambridge men (among others) who would likewise remain his friends for life, J.B. Lightfoot and E.W. Benson.

The academic and spiritual atmosphere of Cambridge in those days was unusual; there was a great conflict between “liberal” theology (pretty much the same then as now), conservative Anglicans (of the Church of England), and conservative Roman Catholicism, the latter having many allies in certain sectors of the Anglican Church (which were known by terms such as the Oxford Movement, and Sacerdotalists), which sought to elevate the Church, her traditions, and her sacraments above the Scriptures as the final authority over the people of God, after the model of Rome. Many liberals who had been ousted from other universities for theological heresy found a haven at Cambridge; to name a few: Frederick Maurice (denied eternal Hell), John Henry Newman (pro-Vatican teaching), John William Colenso (openly questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch), and William Roberson Smith (he likewise opposed the Mosaic authorship, and also the doctrine of inspiration)1. The work of Charles Darwin was in the air, and in 1877 Cambridge conferred an honorary degree upon Darwin.2 Some of the men mentioned, and the two we are focusing our attention on in particular, held a mixture of views, that is, both “liberal” and Catholic. Cambridge had fallen greatly since the days two centuries earlier when William Tyndale and other reformers pursued studies there! Evangelicals, who were also active in these times, were looked down upon as primitive and crude “fundamentalists” (as they would be called by the liberals in the 1920s), just for holding firmly to the fundamental historic doctrines of the believing church up through the ages. Such men, along with their Bibles, were often despised by the “learned” elite.

The focus of Westcott’s and Hort’s studies was the classics, notably the Greek. Hort wrote that Dr. Maurice “urged me to give the greatest attention to the Plato and Aristotle, and to make them the central points of my reading, and the other books subsidiary.”3 Westcott also was first and foremost a classicist. In a letter to Lightfoot he exclaims, “I can never look back on my Cambridge life with sufficient thankfulness. Above all, those hours which were spent over Plato and Aristotle have wrought that in me which I pray may never be done away.”4

But there was more in the air of the times then than liberalism, Catholicism, and love of the classics. Although W&H were nominal members of the Church of England (COE), they evidently had no fear of God in the Biblical sense. In 1845, as an undergraduate, Westcott and some of his friends founded a club at Cambridge which eventually took the name Hermes Society5. That of itself might not be so bad, even though Hermes is widely known, not only as a god in Greek mythology, but a major figure in the occult, from notorious occultist H.P. Blavatsky’s equating of Hermes with Satan6 (this latter entity not being evil in her eyes) to Carl Jung, as editor, including in a book of his, “Hermes is Trickster in a different role as a messenger, a god of the crossroads, and finally the leader of souls to and from the underworld.…Hermes recovered attributes of the bird life [wings] to add to his chthonic [underworld] nature as serpent.”7 Occultism and spiritualism were exploding into manifestation in 19th century England, and Hermes was esteemed in these groups. What leads us to think Westcott’s Hermes club was not innocent of occult involvement are the name and the activities of his next club, founded in 1851: the Ghostly Guild. 

James Webb, a secular historian of the occult, notes in his book, _The Occult Underground_, in the section, “The Necromancers,”

In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. In effect it was a combination of those groups already working independently in the investigation of spiritualist and other psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.). Of these the most important was that centered round Henry Sidgwick, Frederick Myers and Edmund Gurney, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and deriving its inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson wrote in his biography of his father, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost club became Bishops, and one a Professor of Divinity.​​…The S.P.R. was a peculiar hybrid of Spiritualistic cult and dedicated rationalism; the S.P.R. fulfilled the function of Spiritualist Church for the intellectuals.8​
We learn from Hort himself who some of the members were:

Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions.9​
The Society For Psychical Research, in its history written by one of its presidents, acknowledges its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” and says, under the section of that title,

Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.10​
The believing church, however, does not consider this “ecclesiastical eminence”! If this were all we found objectionable in W&H, it would be sufficient to disqualify them from membership in an evangelical church, much less to teach or preach in one. But I am afraid it is not all. There is much more that can be said about their continued occult involvement, including other secret societies they founded or were part of, having others be the officers in (and “founders” of) these clubs while they remained generally unnamed and (to public scrutiny) in the background, but there is not room here for a thorough exposé.11 That they were practicing spiritualists – “necromancer” is the Biblical word – is beyond dispute. It is enough to note the Lord’s judgment on this matter:

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire [i.e., to be burned as a child sacrifice], or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or *a consulter with familiar spirits*, or a wizard, or a *necromancer*. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD… (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)​​And *the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits*, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. (Leviticus 20:6)​​Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, *witchcraft*, hatred…murders, drunkenness…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)​​Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and *sorcerers*, and whoremongers, and murderers… (Revelation 22:14, 15)​
Another secular historian looking at this time in English history says,

In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost evangelical faith…spiritism as a substitute for Orthodox Christian faith.12​
It should be clear that these men were not Christians, although they were baptized when infants in the Church of England. These were worldly men, unregenerate. You might picture in your minds college youths of today who, growing up in an unbelieving culture, have prejudiced attitudes toward the evangelical Christian faith, and toward the Bible. 

Westcott, for example, at 21 years of age says,

…in the principles of the Evangelical school [there is that] which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.13​
In the following year he says,

I never read an account of a miracle [in the Bible] but I seemed instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.14​
[due to length I'll continue this below]

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 31, 2022)

[cont.]

In the same letter (above) where Hort was announcing to a friend the formation of the Ghost Society, he showed a belligerent prejudice to the Universal Text – the King James Bible – of the English-speaking world, and its underlying Greek basis, the Textus Receptus, presumably because it was the Bible of the Evangelicals, and its authority supported the authority with which they preached (in those days Charles Spurgeon was preaching in London, and D.L. Moody was evangelizing all over England). In similar fashion, young and educated unbelievers of today off-handedly disdain Bible preaching and Bibles. A 23-year-old Hort wrote,

I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous _Textus Receptus_…Think of that vile _Textus Receptus_ leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones…15​
In 1858 Hort wrote,

The positive doctrines…of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on authority, and especially the authority of the Bible…16​
In 1865, when trying to “understand…the ever-renewed vitality of Mariolatry,” Hort surmised it was,

…a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God is invested in all modern orthodoxies—Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion ‘Christ the believer’s God’ is the result….I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and effects.17​
In these same letters (see footnote 21) Hort opines that mediation is the proper role for each – Mary and Jesus – and not worship.

We will look at some further beliefs and statements of W&H, to get an idea of the hearts and minds of these men. It was important to them that the things they believed and did were kept secret, as they well knew they were at odds with orthodox Christian faith, even in the ailing Anglican Church. In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially18 working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.19​
Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”20 (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in many areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.21​
He was surely right in this! He was not a believer, and it was easily apparent in his views! Remember, both he and Lightfoot were involved in spiritualism (along with Westcott and Benson), and although having respect to the COE and its traditions, the group of them were but secular classicists highly trained in classical Greek. They approached the New Testament Scriptures as they did any other Greek classics, with worldly, rationalist presuppositions and critical methods. In other words, their spiritualism was not their only heresy.

In answer to an Oxford undergraduate’s questions (in 1886) about the COE’s Thirty Nine Articles of Faith, with regard to Article IX (concerning the doctrine of Original Sin), Hort answered thus,

The authors of the Article doubtless assumed the strictly historical character of the account of the Fall in Genesis. This assumption is now, in my belief, no longer reasonable.22​
One might understand why he would think this way from his view of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_. In a letter to Westcott (1860) he says,

…Have you read Darwin?…In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”23​
To his friend John Ellerton, he wrote (in 1860),

But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable24. (emphasis his)​
We see Westcott was of the same mind:

No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I never could understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did…25​
The implications of these views are immense. If the Book of Genesis is not true history, then it is either error, or allegory masquerading as history. If Genesis is not true history, Jesus was in error asserting the historicity of Adam and Eve26, and Paul likewise in error in Romans and 1 Corinthians. If there was no actual fall of an actual Adam and Eve, the atonement of Christ was but a meaningless fiction. The Book of Genesis is foundational for all of God’s revelation concerning salvation. But such supposed errors were in accord with W&H’s view of the _errancy_ of Scripture. 

In the event someone says, but this is argumentum ad hominem (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)

1 _Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible_, by Dr. William P. Grady (Grady Publications, Inc. 1993), page 210.
2 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 186.
3 Ibid., page 202.
4 _ Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, pages 175, 176.
5 _Life of Westcot_t, Vol. I, p 47.
6 _The Secret Doctrine_, by Helena P. Blavatsky (the Theosophical Publishing Society, 1893), Vol. II, page 30.
7 _Man and His Symbols_, Edited by Carl G. Jung (Dell Pub. Co., 1964); “Part 2: Ancient Myths and Modern Man,” by Joseph L. Henderson, page 155.
8 _The Occult Underground_, by James Webb (Open Court Pub. Co. 1974), page 36.
9 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 211.
10 _The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History_, by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.
11 I first became aware of this hidden aspect of W&H’s lives through a tape made by Gail Riplinger. I found the allegations of their deep and continued involvement with spiritualism hard to believe. So I bought her book, _New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion,_ by G.A. Riplinger (A.V. Publications 1993), and researched the citations of the 30th chapter, “The Necromancers.” I was amazed to find her scholarship essentially sound. To confirm the most important of her documentations, I bought the respective (unabridged) biographies of Westcott and Hort, each written in two volumes by their sons, and through the Queen’s (New York City) interlibrary loan system obtained Webb’s _The Occult Underground_, Salter’s _The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History_, and Gauld’s _The Founders of Psychical Research_. Riplinger’s presentation of W&H as hardcore spiritualists, going to séances and other occult activities, and proselytizing others to join them, was true. Occasionally she would get a page number wrong (in footnote 12 above, quoting from Webb, she had page 8 instead of 36), and she misattributed quotes a couple of times from Gauld’s work, but they were relatively insignificant. The conclusions she draws – and documents – with regard to Westcott’s and Hort’s involvement in the occult in her chapter 30, apart from her theorizing re “W.W. Westcott” in her footnote 128, is sound. [I learned from James White this aforementioned “theorizing” is patently false.]

Although her work is edifying in some respects, I cannot endorse her book due to many far-fetched notions, and also errors. Sometimes her quotes are taken out of context in a way I would term “misrepresentation.” I would not call her representative of those who present the best defense of the King James Bible and the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie it. Still, some of her research is valuable. If you read her, do so warily.
12 _The Fabians_, by Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1977), page 18. 
13 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. I, pages 44, 45.
14 Ibid., page 52.
15 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 211.
16 Ibid., page 400.
17 Ibid., Vol. II, pages 49-51.
18 They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
19 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 445.
20 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
21 Ibid., page 421.
23 Ibid., Vol. I, page 414.
24 Ibid., page 416.
25 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. II, page 69.
26 Matthew 19:4-6
____

I'll attach a pdf of this post for easier reading and copying:

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## gcdugas (Aug 1, 2022)

Steve, I'm not quarreling but isn't there a courteous maximum length for a comment? And then you append it PDF. Why not just copy the first paragraph and then link to the full length version? That's how many news aggregators do it and I think there is a good reason.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I can appreciate that your conscience is convinced on this matter, but there is nothing in Scripture that requires prayers to use formally distinct pronouns to distinguish between second person singular and plural.


Not mention why is the one set enough? For example, Spanish, has two 2nd person plural forms (Spain - ustedes/vosotros) and some countries use three second person singular forms (Argentina and parts of Columbia and Chile - vos/tu/usted). Who's to choose?


----------



## Physeter (Aug 1, 2022)

My question: is the KJV the most current Textus Receptus translation? There is a position out there among some fundamentalists that it is.


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 1, 2022)

Grumman Tomcat said:


> My question: is the KJV the most current Textus Receptus translation? There is a position out there among some fundamentalists that it is.


No. The NKJV and the MEV are both more recent translations of the TR.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Physeter (Aug 1, 2022)

Thank you. I like to use the NKJV with young students.

I do find some of the renderings in translations such as the NIV lacking. The NKJV is still a robust translation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 1, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> The following is a skeleton form of answers to your very honest questions. Each could be expanded into a book length and has been but I'm skimming at 30,000ft.
> 
> 1. The collating was largely done before Erasmus. Erasmus was the first one who put the entire Greek NT canon to print. So the answer really is that until then they were still hand copying manuscripts. Therefore it is the invention of the printing press when manually transmitting the text ceased.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I’ll go through this when I can.


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 1, 2022)

Grumman Tomcat said:


> Thank you. I like to use the NKJV with young students.
> 
> I do find some of the renderings in translations such as the NIV lacking. The NKJV is still a robust translation.


I prefer the KJV but do on occasion use a NKJV and find it quite useful. This article gives a good overview of things to be aware of in its use. Some points they make are more meaningful than others but an interesting read nonetheless. 



https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/WhatTodaysChristianNeedsToKnowAboutTheNewKingJamesVersion?&hhsearchterms=%22nkjv%22


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 1, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Steve, I'm not quarreling but isn't there a courteous maximum length for a comment? And then you append it PDF. Why not just copy the first paragraph and then link to the full length version? That's how many news aggregators do it and I think there is a good reason.


I for one read the posts but not the pdf. So I appreciated the longer posts in the thread. 

Just my


----------



## Physeter (Aug 1, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> I prefer the KJV but do on occasion use a NKJV and find it quite useful. This article gives a good overview of things to be aware of in its use. Some points they make are more meaningful than others but an interesting read nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/WhatTodaysChristianNeedsToKnowAboutTheNewKingJamesVersion?&hhsearchterms=%22nkjv%22


I did find that it messed up the section in Job about the Leviathan. The translators sanitized it too much. The thing I appreciate about the KJV is that it is very direct.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 1, 2022)

Please find this counterpoint article for your reading https://byfaithweunderstand.com/202...ys-examination-of-the-new-king-james-version/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 1, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Please find this counterpoint article for your reading https://byfaithweunderstand.com/202...ys-examination-of-the-new-king-james-version/


To be clear Im not advocating a KJV-O position with the tbs articles. Just that one aught to be aware it isn’t strictly a revision of the KJV. I also wouldn’t say the KJV couldn’t use a good bit of updating and one does need to be aware of its translational choices when using it as well. So I would say I take heed with what TBS says but also wouldn’t be at odds with this fellow either.

I think this is probably true for the CT brothers as well: None of the available translations have achived peak readability and accuracy. 

For me the NKJV comes close to the ideal but I wish there was like a “you”, “you(s)” distinction as well not capitalized pronouns and no red letter. The textual notes are useful as us TR folk do interact with people using CT based bibles. There are a few readings where I may prefer the KJV rendering but these are easily noted (much like Easter=passover when using a KJV). That being said I would prefer a translation that stays close to the KJV for the sake of consistency in the English speaking church (past, present, future) as it aids in reading works of the past and interacting with saints of a previous generation. (Its not good if Grandpa’s bible and ours is wildly different just because). 

Using the KJV has benefitted me by forcing the learning of older terms and phrases that have helped make reading puritans and other older works more accessible. This is a big benefit as the church has produced many edifying works in the last several centuries. Though, I am not saying one should always use a KJV because of this - just that it a benefit I noticed in my personal experience.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 1, 2022)

I’ll chime in and add from my perspective that while the TBS articles do provide some helpful info for comparison, I think they strain too hard to discredit the NKJV. Certainly there are differences, and one can compare the relative merits of the KJV and NKJV; but if your primary concern is the TR, then the NKJV is a legitimate choice contrary to what some TBS people may say. 

(For what it's worth I do appreciate TBS overall and their work on behalf of the TR).

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 1, 2022)

that begs the idea, TBS should do a more... 'conservative' revision to the KJV with revision to some archaic words (as per their own standard when they define such words in the margins of their TBS Westminster reference bible)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 1, 2022)

John Yap said:


> that begs the idea, TBS should do a more... 'conservative' revision to the KJV with revision to some archaic words (as per their own standard when they define such words in the margins of their TBS Westminster reference bible)


Im not at all opposed!

Edit: it needs to remain a copyright free edit so it may be the possession of the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 1, 2022)

Hello Rut, there is also the KJV 2016 by Nick Sayers.

Graham, you're right in what you say about length, but I have found that few people go to the trouble of clicking on links (maybe wary of malware?), and thus never become exposed to differing views.

It has always been my style to post vital scholarship _in toto_. Those who can't be bothered reading it are not who I am writing for anyway, but those hungry for often hard-to-find facts and views. I love scholarship, and in-depth study on particular topics, such as amil eschatology, paedobaptism defense, and the transmission of the Bible up through the ages – also the whole cluster of spiritual _realities_ pertaining to our union with Christ: Justification, Sanctification, and our being "clothed" in Him, which are foundational to our standing before God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 3, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> For me the NKJV comes close to the ideal but I wish there was like a “you”, “you(s)” distinction as well not capitalized pronouns and no red letter.



There is a translation which makes that distinction and has no red letter: the KJV, as published by the TBS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> There is a translation which makes that distinction and has no red letter: the KJV, as published by the TBS.


My statement about the NKJV was in the context of if a revision was done to the KJV by TBS (which I dont think they are interested in). So the KJV could not fit that bill. I do use it as my primary text and supplement NKJV when with brothers to whom it would be a distraction.



John Yap said:


> that begs the idea, TBS should do a more... 'conservative' revision to the KJV with revision to some archaic words (as per their own standard when they define such words in the margins of their TBS Westminster reference bible)


----------



## Before (Aug 4, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> The NKJV and the MEV are both more recent translations of the TR.


There is also a LSV (Literal Standard Version) just out, based on the TR and is free on many online apps, e.g. E-Sword.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 5, 2022)

Before said:


> There is also a LSV (Literal Standard Version) just out based on the TR and is free on many online apps, e.g. E-Sword.


Didn't know about this one

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 5, 2022)

It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> For me the NKJV comes close to the ideal but I wish there was like a “you”, “you(s)” distinction as well not capitalized pronouns and no red letter.


I use the NKJV McLaren edition (beautiful edition) which is a Black letter edition.

https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 5, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."


Right I hope I have not come across that way. Ill use an ESV if it helps a brother seek the scriptures - ill just include any footnoted texts while reading with him (i know there are other differences but there are often bigger fish to fry in the rhythms of life and its not worth causing one to doubt their bible when they are struggling with something else). 

I keep an ESV in my van because i have many of them from before it was TR. They are still useful but not what I do my deep study and daily reading in. KJV is what I use in my personal study most of the time but if im going to a bible study Ill be bringing a NKJV typically.



Stephen L Smith said:


> I use the NKJV McLaren edition (beautiful edition) which is a Black letter edition.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/


Thank you for the link! Black letter would be very nice to have!


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> Thank you for the link! Black letter would be very nice to have!


As I said I love this Bible. I got a genuine leather with 3 ribbons. I followed the buying guide on that website, and Amazon had it with a 44% discount. The font and text layout are excellent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."


I admit I am tired of the pejorative comments many make about Christians who adhere to the confessional text position. I wonder if more of them would be open to using the NKJV (a translation I love) it would slow down the name calling.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 5, 2022)

To be fair, TBS =/= TR community as a whole. There are TR people who use the NKJV around here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Brian R. (Aug 5, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> As I said I love this Bible. I got a genuine leather with 3 ribbons. I followed the buying guide on that website, and Amazon had it with a 44% discount. The font and text layout are excellent.


And if you want get really brave you can pick up the Maclaren "personal size" version. It's tiny. About a 7-point font. Same beautiful layout. I love being able to hold it with one hand and read. Requires strong reading glasses, though.


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 5, 2022)

Oh I was poking around late last night and discovered they also have single column versions - which I really like also. I might be getting a new bible soon .

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 5, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I use the NKJV McLaren edition (beautiful edition) which is a Black letter edition.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/


This is also my everyday Bible. It’s great!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Before (Aug 5, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> Black letter would be very nice to have!


Gothic black lettering would even be better, like a Geneva, Tyndale or Thomas Matthew Bible.


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 5, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> Right I hope I have not come across that way. Ill use an ESV if it helps a brother seek the scriptures - ill just include any footnoted texts while reading with him (i know there are other differences but there are often bigger fish to fry in the rhythms of life and its not worth causing one to doubt their bible when they are struggling with something else).
> 
> I keep an ESV in my van because i have many of them from before it was TR. They are still useful but not what I do my deep study and daily reading in. KJV is what I use in my personal study most of the time but if im going to a bible study Ill be bringing a NKJV typically.
> 
> ...


Amen. That wasn't in response to you brother or anyone else. It was just a general observation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 5, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."


This is an important observation. It’s fine to have translation preferences, but some brothers talk about the translation question almost as if it’s on the same level as the textual question.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 5, 2022)

The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy. While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading." (Arthur L. Farstad, "The New King James Version in the Great Tradition," 2nd edition, 1989, Thomas Nelson Publishers).


----------



## Before (Aug 5, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading." (Arthur L. Farstad, "The New King James Version in the Great Tradition," 2nd edition, 1989, Thomas Nelson Publishers).


The influence of modern-day democracy on biblical theology.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 5, 2022)

I think this thread has evolved into something different than what the OP asked (I believe the OP has been sufficiently answered, too). Can a new thread be started on TR-adherents and Bible translations? Keep the party going.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 5, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I think this thread has evolved into something different than what the OP asked (I believe the OP has been sufficiently answered, too). Can a new thread be started on TR-adherents and Bible translations? Keep the party going.


The following threads have been started to clean this thread up.
1) Discuss TR translations: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/best-available-translations-of-the-tr-in-2022.109298/
2) Discuss favorite bibles: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/what-is-your-favorite-non-KJV-tr-based-english-bible.109299/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 5, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> The following threads have been started to clean this thread up.
> 1) Discuss TR translations: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/best-available-translations-of-the-tr-in-2022.109298/
> 2) Discuss favorite bibles: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/what-is-your-favorite-non-KJV-tr-based-english-bible.109299/


Thanks, brother!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 5, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> This is an important observation. It’s fine to have translation preferences, but some brothers talk about the translation question almost as if it’s on the same level as the textual question.


Exactly. And thus earn themselves the pejorative they denounce.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Before (Aug 15, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> This is an important observation. It’s fine to have translation preferences, but some brothers talk about the translation question almost as if it’s on the same level as the textual question.


Preferences yes, but wouldn’t you say it is a bit difficult separating the two when the translations are based on whichever set of texts they’re using?


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 15, 2022)

Before said:


> Preferences yes, but wouldn’t you say it is a bit difficult separating the two when the translations are based on whichever set of texts they’re using?


Not when they're translating from the same text, ie, KJV GNV MEV NKJV or ESV NASB CSB etc

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Before (Aug 15, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Not when they're translating from the same text, ie, KJV GNV MEV NKJV or ESV NASB CSB etc


Hopefully we don't translate *from* any of those translations.


----------



## aaronsk (Aug 15, 2022)

Before said:


> Hopefully we don't translate *from* any of those translations.


I believe @danekristjan was trying to say the KJV, GNV, MEV and NKJV are all of TR and likewise the ESV, NASB and CSB are all of the CT.

@Before Though I think your point also has some merit in that ones preference for the ESV or KJV (*insert favorite version here*) can be strongly rooted in the textual tradition it is translated from, especially when one believes it to be the most reliable of a given tradition.

So in a way, perhaps your points don't even need to be reconciled to each other.


----------



## Before (Aug 17, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> I believe @danekristjan was trying to say the KJV, GNV, MEV and NKJV are all of TR and likewise the ESV, NASB and CSB are all of the CT.


If that’s the case I made the same mistake as many translators make.
…will work for food accuracy.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 17, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> This may be true of individuals brought up in a church that regularly preaches from the KJV, but I don't believe this is true for the society at large, especially with the public schools the way they are and some individuals being functionally illiterate.



This is not true for me. I was not raised in Church. I was raised at the Drag Strip on Saturdays and Sundays. I basically had an 8th grade education when I became a Christian. I started partying at age 12 and quit school when I was 16. My mother started going to Church when Dad left home. I was 15 I think. She encouraged me to read the Living Bible for a few years till I ended up getting arrested for stealing a car. I finally started reading it when I was in the Navy and I became a Christian in Oct of 81. I quickly was catered to the NASB. I ended up giving it away to someone and went full on KJV. I did take a Summer off and read the whole old testament in the NIV. I spent a lot of time reading. LOL. I basically had an 8th grade education when I started reading the KJV. A few years after enlisting I was tested to determine my reading level. I was determined to have a second year of College reading level. I love my KJV. 

Then I met J. P. Green Sr. He republished Burgon's 'Unholy Hands on the Bible'. My kids called him Grandpa Jay. It was because of him I could see through Dr. Oakley's (James White) misrepresentations about Jay. He is sloppy in my estimation. I have noted that when he use to be a member of the board. 

The KJV isn't that hard to read.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 17, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is not true for me. I was not raised in Church. I was raised at the Drag Strip on Saturdays and Sundays. I basically had an 8th grade education when I became a Christian. I started partying at age 12 and quit school when I was 16. My mother started going to Church when Dad left home. I was 15 I think. She encouraged me to read the Living Bible for a few years till I ended up getting arrested for stealing a car. I finally started reading it when I was in the Navy and I became a Christian in Oct of 81. I quickly was catered to the NASB. I ended up giving it away to someone and went full on KJV. I did take a Summer off and read the whole old testament in the NIV. I spent a lot of time reading. LOL. I basically had an 8th grade education when I started reading the KJV. A few years after enlisting I was tested to determine my reading level. I was determined to have a second year of College reading level. I love my KJV.
> 
> Then I met J. P. Green Sr. He republished Burgon's 'Unholy Hands on the Bible'. My kids called him Grandpa Jay. It was because of him I could see through Dr. Oakley's (James White) misrepresentations about Jay. He is sloppy in my estimation. I have noted that when he use to be a member of the board.
> 
> The KJV isn't that hard to read.


I was not disputing that the KJV cannot be learned. It can. I just figure there are other TR texts out there that I believe do a better job at communicating in modern English (NKJV). This is of course my opinion. 

Also, glad to hear that the Lord brought you through all of the events you described above and then to himself. Praise God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 17, 2022)

What is Dean Burgon's influence upon this discussion today. He was the Anglican stalwart for the Majority TR side for a long time.


----------



## Physeter (Aug 17, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is not true for me. I was not raised in Church. I was raised at the Drag Strip on Saturdays and Sundays. I basically had an 8th grade education when I became a Christian. I started partying at age 12 and quit school when I was 16. My mother started going to Church when Dad left home. I was 15 I think. She encouraged me to read the Living Bible for a few years till I ended up getting arrested for stealing a car. I finally started reading it when I was in the Navy and I became a Christian in Oct of 81. I quickly was catered to the NASB. I ended up giving it away to someone and went full on KJV. I did take a Summer off and read the whole old testament in the NIV. I spent a lot of time reading. LOL. I basically had an 8th grade education when I started reading the KJV. A few years after enlisting I was tested to determine my reading level. I was determined to have a second year of College reading level. I love my KJV.
> 
> Then I met J. P. Green Sr. He republished Burgon's 'Unholy Hands on the Bible'. My kids called him Grandpa Jay. It was because of him I could see through Dr. Oakley's (James White) misrepresentations about Jay. He is sloppy in my estimation. I have noted that when he use to be a member of the board.
> 
> The KJV isn't that hard to read.


I also love my KJV. I paste several verses from it each day on my Facebook to share with people who may not yet believe. It is not hard to read. Study of it is how I came around to rejecting the sloppy soft Christianity so prevalent today and becoming reformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Aug 17, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I was not disputing that the KJV cannot be learned. It can. I just figure there are other TR texts out there that I believe do a better job at communicating in modern English (NKJV). This is of course my opinion.
> 
> Also, glad to hear that the Lord brought you through all of the events you described above and then to himself. Praise God.



I am not one who _attacks _the NKJV or the MEV - but I simply do not find them as excellent as the KJV. The MEV has some embarrassing translation errors (see: rereward in the KJV becoming reward - almost like they did not translate from the Hebrew? maybe it needs a few more revisions) and the NKJV does deviate a bit from the TR at places. I do recommend them to those who might struggle with the KJV for private reading. But for public ministry - especially as the Word is preached - along with explained / exposited - in my opinion, the KJV remains the gold standard for public ministry. Easy to memorize, memorable phrasing, etc.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------

