# New TR Translation



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 7, 2013)

Charisma House Announces 'Most Modern Version' of KJV

The news came out a few months ago, but it's the first I've seen of it. Sounds like the "New New King James" to me, but we'll see. Quite a mix of translators, someone from RPTS is translating it so it can't be all bad!

Comparison of the MEV with others.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2013)

Charisma House? I'd be careful.


----------



## joejohnston3 (Sep 7, 2013)

Yes, it makes me leery as well!


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2013)

To expound on my response - I don't have the time (nor, probably, the skills) to parse the offering to see if their theological errors have crept into the text. There are enough good translations out there where the issues are known for me to pick up one from a questionable sources and have test every phrase.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 7, 2013)

There are Presbyterian and Baptist translators, so I wouldn't worry about this one anymore than I would worry about any translation with Pentecostal/Charismatic translators. (The Fuller guys bother me more!) Still, it's nice to see use of the Byzantine text, even though this seems a rehash of the NKJV. Still, we'll see plenty of reviews from others in the coming months.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Sep 7, 2013)

I wonder what the KJV Only folks will think about this, especially those who argue for the KJV on a textual basis.


----------



## sevenzedek (Sep 7, 2013)

MichaelNZ said:


> I wonder what the KJV Only folks will think about this, especially those who argue for the KJV on a textual basis.



I will tell you. Many of the KJVO/preferred crowd with whom I have spoken will not like it. One argument I hear rolling around in the back of my mind is that the KJV translators had a superior understanding of the Greek and Hebrew. I'm not arguing for or against. Just saying...


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Sep 7, 2013)

Or the KJV onlys will say that God only gives one translation to a new people group, ignoring the Geneva Bible etc lol. I had an acquaintance who only read the Cambridge 1611 and said all else was corrupt and that it was a sin to learn Greek and Hebrew because God has given us an inspired translation the Cambridge 1611" They call it the "Pure" Cambridge Edition and he had printed the entire thing out and bound it himself. 

I trust God uses Godly men with great intellects and resources now as well. There is a good reason to have multiple translations, but I will say that to come out with a translation just to have the rights to it so that your publishing company can put unlimited quotes in their books or to have Hello Kitty bibles, Green Letter Bibles (sickening really, emergent green movement junk), or you name it is way overboard with reverence out the window. Also those tribes that only have a scrap of scripture make do so we need to count ourselves blessed and seek to help them to have the full counsel who do not.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Sep 8, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> Or the KJV onlys will say that God only gives one translation to a new people group, ignoring the Geneva Bible etc lol. I had an acquaintance who only read the Cambridge 1611 and said all else was corrupt and that it was a sin to learn Greek and Hebrew because God has given us an inspired translation the Cambridge 1611" They call it the "Pure" Cambridge Edition and he had printed the entire thing out and bound it himself.



This guy wouldn't happen to run the site Jesus-is-Lord.com, would he? The site links to this page which gives you the link to download the Authorized King James Version of 1611 (Pure Cambridge Edition). There is a link to a page showing you how to bind it.

However, if you compare the version they offer for download (which I downloaded) to the *real *1611 King James Bible you know instantly that they're not the same. If your Bible spells 'heaven' with a 'v' (as theirs does), then it's not the 1611 KJV. In the 1611 KJV it's spelled 'heauen'.

Anyway, from what I've seen of that site they seem to be hardcore fundamentalist 'back to the land' type of people. They use the KJV Bible as their homeschooling textbook. The site is also quite old-fashioned and poorly designed, the layout not having changed significantly since the earliest record of it in 1997 by the Wayback Machine.


----------



## Zach (Sep 8, 2013)

Who would have thought spelling heaven as h-e-a-v-e-n would make me a h-e-a-t-h-e-n?


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Sep 8, 2013)

Nope but he might have followed that guy for all i know i only talked with him a couple times, but i do know the website you refer to i almost linked it lol. I've come a crossed quite a few KJV onlys in my day and they all twist the doctrine of preservation to mean one manuscript whereas God in history disseminated the gospel because Christians were following Christ's words "when they persecute you flee to another country" and they shared the gospel there too. So that the gospel manuscripts have never all been together in one centralized location that they all could have been altered. Unlike Islam for instance with Uthman. So all the Da Vinci Code junk about monk conspiracies and such is just laughable because our God has truly preserved the scriptures by putting them in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over 1600 hundred years, 40 different authors, and then for the NT spreading it all around the world immediately. Here is a great presentation of manuscript evidence Voddie Baucham - Decoding Da Vinci - pt 1 of 5 - YouTube


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Sep 9, 2013)

Then, there is that whole problem with the evil modern versions of the KJV spelling "Jesus" with a "J."


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 9, 2013)

I suppose Jesus was also a heathen because he often quoted the Septuagint instead of the "pure" Hebrew version of the Bible.


----------



## Tim (Sep 9, 2013)

I would encourage that this thread re-focus to discuss the merits of this new TR translation. 

We can poke fun of "KJV-only" folks all day, but I have never met one on the Puritan Board. However, there are many on the Puritan Board who believe the TR has been providentially preserved by the Lord and that the Authorized Version is the superior English translation of this text. With this in mind, it seems to me that the main discussion point is whether modern men are as well equipped to produce a translation as those who were called to do so in the years prior to 1611.


----------



## joejohnston3 (Sep 9, 2013)

Tim said:


> I would encourage that this thread re-focus to discuss the merits of this new TR translation.
> 
> We can poke fun of "KJV-only" folks all day, but I have never met one on the Puritan Board. However, there are many on the Puritan Board who believe the TR has been providentially preserved by the Lord and that the Authorized Version is the superior English translation of this text. With this in mind, it seems to me that the main discussion point is whether modern men are as well equipped to produce a translation as those who were called to do so in the years prior to 1611.



Amen, brother!


----------



## jandrusk (Sep 9, 2013)

Don't fix what has never been broken. KJV 1611 is good enough for me. No, I'm not a KJV onlyist. I'm a TR onlyist.


----------



## mossy (Sep 9, 2013)

Tim said:


> I would encourage that this thread re-focus to discuss the merits of this new TR translation.
> 
> We can poke fun of "KJV-only" folks all day, but I have never met one on the Puritan Board. However, there are many on the Puritan Board who believe the TR has been providentially preserved by the Lord and that the Authorized Version is the superior English translation of this text. With this in mind, it seems to me that the main discussion point is whether modern men are as well equipped to produce a translation as those who were called to do so in the years prior to 1611.



Tim,
Is there agreement in the Reformed pro TR community as to which edition of the TR was providentially preserved? 
Blessings,
Terry


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 9, 2013)

mossy said:


> Tim,
> Is there agreement in the Reformed pro TR community as to which edition of the TR was providentially preserved?
> Blessings,
> Terry



I know you addressed your question to Tim but let me give my .

Your comment seem to assume that those who prefer the TR have as similar view as the Muslim have concerning their Qu'ran which is not the case. The reason that we call ourselves TR only is that we prefer this text to the CT and MT. The fact that the TR is no longer being edited and has been widely accepted from the 17th century to the 19th century (and many still do) does demonstrate it's stability. There's only 6 Editions of the TR that have been made to my knowledge the last being in 1633. (Unless you count Scrivener's edition to be a new edition). The variation from these edition are certainly not as significant as those of the CT. The CT on the other hand is still an eclectic text meaning it still being worked on and is prone to change significantly if ever a "new" older MSS would appear on the scene. 

This is what we (or at least I reject). God has preserved his word through the stream of Traditional Texts that support the TR which was available to different group of believers through the ages via Greek MSS, early translations and early father quotations. This doesn't mean that every copy of these MMS or translations were 100 % pure and that copyist errors or mistranslation never crept in any of these copies, BUT with the many MSS and early version and quotation still available to the editors of the TR, they had enough material to confidently determined what the original MMS said. All of these MSS, versions and quotation cannot be dethroned by one single (or a few) MSS even if they are older. Remember that the Older Greek MSS are not older that some of the early versions or father quotations. With this in mind I believe it's very logical conclusion to stick with the TR.

What we hold to is that whenever there is a difference (variant readings or omission of words or verses) between the TR and the CT or MT we prefer the reading of the TR because we trust it's foundation more than the foundation of the CT (when I say foundation I mean both the manuscripts used for it's compilations and the philosophy used to compile them). Most people who make sarcastic remark towards us do so by making strawman arguments that are either bad caricatures or outright misrepresentation of our view. I have never seen this position being properly refuted yet. I acknowledge that I do have my biases but I try to stay open minded and correct my view whenever my understanding on some areas need corrections.

I know many KJV advocate make some lame claims and are less then objective in some of their beliefs, but this does not change what is true and objective in our position.

Hope it helps.


----------



## JML (Sep 9, 2013)

From looking at it, it is not based solely on the TR.



> Being the most modern translation of the KJV, Modern English Version uses literal (word-for-word) equivalence from the combination of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text while maintaining everyday language that can be understood by everyone.




Here is the link to the quote:

Reverent :: Modern English Version


----------



## mossy (Sep 9, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> From looking at it, it is not based solely on the TR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JML (Sep 9, 2013)

mossy said:


> TR would be New Testament and Masoretic text would be OT.
> Terry



Not sure what I was thinking there. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Sep 9, 2013)

> I have never seen this position being properly refuted yet.



I'd suggest readin sme of James White on the subject I used to swing that way as you do and now realize that I just didn't have all the facts and maybe somewhere in me I wanted a book to worship instead of Christ, just be careful in that area. Not saying you have this problem, just be wary.

I think with James White you will find no strawman arguments, I believe he would also recommend Daniel Wallace, and I've heard Dustin Segers (who prefers the 1995 NASB) has said to read Bruce Metzger on the subject (though he says he doesn't agree with all his theology on the subject of textual MSS his information is top notch)

I wonder by TR which do you mean personally? Byzantine? The text of Erasmus and the Elzevirs? The text that was eventually used by the King James Bible translators.?


----------



## gkterry (Sep 9, 2013)

Etienne, exactly right!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 9, 2013)

Hi Peter (GloriousBoaz),

I have responded to Dr. White: Responding to James White of AOMIN, and also to another man from AOMIN on textual issues: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

I would think twice about recommending Bruce Metzger! Also, he and his committee put Asaph and Amos (per the ESV, and the underlying Greek text), not the genuine ancestors of Jesus, Asa and Amon respectively, in Matthew 1:7 and 10, because they thought Matthew just made a mistake through consulting the wrong genealogical lists.

Despite being King James _priority_ (a big difference from KJO), I would be very interested to see what the new MEV looks like. It's not clear which edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text they will be using, which is very important.

I've written a bit here on PB on textual issues: Jerusalem Blade's textual posts (a partial compilation), though I don't want to get into an extended discussion at this point as I'm preparing to teach a class on Revelation, and really have to focus on that. At my age (71, and nearing my eternal youth) I need to conserve my energy and mental focus! Thanks for understanding.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 10, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> I have never seen this position being properly refuted yet.
> I'd suggest readin sme of James White on the subject I used to swing that way as you do and now realize that I just didn't have all the facts and maybe somewhere in me I wanted a book to worship instead of Christ, just be careful in that area. Not saying you have this problem, just be wary.
> 
> I think with James White you will find no strawman arguments, I believe he would also recommend Daniel Wallace, and I've heard Dustin Segers (who prefers the 1995 NASB) has said to read Bruce Metzger on the subject (though he says he doesn't agree with all his theology on the subject of textual MSS his information is top notch)
> ...



I have read Mr. White's book (I have a copy at home). He does refutes some of the claims made by Ruckman and Riplinger but he does not address the works of John Burgon or Edward Hills or any more orthodox defender of the TR. Actually he only addresses the hardcore KJV onlies which hold the KJV on a supperior level than the text supporting it. This is what I call strawman arguments because you avoid dealing with the real problem but only attack the argument that are easily defeated. 

Mr. White will point out the very few issues he has with some of the reading of the TR but does not address the hundreds of issues in the CT (especially fabricated reading that do not exit in any single existing manuscripts but are collations of reading coming from different MSS). He also advocate the conflation theory of the Byzantine texts which Hort came up with which is easily refuted if you consider the early translations and father quotation and their geographical dispersions. He also often make his "opinion" sound like they are "facts".

I know Mr. White is a good apologist and my goal is not to tarnish his reputation, I just believe that on this issue his biases blind him. I recommend you go through some of the material Mr. Rafalsky posted above, it should help you to understand in greater details the issues with Mr. White's position.



> I wonder by TR which do you mean personally? Byzantine? The text of Erasmus and the Elzevirs? The text that was eventually used by the King James Bible translators.?



I mean mainly the editions made by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevirs (the later ones being more complete), the byzantine texts are the Greeks MSS supporting these editions therefore they do not exclude each other. The same way I view the Geneva as great bible but prefer the KJV since more attention was put into it. Contrary to the CT these editions to not "greatly" differ and have come to a stable state. The philosophy behind the CT make it so that it is highly prone to change if "new" manuscripts are found no matter how reliable they are, and the editors take more liberty to insert their "preferences" into the text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 10, 2013)




----------



## Tim (Sep 10, 2013)

Sigh. I was hoping that this thread would discuss the original post, rather than returning to the TR-CT debate.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 10, 2013)

I wonder if that is because perhaps the only possible reason to produce yet another updated KJV style translation is to leverage the TR-CT debate.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 10, 2013)

My take on it is that I do not agree with the selection of the translation committee but I do not discard it before seeing it. I do not like ecumenical translations but it doesn't mean that it will automatically be a bad translation. Steve brought up some good point regarding the source used for the OT. It would have to make it's proofs before I accept it. I guess I don't really see the need for a new translation. If you really want a more modern translation you could just revise the KJV and update older words to their modern equivalent without changing the translation.

I personally think the TBS approach is best, there are still many people who do not have faithful translations in their own language based on the TR and Masoretic Text, I think we should spend more time on these since we already have faithful English translations.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 10, 2013)

On the positive side, this will probably bring the textual debate before Protestants who have never considered it.

On the negative side, it will probably (further) divide those who adhere to the Received Text. Prior to 1982, the only Received Text English translation available on a wide scale was the Authorized Version. With the advent of the NKJV, the TR community has been divided between those continuing to use the AV, and those using the NKJV. Adding one more TR translation is going to confuse matters even further. (I would think, though, that it would be more likely to divide those who are presently using, or would potentially use, the NKJV; those who are still using the AV would probably be less likely to adopt it.)

For the record, I will probably purchase my own copy. But I will also continue as a member of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and will continue to use the Common English Bible, i.e. the Authorized Version.


----------



## jandrusk (Sep 10, 2013)

I'm currently reading John Burgon's defense of the TR and he makes some very good points as to the preservation of Scripture and in particular questioning what I have always had a problem with; letting ungodly men be involved in the process of translation.


----------



## JML (Sep 10, 2013)

jandrusk said:


> John Burgon's defense of the TR



What is the name of this book?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 10, 2013)

John, it's called _The Revision Revised_, and it is here in a number of formats: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36722

And here's another great one by him, _The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark_: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-h/26134-h.html

------

I do think a modern version based on the 1894 TR and the Second Great Rabbinic Hebrew Bible would be an excellent thing. I no doubt will continue to use my KJ Bible, but for many folks who are daunted by the old English of it, or who are not native English speakers (and I have pastored and/or taught many such), it may – if done well – be a God-send. This may dismay some of my KJV friends, but I speak as before God and not man.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## antony73 (Sep 10, 2013)

It _seems_ the MEV has replaced thee / thou / ye / you with "you," only. This is disappointing. Differentiating between singular and plural is very useful, and definitely adds depth.

Luk 22:31, 32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have *you*, that he may sift *you* as wheat: But I have prayed for *thee*, that *thy* faith fail not: and when *thou* art converted, strengthen *thy* brethren.


----------

