# KJV Only



## JM (Mar 1, 2009)

KING JAMES ONLY | Bible Versions | Way of Life Literature

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is “King James Only,” count me in.​
Any thoughts?


----------



## Grymir (Mar 1, 2009)

It's hard to have thoughts when I'm going Amen Brother!!!!!!

-----Added 3/1/2009 at 12:48:48 EST-----

Actually, I read the blog entry on the link, and really enjoyed it. I like the I'm KJV/I'm not KJV disticntions. Very readable and enjoyable.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree with him on this, but on his gross misrepresentation of Calvinism I vehemently disagree.

At this link: debatecalvinism you can hear his "refutation" of Calvinism.


----------



## TimV (Mar 1, 2009)

> The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, *rejected the pure text *and chose, instead, an inferior text


.

More ramblings by people who have never been taught to think for themselves. How can you reject something you don't have? The author of the TR said



> "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."



The ignoramus quoted in the OP and who in a sermon linked to in the third post



> Declares that John Calvin has caused great and unnecessary divisions among God's people and that few things have hindered Biblical evangelism more than Calvinism.



has a view of church history that is consistent only in it's blindness.


----------



## CNJ (Mar 1, 2009)

Dear JM in Canada, under British rule:

Last fall my husband gave me The Geneva Bible. It was what the Pilgrims used before the KJV. According to the beginning notes _"The Calvinist notes of the Geneva Bible infuriated King James I at Hampton court in 1604, prompting him to authorize a group of Puritan scholars to produce a version of the Bible without annotations for him. . . . The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible presented a systematic Biblical worldview centered on the Sovereignty of God over all of His creation including churches and kings."_ Hence the introduction of the KJV. Had you thought about this, or does your nationality prefer KJV? Just wondering. 

Cordially,
Carol


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 1, 2009)

I think the KJV is still superior to many translations that are out today. Although I still like to look at the New King James Version which modernized the KJV, but retained its essential nature. And is a bit more readable.

Surprisingly, the KJV was originally printed in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Instructions given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. This was mostly in the marginal notes though and not the actual verses.

Although Luther did add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith." 

To me it is ironic that today we (as Reformed Puritans) embrace a Bible that was originally meant to contradict our beliefs.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 1, 2009)

TimV said:


> > The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, *rejected the pure text *and chose, instead, an inferior text
> 
> 
> .
> ...



If you don't believe that we have a pure text i would presume that you deny the Westminster Confession when it states about the Scriptures that they have been...
"kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"


----------



## TimV (Mar 1, 2009)

> If you don't believe that we have a pure text i would presume that you deny the Westminster Confession when it states about the Scriptures that they have been...
> "kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"



You haven't been following the AVer threads over the past few months, or at least not with understanding. These threads are almost always started by the same people looking to push an agenda, and then they almost always end up backing out when you try to pin them down.

We can save reams of cyberspace and fast forward. Rob, who was on James White's show said he would agree to change the underlying text for the KJV New Testament in Revelation 16:5 from Lord to Holy One if it could be proven that no text in the Byzantine tradition exists which says Lord, as does the King James.

Do you agree with Rob?


----------



## larryjf (Mar 1, 2009)

TimV said:


> > If you don't believe that we have a pure text i would presume that you deny the Westminster Confession when it states about the Scriptures that they have been...
> > "kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"
> 
> 
> ...



The threads that i've been following are quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't need to read every thread on the KJV to respond to a post from a particular thread.

Suggesting that i may have read the posts without understanding is hitting below the belt. There's no reason for you to criticize my understanding on anything based on what i posted here.

Your statement about "how can you reject something you don't have?" - as speaking about the "pure text" - is what i responded to.

The WCOF clearly teaches that the text of Scripture has been kept pure.

Instead of wondering what threads i've read, or the understanding that i may lack, perhaps you should consider that your statement, as it stands, is in opposition to the WCOF.

I didn't say how i define the Scripture that has been kept pure, i simply pointed to the fact that you denied that we have a Scripture that has been kept pure.


----------



## TimV (Mar 1, 2009)

> Your statement about "how can you reject something you don't have?" - as speaking about the "pure text" - is what i responded to.





> The WCOF clearly teaches that the text of Scripture has been kept pure.



Yes, the the Divines were educated men who knew that there were variations even in editions of the TR. They knew that Christians from the beginning, like Jerome, Augustine et. al. knew that even though God kept His word pure, it wasn't necessarily written down in one place.



> Instead of wondering what threads i've read, or the understanding that i may lack, perhaps you should consider that your statement, as it stands, is in opposition to the WCOF.



I did consider it. 



> I didn't say how i define the Scripture that has been kept pure, i simply pointed to the fact that you denied that we have a Scripture that has been kept pure.



No, I did not. I said Erasmus didn't have access to as many manuscripts as would have been optimal. And he himself knew that.

Pastor Buchanan answered it best some months ago when he said that we do have God's preserved Word, but that he didn't know exactly where it was. Many other have pointed out that there is no central Christian doctrine that is changed by teaching from the KJV, ASV, ESV, etc.. and that proves to the majority of the Church that God did indeed preserve His word.

The subject of this thread is the King James Version, and the poster, JM, has been starting threads on the subject for a very long time, and often after posting this subject sits back just to watch the fireworks.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 1, 2009)

Now back to the OP. I've just spent some time reading his site. I do find David Cloud much easier to read than Barth, but brother Cloud seems to give with one hand and take with the other concerning Calvinism. Very similar to what Barth does, but he uses the proper terminology, and doesn't muddle up the definitions like Neo-Orthodoxy does. But, even Barth gets it right once in a while (Don't tell anybody I said that!!). I think his defense of KJV only is well spelled out.

Long live the King Jimmy!


----------



## lynnie (Mar 1, 2009)

I wish I was fluent in Greek and Hebrew. 

I can't begin to count all the times somebody has explained to me how an English word in Greek is a certain tense that carries great significance, or with a certain preposition that matters ("faith into" versus "faith".). Or how one word is translated with two different English terms. Or how two different English words have the same Greek in the text.

I still remember the day I first saw the Greek where Jesus healed a sick man, cast out a demon, and saved another from sin, and it was all "sozo". All the same word, with at least three english words used to translate.

I find arguements about which English version is best to be of course important, because we want the best translation possible. But it seems like the KJV people stop there, and put English above the original Greek and Hebrew, at least in their heart. I would say that is a terrible mistake.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree. Real KJV users (Like me) try and keep it on the philosophy of translation. And not to get hung up on the words. I think the ideas behind the various translation tell alot more, and is quite telling.


----------



## JM (Mar 1, 2009)

CNJ said:


> Dear JM in Canada, under British rule:
> 
> Last fall my husband gave me The Geneva Bible. It was what the Pilgrims used before the KJV. According to the beginning notes _"The Calvinist notes of the Geneva Bible infuriated King James I at Hampton court in 1604, prompting him to authorize a group of Puritan scholars to produce a version of the Bible without annotations for him. . . . The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible presented a systematic Biblical worldview centered on the Sovereignty of God over all of His creation including churches and kings."_ Hence the introduction of the KJV. Had you thought about this, or does your nationality prefer KJV? Just wondering.
> 
> ...



This is a joke right?



Yes and no.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 1, 2009)

A critical approach consists of considering each manuscript on its merits and being thankful that the various traditions of manuscripts support all the Church's doctrines with amazingly few troubling variants.

What we should not do is to pick a manuscript (well actually a synthesis of manuscripts) almost at random and prize certainty in every detail over truth.

Christianity is a historical religion where truth matters, I thought that only the Pope would come up with a post apostolic revelation and argue that any disagreement was a disagreement with God.

Grymir is right what is important are the presupositions underlying a translation and this really is not as simple as only accepting one historical text. 

This is really an issue that does not benefit from being aired again and the assertion that using anything other than the AV is unconfessional really needs to be rested.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 1, 2009)

Hippo said:


> prize certainty ... over truth.



I love this part of your post.
Dr. R. Scott Clark has a whole section in his "Recovering the Reformed Confession" on the quest for illegitimate certainty.

Great book


----------



## he beholds (Mar 3, 2009)

So I was just reading _Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics_ by Doug Powell. 


> The text type with the most copies is by far the Byzantine. These manuscripts were written on vellum, a much more durable medium than papyri. The Byzantine texts date from the ninth century onward. This type of textwas used by Erasmus to compile the first published Greek New Testament. The King James Version was based on Erasmus's work. This accounts for the variation seen between the King James Version and almost any other major English translation.


Powell states a paragraph before the above quote, "The vast majority of English translations are based on the Alexandrian text type since it is considered by most experts today to be the oldest form of the New Testament." 

This chapter was on the reliability of the NT, not really about the different versions, but it interested me that the reason for the discrepancies goes back to where the copiers got their copies, rather than the claim that one is an inspired or "authorized" version, as some claim. 




 Powell, Doug. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics. Nashville:Holman Reference, 2006. 159-160.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 3, 2009)

he beholds said:


> So I was just reading _Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics_ by Doug Powell.
> 
> 
> > The text type with the most copies is by far the Byzantine. These manuscripts were written on vellum, a much more durable medium than papyri. *The Byzantine texts date from the ninth century onward.* This type of textwas used by Erasmus to compile the first published Greek New Testament. The King James Version was based on Erasmus's work. This accounts for the variation seen between the King James Version and almost any other major English translation.
> ...



The bolded part is wrong. Even Westcott & Hort admitted that the byzantine text-form went back as far as the 4th or 5th century. He may have been thinking of the invention of the minuscule script.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 3, 2009)

Jessi,

Full disclosure: I use the Critical Text (ESV translation) mainly and the NKJV (Byzantine text tradition) only secondarily. All of my schooling was in the Critical Text (primarily Alexandrian) and my teachers all thought that the KJV folks were nuts.

The problem on both sides is that this is a VERY emotional discussion for most people.

The VAST majority of liberals, moderates, conservatives, and many fundamentalists buy the idea that the Alexandrian texts are the "oldest and most reliable." But, what makes this less than a complete slam dunk are a couple of awkward facts:
1. The two primary exemplars of the Alexandrian texts (ﬡ -	Codex Sinaiticus 325-350 and B - Codex Vaticanus 325-350) differ in about 3,000 places.
2. Some have argued that the Alexandrian texts represented the heretical sects of the gnostics and others who had a motive to tamper with the text of the Bible (this one is hotly debated).

The Byzantine texts represent 90-95% of all extant manuscripts of the New Testament, predominating from the 9th century onward. However, Byzantine texts are found in manuscripts A, C, W, Q from the 5th century and Byzantine readings can be observed in old translations of the NT into Syriac and Latin at a much earlier date.

The question is do you "count" manuscripts (advantage Byzantine) or "weigh" them (advantage Alexandrian).

Almost all modern English translations (NAS, NIV, ESV, TEV, NLT, etc.) are based on a critical text drawn primarily from the Alexandrian manuscripts, taking them to be the "oldest and most reliable." However, in doing so, they are translating from a text that NEVER existed at any time in that exact form. It is almost as if you have a stack of body parts of different people and decide to put together a composite picture with Angelina's lips and Jennifer's hips, and Pam's eyes, and Brad's elbows, based on a formalized set of criteria for how to determine what the "best" part should be for a particular spot. Nobody claims that the critical text is or was ever found in such a form, only that by employing the canons of textual criticism (which scholars trust will lead them to a more accurate form of the text), they have done their due dilligence to put the text back together in a most responsible way.

The upholders of the majority (Byzantine) text (KJV and NKJV) argue . . .
1. Byzantine readings can be found in old translations of the NT
2. The Alexandrian text is probably a corruption by heretics and should not be trusted since Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ so much between themselves anyway.
3. Wouldn't God most likely preserve his word in a text that was continuously available throughout the entire church age rather than one that got discovered in 1844?

They, therefore, prefer the KJV (based on Erasmus' handful of late Byzantine texts) or the NKJV (based on a much wider array of Byzantine texts).

Confused? Sorry! Now for the really cool part . . .

No major doctrine is impacted by either set of texts! And, in fact, whether you use a dynamic equivalent translation (NIV, NLT, TEV, GW) or a strictly formal correspondence translation (NAS, ESV, KJV, NKJV), you will still get all of the major doctrines in the creeds and confessions pretty clearly. 

All of the heat and some of the light deal with issues of preference and (to a lesser extent) scruples. Some believe that the doctrine of inerrancy hinges on having the exact text closest to the autographs. Others are willing to allow that God has preserved his word throughout history despite the thousands of textual variants (most of which relate to spelling or untranslatable differences in the Greek that are lost in English). Beyond that, some believe that the doctrine of inerrancy is not well served by translating "thought for thought" while others are equally bugged by strict "form for form" styles of translation and the potential to sacrifice clarity for the sake of formal correspondence of parts of speech (noun for noun, adj. for adj., etc.).

Good Reformed folks use the KJV/NKJV, the ESV, and even the NIV or NLT. Is the issue important? Sure. Are you likely to settle it beyond a reasonable doubt? Not likely.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 3, 2009)

Jessi, I added a final couple of paragraphs you should probably read to help relieve your mind.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 3, 2009)

Thanks! I wasn't really arguing which is better! I was just noting that there is a technical reason (b/c they come from different manuscripts) that the versions differ. I had assumed that when people say, "The KJV says it this way b/c it is better," they meant that the two contrasting Bible versions used the exact same Greek or Hebrew manuscript and chose two different ways to translate it. I did not know that they were, in fact, translating or copying from two separate pieces. I thought that cleared some things up for me. 

I think Powell probably does say (the book is not in front of me right now) that there is some evidence that suggests the Byzantine does go back further. However, he definitely said what I quoted before, that most of the experts consider the Alexandrian "to be the oldest form of the New Testament." 
Powell wasn't arguing one way or the other in this chapter for which is better, and I doubt he would anywhere in this book. He was explaining _why_ there are supposed problems or variations in the manuscripts, not which ones are correct. I imagine he does have an opinion on the subject, though, but I just don't know it.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Mar 4, 2009)

Br McFadden,

I respect the fact that you are willing to look at this issue with an open mind and are willing to leave the CT. So many are wedded to the Hortian presuppositions and that of rationalistic textual criticisms that they argue liek evolutionists when confronted by creationism.

The facts are even more blurred when you consider that Codex Washingtonianus I which is dated from the fourth to early fifth century contains in the Gospels many Traditional Text readings and, “(all of) Matthew and Luke 8:13-24:25 are Byzantine (Traditional text).” Even the infamous Codex Alexandrinus, dating around 450 AD reflects the Traditional Text in the Gospels. The Peshitta Syriac is older, and is Byzantine, but it obviously is not Greek. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is dated paleographically to the fifth century and in the Gospels even Kurt Aland accepts that the manuscript is slightly more Byzantine than not. For instance, the Chester Beatty Papyri (P. 45, 46, and 66) are dated to the early third century all have readings that reflect the Traditional Text. The manuscripts known as P66, P72, and P75 show the same pattern. Wilbur N. Pickering in comparing John 1-14 states, “P66 agrees with the TR (i.e. the Textus Receptus Greek text) 315 times out of 663 (47.5%), with P75 280 out of 547 (51.2%).” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 56). He also noted that out of 43 places where all these manuscripts have the same passages of scripture, P45 agreed with the Traditional text 32 times, P66 agreed 33 times, and P75 agreed 29 times (Ibid. p. 55). 

We also have the little matter of the testimony of the Early Church Fathers. As I pointed out yesterday, the TR reading of _prophetes_ in Mark 1:2 is in the writings of the Church Fathers such as Irenaeus in 202 AD a mere 2 centuries before the CT manuscripts date from.

Textual criticism has, at best, only been able to posit the state of the New Testament text as believed to have existed in the fourth century, but admit that that most of the corruptions happened in the second century and we have no way of discovering the final form of the originals. Eldon Epp has said the study of the papyri, “is largely an exercise in historical-critical imagination. ” Before that, historically it is mud wrestling between diverse and contradictory competing textual theories. Hence the physical scientific evidence speaks against the position of being able to recover the inspired text of the first century. The Critical Text advocates are not submitting themselves to the authority of their manuscripts, but simply using them to overthrow the TR. This has the consequence that it is not that we have a “new” Received text but that we cannot have any Received Text now. 

Aside from the objections you set out for the CT, I would say you also need to factor in the Biblical presuppositions that guide us to the true text. All of our theological presuppositions are interconnected, working as one to formulate a web of basic beliefs that shape our worldview grid of nature. As these presuppositions, are simply taken for granted our worldview is ultimately a faith-view. It is not that the manuscript evidence is not the same for the two competing pre-suppositional world views in respect of the textual evidence, but what is almost certain is that each one is interpreting the evidence differently. Textual critics boast that they have constructed their own worldview autonomously and independent of Scripture. However, believers who adhere to a biblical worldview do not rely upon their own arbitrary assumptions as a tool to judge the truth-claims recorded in the Bible and to construct their own explanations for what extant textual evidence. Our brand of fideism, what we call, well, fideism, is not bereft of rationale or logic. There is a tremendous and diverse evidences, historical and tangible, for the preservation of Scripture, including thousands of ancient extant manuscripts.

(1) All of our doctrines must be from the Bible (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible is self-attesting (1 Cor 14:29, 32, 37; Matt 18:19). How we view our world is not how God views it and believers are mandated to think God’s thoughts after Him (Isa 55:9), which requires a scriptural presuppositional approach to the textual problems. A believer must study to show “himself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). As Cornelius Van Til puts it, “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. And it speaks of everything.” We are to receive these promises by faith (Heb 11:13; Matt 13:22; Rom 1:17). God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut 31:9-13, 24-29; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:1-17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17, 2 Pet 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom 15:4; Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor 10:11). God intended for those writings to be recognised and received by the church as a whole (e.g., Col 4:16; Rev 1:4). These Words were to be guarded (1 Tim 6:20-21) as a “pattern of sound words” for the church (2 Tim 1:13-14) and to be used to instruct the future church (2 Tim 2:2).
(2) The Bible promises that God will preserve every one of His Words forever down to the very jot and tittle of the smallest letter (Ps12:6, 7; Ps 33:11; Ps 119:152, 160; Isa 30:8; 40:8; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Matt 5:18; 24:35). 
(3) The Bible assures us that God’s Words are perfect and pure (Ps12:6-7; Prov 30:5).
(4) The Bible promises that God would make His Words generally available to every generation of believers (Deut 30:11-14; Isa 34:16; Isa 59:21; Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 1:17). (This is general availability, not necessarily to every person on the planet.) Certainly, we are told that for around two millennia in history only one small nation had the true and pure words of God, “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD” (Ps 147:19, 20 cf. Rom. 2:14).
(5) The Bible promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God (2 Peter 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23; Prov 22:20-1; Dan12:9-10; 1 John 2:20).
(6) The Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, that the Word, all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13; 17:8, 17).
(7) God states that the Bible will be settled to the extent that someone could not add or take away from His Words (Rev 22:18, 19; Deut 12:32). Indeed, the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:2 warned the saints of his day to be mindful of the “Words” of the Old Testament writings (v2a) and the New Testament writings (v2b), which would be absurd if some of these Words had been corrupted or lost.
(8) The Bible shows that the true Church of Christ would receive these Words (Matt 28:19-20; John 17:8; Acts 8:14, Acts 11:1; Acts 17:11; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 15:3).
(9) The Bible implies that believers would receive these Words from other believers (Deut 17:18; 1 Kgs 2:3; Prov 25:1; Acts 7:38; Heb 7:11; 1 Thess 1:6; Phil 4:9).
(10) The Bible shows that Bible promises may appear to contradict science and reason. In Genesis 2 we see that a newly created world may look ancient. However, the Scriptures remind us that “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Ps 118:8).
(11) Christ implied the preservation of His very Words as a Standard of future judgment (John 12:48). He also warned of the vanity of ignoring His actual Words (Matt 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” If the Scriptures were only accessible in the Originals then why would He chide them for being ignorant of Words that were not available? Believers are commanded to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and this faith is based upon the Words of God (Rom 10:17). Note that concerning the end-times, the Lord Jesus warned, “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8 cf. Amos 8:11; Lam 2:9).

Here are other Bible evidences that guide us:

(1) God also has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His Words. For instance, when Moses broke the original copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon afterwards and not hundreds of years later and Scripture makes the point that these second tablets were written “the words that were in the first tables” (Deut 10:2). In the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the burning of His inspired Words by preparing Baruch to record in it “all the former words that were in the first roll” (Jer 36:28). 

(2) Jesus preached from the existing scrolls and we are explicitly told they were “Scripture” (Luke 4:21). Jesus also explicitly said the “Scripture” that they were reading was “spoken unto you by God” (Matt 22:31 cf. Mark 12:24-26). Indeed, Christ said to His audience that when they read the Scripture they would see that which was written by Daniel the prophet himself (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Other New Testament passages argue from the Old Testament text based on a phrase (as in Acts 15:13-17), a word (Matt 22:32), or even the difference between the singular and plural form of a word (as in Gal. 3:16).

(3) The Bible warns that there would be those who would “corrupt the word of God” (2 Cor 2:17; Jer 23:29) and handle it “deceitfully” (2 Cor 4:2). The Apostle Paul warns of those who “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” as heading towards apostasy (Rom 1:25). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2 Thess 2:2). Jesus taught us that if a tree is corrupt, the fruit will be corrupt. Likewise, if a tree is good, the fruit will be good (Matt 7:17). He was speaking of false prophets. False prophets and false teachers corrupt the Scriptures (2 Pet 2:1-3). We must understand that there will always be a line of perversion as there will be of preservation. We are commanded to be fruit inspectors based upon the premise that if a man’s doctrinal belief is in error we can conclude that he will do the same to the Scriptures (2 Cor 2:17). “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7); so all knowledge of the Words of God is rooted in God.

(4) God utilised fallible but Spirit-filled human writers to pen His divinely inspired Words of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:21). A fallible but Spirit-filled John the Baptist could point infallibly to Christ. As much as a fallible but Spirit-filled Church can recognise and receive the infallible Canon, so can she also recognise and receive the infallible Words of this Canon (John 10:27). Canonicity was recognised by the true Church (not Rome) and the corollary of this must be that the Canonised Words must be recognised by the true and faithful Church and not Rome’s texts or apostate textual critics such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger etc.

(5) The Church at Antioch has a noteworthy position in Scriptures in contrast to Alexandria. Antioch is the first place where the born-again believer is called a Christian (Acts 11:26). It is also interesting to see that where both Antioch and Alexandria are mentioned in the same passage, Antioch is listed as a place of service, while Alexandria is listed as a place of disruption (Acts 6:5-10). Egypt is for the most part associated with ungodliness in the Bible (Isa 19:14; 30:1-3; Act 7:39; Rev 11:8). Most of the New Testament books were written originally to cities in the Byzantine Text area and none written to Alexandria. However, it was precisely in Alexandria that corrupters of the true text dominated.

For those who disagree with my Biblical presuppositional framework, I ask one thing only state your own and show how it will guide us to the WORDS OF GOD.


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2009)

> For those who disagree with my Biblical presuppositional framework, I ask one thing only state your own and show how it will guide us to the WORDS OF GOD.



I'll take this one, although your point isn't as clear to me as I would like:



> (11) Christ implied the preservation of His very Words as a Standard of future judgment (John 12:48). He also warned of the vanity of ignoring His actual Words (Matt 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.”* If the Scriptures were only accessible in the Originals then why would He chide them for being ignorant of Words that were not available*?



I can't believe than any educated, rational Christian would deny that Scripture is only accessible in the originals. Almost every one of the people reading this understands that Scripture from the original three languages can legitimately be translated in to any other language. For instance in the time and place where the events described in Matthew 22 took place, there was a Greek Bible that was the commonly used (Edersheim says it had the same status as the KJV did in the century before last in the English speaking world), translation, and even though there were differences between that version and another version NT authors quoted from, Christ seems clearly assuming that those variations didn't amount to enough to keep either version from being called Scripture. Kind of like Dr. McFadden and so many others here have said.

And by the way, you never did give me a clear answer to a question. If Rob were to be convinced that no Byzantine tradition exists for using the word Lord in Rev. 16:5 like the underlying text for the KJV and would be willing to change Lord to Holy One as per Byzantine tradition, would that constitute the violation spoken of in Rev. 22:18,19?


----------



## Wanderer (Mar 4, 2009)

Rangerus said:


> I think the KJV is still superior to many translations that are out today. Although I still like to look at the New King James Version which modernized the KJV, but retained its essential nature. And is a bit more readable.
> 
> Surprisingly, the KJV was originally printed in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Instructions given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. This was mostly in the marginal notes though and not the actual verses.
> 
> ...



By the way, the New King James Version is NOT a modernized version of the KJV. NKJV uses the Majority Text as a basis.

I view the titling of the NKJV as a way of misleading people that it is just the modernization of the KJV, making people believe that the work of the translators was to just go through the KJV and update some of the words and therefore just updating the bible to modern English.


----------



## nicnap (Mar 4, 2009)

Wanderer said:


> Rangerus said:
> 
> 
> > I think the KJV is still superior to many translations that are out today. Although I still like to look at the New King James Version which modernized the KJV, but retained its essential nature. And is a bit more readable.
> ...



Brother,

With all due respect, have you read the preface to the NKJV? The good thing about a preface is that it always tell you what they are going to do there...in it they state that they do use the TR, and they merely footnote where it varies with the Majority and the Critical texts...this is clearly seen throughout in the footnotes.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 4, 2009)

What is TR and CT?
It's not Truly Reformed and Covenant Theology in these instances, right? (Thant wouldn't make sense.)
Those are the only meanings for those initials that I know.


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 4, 2009)

TR is Textus Receptus
CT is Critical Text

The TR is one that the KJV is based upon and is more Byzantine. The CT is what most newer translations are based upon and is more Alexandrian.


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2009)

Jessi, they are short for Textus Receptus and Critical Text. Two of very many texts put together from different old manuscripts, those manuscripts being all or parts of the New Testament.


----------



## JoeRe4mer (Mar 4, 2009)

Hippo said:


> A critical approach consists of considering each manuscript on its merits and being thankful that the various traditions of manuscripts support all the Church's doctrines with amazingly few troubling variants.
> 
> What we should not do is to pick a manuscript (well actually a synthesis of manuscripts) almost at random and prize certainty in every detail over truth.
> 
> ...



Ditto. 

I don't think that most KJV only people really take the time to look at the translation process or historical developments that lead to the KJV. The bottom line is that whatever underlying manuscripts a translation committee chooses to use there is still a choice that must be made. This means that even the mighty KJV translators had to use some kind of criteria for their choice of manuscripts and in their translations of specific words. The real argument should center around whether or not they always made the _right choices_ since as mere translators they were not divinely inspired as were the original authors.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 4, 2009)

The 1611 Version included the Apocrypha. Think about it.


----------



## Wanderer (Mar 4, 2009)

JoeRe4mer said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > A critical approach consists of considering each manuscript on its merits and being thankful that the various traditions of manuscripts support all the Church's doctrines with amazingly few troubling variants.
> ...



On the contrary. KJV people put a lot of emphasis on the history of the manuscripts. And they reject such manuscripts that were found in a trash heap, or manuscripts that were pulled out of the Pope's library which is were some of the manuscripts that are being used for modern translation.


----------



## CDM (Mar 4, 2009)

ThomasCartwright said:


> Br McFadden,
> 
> I respect the fact that you are willing to look at this issue with an open mind and are willing to leave the CT. So many are wedded to the Hortian presuppositions and that of rationalistic textual criticisms that they argue liek evolutionists when confronted by creationism.
> 
> ...



Please write a book.



kevin.carroll said:


> The 1611 Version included the Apocrypha. Think about it.



Thought about it. What conclusion(s) am I supposed to draw now?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 4, 2009)

Wanderer said:


> JoeRe4mer said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



That is one of the biggest fallacies in part of the KJV-only movement: that the location or provenance of where a manuscript was found taints the value of that manuscript. Is it impossible for a perfectly good manuscript to be kidnapped and taken to the Vatican? Or put in the trash because idiotic monks didn't know what they had? We can do better than this, folks.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 4, 2009)

JM said:


> KING JAMES ONLY | Bible Versions | Way of Life Literature
> 
> If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is “King James Only,” count me in.​
> Any thoughts?



This is a straw man argument. No Reformed text critic holding to the CT believes that the pure text was not preserved in the time of the Reformation. The pure text is there in the manuscript tradition. And the Byzantine tradition is not corrupt, even if it is not perfect (neither is the Alexandrian tradition perfect). 

My argument regarding manuscripts goes like this: God used the manuscripts of the Byzantine tradition in a providential way to preserve His truth for many hundreds of years. God, _equally providentially_, had other manuscripts hidden from the ravages of time that would come to light later. There is no reason to reject EITHER manuscript tradition. KJV only people need to realize that not all who hold to the CT are rationalistic deniers of the purity of God's Word. That is simply ridiculous and slanderous.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## uberkermit (Mar 4, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> That is one of the biggest fallacies in part of the KJV-only movement: that the location or provenance of where a manuscript was found taints the value of that manuscript. Is it impossible for a perfectly good manuscript to be kidnapped and taken to the Vatican? Or put in the trash because idiotic monks didn't know what they had? We can do better than this, folks.



I agree with this. Is it really that hard to imagine that God could preserve something important in an unlikely manner or location? 

"Out of Egypt, I called my Son." Matthew 2:15


----------



## Wanderer (Mar 4, 2009)

uberkermit said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > That is one of the biggest fallacies in part of the KJV-only movement: that the location or provenance of where a manuscript was found taints the value of that manuscript. Is it impossible for a perfectly good manuscript to be kidnapped and taken to the Vatican? Or put in the trash because idiotic monks didn't know what they had? We can do better than this, folks.
> ...



So you are fine with God preserving something in a trash heap? And using that text as being more or just authoritative as any other text?

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 03:31:43 EST-----

BTW, the Pope's bible is called Vaticanus, and the bible that was found in the trash heap is called Sinaiticus.

You know, there is an old saying that I would like to employ in this situation:

"Consider the Source."

I think discarding the facts that these manuscripts were preserved in the manner that they were, and not preserved as the Manner the Received Text was indicates what God's people thought of these manuscripts. And I ask, why should I think of these manuscripts any differently.


----------



## nicnap (Mar 4, 2009)

Wanderer said:


> uberkermit said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



Brother, I am a TR man, but I think this can be better worded...it is not an argument at all...after all, in Ezekiel 16 God preserves his people after they were "tossed in the trash."


----------



## Wanderer (Mar 4, 2009)

nicnap said:


> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> > uberkermit said:
> ...



Let me rephrase.

The main argument for the TR verses the Majority Text is that God's people passed the TR down from generation to the next generation. Whereas the other text that are part of the Majority Text are various version created by different groups at various times, often to promote various doctrines. God's people knew of these various versions and chose not to employ them as their standard manuscripts.

Then, in modern times, archaeologist after scouring the earth have found these lost manuscripts, one of them was indeed found in a trash heap, and the other in the Pope's library. And now through the use of "SCIENCE" and fancy arguments, various groups proposes advocate that we should use all these various texts in order to correct or improve the bible that we have and that the TR is not sufficient.

The overall problem that both camps have is that no one has the original manuscripts, and both camps only has copies. 

The TR's main argument is that the TR is the one that was in the Majority of the use, whereas the various other manuscripts were not, and for a long time presumed to be lost.

The Majority Text argument is that all he manuscripts are equally valid, and the ones which they can carbon date to be older is even more valid. So in order to come up with the best version of the bible, we just need to work out a common denominator with all the available texts. 

I've always asserted that the Majority Text argument is fundamentally flawed in that one could use the same argument to decide what is true Christianity. Meaning, if one would just figure out the common denominator between all the Christian faith, write a creed with these common deliminator, then one would have the true Christian faith. We all know that this would not result in the true Christian faith, so it puzzles me why one would try to come up with a bible with the same methodology. 

One more thing, and I get off my soap box.

I also look at the history of certain translations. We all know that much of the KJV was pretty much borrowed from the works of William Tyndale, and in reality was the result of much of the blood of martyrs. And the the KJV bible and the other bibles in it's linage were create solely to spread God's word to the English speaking peoples. Whereas I fear that many modern translation are created in order to justify false doctrines or to line men's pockets with silver and gold. I think about the New World Translation and the Gender Neutral NIV bible in particular. I'm not saying that all Modern Bibles were written to spread false doctrines or to make folks rich. But I know that with the KJV, I can make as many copies of it as I want, with no fear of copyright infringements, and I feel comforted that it was not written in order to spread false doctrine.

As to the manuscripts that were preserved in a trash heap. It should be noted, that those were the only versions of that particular line of manuscripts found. Meaning, for all we know a monk made a copy of a manuscript, and perhaps somebody or himself realized that it did not meet adequately represent the original, and they or someone decided to through it away. Which sounds more likely. For if someone were trying to get rid of it, and thought it was something to be destroyed, I believe historically the destroyers tended to burn manuscripts, not through them in the trash.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 4, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> That is one of the biggest* fallacies *in part of the KJV-only movement: that the location or provenance of where a manuscript was found taints the value of that manuscript. Is it impossible for a perfectly good manuscript to be kidnapped and taken to the Vatican? Or put in the trash because idiotic monks didn't know what they had? We can do better than this, folks.



A type of poisoning the well?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 4, 2009)

Two KJVO fallacies - 

1) The NKJV is based on the *Textus Receptus*, not the *Majority Text*! Why else would all the references refer to the Critical Text and Majority Text? Where does this idea go around that the NKJV uses the MT, just because it refers to it?

2) *Codex Siniaticus* was *NOT* discovered in a trash heap! One Greek manuscript was, but the one we have today was a prized possession of a monk:

_Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas._
Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus

I'm open to the possibility that the CT is inferior to the MT/TR (not there yet, but willing to listen), but this misrepresentation does not help the case of KJV advocates.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Mar 4, 2009)

> My argument regarding manuscripts goes like this: God used the manuscripts of the Byzantine tradition in a providential way to preserve His truth for many hundreds of years. God, _equally providentially_, had other manuscripts hidden from the ravages of time that would come to light later. There is no reason to reject EITHER manuscript tradition. KJV only people need to realize that not all who hold to the CT are rationalistic deniers of the purity of God's Word. That is simply ridiculous and slanderous.



This argument is somewhat strange and contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Here is just a few passages from my post above that the "hidden" CT for 1500 years clearly contradicts:



> (4) The Bible promises that God would make His Words generally available to every generation of believers (Deut 30:11-14; Isa 34:16; Isa 59:21; Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 1:17). (This is general availability, not necessarily to every person on the planet.) Certainly, we are told that for around two millennia in history only one small nation had the true and pure words of God, “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD” (Ps 147:19, 20 cf. Rom. 2:14).
> (5) The Bible promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God (2 Peter 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23; Prov 22:20-1; Dan12:9-10; 1 John 2:20).
> (6) The Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, that the Word, all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13; 17:8, 17).
> (7) God states that the Bible will be settled to the extent that someone could not add or take away from His Words (Rev 22:18, 19; Deut 12:32). Indeed, the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:2 warned the saints of his day to be mindful of the “Words” of the Old Testament writings (v2a) and the New Testament writings (v2b), which would be absurd if some of these Words had been corrupted or lost.



Also, you argument that preservation does not presuppose possession has other major inconsistencies. The whole point about God preserving His Words is that the Church would need them throughout time. Your whole premise blows a hole right through this historic view based on passages such as Matt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:17. I would also point out that your arguments are all based on "texts" but God never promised to preserve a TR edition or a particular manuscript or simply His Message but all His WORDS. Now he either did that or He did not. Your position (at best) is that today after 1500 years we simply have available some of His Words and the general message - that is not a Biblical position.

If your theory of preservation is correct a believer would have to have every manuscript and every version of the Bible to have the “collective” Word of God, yet he would still be hopelessly confused about which words were the true Word of God due to the magnitude of the words he had to collect. Your view of Preservation is like saying God’s words are preserved in the Oxford English Dictionary – “they are in there somewhere, all mixed up with thousands that are not right and all out of order and we don’t know how to find them, but they are still ‘preserved’ somewhere in there.” Preservation presupposes possession, for without possession it is not a reality but merely a theory, a hypothesis lacking documentary evidence. In other words, as Dr. A. J. Gordon once correctly observed, “To deny that the Holy Spirit speaks in Scripture is an intelligible proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know what He says except as we have His Words. ” TR critics seemingly wants to have their cake and eat it too, claiming on one hand God has preserved His Words, but not wanting to produce it in any extant form. As David Cloud says, “There is something wrong with a position on Bible preservation that leaves a man with no preserved Bible .” 

It also holds out the utopian hope that we can "recover" all of the Words of God that are supposedly lost. However, as I posted before all of the leading authorities in this field (even Warfield) candidly confess that this is IMPOSSIBLE. Why do you think you have more hope in recovering these words than these men? 

Rendel Harris in 1908 who declared that the New Testament text was, “More than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled.” In 1910 Conybeare states that “the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is forever irrecoverable. ” Another critic, Merrill M. Parvis admits, “Each one of the critical texts differ quite markedly from all the others. This fact certainly suggests that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to recover the original text of the New Testament .” In 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, argues, “In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall.” Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity .” Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge. ” G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” . Earnest Caldman Colwell admitted in 1947 that “no objective method can take us back through successive reconstructions to the original.” Robert M. Grant, a well-known critical scholar, says, 



> The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible. Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility. ”



K.W. Clark now accepts,



> The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through.



Contemporary liberal Textual Critic, Bruce Metzger, bewails, “Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he [the textual critic] will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation . . . one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what . . . cannot be known.” In a 1994 article, “What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach?,” leading textual critic, William L. Petersen poses the rhetorical question for those who reject providential preservation, 



> Is the “original” Mark the Mark found in our fourth-century and later manuscripts? Or is it the Mark recovered from the so-called “minor agreements” between Matthew and Luke? And which - if any – of the four extant endings of “Mark” is “original?” And how does the “Secret Gospel of Mark” ... relate to the “original” Mark? It is clear that, without even having to consider individual variants, determining which “Mark” is “original” is a difficult - and perhaps even impossible – task .



Reuben Swanson, one of the most eagerly-read modern critical scholars states, “To believe that we can reconstruct out of fragmentary and late material ‘the original pure text’ is thus a delusion.... There can, therefore, be no agreement among critics as to which reading may have been original .” Dan Wallace argues that, “when we say ‘thus says the word of God,’ we have a relative degree of certainty that this is indeed what the original text said .” Wallace tries to comfort us by assuring, "To be sure, we do not know whether we have recovered the exact wording of the original, and we may never know. At the same time, we are getting closer and closer. And no essential belief is affected by any viable variants." A professed Fundamentalist, William Combs also has given up and states, "While it is not possible to produce a text that is in all points identical to the autographs, nevertheless, carefully produced texts and versions are able to convey God’s truth to the reader."


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 4, 2009)

From what place did the septuagint LXX come from?




> What Will You Find in the REAL 1611 KJV?
> 
> 
> The REAL 1611 KJV had a (page 8);
> ...



*Interesting i have to admit *

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 4, 2009)

The Deeps said:


> The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha
> 
> *Significance: why have a cross-reference to an "uninspired," "unauthoritative," "unscriptural" book?



Why have uninspired notes in a Bible, such as the Geneva notes, or those found in the Reformation Study Bible, or Apologetics Study Bible (HCSB)? If you wish to condemn the AV for referencing the Apocrypha, then for consistency's sake condemn all study Bibles.


----------



## jeffm05 (Mar 4, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> The Deeps said:
> 
> 
> > The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha
> ...



Agreed. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England explain the purpose of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Version. Just because it was translated and included in the King James Version did not mean that it was ever considered to be Holy Scripture. 

From the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article VI:



> And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
> The Third Book of Esdras.
> The Fourth Book of Esdras.
> The Book of Tobias.
> ...


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 4, 2009)

I am not condemning the KJV I love it for all that it has done and all that it represents. 
I wonder what translation they (KJV translators) would pick to use today?


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 4, 2009)

The Deeps said:


> I am not condemning the KJV I love it for all that it has done and all that it represents.
> I wonder what translation they (KJV translators) would pick to use today?



None, they're dead.


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 4, 2009)

But their purposes are not dead.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 4, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> They, therefore, prefer the KJV (based on Erasmus' handful of late Byzantine texts) or the NKJV (based on a much wider array of Byzantine texts).



The NKJV is based on the TR just as the KJV is, although the NKJV does have the helpful critical notes that show the variants with the CT and Majority Text. There is no major translation based on the Byzantine or Majority text as favored by Dr. Maurice Robinson, the late Drs. Farstad and Hodges, etc.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 5, 2009)

Chris,

I am aware of the nuance of difference. However, KJVO folks become apoplectic over saying that the NKJV is "based" on the TR, insisting that it "corrects" the text in line with the MT too often to be called TR. So, for the sake of shorthand, I said that it is "based" on a much wider array. Perhaps a better phrasing would be that the NKJV is essentially a TR translation with cognizance given to textual variants in the various manuscript traditions.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 5, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> That is one of the biggest fallacies in part of the KJV-only movement: that the location or provenance of where a manuscript was found taints the value of that manuscript.




Hello Reverend Keister,

Your statement is indeed strange to me and contrary to my understanding. I would ask that you consider the principle of this argument.

Through many centuries the ancient Common Law has always required one who calls a witness to vouch for his veracity, this is a fundamental principle of law. 

Moreover, however, when that witness is an ancient document there are three rules applied from time immemorial that is necessary to vouch for the veracity of that document. An elegant predecessor of this rule of evidence reads:



> "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evidence marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise." Simon Greenleaf, _An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice_, Ch 1 § 8 p 7,



The three rules are:

1. A document must be ancient
2. Bear on its face no evident marks of forgery
3. Come from the proper repository or custody

Mr. Greenleaf goes on to note:



> An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it*. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes that every man is innocent until proven guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it has been proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the Church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for." Ibid, Ch 1 § 9 p 7



Another issue as it applies to ancient documents is if they were published or made public, which indeed the Scriptures were, in both public orations and preaching as well as writing, as they testify of themselves, (Mark 13:10, Acts 10:37) and then also the public use of the Church and its canonical standard as rule of faith. From this comes another rule of law regarding ancient documents:



> "In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs." Ibid, Ch 1 § 9 p 8.



You'll find then the arguments of John Owen and others defending the Received Texts utilizing this same framework of reasoning as to the authenticity of the Scriptures as received from the public depository of authentic and genuine texts in the custody of the Greek speaking Church.



> “Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use was the public possession of many generations - that upon the invention of printing it was in actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as any thing appears to the contrary; let that, then pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings as we are now surprised withal." Owen, _Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures_, Works Vol 16 p 366



The canon of Scripture forms the rule of faith of the Church and this canon is in turn defined by the doctrine it contains, the custody of that repository is central to the authenticity of ancient texts. As a result the Protestants rejected spurious and private copies. Trelactius explains:



> "This scriptural canon functions in the church just as the laws of a republic function as a canon or rule by which its citizens are governed. In the church, this scriptural canon has two basic functions: it is the rule of all true teaching, and the norm by which all controversies in religion are to be decided." Trelactius, _Schol. Meth_ as cited by Muller, PRRD, p 403



If there is no norm of this canonical principle, which the Received Text is a tangible representation, then there is no authentic text, no standard by which controversies of religion may be settled. Which Leigh rightly exclaims:



> “If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or otherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and of our Saviour Christ asking “How it is written,” and “How readest thou,” is now either of none effect, or not sufficient” Leigh, _Treatise_, I vi. P 102-3



We find then a singularity of principle coming out of the Reformation as it regards receiving the text of Scripture consistently applying the principles of _"jus commune"_, or the Common Law, in both Ecclesiastical and Civil ministries, and this formula is represented clearly in the Westminster Confession of Faith as a Constitutional document.

A few notes on Mr. Greenleaf, he succeeded Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story as Dane professor of Law at Harvard University and authored "_A Treatise on the Rules of Evidence_" in fifteen volumes which forms the foundation and basis of the rules of evidence for all of American jurisprudence to this day. He published his book, _An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice_, in 1836 and a second edition in 1847. He died in 1853. 

His work in this volume is most interesting as he proceeds to enter the Protestant Bible and the testimony of the four Apostles into a legal examination, examining and cross-examining the veracity of the testimony of those witnesses, under the rules of evidence. The conclusion is that as a matter of law, the Apostles testimony as contained in the Scriptures is a legally valid witness and incapable of impeachment.

However, as you may know, during the 1800's Harvard University became overrun with anti-Trinitarians, especially its divinity school. Joseph Stevens Buckminster persuaded the officials of Harvard University to publish an American edition of Griesbach's Greek New Testament, because he viewed text criticism as "_a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration._" Buckminster followed the German school and held the Scriptures were not inspired, but were written by inspired men. Textual criticism, and its destructive canker, comes to American shores through this venue and is championed by the anti-Trinitarians. In 1874 Harvard published a 3rd edition of Mr. Greenleaf's work, however, it was now appended by Constantine Tichendorf bringing both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both of which fail the ancient documents rule, to bear as witnesses that cannot stand under the scrutiny of the rules of evidence. The testimony of the Evangelists disagree with themselves 3036 times according to H.C. Hoskier's detailed examination in Codex B and It's Allies.




greenbaggins said:


> Is it impossible for a perfectly good manuscript to be kidnapped and taken to the Vatican? Or put in the trash because idiotic monks didn't know what they had? We can do better than this, folks.



I suppose that is possible, but supposition is not evidence. We must receive the documents from the custody of a proper repository and also receive their testimony regarding the authenticity of those documents.

Our Protestant Father's received the text of Scripture from the Greek speaking Church precisely because it was a proper custodian of the Scriptures and they had been in public use and the treasure of that Church for many centuries.

Conversely, the custodian of Vaticanus (B) has been in the custody of the Pope's library, and the Sinaiticus (Aleph) both of which bears mark of forgery on their face as well as the events surrounding the latter's discovery. While you hold that these monks were idiotic, as a rule of evidence they are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

As you are fully aware the Roman Catholic Church in April 1546 at the Council of Trent canonized the Latin Vulgate as the authentic text of Scripture and denounced the authenticity of Greek texts. While their is controversy surrounding this, it has been subsequently upheld by the Congregation of the Council publishing their ruling on the definitive interpretation of the Tridentine decree:

They,


> "declared that in order to incur the penalties laid down in the decree of the Tridentine Father's it was sufficient to change a sentence, a clause, a phrase, a word, a syllable, an iota even, contrary to the text of the Vulgate." J Broderick, _The Life and Works of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine_, 1542-1621 2 vols 1928, p 298-99



Yet, you necessarily must argue we should receive Vaticanus from that repository in direct contradiction to its authenticity by the near five hundred year testimony of its custodian. Under the rules of evidence, however, "_it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it_", if the testimony of its custodian is that it is not authentic, then the veracity of the document cannot be supported to bear witness against another document which is authentic and genuine.

To bring these witnesses to bear against the Received Text you have to vouch for the veracity of your witnesses and prove your case, not by your own opinion, or pretended authority or rules of your own making, but by the rules of evidence as our Bible has both Ecclesiastical and Civil standing.

The whole critical school is spurious, whether subscribed to by conservative and Reformed gentlemen or not, it refuses to receive the Scriptures as they exist in history, but demands that it has the right and authority to reconstruct and impose their own makings upon us, accepting nothing as authentic or genuine, but only their own opinions.

This is not a fallacy, as you allege, but a fundamental rule of law of our society upon which we build our lives, enjoy marriage, raise of our children, enjoy the right to contract, own and dispose of property and most importantly enjoy the liberty to assemble in public to worship God and all the other blessings of Liberty that God has given unto us. The Protestant Bible in its establishment in both Ecclesiastical and Civil ministries is central to this and is the rule of faith and standard upon which our lives are built.

What is a fallacy, however, is that the private opinion of men supercedes the public opinion of the custodian of his own property, and can legitimately bring that as a witness and impose it upon the Protestant Church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

> The canon of Scripture forms the rule of faith of the Church and this canon is in turn defined by the doctrine it contains, the custody of that repository is central to the authenticity of ancient texts.



Thomas, since ThomasCartwright doesn't seem to want to answer, if what you wrote above is true, then perhaps you will answer, since the subject in question is one of respository.



> And by the way, you never did give me a clear answer to a question. If Rob were to be convinced that no Byzantine tradition exists for using the word Lord in Rev. 16:5 like the underlying text for the KJV and would be willing to change Lord to Holy One as per Byzantine tradition, would that constitute the violation spoken of in Rev. 22:18,19?



And if the answer could be short and clear, and deal only with the subject it would help me understand your position better.

Thanks!


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Chris,
> 
> I am aware of the nuance of difference. However, KJVO folks become apoplectic over saying that the NKJV is "based" on the TR, insisting that it "corrects" the text in line with the MT too often to be called TR. So, for the sake of shorthand, I said that it is "based" on a much wider array. Perhaps a better phrasing would be that the NKJV is essentially a TR translation with cognizance given to textual variants in the various manuscript traditions.



Dennis, I understand your point of view and that you're probably just trying to avoid needless wrangling. But I'm too much of a nitpicker for that.  

The KJVO folks (including some who deny being KJVO) consider any change whatsoever from the wording of the KJV to be a deviation from the TR. To many them the KJV=TR and any change in wording beyond perhaps getting rid of archaic language must mean that a different text was used.

The following comments from this interview by Dr. Edwin Blum, general editor of the HCSB, in my opinion are very illuminating at giving the background of both the NKJV and HCSB. 



> He [Arthur Farstad] wanted to do a MT [Majority Text] translation of the NT. The Southern Baptists who were paying the freight, they agreed to do a parallel translation. We would do a critical text translation, and we would have an electronic MT translation that would be given to Art at the completion of the project. Unfortunately Art only lived 5 months into the project, and so that was dropped. So, our translation is based on the Nestle text.... Art had always had an interest in textual criticism. He and Zane Hodges published their own critical text. But they made a distinction between the Textus Receptus (TR) and the MT. So they published this critical text with Thomas Nelson and there were two editions done of it, so he was interested in the MT tradition, not necessarily the TR which was the translation that the KJV was based on. So when he was working on the NKJV, he wanted to change the text in about 260 places that he felt the KJV text did not represent the MT. In other words, he made a distinction between TR, the Byzantine tradition and the critical text. And they did publish an interlinear, and each time there's a variant reading, down at the bottom it will say, 'Critical Text,' 'TR,' or 'MT,' so you'll be able to tell which is which. But the people who were backing the NKJV did not want to do any textual critical changes. So he was not too happy with that. The TR is based on one manuscript, and that manuscript was written in the 16th century. So, as he had time, Art wanted to do a modern translation that was based on the MT. He would write it out, and his cousin would put it in a database. And he was working on that in 1995, and there was a foundation in Glide, Oregon. The guy had a bunch of money he had made in computer chips, and he had a foundation he had set up called Absolutely Free. The purpose of the foundation was to provide Bibles or portions of the Bible and evangelistic booklets for various purposes, and when Art was working with them, they distributed something like nine million different booklets. One that was done was called 'Living Water,' and it was based on this text that Art was working on. When I came back to Dallas, Texas in '96, they already had the gospel of John in print, and Art asked me if I would want to work with him on the translation of these booklets. So we worked on Matthew, Mark and Luke, and we were starting work on Acts and Romans, and the people who were funding the thing decided that they didn't want to fund a whole new translation. So, at that point, Broadman and Holman, who wanted to have their own translation—and that's another reason you'll see why that was done—Southern Baptists liked the NASB. They published Sunday school literature in it, and so on. They tried to buy the NASB three times, and they had it under contract, and the guy reneged, so, they looked at three or four other translations that were in process, and they came back to Art, because Art had been the Executive Editor of the NKJV, and they thought that he had the expertise and so on. So they made a deal, and Art was going to get a version of the MT translation, and he would have to have someone else work on the OT.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 5, 2009)

Well, I guess I need to pull out my Greek New Testament and my ESV and get to work on Sunday's message now...


----------



## DonP (Mar 6, 2009)

I think the only reason to be KJVO is because it is the only one that preserve the Royal Thee and Thou and plural thee and thou. 

I like the concept of the TR, but I further dislike the idea someone could find another manuscript or part of one in the trash can somewhere and change scripture. I mean a nuance is one thing but dropping out phrases or verses by some liberal textual critic that may not even be converted by saying some scribe added to the word of God just goes against all I believe about canonicity. The whole concept of the scribe was they would no could not make a mistake and in God providence He kept His word inspired, which means they couldn't change it. 
God preserved His word for all of His church. 
Its not constantly changing. When it was canonized we had it. He preserved it. No adding to or taking away from it. 
If we do not preserve these concepts of the scripture then why bother to believe any of it at all?
I know the CT men will say, they compare and would not accept a script that was real deviant from the other scripts but I already believe they have in removing whole verses. 
I may be ignorant but faithful.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 6, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> I think the only reason to be KJVO is because it is the only one that preserve the Royal Thee and Thou and plural thee and thou.



Of course that is a pretty poor reason and born of ignorance of the English language. "Thee" and its derivatives are the informal forms of the second person. They are the words spoken between lovers, family members, and close friends. (Think of the difference between Usted and Tu in Spanish or Sie and Du in German.)

A formal address would use "you," etc.


----------



## RTaron (Mar 6, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only reason to be KJVO is because it is the only one that preserve the Royal Thee and Thou and plural thee and thou.
> ...



Kevin, check this post out----

Prayer : Addressing God : Dr William Young - The PuritanBoard

You should acknowledge that there is such a thing as Biblical English. 
For some reason modern reformed people are embarrassed to use biblical english in public prayer and seem to be glad if it were swept out of our language as soon as possible. 


When I hear some ministers pray now days it sounds like they are praying to the great god "You". 
Sorry, are we off topic again? 

Anyway read old Dr. Young and see what you think.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 6, 2009)

RTaron said:


> You should acknowledge that there is such a thing as Biblical English.
> 
> Anyway read old Dr. Young and see what you think.



The problem with this argument is that the KJV uses 'Thees' and 'Thous' to address both God and Man, so the argument actually collapses.


----------



## Knoxienne (Mar 6, 2009)

"For some reason modern reformed people are embarrassed to use biblical english in public prayer and seem to be glad if it were swept out of our language as soon as possible."

Well said.


----------



## TimV (Mar 6, 2009)

I've been reading Calvin Beisner's Auburn Avenue Theology which critiques the Federal Vision, and at the end something Beisner said has helped me with the frustration I experience when dealing with the AV only theory.

Towards the end of the book Beisner says



> Federal Vision theology will continue to be unstable and plagued with error so long as it's adherents continue to resist the universal application of logic to theology-which is, in the final analysis, all that is meant by systematic theology.



These threads seem always to come down to the practical application of theology. With the Federal Vision, we're supposed to listen to these theories that all baptised children of believers are Elect, and some of those children will fall away, but that doesn't mean they disagree with Perseverance of the Saints. And when asked for clarification, they basically say that the questioner just doesn't understand the argument.

I've begun to think there is a similar pattern in the extreme AVer school of thought. I've noticed in the past several threads no one will answer a straight question. 

It's really very simple. After spending several months distilling their teachings in my mind, they seem to say

1: God promised to preserve His Word in all ages

2: This Word has been faithfully preserved in the Byzantine family of manuscripts

3: The collation of Byzantine manuscripts called the Textus Receptus is, through God's providential hand, the accurate, word for word copy of the original Books of the New Testament

4: Therefore anyone who translates a Bible into the common tongue of modern languages has to use the Textus Receptus, or is adding corrupted sections to the Bible that they are translating, and are warned against it thusly




> Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.



And I understand that! I don't see how anyone could support this view from either history or Scripture, but I can see the theory.

But when I ask from those who have defended the AVer theory most vigorously question like



> If Rob were to be convinced that no Byzantine tradition exists for using the word Lord in Rev. 16:5 like the underlying text for the KJV and would be willing to change Lord to Holy One as per Byzantine tradition, would that constitute the violation spoken of in Rev. 22:18,19?



I really don't get a straight answer. So I suspect some sort of internal inconsistency in their theory. After all, they SHOULD say "Of course Rob should change those words!!! We would be inconsistent otherwise!!! Go to it Rob!!

But it seems it's not the Byzantine family of manuscripts that these people feel contain God's perfectly preserved Word. It seems that they feel free to skip



> 2: This Word has been faithfully preserved in the Byzantine family of manuscripts



and I become suspicious that it is the Textus Receptus itself that that they think was directly inspired by God, and the other stages of their reasoning aren't legitimate building blocks that they systematically follow to reach their conclusion, but rather patched together justifications for their theory.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 7, 2009)

Tim,

As a Critical Text boy since taking Greek from Bob Gundry back in 1971, the arguments for the TR never seemed terribly forceful to me. However, some of the arguments for the Byzantine text (particularly the fact that they alone seem to have a viable theory for actual textual transmission that passes the smell test), incline me to several things:

1. Questioning my prior unquestioning allegiance to the CT of the NT.
2. Seeing how both the Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions can claim great antiquity (contrary to what they taught me in the early 70s).
3. Wondering whether the canons of textual criticism are more artificial than true. Applying them you will be able to come up with "answers" to textual conundrums. The question is do these conclusions correspond to what actually was written by the apostles?
4. Being far more open to the Majority Textual tradition than ever before in my life. 

My arguments are NOT for a KJVO position. Indeed, the KJV seems beset by errors and mistakes that commonsense textual critical work should seek to eliminate. I'm just not so convinced anymore that the Alexandrian tradition is "older and more reliable." Aleph and B are certainly older than the 9th century manuscripts. But, Alexandrinus is not so very much more recent than Aleph and B so as to impress me, particularly when the two leading exemplars of the Alexandrian tradition differ between themselves in 3,000+ places and we have Byzantine readings in the Syriac and old Latin manuscripts of great antiquity.

Whenever these threads appear, I feel somewhat at a loss. The TR people have shot enough holes in my Critical Text presuppositions so as to dislodge me from my comfort zone with the contemporary translations (for reasons of text, not translation philosophy). However, James White's arguments against the KJVO position make it difficult to embrace that view either. 

I am gladened to see that the textual critics have moved away from the unsupportable extremism of W-H and begun to give more credence to the Byzantine readings in places. But until someone (e.g., Dan Wallace, James White, Bart Ehrman, Gordon Fee, Eldon Epp???) comes up with a better theory for the transmission of the text, I'm probably going to start looking at my new NKJV Pitt Minion a lot more closely and granting grudging credence to its readings more often.

Lane (? or was it Fred?) offered a balanced perspective when he noted that the Lord preserved his word for us in the Greek manuscripts. Finding an Alexandrian one in 1844 just allows us to become even more exact in our handling of that text. No major doctrine is imperiled either way. 

However, the so-called "science" of textual criticism seems more subjective today than ever, particularly in the hands of agnostic/apostates such as Ehrman. His new "Jesus Interrupted" is but one more attempt to leverage the uncertainties of textual criticism to make a case for disbelief.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DonP (Mar 7, 2009)

*thee and thou*



kevin.carroll said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only reason to be KJVO is because it is the only one that preserve the Royal Thee and Thou and plural thee and thou.
> ...



I think I said because of its plural clarity also which we do not have in English, sept fur those who speak suthern, Y'aawwll. Which I personally like. I just say you all. 

So yes it is like Tu vous which are used to designates formal and plural 

Other than that I see no reason to be an exclusive KJV. I can understand why one would want to be an exclusive TR, but languages change over time and from country to country, like Australia, Canada, UK and USA, the english is dif and if you go to third world countries their English is definately dif. I see no reason to keep an antiquated language version that is difficult for new converts to read, and adds a burden on them. 

I wish the English had a plural so you would know if one or several were being addressed, if would help clarify some passages. 

So when I am studying I do reference the ESV and ASV and NASB, but I memorized much of the KJV so I like it for Strong's use and I like the NKJV for my wife and I to read even though I church has switched to ESV because a lot of people have said it is good. But in writing a systematic theology course for high school, patterned after the Larger Catechism and Berkof's Summary of Christian Doctrine, full of tons of scripture quotes in the ESV, I found many words I did not like and the sentence structure hard for me and the upper grade students. 

I need to study more of the criticism against the NKJV> I saw some threads on this so I will have to see what I have been missing the last 30 years in it.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Mar 7, 2009)

> If Rob were to be convinced that no Byzantine tradition exists for using the word Lord in Rev. 16:5 like the underlying text for the KJV and would be willing to change Lord to Holy One as per Byzantine tradition, would that constitute the violation spoken of in Rev. 22:18,19?
> 
> I really don't get a straight answer. So I suspect some sort of internal inconsistency in their theory. After all, they SHOULD say "Of course Rob should change those words!!! We would be inconsistent otherwise!!! Go to it Rob!!



Tim,

This reason you do not get a straight answer is because you don't ask proper questions. In all of your exchanges you immaturely seek the nuclear option of trying to goad brethren to damn each other in pejorative language when they disagree with one another. When we refuse to play your game you come on pretending that everyone is afraid of your questions. 

Secondly, you have the same problem that you are not willing to apply to yourself. I am assuming in our exchanges you have not embraced Hegelian logic as your presuppositional framework for interpreting doctrine. Do you accept the TT, TR or CT reading for Rev 16:5? Clearly, whichever ones you reject must logically be "adding" or "subtracting" from the original Words of God. I will leave you to let us all know which reading does so you can then issue a statement damning Rob, myself or the CT advocates on this Board.

I would argue that Rob is being inconsistent in his approach to Rev 16:5 in that he is not applying the doctrine of providential preservation but reverting to a naturalistic statistical explanation when confronted by the apparent textual deficiences of the TR reading. He would argue that his position is consistent that he believes God preserved His Words in the TT of the Church and made them available in all ages in the TT in the original languages as He promised. He would also argue that the fact that the KJV translators in a few minor instances such as Rev 16:5 overlooked this does not undermine the logical consistency of his position. I think both Rob and I can see both our views and respect each other. 

With respect, no one has yet heard a Biblical presuppositional framework or indeed anything logically consistent from your good self as to how we can actually determine all of the Words of God for us today. However, please go ahead and surprise us all by doing so..........


----------



## TimV (Mar 7, 2009)

Dr. McFadden, years ago I came to the position that being either a CT man or a TR man or whatever man were flip sides of the same coin. Calling either text God's pure Word, or even a strong attachment based on anything except the sort of systematic reasoning that would allow elements of all of them to be used if honestly examined is extremism in my book. 



> Tim,
> 
> This reason you do not get a straight answer is because you don't ask proper questions. In all of your exchanges you immaturely seek the nuclear option of trying to goad brethren to damn each other in pejorative language when they disagree with one another. When we refuse to play your game you come on pretending that everyone is afraid of your questions.



I had this same argument with a Federal Vision proponent this Monday and got the same kind of answer. "Why can't you be open minded and accept our view that you and the OPC hate your kids by not allowing paedocommunion".



> Do you accept the TT, TR or CT reading for Rev 16:5? *Clearly, whichever ones you reject must logically be "adding" or "subtracting" from the original Words of God*. I will leave you to let us all know which reading does so you can then issue a statement damning Rob, myself or the CT advocates on this Board.



Here are two versions of Rev 16:5

(ESV) And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, "Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. 

(Geneva) And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things. 

Since I reject your premise, I have no logical problem with saying these two versions say the same thing. The only people who have hang ups on that score are people who interpret verses like 



> Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.



as meaning that God promised to keep His Word perfectly preserved in the form of it being in one place and without any spelling mistakes or scribal errors over the last 6000 years.



> I would argue that Rob is being inconsistent in his approach to Rev 16:5 in that he is not applying the doctrine of providential preservation but reverting to a naturalistic statistical explanation when confronted by the apparent textual deficiences of the TR reading.



*What you're demanding of Rob is that even though the TR in places doesn't follow the Byzantine text tradition he has to accept by faith the TR follows the Byzantine text tradition. And that sort of reasoning is frustrating.*



> He would argue that his position is consistent that he believes God preserved His Words in the TT of the Church and made them available in all ages in the TT in the original languages as He promised. He would also argue that the fact that the KJV translators in a few minor instances such as Rev 16:5 overlooked this does not undermine the logical consistency of his position. I think both Rob and I can see both our views and respect each other.



Rob said that he would be willing to change the TR, not just the KJV. And the his reasoning was that the TR may not have accurately expressed the true Byzantine tradition in some minor areas. And as I say, he's being consistent to his presuppositions. He is saying that the TR may not be God's perfectly preserved Word without spelling mistakes or scribal errors, although it comes closest to that of any text in the world.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 16, 2009)

Stephen L Smith said:


> RTaron said:
> 
> 
> > You should acknowledge that there is such a thing as Biblical English.
> ...



My point exactly. Contextualizing the principle of using biblical language in prayer (something I am for!) would require us to use "you" and not "thou," since *today* the former is considered familiar and the latter, formal!


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 16, 2009)

One of the first Bibles I ever owned, the pre-1995 New American Standard Bible, also used "Thees" and "Thous" when addressing God (these were dropped in the 1995 edition). The KJV does not have the only monopoly on this.


----------

