# Is There A Consensus on Reformed View Regarding translation and Sources?



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

Is There A Consensus on Reformed View Regarding translation and Sources?

I do not think that the LBCF addresses the issue of which textual sources, and which English translation is to be seen as being the real ones for use, as it seems to address the concept of the Originals themselves being inspired and without any errors/mistakes in them.

Does the LBCF speak to the broader issues of which source and translation than suitable to be used?


----------



## Jake (Jul 6, 2018)

Many will argue chapter 1 section 8 of the WCF and 2LBCF, specifically the phrase "were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence" refers to either the Majority Text or the Received Text. Some Reformed churches and denominations will use either a certain translation or certain translations in light of this.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

Jake said:


> Many will argue chapter 1 section 8 of the WCF and 2LBCF, specifically the phrase "were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence" refers to either the Majority Text or the Received Text. Some Reformed churches and denominations will use either a certain translation or certain translations in light of this.


So there would be some who indeed see that we should sue only the MT/TR based translations, but others would see that God preserved to us His word also in CT then, and versions based upon it?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So there would be some who indeed see that we should *sue* only the MT/TR based translations.....



I am not a legal expert, but filing suit against various translations could be problematic. For one, the translations would be unable to defend themselves before a jury of their peers or to answer questions required. Secondly, said translations could not afford proper counsel, so one would have to be appointed them by the court. Thirdly, those various translation may get together and file a "class-action" counter suit, which could be costly!

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 6, 2018)

The Scripture proofs quoted in the confessions used are from the KJV, does this matter?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 7, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The Scripture proofs quoted in the confessions used are from the KJV, does this matter?


I think it does if one adopts the _received text_ (Masoretic/TR and its variants) view: that which has been kept pure and _received_ as such is the one being used in the confessions.

If corruption is assumed, then enter all the critical textual views. If you do not think corruption has occurred—per the received text view—then the matter of typical textual criticism is moot and one wonders how one can hold to a critical text view at all under that assumption.

I recognize how the above will possibly derail the thread, so let's resist the temptation and simply search out other threads where the discussion has been beaten to death.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I think it does if one adopts the _received text_ (Masoretic/TR and its variants) view: that which has been kept pure and _received_ as such is the one being used in the confessions.
> 
> If corruption is assumed, then enter all the critical textual views. If you do not think corruption has occurred—per the received text view—then the matter of typical textual criticism is moot and one wonders how one can hold to a critical text view at all under that assumption.
> 
> I recognize how the above will possibly derail the thread, so let's resist the temptation and simply search out other threads where the discussion has been beaten to death.


So there would seem to be the position held that the MT/TR Greek texts, and the KJV/NKJV would be the most considered correct for use, but that there has been no "official" stance taken that says one cannot use the CT and the translations derived from it?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So there would seem to be the position held that the MT/TR Greek texts, and the KJV/NKJV would be the most considered correct for use, but that there has been no "official" stance taken that says one cannot use the CT and the translations derived from it?


There is a position taken by the received text proponent, that the KJV was the one that was received. 

The NKJV, while claiming to be faithful to the MT/TR, violates that claim in actually translating some texts from CT manuscripts. The NKJV also offers an "apparatus" in footnotes indicating alternatives from CT manuscripts that would lead the uninformed to actually doubting that which is being read. It would have been better if the NKJV translators actually remained steadfast to just translating from TR alone.

As to an "official" stance, that all depends upon how one views history and the development of the confessions. 

There are no historical confessions that make a claim to any translation _explicit_. Instead the claim is _implicit_, as in the case of the WCF, wherein KJV is clearly the translation in view via the witness of the proof texts used by the church divines when creating the confession (see for example, WCF 2.3 and 1 John 5:7).

The divines were adamant that everything contained within the WCF be supported by Scripture. The proof texts used point to the translation obviously being considered and defended in the WCF as _received _(a _fixed_ text, not one that is in a frequent state of change as in the CT).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> There is a position taken by the received text proponent, that the KJV was the one that was received.
> 
> The NKJV, while claiming to be faithful to the MT/TR, violates that claim in actually translating some texts from CT manuscripts. The NKJV also offers an "apparatus" in footnotes indicating alternatives from CT manuscripts that would lead the uninformed to actually doubting that which is being read. It would have been better if the NKJV translators actually remained steadfast to just translating from TR alone.
> 
> ...


What ever translations though could they have chosen to use, and if the Confessions were to be done for the first time today, would there not be many more translations to choose from though?
The NKJV as it indicates the others choices is helpful to use though, a shtink that shows that not every word in any of the used texts was all perfectly copy of the originals.

What ever versions could they have considered though for the standard text at that time of creating the Confessions, and would they have been authoring the 1611 KJV, as the later revisions were not made as of yet? And would not the Geneva and Tyndale also meet the criteria? the feature of the NKJV in indicating different choices were available to use does show to us that all source texts have some degree of guessing involved as to which would be the right choice to make, as no Greek text today is an exact copy od the Originals.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 9, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The Scripture proofs quoted in the confessions used are from the KJV, does this matter?


Not particularly b/c the original WCF didn't use proof-texts. Parliament forced them to add that later.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 9, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> There is a position taken by the received text proponent, that the KJV was the one that was received.
> 
> The NKJV, while claiming to be faithful to the MT/TR, violates that claim in actually translating some texts from CT manuscripts. The NKJV also offers an "apparatus" in footnotes indicating alternatives from CT manuscripts that would lead the uninformed to actually doubting that which is being read. It would have been better if the NKJV translators actually remained steadfast to just translating from TR alone.


So as not to beat the dead horse, b/c I massively disagree w/ you here, can you point where this has been hashed out? I see no examples of either the NKJV violating their textual sources (the TR) nor that the NKJV offers an "apparatus" any more than any other translation, like the original 1611 for that matter.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jul 9, 2018)

I would argue that allowing certain types of textual criticism is more consistent with the historic reformed view of the preservation of scripture than forbidding all textual criticism. The following is an excerpt from the 1675 Helvetic Consensus, adopted by the Swiss Reformed Churches to combat rejection of inerrancy, amyraldianism, and other errors:

*Canon 1:* God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believes" (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care from the time it was written up to the present, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes to it his singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world (2 Pet 1:19), a "sure word of prophecy" and "Holy Scriptures" (2 Tim 3:15), from which though heaven and earth pass away, "the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen will not disappear by any means" (Matt 5:18).

*Canon II:* But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, "who had been given the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.

*Canon III:* Therefore, we are not able to approve of the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man's will alone, and do not hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic Targums, or even from other sources. They go even to the point of following the corrections that their own rational powers dictate from the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the versions of the ancient interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous danger.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 9, 2018)

Timotheos said:


> So as not to beat the dead horse...


Indeed, let's not.

Tolle lege:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/KJV-vs-NKJV.81000/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 9, 2018)

Timotheos said:


> Not particularly b/c the original WCF didn't use proof-texts. Parliament forced them to add that later.


The Assembly was bound by avowal to scriptural authority in all its deliberations. The eventual inclusion of the proofs reflects the scriptural authority upon which the Assembly's formulations were based. Consider, WCF 2.3, "_in the unity of the Godhead_", for which the Assembly used 1 John 5:7, a passage disputed by the CT proponents.

Yes, it is true that the divines did not like the idea of using proof texts. Nevertheless, unable to persuade Parliament (which had its own motives for the demand) to the contrary, no warrant exists from historical writings that would imply or assume that the Assembly did not undertake the effort to add proof texts seriously. For example,

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...e-comment-on-the-wcf.47039/page-2#post-599780

I make no implied claims that anyone disagreeing with what I have posted is out of accord with confessionalism.

To keep the focus upon the OP, this is my last post in this thread on the matter at hand.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 9, 2018)

Timotheos said:


> So as not to beat the dead horse, b/c I massively disagree w/ you here, can you point where this has been hashed out? I see no examples of either the NKJV violating their textual sources (the TR) nor that the NKJV offers an "apparatus" any more than any other translation, like the original 1611 for that matter.


My understanding is that they translators did use for their renderings the same sources as the 1611 team had, but also did cite viable variant alternatives from the MT/CT when warranted.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 9, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The Assembly was bound by avowal to scriptural authority in all its deliberations. The eventual inclusion of the proofs reflects the scriptural authority upon which the Assembly's formulations were based. Consider, WCF 2.3, "_in the unity of the Godhead_", for which the Assembly used 1 John 5:7, a passage disputed by the CT proponents.
> 
> Yes, it is true that the divines did not like the idea of using proof texts. Nevertheless, unable to persuade Parliament (which had its own motives for the demand) to the contrary, no warrant exists from historical writings that would imply or assume that the Assembly did not undertake the effort to add proof texts seriously. For example,
> 
> ...


So would the majority position be that while the TR and the KJV would be the preferred ones , there would still be permitted one to use versions such as say the Nas/Esv also?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 9, 2018)

"Consider, WCF 2.3, "_in the unity of the Godhead_", for which the Assembly used 1 John 5:7, a passage disputed by the CT proponents."

That was the example I was thinking of. It seems that, to be consistent, we must say that viewing 1 John 5:7 as Scripture IS the Confessional position (despite many of the Reformed saying that it was a later addition).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So would the majority position be that while the TR and the KJV would be the preferred ones , there would still be permitted one to use versions such as say the Nas/ESV also?


I have not stated what the "majority position" is at all, as I am unaware of any church surveys by General Assemblies, etc., that could shed light on the matter. I may be recalling poorly, but I "think" there is but one NAPARC group that has a stated view in favor of the KJV in their church policy materials.

My comments are strictly related to the _received text_ proponent.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My understanding is that they translators did use for their renderings the same sources as the 1611 team had, but also did cite viable variant alternatives from the MT/CT when warranted.


Before starting down a NKJV diversion of this thread, on the matter of the NKJV translation, see this informative thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/KJV-vs-NKJV.81000/

An example of the numerous materials one can take up and read contained in that thread:
The NKJV: A Critique by Malcolm Watts
Examination of the NKJV by Albert Hembd (Part 1, Part 2)
The NKJV and the Song of Solomon by G. Hamstra
What Today's Christian Needs to Know About the NKJV


----------



## bookslover (Jul 10, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The Scripture proofs quoted in the confessions used are from the KJV, does this matter?



No. The KJV was just the main translation at the time (1640s).


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> ...if the Confessions were to be done for the first time today, would there not be many more translations to choose from though?


Believing what they believed, they would stick with the underlying texts that were used to translate the Tyndale bible and the KJV. My understanding is that all the critical text readings that are known of today were also known to those who made the KJV translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Believing what they believed, they would stick with the underlying texts that were used to translate the Tyndale bible and the KJV. My understanding is that all the critical text readings that are known of today were also known to those who made the KJV translation.


They did not have any access to the sources used for the Critical Greek text though, as those were discovered after they did the 1611 translation.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Before starting down a NKJV diversion of this thread, on the matter of the NKJV translation, see this informative thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/KJV-vs-NKJV.81000/
> 
> An example of the numerous materials one can take up and read contained in that thread:
> The NKJV: A Critique by Malcolm Watts
> ...


The position advocated on those links though would be based upon KJVO, and that would mean that it would be dubious at best.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2018)

bookslover said:


> No. The KJV was just the main translation at the time (1640s).


The Critical text and it sources would not be discovered until later on, so indeed worked with what they had at the time.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The position advocated on those links though would be based upon KJVO, and that would mean that it would be dubious at best.


What do you find therein to be akin to what is commonly described as KJVO? You are reading into what has been posted and discussed in the actual thread where these links appear. Read the entire thread, please. The samples I provided above were meant to speak to the NKJV matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What do you find therein to be akin to what is commonly described as KJVO? You are reading into what has been posted and discussed in the actual thread where these links appear. Read the entire thread, please. The samples I provided above were meant to speak to the NKJV matter.


The persons who wrote those articles though are part of the KJVO camp, are they not?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The persons who wrote those articles though are part of the KJVO camp, are they not?


I have no idea. I do not keep up with the KJVO camp. About the only strident proponent in that domain I have read would be brandplucked (Will Kinney).

My response to you which has led to where you and I are right now....

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...g-translation-and-sources.95904/#post-1172284​
...was related to your comment about the NKJV translators. Further, my response linked above was to signal that this thread is in danger of being derailed if you are going down the path of an examination of "KJV vs. NKJV", especially given the link I provided to a discussion about that very topic in detail.

Attempting to smuggle in some KJVO rhetoric seems to me to be poisoning the well. I won't take the bait, David. If you want to start some new thread about whatever is on your mind related to the matter of KJVO, feel free to do so.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have no idea. I do not keep up with the KJVO camp. About the only strident proponent in that domain I have read would be brandplucked (Will Kinney).
> 
> My response to you which has led to where you and I are right now....
> 
> ...


I have no desire to "bait you", or anyone else on this OP, as my reply was just that those links you posted were from various Kjvo holders, and they have the mindset so strict on the KJV being literally inspired by God and a perfect English translation, that whatever they stated on the NKJV would have to be suspect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> ...that whatever they stated on the NKJV would have to be suspect.



Try to avoid using the genetic fallacy that would prevent you from learning what others have to say. If one is discerning, separating wheat from chaff is possible and can be edifying. If all one seeks is an echo chamber, no progress is made in one's walk of faith or education.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Try to avoid using the genetic fallacy that would prevent you from learning what others have to say. If one is discerning, separating wheat from chaff is possible and can be edifying. If all one seeks is an echo chamber, no progress is made in one's walk of faith or education.


I understand your concerns, and do try to learn all that can be gleaned, but their presumptions are so skewed in one way that they refuse to accept any information that might undermine their position, they refuse to practice what you told me to do with their own information.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I understand your concerns, and do try to learn all that can be gleaned, but their presumptions are so skewed in one way that they refuse to accept any information that might undermine their position, they refuse to practice what you told me to do with their own information.


And this is relevant to your own learning and discernment exactly how? Why is another's hypocrisy, real or imagined, a reason to ignore what they have written for one's own edification?

As you have claimed, I, too, read the works of others that I often vehemently disagree with seeking to tease out some worthwhile information, perspective, etc. Sometimes my own views are modified or event quit-claimed afterwards. For that matter, how else would I show myself ready to defend my own views if I cannot accurately represent the views of my imagined interlocutor?

You seem to be focused upon the sample links I provided that were posted in another thread that put forth some views on the NKJV translation (there are more in the thread in question, too). Is all the content in those few examples really entirely useless? Are there no actual facts in the items? Interact with them privately, or, if you are inclined, publicly in another thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> And this is relevant to your own learning and discernment exactly how? Why is another's hypocrisy, real or imagined, a reason to ignore what they have written for one's own edification?
> 
> As you have claimed, I, too, read the works of others that I often vehemently disagree with seeking to tease out some worthwhile information, perspective, etc. Sometimes my own views are modified or event quit-claimed afterwards. For that matter, how else would I show myself ready to defend my own views if I cannot accurately represent the views of my imagined interlocutor?
> 
> You seem to be focused upon the sample links I provided that were posted in another thread that put forth some views on the NKJV translation (there are more in the thread in question, too). Is all the content in those few examples really entirely useless? Are there no actual facts in the items? Interact with them privately, or, if you are inclined, publicly in another thread.


There are some valid points made in those links, but it is hard for me to accept them knowing what those who hold to the KJVO think in regards to other English translations.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There are some valid points made in those links, but it is hard for me to accept them knowing what those who hold to the KJVO think in regards to other English translations.


I am not following you here. If some valid points have been made what is standing in the way of taking them into consideration, other than your disdain for those actually making these valid points?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> their presumptions are so skewed in one way...


In a sense, this issue reminds me of old earth/young earth debates, calvinism/arminianism debates, etc. One brings their own presuppositions into it and decides based on one's presuppositions. I don't think the side one lands on can be decided by arguments over the texts, but must be decided by theology. For me, I discovered that the key issue was a matter of what would God do to preserve the unity of his church; would he give us a Bible for 2,000 years that contains passages later found to be questionable or doubtful. Not when he has promised that not one jot or tittle could be changed or lost. It's easy to rest in the promise of a preserved (and received) text when one considers the weightiness of every word of God and his commitment to it and to his people. Just as easy as believing in a young earth against all the onslaught of "evidence" constantly brought against it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> In a sense, this issue reminds me of old earth/young earth debates, calvinism/arminianism debates, etc. One brings their own presuppositions into it and decides based on one's presuppositions. I don't think the side one lands on can be decided by arguments over the texts, but must be decided by theology. For me, I discovered that the key issue was a matter of what would God do to preserve the unity of his church; would he give us a Bible for 2,000 years that contains passages later found to be questionable or doubtful. Not when he has promised that not one jot or tittle could be changed or lost. It's easy to rest in the promise of a preserved (and received) text when one considers the weightiness of every word of God and his commitment to it and to his people. Just as easy as believing in a young earth against all the onslaught of "evidence" constantly brought against it.


My present understanding would be that there is actually no 100 % accurate to the originals Greek text/English translation available, but that the Greek texts used, regardless CT/MT/TR would all be very close to them , and none of them would cause any distortion on any essential doctrines of the faith if used. More important to me than the textual apparatus used would be whether the translators used a formal or more of Dynamic equivalence process of translation.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am not following you here. If some valid points have been made what is standing in the way of taking them into consideration other than your disdain for those actually making these valid points?


I have read and respect those views of someone like a Dean Burgeon, even though would disagree with him that the TR is superior to either the MT/CT for use, but do not hold much regard to those such as a Peter ruckman, gail riplinger, or a Edward Hillis, as none of them were really textual experts.


----------



## KMK (Jul 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Is There A Consensus on Reformed View Regarding translation and Sources?



The strongest argument I have heard supporting the MT being 'official' among the Reformed is the answer to WSC Q 107. "The conclusion of the Lord's prayer (which is, _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen_)..."

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## KSon (Jul 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> or a Edward Hillis, as none of them were really textual experts.



If I’m not mistaken, Hills (to whom I believe you are referring) held a Th.D in NT Textual Criticism from Harvard. Not to (further) derail the thread, but thought it prudent.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2018)

KSon said:


> If I’m not mistaken, Hills (to whom I believe you are referring) held a Th.D in NT Textual Criticism from Harvard. Not to (further) derail the thread, but thought it prudent.


Thanks, did not know that, but still would not regard those who advocate the KJVO position as being as sound in textual criticisms area as those such as a Dr Maurice Robinson, Dr Dan Wallace, or a Dean Burgeon. Few of those scholars who are viewed as being really experts in this field would be KJVO themselves.


----------



## KSon (Jul 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Thanks, did not know that



Then how do you make the claim "as none of them were really textual experts" in Post #36? How much of Hills have you read? Have you critically interacted with his arguments? I, for one, tire of the textual arguments for this reason: everyone has an opinion but very few have taken the time to examine original sources and interact critically (no pun intended) with arguments that affirm a particular view. Rather, sweeping generalizations are made.

Lastly, and in love, I would strongly recommend re-reading your posts before posting them. Post #39 is non-sensical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2018)

KSon said:


> Then how do you make the claim "as none of them were really textual experts" in Post #36? How much of Hills have you read? Have you critically interacted with his arguments? I, for one, tire of the textual arguments for this reason: everyone has an opinion but very few have taken the time to examine original sources and interact critically (no pun intended) with arguments that affirm a particular view. Rather, sweeping generalizations are made.
> 
> Lastly, and in love, I would strongly recommend re-reading your posts before posting them. Post #39 is non-sensical.


Re edited # 39 for better clarity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Thanks, did not know that, but still would not regard those who advocate the KJVO position as being as sound in textual criticisms area...


David,

As has been noted, you need to actually read and interact with those, like Hills, that you claim as not being "sound" in textual criticism. I have attached a copy of one such work for your reading.

You should also examine what you think _textual criticism_ means.

At the time of the writing of the Confessions, textual criticism took place within the presupposition of textual transmission and tradition on *the firm belief that God had preserved His word in the church*. There simply was no thinking that Scripture had to be reconstructed from scratch (per the CT mission), as if Scripture was an ordinary piece of human writing subject to all the usual historical processes of corruption.

The received text proponent views textual criticism efforts from the presupposition of a preserved text, not from a corrupt text presupposition. Accordingly, I remain firm that WCF 1.8 is against the purpose, goals and methods of the Critical Text (CT) mission.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> As has been noted, you need to actually read and interact with those, like Hills, that you claim as not being "sound" in textual criticism. I have attached a copy of one such work for your reading.
> 
> ...



I see there being a distinct difference between those who advocate for the Majority/Bzt text though from those who advocate for the KJVO TR position.
Would you not see then the Critical Greek text as being the word of the lord to us, and if not, them no modern translations based upon it would be valid either?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I see there being a distinct difference between those who advocate for the Majority/Bzt text though from those who advocate for the KJVO TR position.
> Would you not see then the Critical Greek text as being the word of the lord to us, and if not, them no modern translations based upon it would be valid either?


You are not actually addressing what I have posted and you have quoted, David.

If you want to move the goal posts each time I respond to you, it is not going to move the discussion forward.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You are not actually addressing what I have posted and you have quoted, David.
> 
> If you want to move the goal posts each time I respond to you, it is not going to move the discussion forward.


Do you see any differences between the majority text and the TR then?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do you see any differences between the majority text and the TR then?


Yes, about 1,838 of them between the TR and the MT.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 14, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, about 1,838 of them between the TR and the MT.


which one would be seen as being closer to what the Originals were then?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> which one would be seen as being closer to what the Originals were then?


For me, that would be the TR given it differs from the MT by nearly 1,900 instances.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 14, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> For me, that would be the TR given it differs from the MT by nearly 1,900 instances.


Wouldn't those favoring the MT though claim that their text actually is giving the majority and thus the consensus of what was seen as being the originals at that time?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jul 24, 2018)

I wrote an article about the confessional question here...

https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/reformed-confessions-of-faith-and-the-traditional-text/

Also, the two books linked at the bottom of the post are MUST READS! if someone is trying to honestly get at what the framers of our confessions meant. The vast majority of Reformed people are reading the confessions anachronistically in regards to the textual question.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 25, 2018)

Robert Truelove said:


> I wrote an article about the confessional question here...
> 
> https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/reformed-confessions-of-faith-and-the-traditional-text/
> 
> Also, the two books linked at the bottom of the post are MUST READS! if someone is trying to honestly get at what the framers of our confessions meant. The vast majority of Reformed people are reading the confessions anachronistically in regards to the textual question.


Would not the majority text proponents though have a valid point though, as they would hold that their greek text would be based upon the whole of the best testified varients within the early Church itself, more so than the TR does?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jul 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would not the majority text proponents though have a valid point though, as they would hold that their greek text would be based upon the whole of the best testified varients within the early Church itself, more so than the TR does?



I think it is a legitimate conversation. The main objection I have with the Majority Text is that it, like all forms of contemporary textual criticism, it cannot arrive at a final text. All forms of contemporary textual criticism can only provide a text that is provisional. A text of that nature is far short of what we see confessed in the great confessions of the Reformation and especially as we see in many key Protestant writings from that period.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Robert Truelove said:


> I think it is a legitimate conversation. The main objection I have with the Majority Text is that it, like all forms of contemporary textual criticism, it cannot arrive at a final text. All forms of contemporary textual criticism can only provide a text that is provisional. A text of that nature is far short of what we see confessed in the great confessions of the Reformation and especially as we see in many key Protestant writings from that period.


The person who advocates for the superority of the TR would still have to be assuming that it really is the best tp the Originals though, and more importantly, which TR text? As Eramus Himself seemed to be using 5 copies at different times, using the Vulgate for some renderings, and sometimes renderings not even documented source wise?


----------



## Paul.Barth (Aug 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The person who advocates for the superority of the TR would still have to be assuming that it really is the best tp the Originals though, and more importantly, which TR text? As Eramus Himself seemed to be using 5 copies at different times, using the Vulgate for some renderings, and sometimes renderings not even documented source wise?



"Which TR?" Most TR advocates would say that all editions of the TR are superior to the NA/UBS text, but wouldn't necessarily single out one specific edition. There are very slight variations between them, but they are not substantially different. We believe that “the Old Testament in Hebrew..., and the New Testament in Greek..., being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...” (WCF 1:8); although these preserved manuscripts need to be collated to remove scribal errors, we do not believe whole chunks have become corrupt like the NA/UBS texts assume; we receive these pure texts, we do not have to reconstruct them.

"Erasmus...using the Vulgate for some renderings..." This is a widespread story regarding Rev. 22, but it is inaccurate. Back translating from Latin is not what happened at all with the ending of Revelation. Erasmus sent a back translation of a few lines to the printer so he could begin to typeset the text. He told his associates to use the Greek Aldine edition that was also being prepared for publication to correct those specific lines.

This is why we find that both Stephanus and Beza’s edition are practically identical to Erasmus in Rev. 22, even though they both had access to manuscripts with the ending of Revelation.

Erasmus himself stated:

“At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek) was lacking one or two lines. I added them, following the Latin codices. They were of the kind that could be restored out of the preceding text. Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basel, I wrote to my friends to restore the place out of the Aldine edition; for I had not yet bought that work. They did as I instructed them. What, I ask you, do I owe to Lee in this case? Did he himself restore what was missing? But he had no text except mine. Ah, but he warned me! As if I had not stated in the annotations of the first edition what I had done and what was missing.” [Source: Apolog. resp. inuect. Ed. Lei (Apologia qua respondet duabis inuectiuis Eduardi Lei), ASD IX-4, pp.54-55 ll. 894-914. Translation Erika Rummel in CWE 72, p. 44].
http://confessionalbibliology.com/category/erasmus/erasmus-myths/

This info is so clear it’s almost as if scholars who purvey the myth that those verses in the TR are back translated are being intentionally deceptive.

In truth the TR has not been added to, it’s the collated text that is materially the same as the text used by the universal church of all ages that was infallibly preserved by God from the autographs. It doesn’t need to be reconstructed with liberal critical techniques.
https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/01/05/the-providence-of-god-in-preserving-scripture/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 6, 2018)

Why wouldn't God though preserve for and to us the source materials in order to actually reconstruct pretty much in full the originals, as the TR itself is not an exact copy of them either? And the Majority text proponents do advocate for using the manuscripts attested too and used byt he majority of all Christians, so would that not be even better than the TR itself?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Why wouldn't God though preserve for and to us the source materials in order to actually reconstruct pretty much in full the originals, as the TR itself is not an exact copy of them either?


Maybe it's for the same reason as many other things we accept by faith, not having been eyewitnesses to events nor processes. There's a theological basis for holding to the idea of a received text. Can you accurately articulate that theological basis?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 7, 2018)

*Moderator Note:*

Steve @Jerusalem Blade 

You are assigning a motive to Dachaser's post that has not been made evident in all our dealings with him. Let's avoid this type of generalization and sarcasm, brother. It is *a ninth commandment violation*.

David @Dachaser 

Please examine yourself. Your enthusiasm for that which we hold dear must be tempered with prudence. The frustration in evidence herein (and elsewhere) is understandable. Your tendency to login and then commence with several, rapid-fire posts, containing very little content that moves the discussion forward, or, ignoring what has been discussed previously, *is actually causing others to stumble*. Brother, I doubt you wish your witness to be seen in this light. It is actually an easily repairable sin, David. We have discussed this often, most recently here. If this behavior continues the mods will be forced to remove you from threads in question. If that fails to correct you, there are other more drastic options available to the staff. Slow down. Review carefully what has already been discussed. Take care in formatting your posts properly (grammar, spelling, etc.). Above all, seek to edify others in your posted content. 

*End Moderator Note*


----------



## Taylor (Aug 7, 2018)

Paul.Barth said:


> Erasmus himself stated:
> 
> “At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek) was lacking one or two lines. I added them, following the Latin codices. They were of the kind that could be restored out of the preceding text. Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basel, I wrote to my friends to restore the place out of the Aldine edition; for I had not yet bought that work. They did as I instructed them. What, I ask you, do I owe to Lee in this case? Did he himself restore what was missing? But he had no text except mine. Ah, but he warned me! As if I had not stated in the annotations of the first edition what I had done and what was missing.” [Source: Apolog. resp. inuect. Ed. Lei (Apologia qua respondet duabis inuectiuis Eduardi Lei), ASD IX-4, pp.54-55 ll. 894-914. Translation Erika Rummel in CWE 72, p. 44].
> http://confessionalbibliology.com/category/erasmus/erasmus-myths/
> ...



I am still not sure where I stand on these matters, but this clarification about the end of Revelation 22 is something I do not believe I have ever heard or read. Thanks for posting this. This is helpful.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2018)

Would you be saying then that the English translations based off the TR would be viable ones for use then? So that would basically maker it just the KJV/NKJV, and eliminate any that would use the majority/Critical Greek texts, version such as the Web/Nas/esv etc?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *Moderator Note:*
> 
> Steve @Jerusalem Blade
> 
> ...


I just do not see the Scriptures for viable translations in English to be in just the ones that utilized the TR source text,as would also see those such as the Nas/Esv and 1984 Niv as good translations to use.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Maybe it's for the same reason as many other things we accept by faith, not having been eyewitnesses to events nor processes. There's a theological basis for holding to the idea of a received text. Can you accurately articulate that theological basis?


I would would not be to do that, as I do like the KJV/NKJV, but also do see the modern versions such as the Nas/Esv as valuable for bible study use in addition.


----------

