# Not KJVO, KJVP.



## Wynteriii (Nov 11, 2013)

This is for those who are King James Prefer-ist. Those who do not think the King James Bible is the God-given translation but for those who prefer it. My questions is why do you prefer it? Accurate translation? Like the poetry of the translation? I see the appeal of using a translation that multiple generations have used but shouldn't we use the most accurate translation none the less?


----------



## JML (Nov 11, 2013)

Wynteriii said:


> I see the appeal of using a translation that multiple generations have used but shouldn't we use the most accurate translation none the less?



Wynter,

I am not KJVO or KJVP but I don't think you understand the KJVP position. They use the AV because they feel that it _*IS*_ the most accurate translation.


----------



## Wynteriii (Nov 11, 2013)

I knew if I would get KJVO position wrong or at least present it wrong.

I was describing the fundamentalist KJVO but that is a small part of the King James Only Movement. I believe if you listen to an early debate on this issue featuring James White and someone I don't know on the Ankenberg show. This person claimed that the KJV was the God given translation and any others were human perversions of Scripture. This is probably this view isn't held by all and could be called radical KJVO.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Logan (Nov 11, 2013)

You're probably talking about Jack Moorman's debate. 

I find there are a number of people that would say they are KJV-preferist (as you put it) but practically speaking, are KJVO, whether they would defend that position or not. Some feel it is the only option at the moment, some feel it is the best option, others feel it _should_ be the only option. There is a wide spectrum of reasons: translational excellency, accuracy, pronoun distinction, majesty, tradition, textual history, confessional history, ecclesiastical authorization, and some, like Moorman (and I think Steve, from this board), that believed it was providentially preserved.

Have you followed the recent threads where this was delved into in some detail? Perhaps more detail than you'd be looking for!


----------



## Wynteriii (Nov 11, 2013)

Ah,thanks

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 11, 2013)

I appreciate your desire for understanding, but frankly I think we have beenwhen it comes to this subject as of late.


----------



## MW (Nov 11, 2013)

The Bible is the very word of God. It is God given. The translation of the Bible is a blessing of Providence. The Bible as translated is to be received and read as the very word of God. The problem with multiple translations, sometimes contradictory in meaning one from another, is that they force the Bible reader to choose between them. The Bible reader seeks God for wisdom, and makes his choice based on the evidence attainable at the time. The choice being made, he reads the preferred translation with the conviction that it is God-given. In the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, he has no reason to alter his preference. Add to this the blessing of God upon the reading of the Bible, the important place of church authority and ministry, confessional subscription, religious vows and engagements, and other things of a like nature, and it becomes impossible to view the translation as a matter of indifference.


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 28, 2013)

with the ankerberg debate there were 8 persons debating & i think it was Sam Gipp who held that God
had preserved his word into the English Language,that in Old Testament times if you wanted to know
God's Word you had to learn Hebrew,Chaldean Likewise today you would need to learn English
http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5641953C984053E0

also some of Sams teaching can be found here
http://samgipp.com/av/

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVSkxBaNGSw


----------



## irresistible_grace (Nov 28, 2013)

After listening to Accurate Translation

And especially to Authentic Text

I am officially an Exclusive AV-ist! Or what this thread calls KJVP


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 28, 2013)

A view from a 'babe in Christ' who is chronologically advanced ...... I think the impression I get from the KJVP/KJVO folks, at least the more learned of them, is that it isn't only that the KJV was translated by firm in the faith believers, or that they had superior scholarship, but that the texts from which the KJV came were reliable, while the texts from which the modern translations came are not.

There are some who say that Westcott & Hort were demon incarnate and that since the CT text is a derivative of their scholarship, all of the modern translations are suspect, if not downright heresy. 

I read the KJV first but follow all that I read within it with either the NASB, ESV, or NKJV among others that I consult less frequently. I'm liking the ESV more and more as I become more familiar with it. Reading the various translations, at my current level of scholarship, which is admittedly on a low level, has convinced me that the debate is a tempest in a teapot. your mileage may vary.

OTOH, maybe the modern translation folks, ESV, NASB, have fooled R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, among others who rely on those texts for preaching and for their published study Bibles. I look forward to the upcoming Joel Beeke AV Study Bible coming, they say, in late 2014.


----------



## Puritan Scot (Nov 28, 2013)

JimmyH said:


> OTOH, maybe the modern translation folks, ESV, NASB, have fooled R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, among others who rely on those texts for preaching and for their published study Bibles. I look forward to the upcoming Joel Beeke AV Study Bible coming, they say, in late 2014.



Jimmy, 
I had the privilege this morning of listening to a recent address given by Dr. David Allen, Deputation Speaker for the Trinitarian Bible Society at the TBS. (USA) AGM. He also gave several other addresses for the Society whilst on a tour of the USA/Canada.

I can truly recommend this excellent Sermon Audio address found on the link below, in which he clearly answers your concern raised above.

Trinitarian Bible Society - Recent News


----------



## joejohnston3 (Nov 28, 2013)

Here is a link to Joel Beeke's explanation that really explains it well for me and lays out why we prefer it.

Dr Joel Beeke on Bible Versions: Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV | The Young Puritan


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 28, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> Wynteriii said:
> 
> 
> > I see the appeal of using a translation that multiple generations have used but shouldn't we use the most accurate translation none the less?
> ...



How can it be the most accurate translation when scholars are saying the NASB and the ESV are the most accurate translations?


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 28, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> The Bible is the very word of God. It is God given. The translation of the Bible is a blessing of Providence. The Bible as translated is to be received and read as the very word of God. The problem with multiple translations, sometimes contradictory in meaning one from another, is that they force the Bible reader to choose between them. The Bible reader seeks God for wisdom, and makes his choice based on the evidence attainable at the time. The choice being made, he reads the preferred translation with the conviction that it is God-given. In the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, he has no reason to alter his preference. Add to this the blessing of God upon the reading of the Bible, the important place of church authority and ministry, confessional subscription, religious vows and engagements, and other things of a like nature, and it becomes impossible to view the translation as a matter of indifference.



So would you say the ESV or the NKJV are good translations? Translations given by God? After reading your comment you would think the KJV was the original (literal) Hebrew and Greek.


----------



## JML (Nov 28, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > Wynteriii said:
> ...



Not saying it is. Just sharing the arguments I have heard KJVP use. I am neither KJVP nor KJVO.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 28, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> The Bible is the very word of God. It is God given. The translation of the Bible is a blessing of Providence. The Bible as translated is to be received and read as the very word of God. The problem with multiple translations, sometimes contradictory in meaning one from another, is that they force the Bible reader to choose between them. The Bible reader seeks God for wisdom, and makes his choice based on the evidence attainable at the time. The choice being made, he reads the preferred translation with the conviction that it is God-given. In the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, he has no reason to alter his preference. Add to this the blessing of God upon the reading of the Bible, the important place of church authority and ministry, confessional subscription, religious vows and engagements, and other things of a like nature, and it becomes impossible to view the translation as a matter of indifference.


I take this to imply accordance with WLC #157: "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God." If so, I am in complete agreement as we either confess we have the word of God or we must sit in judgment of translations tacitly admitting the church does not have the word of God.

AMR


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 28, 2013)

> The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God.


 But the confessions defer to the original languages and I am convinced this is the most solidly reformed position rather than somehow believing that God gave us a certain English translation -- a position that would have been baffling to our Dutch, French, and other brethren. The English translations are just that, translations for those of us who are at the Dick and Jane level of reading the Greek and are terrified of the original Hebrew.


----------



## MW (Nov 28, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> So would you say the ESV or the NKJV are good translations? Translations given by God? After reading your comment you would think the KJV was the original (literal) Hebrew and Greek.



No, I do not think the AV is the original Hebrew and Greek. I specifically stated the issues in terms of "translation." Are you deliberately trying to twist what I said?

When did the failure to accurately render the original as literally as possible become a virtue in translation?

As for your question, there are good aspects to the ESV and NKJV translations, but there are also deficiencies and obscurities which are needlessly introduced. These have been sufficiently discussed elsewhere.


----------



## MW (Nov 28, 2013)

jwithnell said:


> > The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God.
> 
> 
> But the confessions defer to the original languages and I am convinced this is the most solidly reformed position rather than somehow believing that God gave us a certain English translation -- a position that would have been baffling to our Dutch, French, and other brethren.



Please refer to the answer of the previous question of the Catechism (156), which says "the word of God" is to be read by all, and it is to this end "the the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages." Then answer 157 states "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them," etc. That is, the Scriptures translated are to be read as such.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 28, 2013)

I find it interesting that there are no "Geneva Bible Only"ers, or at least no well-known organized movement for them...especially considering that the translation of the AV was primarily presided over by a collection of Synergists medieval-catholic priests.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Nov 28, 2013)

Captain Picard said:


> ...the translation of the AV was primarily presided over by a collection of Synergists medieval-catholic priests.


Whoaa... 

Care to provide some documentation for that claim?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wynteriii (Nov 29, 2013)




----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 29, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > Wynteriii said:
> ...



How can the NASB possibly be the most accurate Bible when it has a need of an update
Double Jeopardy: The NASB Update


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 29, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible is the very word of God. It is God given. The translation of the Bible is a blessing of Providence. The Bible as translated is to be received and read as the very word of God. The problem with multiple translations, sometimes contradictory in meaning one from another, is that they force the Bible reader to choose between them. The Bible reader seeks God for wisdom, and makes his choice based on the evidence attainable at the time. The choice being made, he reads the preferred translation with the conviction that it is God-given. In the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, he has no reason to alter his preference. Add to this the blessing of God upon the reading of the Bible, the important place of church authority and ministry, confessional subscription, religious vows and engagements, and other things of a like nature, and it becomes impossible to view the translation as a matter of indifference.
> ...



Tyrese there is no need to twist Matthews view of The Faithful Providential Preservation of God's Word
as it is in the English Language, he doesn't equate The KJB as the original Greek & Hebrew though he
would say it is a faithful reproduction & translation of it in the english language & I would agree with him


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 29, 2013)

jwithnell said:


> > The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God.
> 
> 
> But the confessions defer to the original languages and I am convinced this is the most solidly reformed position rather than somehow believing that God gave us a certain English translation -- a position that would have been baffling to our Dutch, French, and other brethren. The English translations are just that, translations for those of us who are at the Dick and Jane level of reading the Greek and are terrified of the original Hebrew.



Translations can be regarded as The Very Words of God if they they are an accurate & faithful Translation of
the Faithfully Preserved & Transmitted Hebrew & Greek Languages of the Old & New Testaments as such the 
Foreign Language Bibles are The Word of God for those races & tongues as good as these Continental Reformed 
Language Translations are The King James Bible is a Superior Bible & Translation to all these other versions. 
it had better Scholarship, better Translators, it is the High Water Mark of Reformation Era Translations, and
it can be seen in the Good Providence of God as He planned English to become the Future World Language 
that He gave a Brilliant Bible Translation in The KJB in preparation for this outcome, 

The Translators Revived by Alexander McClure
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/translators/

the words flow & the meaning is True to the Greek, what more could you ask of a Translation?
The making of The KJB-When God spoke in English http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YfrvcWEHroA


----------



## Jake (Nov 29, 2013)

Captain Picard said:


> I find it interesting that there are no "Geneva Bible Only"ers, or at least no well-known organized movement for them...especially considering that the translation of the AV was primarily presided over by a collection of Synergists medieval-catholic priests.



I recommend taking a look at the chapter entitled "The learned men" by Terence H. Brown from Which Bible? edited by David Otis Fuller to get some information about the men who translated the Authorized Version. Many very able and theologically solid men were involved in its translation.


----------



## Logan (Nov 29, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> How can the NASB possibly be the most accurate Bible when it has a need of an update


Since there was a push by several respected members of the Westminster Assembly to revise the KJV, perhaps that's an indication that even great translations could stand to be updated.


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 30, 2013)

Logan said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > How can the NASB possibly be the most accurate Bible when it has a need of an update
> ...



Greetings Logan , there may have been a push from members of the WA to revise but a desire to revise is 
different from a need to update,this probably stems from the NASV having a changing underlying text base,
sort of like Quicksand it is, whereas The KJB is built upon the Rock of The Received Text,not sinking sand ie CT.

cant speak for the members of the West Assembly as there were different theological camps, was it the Independents
who wanted the changes? it would have no doubt been on theological issues the USBaptists in the 19th century did
a baptist version, immersion substituted for baptism but that one never got off the ground or should i say out of the
water.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 30, 2013)

Thank you Jake for the recommendation, I will look into that. Dearly Bought, I meant no offense nor do I profess to be a textual scholar or even seminarty Trained, but the TR from which the KJV was translated was heavily influenced by the input of Desiderius Erasmus and similar "humanist" thinkers from a perspective that would now be taken to be Romanist, was it not? EDITED: to add: "priests" was an inaccurate term to use, Erasmus for example was not to my knowledge a priest.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 30, 2013)

Captain Picard said:


> Erasmus for example was not to my knowledge a priest



Nor did he in any way preside over the AV translation, seeing as he had died long before it.


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 30, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> *with the ankerberg debate there were 8 persons debating & i think it was Sam Gipp who held that God
> had preserved his word into the English Language,that in Old Testament times if you wanted to know
> God's Word you had to learn Hebrew,Chaldean Likewise today you would need to learn English*
> http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5641953C984053E0
> ...



I listened to that debate last night. Daniel B. Wallace, Arthur Farstad, James White made far more sense to me. Language expert Wallace said that he was an advocate of the KJV for 17 years until he became expert in the original languages, and examined enough of the 5,000 extant Greek texts to convince him that the compilaion of the NA text is superior to the 7 texts that Erasamus used, along with the Vulgate, to compile the RT. Farstad saying that there are many versions of the RT also is something to think about.

I don't see any contradiction in having faith in one textual family over another, considering all of the known facts, and that 98% of the time, the texts agree. Where they do not agree the varients do not effect the doctrine. While some favored verses may be omitted, or footnoted in modern translations, the reasoning behind that seems to me to be sound. It does not shake my faith in the diety of the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit, and the salvation promised/obtained.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 30, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> ...The KJB is built upon the Rock of The Received Text,not sinking sand ie CT...



Are you under the impression that the "Received Text" didn't undergo an extensive series of revision and update?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 30, 2013)

Samuel Gipp is an avowed Ruckmanite, who 
*thinks the KJV is an inspired translation (they were inspired, they just didn't know it!)
*Thinks the KJV is "better than the originals"
*http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answer/gipp_answer_61.htmlThinks if you believe the KJV has errors, you do so because you love those who "hate the KJV"
*Defends Peter Ruckman, whose heresies are legion and whose hatred for Calvinist and pretty much anyone else not in his little group are legion

Stick with Hills or Rafalsky to challenge you. Gipp is no friend of the Reformed faith.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 1, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > ...The KJB is built upon the Rock of The Received Text,not sinking sand ie CT...
> ...



Well brother there seems to be basically 1 large Byzantium family of manuscripts with the Received Text being a sub-family of that + 1 tiny (if you can call it a family?),of very few manuscripts, "Alexandrian" family
which basically consists of 2 manuscripts Vaticanus & Sinaiticus which disagree with each other in thousands of places, not to mention at last count Sinaiticus had over 23,000 corrections, The Received Text & 
Byzantium Family in comparison contain 95%+ of all the Manuscript Evidence yet the variations are minor in comparison,less in Total, there are no new manuscript families that will mysteriously appear out of thin air,
what is there is there if we are honest christians we must believe God's promises of the Preservation of The Text of The Scriptures ,so if you look at the evidence you will have to conclude that the promise was most
certainly & wonderfully fulfilled in the Traditional or Byzantium Family of Manuscripts.I do not count the Western & Caesarian Manuscripts as separate families or any of the Oriental Orthodox Scriptures.


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 1, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> but there are also deficiencies and obscurities which are needlessly introduced.


I agree, and more. Revelation 22 v 18 - 19.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 1, 2013)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Samuel Gipp is an avowed Ruckmanite, who
> *thinks the KJV is an inspired translation (they were inspired, they just didn't know it!)
> *Thinks the KJV is "better than the originals"
> *http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answer/gipp_answer_61.htmlThinks if you believe the KJV has errors, you do so because you love those who "hate the KJV"
> ...



These things may be true though I still think he has useful resources in the debate, besides it was a reference to an Ankerberg Debate which someone else mentioned.
Peter Ruckman may be a Jesuit plant used to discredit supporters of The KJB & Textus Receptus as I've seen a picture of him in a RC Priestly garb on a Youtube Video.
heres a link to A critique of the teaching of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman by David Cloud, a KJB & Textus Receptus man though anti-calvinist as well.What About Ruckman?


----------



## Logan (Dec 2, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> a desire to revise is
> different from a need to update,this probably stems from the NASV having a changing underlying text base,
> sort of like Quicksand it is, whereas The KJB is built upon the Rock of The Received Text,not sinking sand ie CT.



Pretty strong words. Do you mean the "rock" of Erasmus' second or maybe the variants from his third? Or perhaps the variants of Estienne from 1550? Or perhaps Beza's variants? Or maybe you mean TBS' TR that is Scrivener's 1894 and was reverse-engineered from the KJV and doesn't reflect any known Greek manuscripts in a number of places?

There may be only a few hundred variations between these that affect the reading but to pretend that the underlying text has never changed since 1516 seems a bit naive. 



One Little Nail said:


> Well brother there seems to be basically 1 large Byzantium family of manuscripts with the Received Text being a sub-family of that + 1 tiny (if you can call it a family?),of very few manuscripts, "Alexandrian" family
> which basically consists of 2 manuscripts Vaticanus & Sinaiticus which disagree with each other in thousands of places, not to mention at last count Sinaiticus had over 23,000 corrections, The Received Text &
> Byzantium Family in comparison contain 95%+ of all the Manuscript Evidence yet the variations are minor in comparison,less in Total



I don't understand why the "nose-count" is used in support when saying how great the TR is, but when the TR differs from the Majority Text in 1800 places, and represents only a few manuscripts in others, then the "nose-count" method is deplored as not how we determine the text.

95% sounds great until you realize that some 80% or more are late copies. It also sounds great until you start looking at earlier history and realize if you went off the "95%" back in say, AD800 it would be a different text than we have today. Counting texts is not a reliable method. And as nice as it would be, we do not have perfect textual transmission. I'd also like to know what you mean by "corrections". Marginal notes? breathing marks? And it is not just two manuscripts that are relied upon. NA27 and other editions give all the manuscripts that support a specific reading and people doing the translation look at the evidence before including a reading. 

And despite differences, I have never, ever seen any variant that changes a doctrine. A Christian using the NASB, ESV, etc. will have the exact same theology as someone using the KJV. Is this not an amazing preservation of God's word? We can say with the Puritans that we have confidence that the Word of God has been preserved and kept pure, and what has been omitted in one copy has been preserved in another.

I like the KJV. I've said it before. I have no problem with people who think it is superior. That's wonderful if you're convinced of that. But I do have a problem with seeking to bind other men's consciences with something that is not taught in Scripture, and is really a matter of personal belief. I have a problem with censuring those who use a different translation and calling it corrupt and implying those who don't use TR are being dishonest in looking at the evidence.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 2, 2013)

Logan said:


> And despite differences, I have never, ever seen any variant that changes a doctrine. A Christian using the NASB, ESV, etc. will have the exact same theology as someone using the KJV. Is this not an amazing preservation of God's word? We can say with the Puritans that we have confidence that the Word of God has been preserved and kept pure, and what has been omitted in one copy has been preserved in another.



I know you are responding to Robert, but this I believe is the wrong way of looking at thing, I know this has been addressed in other threads but I believe this philosophy is extremely dangerous and I don't think you appreciate the logical consequences of your philosophy. You cannot have a sure foundation in an eclectic text, and it's certainly not true that the exact same theology is found and every bible (even if you narrow it down to the KJV, ESV and NASB). First if you hold to an eclectic text you already have a "different" theological interpretation on the preservation of scriptures than many of us. In the past few threads on the subject there have been many passages from version based on the CT that have been shown to be at odds with sound theology. Even if you can find other verse elsewhere supporting the proper interpretation is does not change the fact that those variant reading which have been adopted by modern critics are at odds with sound theology, this is certainly an attack on the integrity of scriptures. The reason the conversations are fruitless is that we start from different presuppositional ground. We (or at least I) hold to the "verbal plenary preservation" of the scriptures, apparently you do not. Until we address this we will go nowhere. I understand that there are a few variant reading that are harder to discern than others, but because of my presuppositional stand I accept the text that have been accepted as a standard by the church. 




Logan said:


> I like the KJV. I've said it before. I have no problem with people who think it is superior. That's wonderful if you're convinced of that. But I do have a problem with seeking to bind other men's consciences with something that is not taught in Scripture, and is really a matter of personal belief. I have a problem with censuring those who use a different translation and calling it corrupt and implying those who don't use TR are being dishonest in looking at the evidence.



Even if this view, which seem to be shared by many, seem noble on the surface, it is actually contradictory. You cannot hold to different translations (based on significantly differing underlying text) to be equal. One of these underlying text has to be better than the other, if you deny this fact you end up with postmodernist relativism. What we are fighting against is not the "intent" of those differing from us, but the theological and philosophical errors of their views.


----------



## Logan (Dec 2, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> In the past few threads on the subject there have been many passages from version based on the CT that have been shown to be at odds with sound theology.


At odds? As in heresy? Please give some examples.



Fogetaboutit said:


> I understand that there are a few variant reading that are harder to discern than others, but because of my presuppositional stand I accept the text that have been accepted as a standard by the church.



Thank you for your response. It is fine for you to have that presuppositional stand, but you must understand that this is something you accept by "faith" and is not a Scriptural principle and therefore not binding on anyone else's conscience. I understand the presuppositions of the TR-only camp (or TR-variants-only camp), and reject them. I have a problem with the logical consequences of the TR-only position, which would seemingly state that a large percentage of the Christian Church over the years did not have the Scriptures. And if you have that presupposition, how do you explain the variants even within your own accepted TRs? Which one is the correct reading? 

I believe I do understand the logical consequences of my position, as did Usher, or Capel, or Bridge, for example:



Usher in Body of Divinity said:


> P. 8: The marvelous preservation of the Scriptures. Though none in time be so ancient, nor none so much oppugned; yet God hath still by his Providence preserved them and every part of them.
> Pp. 20, 21: Although in the Hebrew copies there hath been observed by the Masorites, some very few differences of words, by similitude of letters and points; and by the learned in the Greek tongue, there are like diversities of readings noted in the Greek text of the New Testament, which came by fault of writers: yet in most by circumstance of the place, and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned. And albeit in all it cannot ... yet this diversity or difficulty can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of Christian religion; because the Ten Commandments, and the principal texts of Scripture on which the Articles of our faith are grounded, the sacraments instituted, the form of prayer taught (which contain the sum or substance of Christian relegation) are without all such diversity of reading ... so plainly set down ... that no man can make any doubt of them, or pick any quarrel against them.



Or Westminster divine Richard Capel:


Capel said:


> I cannot but confesse that it sometimes makes my heart ake, when I seriously consider what is said, That we cannot assure ourselves that theHebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, are the right Hebrew and Greek, any further than our Masters and Tutors, and theGeneral content of all the Learned in the world do say, not one dissenting. But yet say these, since the Apostles, there are no men in the world but are subject to deceive, and to be deceived. All infallibility in matters of this nature having long since left the world And to the like purpose is that observation, That the two Tables written immediately by Moses and the Prophets, and the Greek Copies immediately penned by the Apostles, and Apostolical men are all lost, or not to be made use of, except by a very few, and that we have none in Hebrew or Greek, but what are transcribed. Now transcribers are ordinary men, subject to mistake, may faile, having no unerring Spirit to hold their hands in writing. These be terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head and heart, but open the door to Atheisme and quite to fling off the bridle; which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety: this is to fill the conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the Originals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translations cannot be clean. It is granted that translators were not led by such an infallible Spirit as the Prophets and Apostles were Well then, as God committed the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament to the Jews, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God that he in his Providence, is so with the Church of the Gentiles that they have and do preserve the Greek Text, uncorrupt and clear: As for some scapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scapes in the printing, and 'tis certaine that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another. Therefore I make no question but that the sweet providence of God hath held the hearts, and hands, and pens of translators, so in all true Churches, in all times that the vernacular and popular translation into mother tongues, have been made pure, without any considerable tincture of errour to endanger the souls of the Church. For what if Interpreters and Translators were not Prophets, yet God hath and doth use so to guide them, that they have been, are, and shall be preserved from so erring in translating the Scriptures, that the souls of his people may have that which will feed them to eternal life, that they shall have sufficient for their instruction, and consolation here, and salvation hereafter Translations are sufficient with all their mistakes to save the Church.



Or Westminster Divine William Bridge:


William Bridge said:


> How shall we hold and keep fast the Letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament ? and these diverse from one another?" "Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them. The four Evangelists do vary in the Relation of the same thing; yet because there is no contradiction, or material variation, we do adhere to all of them and deny none. In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings : there is a Marginall reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all: For whoever will understand the Scripture, must be sure to keep and hold fast the Letter, not denying it.



All of these, far from destroying the belief in the preservation of God's word, only bolster it.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 2, 2013)

Logan said:


> Thank you for your response. It is fine for you to have that presuppositional stand, but you must understand that this is something you accept by "faith" and is not a Scriptural principle and therefore not binding on anyone else's conscience. I understand the presuppositions of the TR-only camp (or TR-variants-only camp), and reject them. I have a problem with the logical consequences of the TR-only position, which would seemingly state that a large percentage of the Christian Church over the years did not have the Scriptures. And if you have that presupposition, how do you explain the variants even within your own accepted TRs? Which one is the correct reading?



I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Do you believe that the scriptures are infallible, inerrant and the only rule of faith? If so is that not a presupposition? So if I come to you and say that believing the scripture are infallible is not a scriptural principle and therefore not binding on anyone else conscience, what would you say? Do you see how your reasoning is based in unbelief?

My presupposition is the "verbal plenary preservation" of scripture, I call it a "presupposition" because even if we have strong evidence of it's preservation we do not have empirical truth outside of what scripture says of itself that the scriptures have been preserved. Most people would call this circular reasoning that is why I say I hold to it by faith and call it a presupposition, but this is certainly a biblical principle. 

As for your quotes, I believe this is addressing the theory of individually copied manuscript being divinely inspired/preserved. I don't see how this refutes the "verbal plenary preservation" of the word of God as whole via the multitude of manuscripts, version, early writings etc. Even if some errors crept in the copied manuscripts, the good news is that not all scribes made the same errors, therefore it is possible to reconstruct the original text from the multitude of material available.


----------



## Logan (Dec 2, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> So if I come to you and say that believing the scripture are infallible is not a scriptural principle and therefore not binding on anyone else conscience, what would you say? Do you see how your reasoning is based in unbelief?



Certainly not, but surely you would distinguish between holding Scripture to be infallible in the autographs (as is expressly taught in Scripture, 2Pe 1:21 and 2Ti 3:16) and it being 100% preserved in a specific collation done by someone on the 1500s, which might _conceivably_ be seen as a consequence of a belief in Scripture, but is not taught in Scripture. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> I don't see how this refutes the "verbal plenary preservation" of the word of God as whole via the multitude of manuscripts, version, early writings etc. Even if some errors crept in the copied manuscripts, the good news is that not all scribes made the same errors, therefore it is possible to reconstruct the original text from the multitude of material available.


Exactly, but generally the TR position (as I understand it) is to ignore the "multitude of materials" in favor of a providentially preserved text from Erasmus et al. How do the quotes fit with your presupposition of VPP? And once again, how do you explain the variants even within your own accepted TRs? Which one is the correct reading? And why reject other readings, even those from the Majority Text? Does VPP only apply to Erasmus' work?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 2, 2013)

Logan said:


> Exactly, but generally the TR position (as I understand it) is to ignore the "multitude of materials" in favor of a providentially preserved text from Erasmus et al. How do the quotes fit with your presupposition of VPP? And once again, how do you explain the variants even within your own accepted TRs? Which one is the correct reading? And why reject other readings, even those from the Majority Text? Does VPP only apply to Erasmus' work?




I have answered this question before in a different thread, but let me re-iterate it. I believe the editions of the TR are not in competition to one another but complement each other, the early ones being stepping stones for the later ones. I believe the TR is superior to the MT because the MT only take in consideration certain byzantine mss and do not consider early versions, quotations, lexicons etc. some of which predate the earliest byzantine mss. Again I do not hold to any Edition of the TR to be gold version as the Muslims view their Qur'an, this is a straw man that you have attempted to pin on some of us many times, but I believe that the TR has come to a stable state since it is no longer being edited and is a faithful representation of God's preserved Word. I also believe the KJV is an accurate translation of that stable ecclesiastical text. As I said I understand there are "few" variant reading that are harder to discern than others but certainly not to the extent of what we see in the CT. 

To say that the TR position ignores the "multitude of material" is certainly a misrepresentation, most of the material actually support the TR readings when differing from the CT. The Editors of the CT gave more weight to a handful of contradicting MSS just because of their supposed age (while ignoring early versions and quotation that would predate those early MSS supporting the TR readings)

To answer your question of how I explain the variants within the TR, I accept the KJV as the most faithful english translation of the most accurate Greek and Hebrew texts. I hold to it by faith based on the best evidence, I believe this is where Greek and Hebrew scholars can a help, by clarifying limitation of the language into which the scriptures are being translated into, and presenting these variants without trying to correct and bring doubt on the word of God. But again I believe most of the variants brought into the CT can be weeded out as copyist errors or corruptions when the whole of the evidence is considered.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 2, 2013)

Logan said:


> Certainly not, but surely you would distinguish between holding Scripture to be infallible in the autographs (as is expressly taught in Scripture, 2Pe 1:21 and 2Ti 3:16) and it being 100% preserved in a specific collation done by someone on the 1500s, which might conceivably be seen as a consequence of a belief in Scripture, but is not taught in Scripture.



So is the Trinitarian view of God taught in scriptures, or it might only be conceivably seen as a consequences of belief in what Scriptures has to say about God, but not actually taught in scriptures?


----------



## Logan (Dec 2, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I believe the TR is superior to the MT because the MT only take in consideration certain byzantine mss and do not consider early versions, quotations, lexicons etc. some of which predate the earliest byzantine mss.


 You may have to clarify what you mean by bringing up "verbal plenary preservation" then, because what you're describing sounds a lot like what I believe and not what some TR-only folks would say. You sound like you are MT but that the TR is the best possible collation of the MT.


Fogetaboutit said:


> but I believe that the TR has come to a stable state since it is no longer being edited


Isn't that circular thinking? By definition, _any_ attempt to revise the TR would be decried as "not the TR". And that is the problem I have with TR-onlyism. I am not necessarily a CT advocate but I see a problem with rejecting even _other_, older, well-documented, and numerous copies of byzantine manuscripts. Some of the readings in the TR are not well represented in the Byzantine manuscripts. They may be few, but they are there. From your perspective, why not look into them? Yet the typical TR-only position (again, as I've understood it) is to reject these with the presupposition that it's not necessarily numbers, antiquity, or anything else that determines authenticity, but God's providential hand, and since God gave the Reformation churches the TR, that is therefore representative of the original autographs and in practice one need not trouble himself with any other manuscript evidence.


Fogetaboutit said:


> To say that the TR position ignores the "multitude of material" is certainly a misrepresentation, most of the material actually support the TR readings when differing from the CT.


 Most but not all. Yet it is all consistently ignored. Unless one believes in a providentially preserved (dare I say inspired) TR, why not look at those variants in the MT and use the same critical method employed by Erasmus et al.?



Fogetaboutit said:


> The Editors of the CT gave more weight to a handful of contradicting MSS just because of their supposed age (while ignoring early versions and quotation that would predate those early MSS supporting the TR readings)


The more I've read about the CT editors, the more I am convinced that this view of their work is misleading. They did not just take two contradicting manuscripts and ignore early versions and quotations. There is a monumental amount of comparison and scholarship going into these. I haven't become convinced they were right in giving more weight to the readings they did but I respect a lot of people who think they were.



Fogetaboutit said:


> To answer your question of how I explain the variants within the TR, I accept the KJV as the most faithful english translation of the most accurate Greek and Hebrew texts. I hold to it by faith based on the best evidence


And again, that's where I disagree. I don't think the best evidence supports that view (TR-only) unless one holds to presuppositions of the text being providentially collated by Erasmus, regardless of the representation of texts in other manuscripts. It may be very close to representative, but even the mention of "book of life" in Revelation 22 (which has extremely limited or no Greek textual support) should convince you it's not perfect. And if not perfect, then why shouldn't it be revised to be closer to the original? If you say it is already as close as possible to the original, or that it should be revised because of historical, or presuppositional reasons is your prerogative, but once again, that cannot be binding on other men's consciences.



Fogetaboutit said:


> So is the Trinitarian view of God taught in scriptures, or it might only be conceivably seen as a consequences of belief in what Scriptures has to say about God, but not actually taught in scriptures?


The "good and necessary consequence" for the Trinity and for VPP are very, very different, and given what you've said I'm not even sure you're arguing VPP as it is usually understood.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 2, 2013)

Logan said:


> Isn't that circular thinking? By definition, any attempt to revise the TR would be decried as "not the TR". And that is the problem I have with TR-onlyism. I am not necessarily a CT advocate but I see a problem with rejecting even other, older, well-documented, and numerous copies of byzantine manuscripts. Some of the readings in the TR are not well represented in the Byzantine manuscripts. They may be few, but they are there. From your perspective, why not look into them? Yet the typical TR-only position (again, as I've understood it) is to reject these with the presupposition that it's not necessarily numbers, antiquity, or anything else that determines authenticity, but God's providential hand, and since God gave the Reformation churches the TR, that is therefore representative of the original autographs and in practice one need not trouble himself with any other manuscript evidence.



I agree with you Logan. The other relevant point is that even the Byzantine text is not always the Majority as even its key advocates such as Wilbur Pickering and Maurice Robinson do admit. This adds its complexities to the science of textual criticism.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 2, 2013)

Logan said:


> You may have to clarify what you mean by bringing up "verbal plenary preservation" then, because what you're describing sounds a lot like what I believe and not what some TR-only folks would say. You sound like you are MT but that the TR is the best possible collation of the MT.



I believe VPP means that all of God's word have been preserved and we have not lost any of the original readings which were part of the inspired original.



Logan said:


> Isn't that circular thinking? By definition, any attempt to revise the TR would be decried as "not the TR". And that is the problem I have with TR-onlyism. I am not necessarily a CT advocate but I see a problem with rejecting even other, older, well-documented, and numerous copies of byzantine manuscripts. Some of the readings in the TR are not well represented in the Byzantine manuscripts. They may be few, but they are there. From your perspective, why not look into them? Yet the typical TR-only position (again, as I've understood it) is to reject these with the presupposition that it's not necessarily numbers, antiquity, or anything else that determines authenticity, but God's providential hand, and since God gave the Reformation churches the TR, that is therefore representative of the original autographs and in practice one need not trouble himself with any other manuscript evidence.



Not really, the fact and the matter is that to have the TR overtrown or revised you would need to demonstrate that the previous Editors have made some errors and that those errors can be consistently demonstrated thoughtout the multitude of mss, versions, quotation etc. that have been available to the church throughout the ages. This I have seen no evidence of and I doubt that it will happen since like I said the text have been in a stable state for hundreds of years already.

I reject the notion that a "new" older manuscript can come up and overthrow the consensus of thousands of witnesses throughtout the ages. In essence this is what happened with Sinaiticus, I know this is not the only MS that has been used to alter many of the readings found in the CT, but the fact and the matter is, this is the manuscript that fuelled the Wescott and Hort commitee to have a new Greek text created. Althought you say that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not the only manuscript used by the editorial commitee of the CT, and you are correct, the fact and the matter is that most if not all of the alteration are rooted in one of these 2 mss. If you read the Revision Revised by John Burgon he shows the "support" for these variant readings inserted in the CT, and all of them have at least codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus or both as the reason for the change. Yes they quote other Alexandrian MSS as support as well, but the only common denominator is one of those 2 MSS. This is why we say that the CT changes are primarily based on these 2 MSS. Notes also that the other MSS they quote as support are far from being in unanimity in the support of these "variant" readings.



Logan said:


> And again, that's where I disagree. I don't think the best evidence supports that view (TR-only) unless one holds to presuppositions of the text being providentially collated by Erasmus, regardless of the representation of texts in other manuscripts. It may be very close to representative, but even the mention of "book of life" in Revelation 22 (which has extremely limited or no Greek textual support) should convince you it's not perfect. And if not perfect, then why shouldn't it be revised to be closer to the original? If you say it is already as close as possible to the original, or that it should be revised because of historical, or presuppositional reasons is your prerogative, but once again, that cannot be binding on other men's consciences



So can I ask which text do yo believe has the best support of the evidence available to us? the CT? The MT? Or do you believe none of them has the best evidence and we are left to figure it out in mist of all these contradicting text. Do you believe we have the pure word of God available to us? Is there any evidence that would convince you that the Word of God has been providentially preserved in its entirety? Since you say that God did inspire his word in the original autographs, can you tell me what was the purpose of inspiring his Word if it hasn't been preserved, or if there's no way to determine without any certainty what the originals said? Do you view the bible as any other book and how we approach its reconstruction out of the evidence available? Do you have a principle guided by the scriptures on how we are to approach textual criticism?


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 2, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I never outright said Pastor Matthew said the KJB was EQUAL to the original Greek and Hebrew. I simply said you would THINK it was by his description of HIS opinion about the KJV. One of the downfalls of online discussions is that others can easily misunderstand what it is you are trying to say.

It would be foolish for anyone of us to think it is literally the Hebrew and the Greek. Im also not sure what it is that I "twisted". He's the one defending the KJV (am I wrong about this? please correct me if he's not giving a defense of the KJV, even though he never actually says KJV in his post). 

He said, "When did the failure to accurately render the original as literally as possible become a virtue in translation?" I agree with his question, but the problem is as a Christian who does not read Hebrew or Greek I have to rely upon the claims of modern scholars, not just one persons take on the matter. You have to prove to me (and I am very open to your position on the topic) that what scholars are saying is wrong. Heres a chart that shows the KJV behind the ESV when it comes to accuracy and faithfulness Translation Comparison Charts. Are the people who put these charts online out to deceive us? 

Im no expert here (which is why I rely on others) but the charts seem to go against what KJV only brethren say.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2013)

James Ussher:



> the form of prayer taught (which contain the sum or substance of Christian religion) are without all such diversity of reading



This decides in favour of the TR, which includes the doxology of the Lord's Prayer. It should also be pointed out that his doctrine of preservation specifically includes the principal texts on which the articles of faith are grounded, including 1 John 5:7, which he calls "clear proof" that these three are one God.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 3, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...



Sorry about the misconception I can see were your coming from, you can read it 2 ways, on the other hand if
you had just put a comma after the word comment we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with, so the problem 
then is your bad grammar then, could you see to it then that you fix that up or the moderators will have to step in


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> This decides in favour of the TR, which includes the doxology of the Lord's Prayer. It should also be pointed out that his doctrine of preservation specifically includes the principal texts on which the articles of faith are grounded, including 1 John 5:7, which he calls "clear proof" that these three are one God.


Are you saying that the "sum and substance of the Christian religion" is only found in the TR version of the Lord's Prayer? And not even the byz./MT? If so, I have a problem with that. Throughout this discussion I have never been setting the CT above the TR, so please don't respond to me as if that is the case. Ussher was one of the leading textual critics of his day, collecting and collating many manuscripts and apparently helping Walton in his collection of variants. My point in quoting Ussher originally was to show that people like him didn't believe in VPP, at least as it is usually understood. Apparently Estienne understands it differently.



Fogetaboutit said:


> I believe VPP means that all of God's word have been preserved and we have not lost any of the original readings which were part of the inspired original.


VPP is meant to be a corollary to Verbal Plenary Inspiration, as I understand it, and is primarily used to defend the KJV and TR in a much stronger fashion, saying that the KJV or TR does contain every word as originally written (at which point one asks which TR). You apparently take a broader view, saying that every word is contained in one or the other of the various TRs, or perhaps you believe they were brought together and reconciled perfectly in Scrivener's 1894?

I believe in the preservation of God's word too, but rather than seemingly arbitrarily limiting myself to just Erasmus, et al, I would broaden the scope a bit. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> Not really, the fact and the matter is that to have the TR overtrown or revised you would need to demonstrate that the previous Editors have made some errors and that those errors can be consistently demonstrated thoughtout the multitude of mss, versions, quotation etc. that have been available to the church throughout the ages. This I have seen no evidence of and I doubt that it will happen since like I said the text have been in a stable state for hundreds of years already.



Once again, arguing from a "stable state" is somewhat circular, since by definition anything which revises the TR, is not the TR. There have been numerous attempts, critical apparatus in the 17th and 18th centuries, well before Westcott and Hort and none of these are accepted as the TR. Here is a test again: tell me why in Revelation 22:19 the reading "book of life" should be retained. If you believe it should be (even though it has no support in the byz./MT), then nothing would convince you that the TR needs revising, and you do in fact just accept it based on faith and not because of any evidence as you talk about, and by that definition the TR is stable because it cannot have error.



Fogetaboutit said:


> I reject the notion that a "new" older manuscript can come up and overthrow the consensus of thousands of witnesses throughtout the ages. In essence this is what happened with Sinaiticus, I know this is not the only MS that has been used to alter many of the readings found in the CT, but the fact and the matter is, this is the manuscript that fuelled the Wescott and Hort commitee to have a new Greek text created.


Since today's CT doesn't follow Westcott-Hort, that is something of a moot point. Nevertheless, I agree that caution should be used. A plethora of witnesses should not be thrown out simply because of a few older manuscripts. On the other hand, a plethora of witnesses found in _even_ the byz./MT are currently being thrown out simply because they don't agree with the TR. That's the problem I have: when no manuscript evidence whatsoever is allowed except the TR, even manuscript evidence that has the best testimony of all texts, church fathers, translations, etc., then that indicates to me that the TR is being held up as the ultimate authority, and not the originals. Something I dare say the Reformers and Puritans would have eschewed.

And you've in essence then said that the rest of Christendom, throughout the ages, had corrupted Scriptures, the true Scriptures being contained in only various copies in the Byzantine church. You would seemingly then not agree that the Scriptures have been "kept pure", but rather corrupted and then "purified". And that even now, vast parts of the world have corrupted Scriptures, since not every translation was based on the various editions of the TR, or that many nations who used earlier versions of the TR have less purified Scriptures. 

If you want to believe that, it is fine, but I cannot see how that should possibly be binding on anyone's conscience. Scripture does not teach its preservation through the Byzantine texts, through Erasmus, or through the KJV.



Fogetaboutit said:


> So can I ask which text do yo believe has the best support of the evidence available to us? the CT? The MT? Or do you believe none of them has the best evidence and we are left to figure it out in mist of all these contradicting text. Do you believe we have the pure word of God available to us? Is there any evidence that would convince you that the Word of God has been providentially preserved in its entirety? Since you say that God did inspire his word in the original autographs, can you tell me what was the purpose of inspiring his Word if it hasn't been preserved, or if there's no way to determine without any certainty what the originals said? Do you view the bible as any other book and how we approach its reconstruction out of the evidence available? Do you have a principle guided by the scriptures on how we are to approach textual criticism?


I don't have enough knowledge regarding the MT or CT to make an accurate decision, but today's CT is not set up against the TR as you seem to think, but rather incorporates what it believes to be the readings that have the best textual support across all manuscripts. The TR does the same, just with a much, much smaller subset of manuscripts. "Contradicting text" is strong term, perhaps you meant "differing text".

Yes, I believe we have the pure word of God available to us, and that this has been the case throughout the Church's history. Your view apparently leaves a 1000+ year hole until Erasmus came along and providentially collated the correct texts.

I also believe that every single word has been preserved, but rather than restrict them to being contained within a subset of Byz. texts, I would expand that to believe every single word has been preserved, but among all the texts, and here I think I stand with the Reformers and Puritans. 

Since God inspired the original autographs, can you tell me what what the purpose of inspiring it if it wasn't preserved in its entirety in every single manuscript? In other words, your question is not for me or any other man. I think we can determine with much more certainty, than you give credit for, what the originals said. 

No, I don't view the Bible as any other book. That should be clear. Obviously we believe in a sovereign, powerful God and I believe he has a reason for preserving the huge number of manuscripts, especially ancient ones and that all of them point to his preserving the text miraculously and stopping the mouths of those who say the Scriptures we have today have been intentionally corrupted to teach things the originals did not. This has been shown to be false. I believe God has preserved his word among all Christians of all ages, you restrict his preservation specifically to a subset of a specific line of texts and that the rest were corrupt and unreliable, and thus presumably that the Christians who used them did not have the word of God, or only had it as far as it agreed with that subset of the other line.

The Reformers and Puritans believed in the preservation of the originals. I have often seen them write in defense of them and their purity (though acknowledging there were variants, they also realized they didn't affect doctrine). I have never seen one of them write a defense of Erasmus. They held Erasmus' edition to the standard of the originals, and where it differed would make note of "older" or "better" or "many" manuscripts. For them, the TR was only as useful insofar as it compared to the originals and while I have no doubt that many of them would have defended against the inclusion some Alexandrian readings, I also have no doubt they included readings not found in the TR alone. I just wish the TR-only folks would have higher view of the originals instead of favoring the TR against the originals in every single instance, even when the testimony of the originals is overwhelming.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 3, 2013)

Logan said:


> Once again, arguing from a "stable state" is somewhat circular, since by definition anything which revises the TR, is not the TR. There have been numerous attempts, critical apparatus in the 17th and 18th centuries, well before Westcott and Hort and none of these are accepted as the TR.



I'm not familiar with those numerous attempts to revised the TR prior to the 19th century, can you enlight me on those? (this is a genuine question). Were those attempts the consensus of the Reformed Churches or the project of a few individuals?



Logan said:


> Here is a test again: tell me why in Revelation 22:19 the reading "book of life" should be retained. If you believe it should be (even though it has no support in the byz./MT), then nothing would convince you that the TR needs revising, and you do in fact just accept it based on faith and not because of any evidence as you talk about, and by that definition the TR is stable because it cannot have error.



According to Herman Hoskier: 

Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 and other witnesses such as the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD read with the Latin in stating "book of life". Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages." (Remember this is why I prefer the TR over the MT)



Logan said:


> VPP is meant to be a corollary to Verbal Plenary Inspiration, as I understand it, and is primarily used to defend the KJV and TR in a much stronger fashion, saying that the KJV or TR does contain every word as originally written (at which point one asks which TR). You apparently take a broader view, saying that every word is contained in one or the other of the various TRs, or perhaps you believe they were brought together and reconciled perfectly in Scrivener's 1894?



You seem to believe there are many differences between Scrivener's, Stephanus, Beza's and the Elzevir's editions, I was under the impression that these were very similar if not just about identical. Can you also enlight me on the vast differences between these editions? As I said I know that a "very few" passage had variant reading that were harder to discern but I trust in God's providence that the proper readings were retained.



Logan said:


> Since today's CT doesn't follow Westcott-Hort, that is something of a moot point.



Are you saying the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts are not rooted in the Westcott and Hort revision? So the Nestle-Aland and UBS started their own commitee and didn't use the text edited by the Wescott and Hort commitee.




Logan said:


> That's the problem I have: when no manuscript evidence whatsoever is allowed except the TR, even manuscript evidence that has the best testimony of all texts, church fathers, translations, etc., then that indicates to me that the TR is being held up as the ultimate authority, and not the originals.



I never said this, what I said is that I believe the evidence brought forth to overthrow the readings in the TR are inconclusive, therefore a revision of the TR is not warranted. 

What do you mean the TR is being used as the ultimate authority, and not the originals? The originals do not exist anymore.



Logan said:


> And you've in essence then said that the rest of Christendom, throughout the ages, had corrupted Scriptures, the true Scriptures being contained in only various copies in the Byzantine church. You would seemingly then not agree that the Scriptures have been "kept pure", but rather corrupted and then "purified". And that even now, vast parts of the world have corrupted Scriptures, since not every translation was based on the various editions of the TR, or that many nations who used earlier versions of the TR have less purified Scriptures.



When have I ever said any such thing. I said many time before that I do not believe that every believer throughout the ages have equally benefited from a perfectly preserved copy of the scriptures. Some benefited from purer streams than other, and I also believe it's quite possible that some of them have benefited from perfectly preserved copies. This is no grounds to say that the word of God was not being preserved. And yes I believe God did bless the church through the effort of the reformers who compiled and edited the Greek texts and the translators who worked on faithful translation of these texts. This is moving away for the core of the issue, I'm not saying that those who do not have any other option are left in the dark without access to the Word of God. What I'm saying that I cannot justify not using a purer stream when it's available. 



Logan said:


> If you want to believe that, it is fine, but I cannot see how that should possibly be binding on anyone's conscience. Scripture does not teach its preservation through the Byzantine texts, through Erasmus, or through the KJV.



I'm not trying to bind anybody's conscience, I'm just debating what I believe is the truth and pointing out philosophies that I believe are contrary to the teaching of scriptures. I hold no place of authority within the church, people are free to make their own research and obey their conscience. But I would be pleased if more denominations would take a stand on this issue. Do you think it's binding people consciences for a church to take a stand on EP? Our standard does mentioned that the the public reading of scriptures should be done from the best translation available, do you agree with that? If so which English translation do you believe should be used for Reformed Churches adhering to the Westminster standards? You can't say the the KJV and the ESV or NASB are all equally good candidates, this would be adopting relativity in matters of faith.



Logan said:


> but today's CT is not set up against the TR as you seem to think, but rather incorporates what it believes to be the readings that have the best textual support across all manuscripts



consider the following quote from Hort:



> I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek
> Testament, and dragged on with the *villainous Textus Receptus*.
> Westcott recommended me to get Bagster s Critical, which
> has Scholz s text, and is most convenient in small quarto, with
> ...



I believe it's clear that Hort was biased against the TR and that the CT has been created to be in direct competition with the TR.



Logan said:


> Yes, I believe we have the pure word of God available to us, and that this has been the case throughout the Church's history. Your view apparently leaves a 1000+ year hole until Erasmus came along and providentially collated the correct texts.



Again this is a bad caricature of my view. I have answered this previously.




Logan said:


> I also believe that every single word has been preserved, but rather than restrict them to being contained within a subset of Byz. texts, I would expand that to believe every single word has been preserved, but among all the texts, and here I think I stand with the Reformers and Puritans.



My view does not restricts the preserved word to a subset of Byz text? This is the MT view. I also believe every single word has been preserved among all texts, I just believe the editors of the TR exercised better discernment that the editors of the CT when compiling those texts.

I agree with much of what you say concerning the preservation of scriptures, but I believe you should have a more critical eye when examining the CT and the philosophy of the men that compiled it. I believe the philosophies of the editors of the CT and those of the TR are contradicting. I believe this is one of the main point we disagree on, you seem to view the CT and MT as building upon the foundation of the TR and only trying to better it. I view the CT, MT and TR being built on 3 different philosophical foundation and at odds with each other. I see the MT as being more orthodox than the CT but still have its limitation since it focuses solely on Byz mss.


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I'm not familiar with those numerous attempts to revised the TR prior to the 19th century, can you enlight me on those? (this is a genuine question). Were those attempts the consensus of the Reformed Churches or the project of a few individuals?


I would have to look back my sources, but look at the numerous critical apparatus and collations of variants from manuscripts (and those who defended the TR against it) from the 17th and 18th centuries to get an idea. Griesbach, Walton, Mill, and Bengel are some. But I'll ask you this: was Erasmus' edition the project of an individual or the consensus of the Reformed Church? What about Stephanus? Or Beza? Or Scrivener (though since his was based on the KJV one might conclude there was some consensus there)?



Fogetaboutit said:


> Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 and other witnesses such as the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD read with the Latin in stating "book of life". Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages." (Remember this is why I prefer the TR over the MT)


 I am unfamiliar with those manuscripts. In any case, wouldn't you think that is extremely poor evidence? Even if it exists in manuscripts you cite (which I am unfamiliar with and cannot say), you would prefer it to the overwhelming majority of other manuscripts? How does that fit in with your idea of preservation, if it was lost?


Fogetaboutit said:


> You seem to believe there are many differences between Scrivener's, Stephanus, Beza's and the Elzevir's editions, I was under the impression that these were very similar if not just about identical. Can you also enlight me on the vast differences between these editions? As I said I know that a "very few" passage had variant reading that were harder to discern but I trust in God's providence that the proper readings were retained.


There are about 200 variants as outlined by Scrivener. Here is a helpful list. But a variant is a variant, and if you're going to be consistent in maintaining VPP then you should tell me which ones are true, or why you only accept those 200 and none others are allowed within the "preservation" umbrella.


Fogetaboutit said:


> Are you saying the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts are not rooted in the Westcott and Hort revision? So the Nestle-Aland and UBS started their own commitee and didn't use the text edited by the Wescott and Hort commitee.


"CT" is a nebulous term, much like "TR". NA is similar, certainly, having access to many of the same older manuscripts, but my understanding is that they did not just add to that of Westcott and Hort, but arrived to a similar text. The main benefit of their edition is that they summarize the various sources and manuscripts that support each different reading, equipping translators with the tools to make decisions based on the evidence.


Fogetaboutit said:


> I never said this, what I said is that I believe the evidence brought forth to overthrow the readings in the TR are inconclusive, therefore a revision of the TR is not warranted.
> 
> What do you mean the TR is being used as the ultimate authority, and not the originals? The originals do not exist anymore.


"Originals" is used by many, including Turretin, to be the manuscripts passed down. The apographs. You say there is no evidence to overthrow the readings of the TR (incidentally, no one is trying to "overthrow it" that I know of), but I wonder what you would consider evidence. Apparently Rev 22:19 has sufficient evidence in your mind? In which case, you would have to allow a large number of readings that have equally poor evidence, unless again you maintain that the TR was providentially collated. In which case talking about "evidence" really is meaningless.




Fogetaboutit said:


> When have I ever said any such thing. I said many time before that I do not believe that every believer throughout the ages have equally benefited from a perfectly preserved copy of the scriptures. Some benefited from purer streams than other, and I also believe it's quite possible that some of them have benefited from perfectly preserved copies. This is no grounds to say that the word of God was not being preserved. And yes I believe God did bless the church through the effort of the reformers who compiled and edited the Greek texts and the translators who worked on faithful translation of these texts. This is moving away for the core of the issue, I'm not saying that those who do not have any other option are left in the dark without access to the Word of God. What I'm saying that I cannot justify not using a purer stream when it's available.


That seems to be backing away from VPP then, because what you're saying here is what I've said, except that you're convinced the TR is a purer stream, I am not.


Fogetaboutit said:


> I'm not trying to bind anybody's conscience, I'm just debating what I believe is the truth and pointing out philosophies that I believe are contrary to the teaching of scriptures. I hold no place of authority within the church, people are free to make their own research and obey their conscience.


Ah! That's the point that I have been trying to make. But those who maintain the TR alone holds God's Word and call the others "per-versions" or anyone unconfessional or in any other way demean them, are binding men's consciences. If you don't, then wonderful. You're certainly free to explain why you think it is the best. But it then remains an opinion. I don't mind opinions, preferences, or convictions, but I do mind dogma on this issue. You and Steve have been the most gracious on this issue, from the TR-only side.



Fogetaboutit said:


> I believe it's clear that Hort was biased against the TR and that the CT has been created to be in direct competition with the TR.


 That may be, though it's not clear to me from this. My initial impression was that he didn't like the TR because the edition he had was hard to read. Nevertheless, I don't doubt he thought the TR was deficient in representing the manuscript history. But since I'm not defending the CT (I am not qualified to), I won't comment further.


Fogetaboutit said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Logan View Post
> Yes, I believe we have the pure word of God available to us, and that this has been the case throughout the Church's history. Your view apparently leaves a 1000+ year hole until Erasmus came along and providentially collated the correct texts.
> Again this is a bad caricature of my view. I have answered this previously.


Could you explain why this is a bad caricature? You believe the text was more or less preserved across all families, some more than others, but that the TR is representative of the best? 100% representative, or mostly? 


Fogetaboutit said:


> My view does not restricts the preserved word to a subset of Byz text?


Then what were the sources for the TR?


Fogetaboutit said:


> I agree with much of what you say concerning the preservation of scriptures, but I believe you should have a more critical eye when examining the CT and the philosophy of the men that compiled it. I believe the philosophies of the editors of the CT and those of the TR are contradicting. I believe this is one of the main point we disagree on, you seem to view the CT and MT as building upon the foundation of the TR and only trying to better it. I view the CT, MT and TR being built on 3 different philosophical foundation and at odds with each other. I see the MT as being more orthodox than the CT but still have its limitation since it focuses solely on Byz mss.


Ah! Here's another point we would agree on. I applaud the _methods_ of those editing the TR, as did Owen. However, I disagree that the TR is now the final judge and that no recourse should be made to any manuscripts. If you agree with me, then you are not TR-only in the same sense that many here are, nor are you VPP in the same sense the most KJV/TR-only folks are. In my view, the TR may only need light editing, but I disagree with those who say it needs no editing and that the only variants that can ever be allowed are those already within it.


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2013)

Sorry your thread got hi-jacked, Wynter. I don't _think_ I did it but I've certainly contributed. Please ask if you'd like it to stop.


----------



## Wynteriii (Dec 3, 2013)

Please keep going. I'm finding the debate to be educational and making me take time to read through each post to understand what is being said.


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2013)

I've added links to my post below. I also found this interesting link that speaks to the "corrections" in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, especially the last two paragraphs are relevant to me.
Critical use of manuscripts


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2013)

Logan said:


> My point in quoting Ussher originally was to show that people like him didn't believe in VPP, at least as it is usually understood.



Ussher's doctrine of preservation allowed for variants within a preserved text. The variants do not affect the doctrine of preservation. "Preservation" cannot be understood apart from a specific entity that is preserved.


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Ussher's doctrine of preservation allowed for variants within a preserved text.


And that was exclusively the TR, excluding all the variants he himself collected and compared from non-TR manuscripts?


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2013)

Logan said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Ussher's doctrine of preservation allowed for variants within a preserved text.
> ...



He would not have seen it in the terms in which you are stating it. The "science" was not yet what it would one day become. He could quote 1 John 5:7 as "clear proof" and comfortably work with mss. which excluded it.


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> He would not have seen it in the terms in which you are stating it. The "science" was not yet what it would one day become. He could quote 1 John 5:7 as "clear proof" and comfortably work with mss. which excluded it.


Exactly correct, yet the idea of "TR-onlyism" or VPP of only the TR would have been equally foreign.


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> Im also not sure what it is that I "twisted". He's the one defending the KJV (am I wrong about this? please correct me if he's not giving a defense of the KJV, even though he never actually says KJV in his post).



Although I prefer the AV, the fact is my comment was aimed at the idea of "preference of translation" in general, and the importance of reading the preferred translation as the very word of God. Your comment twisted the general aim of my statement.


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2013)

Logan said:


> Exactly correct, yet the idea of "TR-onlyism" or VPP of only the TR would have been equally foreign.



We are back where we were in another thread when the "TR" became a term of obscurity. As a 19th century term used by both conservative and progressive critics to describe the traditional text of Scripture there can be no doubt that Ussher saw the "TR" as the preserved text, variants notwithstanding. You must have some refined notion of the "TR" which does not equate to the traditional text when you set traditional defenders in opposition to it.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 3, 2013)

Logan said:


> was Erasmus' edition the project of an individual or the consensus of the Reformed Church? What about Stephanus? Or Beza? Or Scrivener (though since his was based on the KJV one might conclude there was some consensus there)?



Not Erasmus since the his text predated the Reformation, actually his text was very beneficial for the beginning of the Reformations. But the other Editors I would say would have had the consensus of the Reformed church as is existed at that time since they seem to have accepted it unanimously.



Logan said:


> In any case, wouldn't you think that is extremely poor evidence? Even if it exists in manuscripts you cite (which I am unfamiliar with and cannot say), you would prefer it to the overwhelming majority of other manuscripts? How does that fit in with your idea of preservation, if it was lost?



Not really, it does have evidences that predate even the earliest Greek mss so I believe it is good evidence, especially when you consider the geographical dispersion of these witnesses. When considering the proof brought forth for some of the CT readings I believe it's pretty good evidences, might not be overwhelming like most of the other variance between the CT and TR but I wouldn't call "extremely" poor evidence. The point of this quote was mainly to disprove the false allegations that this reading is only found in the latin vulgate.




Logan said:


> There are about 200 variants as outlined by Scrivener. Here is a helpful list. But a variant is a variant, and if you're going to be consistent in maintaining VPP then you should tell me which ones are true, or why you only accept those 200 and none others are allowed within the "preservation" umbrella.



That seem to be a list of variation between the KJV "translation" and the text of Stephanus, this is not a comparison between editions of the TR.




Logan said:


> "Originals" is used by many, including Turretin, to be the manuscripts passed down. The apographs. You say there is no evidence to overthrow the readings of the TR (incidentally, no one is trying to "overthrow it" that I know of), but I wonder what you would consider evidence. Apparently Rev 22:19 has sufficient evidence in your mind? In which case, you would have to allow a large number of readings that have equally poor evidence, unless again you maintain that the TR was providentially collated. In which case talking about "evidence" really is meaningless.



Well I would differ with you when you say nobody is trying to overthrow the TR, what was the purpose of the Wescott and Hort Commitee? Do you actually believe they went in with the intent of re-editing the TR with minor updates? Why is Rome endorsing the CT but not the TR? 

I'm not dogmatic with Rev 22:19, but I don't believe it's as clear cut as many would like to believe. If I were to start on textual issue in the CT with their poor support it would fill up pages. 



Logan said:


> Could you explain why this is a bad caricature? You believe the text was more or less preserved across all families, some more than others, but that the TR is representative of the best? 100% representative, or mostly?



You said I believe there was over a 1000 years that past without people having the word of God, I explained why this is not so. I believe the TR is a good compilation of all of the witnesses we have and has been compiled with discernment by men of faith. The same cannot be said of the CT and the result shows. I said before I do not have empirical proof and you keep trying to force me to come up with empirical proof. I said it before there's an element of faith in my view, but I do have rational reasoning to guide that faith. You on the other hand seem to approach this solely from a rational stand point. I believe the Church had many struggle and many blessing since the time of the early church. One of the blessing was a surer foundation on a stable text brought to us through the reformation. 



Logan said:


> Then what were the sources for the TR?



The source of the TR was whatever the editors had at their disposal. It just so happened that the result seem to have a strong support from most of the witness we have. (even those that were discovered later on). This to me is a strong case for providential preservation.

Alright I'm done, not that I don't like discussing with you but this is consuming too much time


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> We are back where we were in another thread when the "TR" became a term of obscurity. As a 19th century term used by both conservative and progressive critics to describe the traditional text of Scripture there can be no doubt that Ussher saw the "TR" as the preserved text, variants notwithstanding. You must have some refined notion of the "TR" which does not equate to the traditional text when you set traditional defenders in opposition to it.


Please tell me where I have set the traditional defenders in opposition to it? I am merely saying that yes, they saw the TR as the preserved text but _insofar as it agreed with the originals._ I merely differ with those who say they were TR-exclusivists, meaning they would only look at the manuscripts of Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus. Their idea of preservation was not tied to one subset of one family of texts collated by Erasmus. Agreed?


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2013)

Logan said:


> Please tell me where I have set the traditional defenders in opposition to it? I am merely saying that yes, they saw the TR as the preserved text but _insofar as it agreed with the originals._ I merely differ with those who say they were TR-exclusivists, meaning they would only look at the manuscripts of Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus. Their idea of preservation was not tied to one subset of one family of texts collated by Erasmus. Agreed?



Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza did not work with the same mss. I think you might be conflating the process with the product. As a matter of process of course all the different readings were examined, but then they were given a relative value. The final product is the "TR" and its variants. It was because this text was established as the "received text" of evangelical Christendom that it came under scrutiny by those who departed from it. If Protestants like Ussher had avouched a different text that different text would have been called the "received text." As it stands, however, the very fact they pitched on this text means that this text is the received text. It is futile attempting to draw from their writings an avowal of a text other than the one which they wrote to defend.


----------



## Logan (Dec 4, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza did not work with the same mss. I think you might be conflating the process with the product. As a matter of process of course all the different readings were examined, but then they were given a relative value. The final product is the "TR" and its variants. It was because this text was established as the "received text" of evangelical Christendom that it came under scrutiny by those who departed from it. If Protestants like Ussher had avouched a different text that different text would have been called the "received text." As it stands, however, the very fact they pitched on this text means that this text is the received text. It is futile attempting to draw from their writings an avowal of a text other than the one which they wrote to defend.



I believe you've once again imputed to me a view I do not have. I have not claimed that Reformers/Puritans avouched a different text or would have. They defended what we now call the TR, but they defended it because they believed it represented accurately the originals. _Yet at the same time_ they never held to the work of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus as definitive. They thought their work was admirable, but not perfect and had no qualms scrutinizing it and holding it up to the manuscripts in their possession and preferring other readings they thought had better manuscript support.

I am merely setting that in opposition to those who say the TR (Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus) was the complete Scripture and all other manuscripts were to be judged by it. Another example: Letis says that both Owen and Turretin would only accept variants within the published manuscripts of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus, seeing only those variants as the bounds of where God had preserved his word in its entirety. This is false, as I think I demonstrated for Owen in the other thread and which I could demonstrate beyond doubt for Turretin. There is much being claimed for the Reformers that they wouldn't have claimed for themselves and that is what I am taking a stand against. Nowhere do I contend they would have preferred the CT, or that they discredited the TR.

I am contending against the _absolute perfection_ of the TR, not the TR itself.


----------



## Logan (Dec 4, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Alright I'm done, not that I don't like discussing with you but this is consuming too much time


I completely understand that! I appreciate your informing me of your views. I don't think they are quite representative of others supporting the TR, and that seems to be something of the problem I've run into: that everyone who is TR-only seems to be so for different reasons. If I've misrepresented your view because of that then I hope you'll understand.

I'm not going to respond to anything regarding the CT, which you seem to keep bringing up.


Fogetaboutit said:


> Not really, it does have evidences that predate even the earliest Greek mss so I believe it is good evidence, especially when you consider the geographical dispersion of these witnesses. When considering the proof brought forth for some of the CT readings I believe it's pretty good evidences, might not be overwhelming like most of the other variance between the CT and TR but I wouldn't call "extremely" poor evidence. The point of this quote was mainly to disprove the false allegations that this reading is only found in the latin vulgate.


If you consider a lack of Greek support, and instead some Latin quotations from the Fathers to be "good evidence" (which "even" the CT editors wouldn't have accepted) then I will caution you that you've opened the floodgates to a huge number of readings with equally "good evidence". In which case you presumably are not accepting the TR based on its "strong support", so much as faith that this is what God wanted to preserve. I don't have a problem with that, but I want to make the distinction clear.




Fogetaboutit said:


> That seem to be a list of variation between the KJV "translation" and the text of Stephanus, this is not a comparison between editions of the TR.


Since many accept the TR of Scrivener as the standard TR (or compilation of the best, through the KJV), it is often referred to, indeed TBS republishes this edition as their "Textus Receptus". Regardless, the notes tell you how many times the KJV agrees with Stephanus, against Erasmus or Beza, etc. which will give you an idea of some of the variants between them.


----------



## Logan (Dec 4, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Not really, it does have evidences that predate even the earliest Greek mss so I believe it is good evidence, especially when you consider the geographical dispersion of these witnesses. When considering the proof brought forth for some of the CT readings I believe it's pretty good evidences, might not be overwhelming like most of the other variance between the CT and TR but I wouldn't call "extremely" poor evidence. The point of this quote was mainly to disprove the false allegations that this reading is only found in the latin vulgate.



I looked into the manuscripts and thought it might be of interest to share. This was quite hard to track down but the assertion that the "book of life" reading exists in Greek manuscripts appears to have originated from some writings by Hoskier. However, it appears that the repeated story that Hoskier argued for Erasmus using one of these is actually false, if you look at Hoskier's writings, Hoskier merely stated that the following two Greek manuscripts contained the reading "book of life" and one additional manuscript that had it as a marginal note.

The first manuscript, which I think we would call minuscule 296, is actually a handwritten copy of the printed Textus Receptus done by calligrapher Colinaeus, as Hoskier himself says of this manuscript. So of course it will follow the reading of Textus Receptus.

The second is what we would call minuscule 2049, of which Hoskier himself stated that many scholars believed it was from the 16th century and said if so then it may have just been a copy of a printed version. 

The third manuscript, minuscule 2067 is dated to the 15th century, was stored in the Vatican library, and had the marginal note "book of life", though the text itself said "tree of life." Hoskier called the note a "late addition" to the text.

I found many KJV sites that cited Hoskier often as having definitively proven that "book of life" was in the Greek and that Erasmus used one of these manuscripts instead of back-translating from Latin. Amazing how myths propagate. I have not been able to satisfy myself that Erasmus did translate from Latin, but I think this satisfies me that the reading "book of life" has no Greek support before the printed TR came out (unless one counts hypothetical "lost" manuscripts).

I am unaware of any support it has in ancient translations or in quotes from the Latin fathers, but since that wouldn't satisfy me as to its validity, I doubt I'll dig into that. But quite honestly, as John Gill said, the meaning is the same, no matter which reading you take. I only use this to illustrate that I don't think the TR is perfect, all TR-variants included or no. To believe it is seems to necessitate presuppositions that it is, and throwing out manuscript evidence as relevant.


----------



## MW (Dec 4, 2013)

Logan said:


> This is false, as I think I demonstrated for Owen in the other thread and which I could demonstrate beyond doubt for Turretin.



I don't believe you made this demonstration, though I grant you might have thought you did.


----------



## Logan (Dec 4, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> I don't believe you made this demonstration, though I grant you might have thought you did.


Haha. 

But seriously, how can there be any doubt? Letis said "Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination". To be true, Owen would *never* have used a reading other than that which was in the published editions of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus, Elzevirs, etc. However, Owen refers to readings not found in any of the editions, but in "older manuscripts." His preference of "flaming fire" in Hebrews 1:7 is but one demonstration. Also, since Owen referred to "ancient copies" many, many times in his writings, it is also clear he was not relying exclusively on the "minutiae of differences among the TR editions" as Letis asserts, but the "originals", the manuscripts themselves. Where is my fallacy?


Edit: as a note, I would certainly grant that Owen would have only allowed variants that deviated slightly _from_ the various TR editions. He certainly believed the TR very accurately represented the originals and wouldn't have overhauled the entire thing, but I don't see that he _only_ allowed minor variants from "among" the TR editions.


----------



## Logan (Dec 5, 2013)

I thought I would share this for anyone interested. It is _extremely long_ but I found it helpful because involves a huge amount of interaction between James White and Theodore Letis. Since Letis seems to be the leading scholar for TR-onlyism, it was especially helpful to see his interactions.

Surprisingly, it appeared that Dr Greg Bahnsen joined in the discussion, primarily interacting with Rev Sandlin (who held the same position as Letis). This was likewise helpful and I may try to check out the article Dr Bahsen wrote.

Ironically, Bahnsen (whose position, as far as I can tell was identical to mine) was accused of being "rationalist" and going against Van Tillian principles. He denied this, as well as saying that Van Til was never a TR-exclusivist. That men such as Bahnsen and Van Til did not find the "presuppositional" approach to the TR debate compelling is very interesting to me.

Dr. Theodore Letis On Theonomy-L


----------



## Logan (Dec 5, 2013)

After reading through the entirety of the exchange I linked to, I think I can honestly say there isn't much of value in there except for Bahnsen's comments responding to Sandlin. I was impressed that James White managed to keep his dialogue civil and was deeply, deeply disappointed in Letis, who refused to engage or explain anything but simply referred to other works (mainly his own) and made disparaging comments about anyone not familiar with works of Muller and Preus, instead of explaining his position. I particularly was schocked at comments Letis made such as: 



Letis said:


> Finally, for your consideration: you continue to want US to be biblicists (i.e., Anabaptist primitivists). Our hermenuetic demands that we approach Scripture through the norma normata of the confessions. Your ecclesiology does not allow you to understand--nor to approave this hermenuetic. In fact, the confessions were designed just so the magesterial Reformation could be differentiated from the left-wing, or the so-called radical Reformation. Hence, it is no wonder that we have reached an impasse so quickly. It seems the confessions continue to do their work, even in this exceedingly modern age.



That is a scary position to me, that Scripture would be interpreted through Confessions? I thought perhaps I misunderstood but Sandlin posted much the same thing in defense of Letis' statement:



Sandlin said:


> That anyone could question the dictum that the Reformed read the Scriptures through the lens of the confessions indicates he simply is not aware of what it means to be Reformed. Every confession is a strike against bare biblicism, and since everyone embraces a confession, written or unwritten, unreflectively or self-consciously, there is no such thing as a genuine, practicing bare biblicist. One need not be steeped in Kantian epistemology to recognize the inescapability of the sort of human mediation (not to mention Scripture) requiring confessionalism, and therefore, its role as a hermeneutical axis--only naive evangelicals could think otherwise.



It is my firm belief (along with, I am certain, the Refomers and Puritans) that we go to Scripture first, and that our confessions are the expression, or a defining of what we find there, not the other way around. Confessions are wonderful, but they are not the "lens" which we view Scripture through. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding Letis and Sandlin, I'm definitely going to disagree here.


----------



## MW (Dec 5, 2013)

Logan said:


> That is a scary position to me, that Scripture would be interpreted through Confessions?



If the Confession (the normed norm) has itself been framed on Scripture (the norming norm), one would be remiss to ignore it. One must interpret Scripture by Scripture, which means a systematic understanding of Scripture is indispensable. Besides, to confess the faith and to suspend judgment on that confession would be hypocritical.


----------



## Logan (Dec 5, 2013)

Is that something you think I'm denying, or are you merely pointing it out?


----------



## MW (Dec 5, 2013)

Logan said:


> Is that something you think I'm denying, or are you merely pointing it out?



I believe your words were, "That is a scary position to me, that Scripture would be interpreted through Confessions?"


----------



## Logan (Dec 5, 2013)

Indeed, to which I had also added:


Logan said:


> It is my firm belief (along with, I am certain, the Refomers and Puritans) that we go to Scripture first, and that our confessions are the expression, or a defining of what we find there, not the other way around. Confessions are wonderful, but they are not the "lens" which we view Scripture through. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding Letis and Sandlin, I'm definitely going to disagree here.



If this is incorrect then please come right out and say it instead of implying things.


----------



## MW (Dec 5, 2013)

Logan said:


> If this is incorrect then please come right out and say it instead of implying things.



There is nothing implicit which is not also explicit. I gave explicit reasons as to why it is should not be considered "scary."


----------



## Logan (Dec 5, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> There is nothing implicit which is not also explicit. I gave explicit reasons as to why it is should not be considered "scary."



Please don't be offended but I don't understand you. Is the proper hermeneutic to approach the Scriptures through the lens of the Confessions or not?


----------



## MW (Dec 5, 2013)

Logan said:


> Please don't be offended but I don't understand you. Is the proper hermeneutic to approach the Scriptures through the lens of the Confessions or not?



The very term "holy Scripture" requires a confessional understanding. So yes, it must be the proper hermeneutic to approach Scripture through the lens of the Confessions. Some theological framework must be brought to it. It is only right that it should be the orthodox one.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 5, 2013)

Hi Logan,

I’ll try to catch up with some of your statements in this thread. With regard to “Letis on Theonomy-L”, I think many of us are familiar with that. I suppose we all lose it upon occasion (even if the occasions are rare). If you would seek to make that representative of Letis, then I’d say you’re just trying to poison the well, though I don’t know that you’d try that. He lost his mental balance; he was, I think, more an ivory tower sort of man with respect to his thought-life, and not a man of the trenches as James White is, an able communicator even while under fire.

I agree with you – White conducted himself as a gentleman throughout, and Letis melted down! This may happen to even brilliant scholars.

Letis was strongly against the Anabaptists (read also Baptists, particularly IFBs), and saw them as a threat to the vitality of the church. This explains part of his attitude to Dr. White. His article, “The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists” is painful to read in parts. I have thought, at times, that perhaps the Lord took Letis home young to save him from treacherous shoals in his way, like perhaps going East.

-------

I would say the late Dr. Edward Freer Hills of Harvard is the leading KJB / TR scholar (I think your labeling Letis as “TR-onlyism” lowers yourself by using such a reductionist slur; maybe you did this innocently, but you should be careful of such labeling and stereotyping).

-------

You said (post # 65),
“Letis says that both Owen and Turretin would only accept variants within the published manuscripts of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus, seeing only those variants as the bounds of where God had preserved his word in its entirety. This is false, as I think I demonstrated for Owen in the other thread”​ 
Rev Winzer was on target when he said, “I don't believe you made this demonstration, though I grant you might have thought you did.” First of all, you most certainly _did not_ demonstrate that despite convincing yourself you did; and second, you have truncated the issue of the mss Letis talks of: your saying, “variants within the published manuscripts of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus” is dead wrong (as I have tried to point out in the former thread); rather it includes the manuscripts which they themselves consulted as they constructed their texts, thus it is not limited to only their editions. What makes it difficult is that they may have consulted – and incorporated – from sources we in this day do not know of.

This is the actual quote I posted in the former thread from Letis’ essay, and it differs significantly from your remarks quoted above from post #65:
“Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by ‘Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.’ ”​ 
Note the “and some others”. That quite expands the latitude of the area to be searched.


-------

Your remarks on Owen’s view of Hebrews 1:7 is representative of your approach. This is what you say:
“However, Owen refers to readings not found in any of the editions, but in ‘older manuscripts.’ His preference of ‘flaming fire’ in Hebrews 1:7 is but one demonstration. Also, since Owen referred to ‘ancient copies’ many, many times in his writings, it is also clear he was not relying exclusively on the ‘minutiae of differences among the TR editions’ as Letis asserts, but the ‘originals’, the manuscripts themselves.”​ 
Is it really a preference? I note he does say, “ ‘a flaming fire,’—more express to the original”, which likely refers to the Hebrew in Psalm 104:4. But does he prefer it for the New Testament reading? He adds the possibility of that reading in brackets after the main reading “a flame of fire”.

When you, in this quote from #65 above, say of Owen he referred to “ ‘ancient copies’ many, many times” he was relying not only among TR editions “but the ‘originals’, the manuscripts themselves” . . . when you phrase it thusly, would you divorce, for example, Beza’s or Stephanus’ editions from mss they used to put together their editions. Would you not include similar Byzantine mss – of which there were many available by Beza’s day, and a dearth of Alexandrian mss – from what they might search through?

Could it be possible that this is the point where we have been miscommunicating? You thinking that individual mss were excluded from consideration? I have not thought that to be the case. I suppose it comes down to what we view as “the TR editions”. Perhaps we are more in agreement than I thought.

--------

An interesting note on _Norma Normata_, by R.C. Sproul:
The Latin word _credo_ means simply “I believe.” It represents the first word of the Apostles’ Creed. Throughout church history it has been necessary for the church to adopt and embrace creedal statements to clarify the Christian faith and to distinguish true content from error and false representations of the faith. Such creeds are distinguished from Scripture in that Scripture is _norma normans_ (“the rule that rules”), while the creeds are _norma normata_ (“a rule that is ruled”).​


----------



## Logan (Dec 6, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I’ll try to catch up with some of your statements in this thread. With regard to “Letis on Theonomy-L”, I think many of us are familiar with that. I suppose we all lose it upon occasion (even if the occasions are rare). If you would seek to make that representative of Letis, then I’d say you’re just trying to poison the well, though I don’t know that you’d try that. He lost his mental balance; he was, I think, more an ivory tower sort of man with respect to his thought-life, and not a man of the trenches as James White is, an able communicator even while under fire.



Hey Steve! Thanks for your post, I was hoping you'd make some comments eventually.
I believe you are correct about this instance of Letis (I posted it before I'd read it and was unaware then that Letis "lost it"). I actually was writing up a post last night that said I did not think this was typical of Letis, at least from what I've seen of his other writings. I hope I would never attempt to discredit a person's scholarship simply because of their attitude. So no, I am not attempting to "poison the well" in any way but appreciate the concern.

I also agree with the assessment that Letis was more of an ivory tower sort, interested in academia and reputation.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I would say the late Dr. Edward Freer Hills of Harvard is the leading KJB / TR scholar (I think your labeling Letis as “TR-onlyism” lowers yourself by using such a reductionist slur; maybe you did this innocently, but you should be careful of such labeling and stereotyping).



Thank you for the correction. I believed that partially because of this post in your Beza topic "He was one of the only Ivy League textual scholars the TR camp had." I have since found that Letis appears to be defending some "ecclesiastical text", which I assume would primarily mean the Byzantine texts, or the texts available to the church at the time of the Reformation.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> you have truncated the issue of the mss Letis talks of: your saying, “variants within the published manuscripts of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus” is dead wrong (as I have tried to point out in the former thread); rather it includes the manuscripts which they themselves consulted as they constructed their texts, thus it is not limited to only their editions. What makes it difficult is that they may have consulted – and incorporated – from sources we in this day do not know of.



I think this is indeed the point that perhaps we miscommunicated on, and I think I mentioned in the former thread that I thought this was the case. Letis says



Letis said:


> Owen saw only the minor variants between the *various editions of TR* as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” *Within the confines of these editions* was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”
> 
> This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to choose readings among the *minutiae of differences*. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [*within the providentially preserved editions of the TR* –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the *minutiae of differences among the TR editions* –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the *activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity*, or, as Owen says, “another way.”
> 
> Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)



Admittedly I do not know the context in which Letis makes this statement (the copy of "Owen Vs Walton you posted a link to didn't seem to have it). But given strictly what is above, "minutiae of differences among the TR editions" seems to mean only the published editions of Erasmus et al. (note that Letis did not say the minutae of differences among the manuscripts used by Erasmus, etc). To include manuscripts noted by them or even alternate readings (in the margins of these editions) seems extremely specific, and I never find that level of specificity in Owen, or even that he knew what manuscripts various compilers had used (did they even have a cataloguing system?). Or even that Owen knew what editions of the TR had been made. And the readings that Owen does include don't indicate he unspokenly assumed this position either. I also disagree that Owen's "another way" is referring to activity after this hypothesized period of stabilization, but rather to the method used. Owen includes Ussher among those following the "first and most honest course" and this would be presumably after this hypothesized period of "stabilization". I had considered asking Letis for clarification but was unaware at that point that he was no longer living.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> when you phrase it thusly, would you divorce, for example, Beza’s or Stephanus’ editions from mss they used to put together their editions. Would you not include similar Byzantine mss – of which there were many available by Beza’s day, and a dearth of Alexandrian mss – from what they might search through?



I certainly would include those manuscripts at the very least and I granted in the other thread that Owen could have been referring only to those texts available at the time of the Reformation, though I don't personally see that as being the case. However, that does not appear to be what Letis said. If that is what he _meant_ then it is in my mind, poorly worded and I would hope to be forgiven for the misunderstanding.

I could likewise grant that Owen might only have considered those lections which varied only slightly _from_ the various editions of the TR in his days, but not strictly "between the various editions of TR", or that he considered these editions _only_ to contain the providentially preserved word.

Regarding Hebrews 1:7, Owen, throughout his commentary on this section, seems to always use the term "flaming fire", which I would take it to mean he preferred it. It is possible his "original" in this instance was the Hebrew of the Psalm, but either use is amenable to my purpose of showing that he did not indicate restricting himself to published editions---or even, I would say, to only manuscripts used by those published editions, but to Greek manuscripts in general.


----------



## Logan (Dec 6, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> The very term "holy Scripture" requires a confessional understanding. So yes, it must be the proper hermeneutic to approach Scripture through the lens of the Confessions. Some theological framework must be brought to it. It is only right that it should be the orthodox one.



I read and re-read that. Perhaps I'm just not intelligent to understand how that reconciles with the WCF's own view of Scripture in 1:4, 1:9, or 1:10. Thinking perhaps I was still misunderstanding, I asked my wife to read it (she was unaware of what preceded) and she looked at me puzzled and said "that sounds creepy and scary."

Could you point to an instance in say, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, or others who said something similar to what you've said above? For example, Hodge says 



Hodge Systematic Theology Vol 1 p 187 said:


> If every man has the right, and is bound to read the Scriptures, and to judge for himself what they teach, he must have certain rules to guide him in the exercise of this privilege and duty. These rules are not arbitrary. They are not imposed by human authority. They have no binding force which does not flow from their own intrinsic truth and propriety. They are few and simple. [listing of rules of historical sense, that they are the word of God, and that the Holy spirit guides] The fact that all the true people of God in every age and in every part of the Church, in the exercise of their private judgment in accordance with the simple rules above stated, agree as to the meaning of Scripture in all things necessary either in faith or practice, is a decisive proof of the perspicuity of the Bible, and of the safety of allowing the people the enjoyment of the divine right of private judgment.



That this _is_ the Confession's hermeneutic I agree, but I don't approach Scripture through the Confession, rather the other way around. I would be far more comfortable saying it is the Holy Spirit who is our guide, or lens.


----------



## KMK (Dec 6, 2013)

Logan said:


> I would be far more comfortable saying it is the Holy Spirit who is *our* guide, or lens.



Who exactly is 'our'?


----------



## MW (Dec 6, 2013)

Logan said:


> Perhaps I'm just not intelligent to understand how that reconciles with the WCF's own view of Scripture in 1:4, 1:9, or 1:10.



You are interpreting the Scriptural view of Scripture through the lens of the Confession.


----------



## Logan (Dec 6, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> You are interpreting the Scriptural view of Scripture through the lens of the Confession.


I am not trying to be argumentative but I don't think this is the case, I actually thought about that very thing before posting. I believe the Confession's view to be Scriptural, but I don't think this based on looking through the Confession. 

I understand that we will all have presuppositions and frameworks when approaching Scripture. That may certainly coincide with the Confession. But my lens, like the Confession, must be subject to correction by the Scriptures.

I'll repeat my question from earlier and I ask this in honesty: Could you point to an instance in say, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, or others who said something similar to what you've said? I would like to know if this is a historical perspective or just a necessary one. Also, do you believe this was the intended purpose of Confessions or just one of the effects?

KMK:
I initially thought you might be baiting me but I will assume you honestly would like to know. "Our" would be the elect, I would say.


----------



## MW (Dec 6, 2013)

Logan said:


> I believe the Confession's view to be Scriptural, but I don't think this based on looking through the Confession.



Whatever you believe "Scriptural" to mean will be your confession. Whatever the church as a whole believes "Scriptural" to mean will be her confession. The bare use of the term "Scriptural," as opposed to what another person or body of people regard to be Scriptural, must therefore be confessional. It is only on the basis of dissimulation that it could be otherwise.



Logan said:


> Could you point to an instance in say, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, or others who said something similar to what you've said? I would like to know if this is a historical perspective or just a necessary one.



Please refer to what these theologians speak regarding "the analogy of faith."



Logan said:


> Also, do you believe this was the intended purpose of Confessions or just one of the effects?



Please see the General Assembly's Act approving the Confession of Faith prefixed to the Westminster Confession. It was to serve the cause of covenanted uniformity in religion, and was regarded as a principal part of it.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 7, 2013)

It's interesting this debate on the use of Confessions, a confession by nature would be something that the Person
holding it would subscribe to as what he believes the Holy Scriptures teach,men as such are fallible & The Scriptures aren't,
this would automatically rule out any type of Steelite Error which profess' that Confessions can in some way be considered
infallible due to their derived Authority from The Words of God, which I am not accusing either of you 2 to hold, this derived
Authority is only of a secondary or subordinate standard as God's Attribute of Infallibility is not communicated to the mere
words of men only to His Word, and only holds as the confessions of men are in agreement with The Scriptures. 
so I am going have to side with Logan on this point, even though I do not side with His view as to what The Scriptures 
are as I hold to The T.R. and more & more see The KJB greater accuracy (the words flow & the meaning is true to the greek ) as compared to all other Translations, this is God's Ordained Translation for The Public & Private Worship of Himself. 
The Scriptures are The Supreme Rule of Faith & may be summed up in a C of Faith, though this Confession may be eminently Scriptural it is non the less Fallible & subject to The Scriptures as a subordinate & inferior standard anything
that a Confession might say that is true & good is but a summary of The Scripture Position not the interpretation,
Scripture interprets Scripture a Reformation Truth not a Confession otherwise we just have Talmudic Judaism or Roman
Anti-christianity remember The Lord said we are obey The Commandments of God & not the traditions of Man.


----------



## MW (Dec 8, 2013)

While the interpreter is certainly fallible, the thing interpreted is infallible. If it were otherwise one could not say that the interpreter is certainly fallible with any degree of certainty. John Owen helps to shed light on this point.

Biblical Theology, 788: "in regard to its subject matter or the divine truth revealed in it, Scripture is the Word of God, for it is the disclosing of the divine will originating and flowing from God Himself. In this signification, it is expressly called the Word of God in places almost innumerable (e.g., John 17:17). Thus, when the Word of God is said to be preached, declared, promulgated, broadcast, or received, it is the matter of the Scriptures, their meaning and content, not the simple written words of the Bible which are meant."

P. 816: "The Word duly and legitimately interpreted is still the Word of God, and so the exposition (if it departs not from the analogy of faith) is also the Word of God, so far as it is founded on and expands upon the written Word. All correct exposition may thus be said to share in infallibility, so far as it expounds the infallible word. This is not because of the interpreter (who, as human, is fallible), but because of the subject matter, which is divine and inerrant. A human speaker deals with infallible material, and our own human insufficiencies, in the carrying out of any duty whatsoever, cannot and must not render the duty illegitimate."


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 10, 2013)

Hello Matthew, my post was in regard to your comment that 



armourbearer said:


> The very term "holy Scripture" requires a confessional understanding. So yes, it must be the proper hermeneutic to approach Scripture through the lens of the Confessions. Some theological framework must be brought to it. It is only right that it should be the orthodox one.



I Believe The Scriptures give Legitimacy to The Confession & not Vice-a-Verse, that would be putting the cart before the horse it was The Solemn League & Covenant that gave birth to The Confession, The Scripture is Infallible The Confession is not,
The Westminster Divines in their Confession state that Councils my err, What was Westminster if not a Church Council even The Scottish Kirk made a Declarative Statement in regards to The Civil Governments power in regarding the Calling of 
Councils/Assemblies if I remember rightly, that's just another way of saying they didn't agree with that section, as I said Confession are not Infallible & The Westminster Divines, they have said themselves Councils may err.

What if the Confession errs, My Faith is in God & The Lord Jesus Christ & His Word not in The Confession, it troubles me not it's just a mere fallible guide, I hold to Supralapsarianism as I well know you do also The Westminster Confession teaches & favours
the Infralapsarian Position so if were right then The Confession err's, so which lapsarian lens do we approach The Scriptures with or do we let The Scriptures Speak for themselves & let them be our Confession, we Christians need to return to Sola Scriptura 

This is why Confessions will always be & musts be subordinate & inferior standards, like the Law points to The Lord Jesus Christ, they must always be pointing us back to to The Supreme Standard, The Scriptures.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2013)

The supremacy of Scripture is itself a "standard" of interpretation. There are others who do not read Scripture through this "standard." By our confession we approach Scripture as supreme. The Confession is subordinate to Scripture, but it is still a "standard." The authority of the truth has not been diminished by the simple fact that it has been formulated in propositional terms.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 11, 2013)

Matthew we ought to move this topic over to an appropriate thread, do you have any suggestions?


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 5, 2014)

I would like to say, in light of recent debating on all these Textual Issues that my Faith in God & in His Providential Preserving of The Scriptures that I'm even more convinced than ever,despite the arguments held up against The K.J.B.
& The Received Text, that they are God's Faithfully Preserved Words in their respective Languages & that this thread has
helped me to move to a closer KJBO position seeing that it has no rivals,nor do its opponents arguments have weight


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 5, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> I would like to say, in light of recent debating on all these Textual Issues that my Faith in God & in His Providential Preserving of The Scriptures that I'm even more convinced than ever,despite the arguments held up against The K.J.B.
> & The Received Text, that they are God's Faithfully Preserved Words in their respective Languages & that this thread has
> helped me to move to a closer KJBO position seeing that it has no rivals,nor do its opponents arguments have weight



Which KJV do you prefer then ? I asked that and I don't think that was ever answered in one of these other KJV tennis matches that have been on the PB. 

Is it the original 1611, the 1769 Blayney revision, or perhaps the Scrivner from the 1800s ? There is the Oxford version, the slightly different Cambridge and amongst Cambridge versions there are a few. The one that is more or less the same as the Oxford, the Concord which corrects quite a bit of the former, and the David Norton revision of the Scrivner, probably considered most accurate in this day and time, the Cambridge New Paragraph Bible.

I would also mention that I for one am not an opponent arguing against the KJV in any of its various versions. I've read it all of my life and shall continue to do so. I will also utilize the scholarship that has progressed in the field of language, manuscripts and translation, and read the NASB, ESV and NKJV as well. Zealots who call themselves believers while breaking the 9th commandment, unjustly demonizing Westcott & Hort, Daniel B Wallace, William D Mounce, and many other translators who dared to go beyond the bounds of the Riplinger and Waite KJVO camps, will have to answer for their words on_ that _day.


----------



## JM (Jan 5, 2014)

I'm reading through this thread and wonder...do we have the word of God or not? 

Do we have most of it? 

Are you sure we have most of it? 

How can you be certain we have most of the word if you are not able to examine the manuscripts? 

If you are able to examine the mss and find differences who decides which mss is the word of God? 

Do we need to redefine the word of God anew for every generation?

Should we have a magisterium to figure this out or just a magisterium of scholars? 

I'm too dumb and my faith is too weak for all this argumentation about "this collection of what scholars think is the Bible" and "that family of mss," etc. 

Pray for me,

jm


----------



## JM (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm still discouraged. This kind of thread just isn't for me.


----------



## Wynteriii (Jan 7, 2014)

JM said:


> I'm still discouraged. This kind of thread just isn't for me.



I will pray for you. Don't be discouraged. Take courage in the 95-98% of agreement between these codexes (or mss.? I can't recall if there was percentage difference between the two).

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 18, 2014)

JM said:


> I'm still discouraged. This kind of thread just isn't for me.



No need to be discouraged Brother, we do have The Word of God for He has promised to Preserve it.


----------



## tleaf (Jan 18, 2014)

Jason, some of the strongest Christians I know are those with a simple faith. They do not have all the "baggage" (forgive me, everyone else) to cause them doubts. I envy those people, for they seem to have a stronger faith than I do.

Given that, we engage in these discussions to deepen our faith, not to confuse it. Each of us is drawn to some particular area of study that "completes" our yearning to know more.

God forbid that we should be a stumbling block to another believer.

Blessings.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 20, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to say, in light of recent debating on all these Textual Issues that my Faith in God & in His Providential Preserving of The Scriptures that I'm even more convinced than ever,despite the arguments held up against The K.J.B.
> ...




Actually I think you may have missed a few according to The Bibliography of A Textual History of The King James Bible, David Norton, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pg 362 http://www.gracelifebiblechurch.com/KJB/ATextualHistoryOfTheKingJamesBible.pdf

Annotated list of Bibles

This list is primarily for identification of editions and copies referred to in the
appendices.Most were consulted in the Bible Society Library, Cambridge (BS), and
in the Cambridge University Library (CUL). A number in brackets following the
Herbert Catalogue number indicates which of the Bible Society’s copies is involved.
Some of these Bibles are taken as representative of their time rather than as
important editions. These are asterisked. When their date is referred to in, usually,
Appendix 8, this should be taken as approximate.
1602 folio. Bishops’ Bible. London: Barker. H271. Bodleian Library Bibl. Eng. 1602
b. 1 (‘Olim 13.14. 13Th. ?Afterwards A.2.1. Th. Seld but never the property of
Selden himself’ [inscribed inside cover]); with annotations by the King James
translators.
Lambeth Palace LibraryMS 98. ‘An English Translation of The Epistles of Paule the
Apostle’. See also Allen, Translating the New Testament Epistles.
1611 folio. London: Barker. H309. First edition KJB (‘He’ Bible). CUL Syn 1 61 1
and Syn 2 61 1 (formerly 1 15 16), and BS H309(1), (2), (4). See also 1833, Exact
Reprint, and 1911, Pollard (ed.).
1611 folio. London: Barker. H319. Second edition KJB (‘She’ Bible). Readings are
from five copies all different:
1. Francis Fry’s ‘standard copy of the 2nd Issue without Reprints’ (handwritten
note); BS H319(1); see above, p. 66, n. 5;
2. CUL Syn 1 61 4;
3. Fry’s number 3 in table 2 of A Description; BS H319(3);
4. Fry’s number 5 in table 2 of A Description; ‘a very valuable Standard copy the
one I have used in all my comparisons’ (Fry, handwritten note); BS H319(5);
5. BS H319(6).
Second edition readings were checked against 2 first; unconfirmed readings were
then checked against all four other copies; I note in Appendix 8 the copies that
confirm the readings only where they were not confirmed by 2.
1612 quarto. London: Barker. H313. BS H313(1); CUL Syn 6 61 32, Syn 6 61 33.
1612 octavo. London: Barker. H315. BS H315(1).
1612 octavo. London: Barker. H316.
1612 quarto New Testament. London: Barker. H318.
1613 folio. London: Barker. H322. CUL Syn 1 61 5 (formerly A 3 13), Syn 1 61 3.
1613 quarto. London: Barker. H323. CUL SSS 29 18, Syn 5 61 8.
1616 folio. London: Barker. H349.
1617 folio. London: Barker. H353. CUL Syn 1 61 6; BS H353.
1629 folio. Cambridge: Thomas and John Buck. H424. CUL Young 41, Rel b 62 1
(Scrivener used this copy, then classified as 1 14 12; the only variant I have
noted between these copies is at Job 4: 6; but clearly a significant amount
of resetting took place; Young 41, on heavier paper, may perhaps be the later
printing).
1629 quarto. London: Norton and Bill. H425. CUL Syn 5 62 4 (lacks Apocrypha);
BS H425 (includes Apocrypha).
1629 octavo. London: Norton and Bill. H426. BS H426.
1630 quarto. London: Barker and Bill. H429. BS H429, H429(1) (duplicate
copies).
1630 quarto. London: Barker and Bill. H430. BS H430(1).
1630 quarto. London: Barker. H431. CUL Rel c 63 2, Rel c 63 3.
1638 folio. Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel. H520. CUL Cam bb 638 1
(originally A 3 19).
1646 octavo. London:William Bentley. H591. CUL Rel d 64 2.
1660 folio. Cambridge: John Field. H668. BS H668.
1660 octavo. Cambridge: Henry Hills and John Field. H669. BS H669(1).
1675 quarto. Oxford. H719 (or H720).
1701 folio. Oxford: University-printers. H867. BS H867.
1701 folio. London: Bill and Executrix of Thomas Newcomb. H868. BS H868.
*1744 quarto. Oxford: Thomas and Robert Baskett. H1068. BS H1068.
*1752 quarto. Oxford: Thomas Baskett. CUL 7100 b 50.
1762 folio. Cambridge: Bentham. H1142. Ed. F. S. Parris. BS H1142.
1769 folio. Oxford: Wright and Gill. H1194. Ed. Benjamin Blayney. CUL Adv
bb 77 2.1
*1817 octavo. Cambridge: J. Smith. H1663. Cambridge Stereotype Edition.
1817 folio. Oxford for SPCK. H1658. Ed. George D’Oyly and RichardMant. CUL 1
16 24–6.
1833 folio. The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint page for page of the Authorized Version
Published in the year MDCXI. Oxford.
*1837 folio. Cambridge: JohnWilliam Parker. H1818.
*1857 sixteenmo. Cambridge for SPCK, C. J. Clay. H1906. BS H1906.2
*1857 twentyfourmo. Oxford for the British and Foreign Bible Society. Not listed
in Herbert. BS H1908a (also 1857 Oxford Pearl octavo, H1908a; no differences
noted between these).
*1857 octavo. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode for the British and Foreign Bible
Society. Not listed in Herbert. BS H1908a.
1873. The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, with the text
revised by a collation of its early and other principal editions, the use of the italic
type made uniform, the marginal references remodelled . . . H1995. Ed. F. H. A.
Scrivener. Cambridge.
1911. The 1911 Tercentenary Bible . . . TheTextCarefully corrected andamended 1911.
H2169. Oxford. BS H2169 (English and American editions).3
*1931. London:CambridgeUniversityPress for theBritish and ForeignBible Society.
BS H2239.
1951. The Reader’s Bible. London: Oxford University Press, Cambridge University
Press, Eyre and Spottiswoode.
*1960. The Jubilee Bible. London: British and Foreign Bible Society. H2311.
Ed. John Stirling, illust. Horace Knowles, commemorating the third Jubilee of
the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1954. The Bible Society copy, H2311, is
the 1,000,001st copy, dated April 1960.
*1963. Oxford for British and Foreign Bible Society. New Ruby Refs. BS201 [F63]/1.
Called ‘singers Bible’ after Prov. 1: 10, where it reads ‘singers’ for ‘sinners’.
Colophon: ‘14 61’, so may date from 1961.
*1973. Philadelphia, Pa.: National Publishing Company.
*1996. Oxford: Oxford University Press. New Pica Royal text. As reprinted in The
Bible: Authorized King James Version, intro. and notes Robert Carroll and Stephen
Prickett.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 20, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to say, in light of recent debating on all these Textual Issues that my Faith in God & in His Providential Preserving of The Scriptures that I'm even more convinced than ever,despite the arguments held up against The K.J.B.
> ...




Good Day Jimmy, Your question is a good question, It was probably in recent years that I became more aware of this but do still believe that most King James Bibles today are essentially based on Blayney's 1769 Text with minor variations on spelling & maybe even a little punctuation differences, this all in all would not make it count as a separate edition, likewise the various early versions with the printing errors that subsequentially crept in could not be classed as separate & distinct versions, the original AV1611 that was printed, printers errors apart as it was rushed through printers, used a heavy black letter imitation Gothic print type that would be almost illegible to us modern readers considering also that English did not yet have a standardised spelling long 
elongated F for S & the like, in the following years to the release of the Translation there were so many editions with varying degrees of printers error's of all types, variations in spelling, punctuation & the like that John Bois, one of the Original Translators had to step in standardise the text at one stage, though these things do not make make them a revision in any way, shape or form,Though this is just my understanding of it.

Now regarding F.S. Parris’s Cambridge edition of 1762 & Benjamin Blayney's Oxford edition of 1769, which seems to have been standardised by Cambridge and referred to as THE 1769 Version;

Parris worked mainly on scholarly textual correction, italicisation, and marginal notes and cross-references, doing more, as Scrivener observed, to bring these into their modern state than the better known Oxford edition of 1769.
A Textual History of The King James Bible, David Norton, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pg 104 -105.

this is taken from Blayney's Folio which shows that the text was " minutely annotated throughout for its variations from what he takes to be the first edition, though it is clear fromsome of the variations that he was using the second edition. At the beginning he notes that ‘the variations are chiefly in the pointing, and Italic words, or to the Text; but the Contents of the chapters are very much altered: And besides the obsolete spelling, many of the proper names are differently spelt’.The annotations constitute an overwhelming mine of information. Most verses elicit several annotations, so that as a whole Buchanan’s labours give a strong visual impression of the multitudinous variations in minutiae by which Blayney’s Bible (and, following it, modern KJBs) differs from the.original. " A Textual History of The King James Bible, David Norton, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pg 106 -107

But we ought to add emphasis to " multitudinous variations in minutiae ", it wasn't a new Translation ,they are Edition's as opposed to Revisions,that must be kept in mind.
Though these are selected quotations from a little perusing of A Textual History of The King James Bible, David Norton, Cambridge University Press, 2004. http://www.gracelifebiblechurch.com/KJB/ATextualHistoryOfTheKingJamesBible.pdf

Don't know much about the Concord, isn't that just a cross-reference Edition with pronunciation marks for unusual names. Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873 never really took off according to E.I.P.S. and the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, by
David Norton according to The Cambridge website says; In this groundbreaking edition of the King James Version, David Norton painstakingly collated the established text of the K.J.V. with the Translators’ original notes. He presented the text as intended by the original Translators, but with consistent modern spelling and presentation for ease of use. Though a New, Non standardised Edition will just add to the confusion by adding new variations.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 20, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to say, in light of recent debating on all these Textual Issues that my Faith in God & in His Providential Preserving of The Scriptures that I'm even more convinced than ever,despite the arguments held up against The K.J.B.
> ...




though here is another take on this issue;

The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions by Dr. David F. Reagan.

Introduction

Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man's corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam's day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.

One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.

I - THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611

If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that's one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James Version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modem printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these revisions."

11 - THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS

OF THE 1611 KJV

Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.

In the section of Scrivener's book dealing with the KJV "revisions," one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process: the purification of early printing errors, so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process: the standardization of the spelling, These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are still changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the character of these changes.

III - THE SO-CALLED THOUSANDS

OF CHANGES

Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let's examine the evidence.

Printing Changes

For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supercede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modem reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v. This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle s changed to f) and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

Spelling Changes

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600's a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e's were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find ee, bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.

Textual Changes

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible.

The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing - this thing also (1638)

2 shalt have remained - ye shall have remained (1762)

3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)

4 requite good - requite me good (1629)

5 this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)

6 chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)

7 And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)

8 For this cause - And for this cause (1638)

9 For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)

10 Seek good - seek God (1617)

11 The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)

12 returned - turned (1769)

13 a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (1638)

14 The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)

15 thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)

16 the wayes side - the way side (1743)

17 which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)

18 the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)

19 now and ever - both now and ever (1638)

20 which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modem alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary type setter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly

separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!

IV - CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons with recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made.

1 1:5 the place - his place (1638)

2 2:16 shall be - shall all be (1629)

3 8:17 out, yea further - out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)

4 11: 17 thing is it - thing it is (?)

Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation ("thing is it" to "thing it is") is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without even printing errors by the year 1638. That's approximately 350 years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.

V - THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION

FOR OTHER REVISIONS

Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, "For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world. "In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.

An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor; etc.) were not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600 alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in the entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change, you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That's only fair. Still, the number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. According to the fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of revisions. Then pray tell me how four "revisions" and 375 years brought only 400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than the total number of changes in the first four! That's preposterous!

Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of the alterations are serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas, the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading as found in the New King James Version.

1:13 sore travail; grievous task

1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind

1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood great wisdom

2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with

2:3 acquainting; guiding

2:21 equity; skill

3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task

3:11 the world; eternity

3:18 that God might manifest them; God tests them

3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts

3:22 portion; heritage

4:4 right work; skillful work

5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently

5:6 the angel; the messenger of God

5:6 thy voice; your excuse

5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official

5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy

6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child

7:29 inventions; schemes

8:1 boldness; sterness

8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness

10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment

10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull

10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success

12:9 gave good heed; pondered

12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars

This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 ("he that is higher than the highest") is successfully removed ("higher official"). But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10: 10), this must be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where "the masters of assemblies" become "scholars." According to the New King James, "the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd." The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the source of the Shepherd's words. That is what these scholars would like us to think, but it is not true.

In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.

The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James 1, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 20, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to say, in light of recent debating on all these Textual Issues that my Faith in God & in His Providential Preserving of The Scriptures that I'm even more convinced than ever,despite the arguments held up against The K.J.B.
> ...




Jimmy with all due respect we should abstain from the Far Right of the King James Only Movement's use of derogative terms & slander, myself incuded, as is seen or rather heard chiefly in the person of Peter Ruckman,

you have made, In my humble opinion, a serious error in associating the Waite KJB/TR camp which is a moderate group that do not go along with the “Ruckmanites” in their excess'. 

The moderate KJB/TR group involves such people as D.A. Waite, Jack Moorman & David Cloud, Godly Men who actually distance themselves from & rebuke people like Riplinger & Ruckman, so Jimmy we need to be careful not to tar everybody who advocates the use of The KJB with the same Ruckmanite brush, which would also be a breach of The 9th Commandment. What About Ruckman? by David Cloud http://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/what_about_ruckman.php

Without trying to demonize Westcott & Hort, it is my opinion that their writings have been analysed sufficiently & it has been shown clearly that their faith & belief is defective without any unnecessary embellishment.

Nevertheless the Westcott & Hort Textbase & Textual Theory ought to be critiqued on its own merits or should that be demerit.


----------

