# Clarification Requested from Traditional Text Supporters



## Robert Truelove (May 8, 2008)

I've bowed out of the textual criticism discussion on the Puritanboard for some time because since entering into the full-time pastorate I just don't have the time to answer the 3+ page replies I get from my typical 2-3 paragraph statements (come on guys, this is a forum).

I've asked these questions before and didn't get a straight answer but I would like to get clarity on where my brethren here on the Puritanboard are at who defend the TT over the CT. I am seeking simple 'yes' or 'no' answers to the following questions...

1. Do you believe any particular version of the Textus Receptus is absolutely identical with the original autographs?

2. Do you believe the Majority Text, is absolutely identical with the original autographs?

3. Do you believe there are any places in the underlying textual choices in the KJV that are flat out wrong?

4. Do you believe that there are any places in the KJV where the translation is flat out wrong?

Please again, if you wish to participate, please only provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer. A clear, simple answer to these questions would greatly help me understand where some of you guys are coming from.


----------



## KMK (May 8, 2008)

Robert Truelove said:


> Please again, if you wish to participate, please only provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer. A clear, simple answer to these questions would greatly help me understand where some of you guys are coming from.



If all you want is 'yes' or 'no' answers, perhaps a poll would be more apropriate.


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 8, 2008)

But then I would have to do 4 polls and I would like to see how each member would answer these questions. It would be helpful in any future dialog.



KMK said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > Please again, if you wish to participate, please only provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer. A clear, simple answer to these questions would greatly help me understand where some of you guys are coming from.
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (May 8, 2008)

Robert Truelove said:


> 1. Do you believe any particular version of the Textus Receptus is absolutely identical with the original autographs?



No



Robert Truelove said:


> 2. Do you believe the Majority Text, is absolutely identical with the original autographs?



No (but is the MT really a text in the proper meaning of the word?)



Robert Truelove said:


> 3. Do you believe there are any places in the underlying textual choices in the KJV that are flat out wrong?



No, but I am open to persuasion 



Robert Truelove said:


> 4. Do you believe that there are any places in the KJV where the translation is flat out wrong?



Yes


----------



## tellville (May 8, 2008)

Robert Truelove said:


> I've bowed out of the textual criticism discussion on the Puritanboard for some time because since entering into the full-time pastorate I just don't have the time to answer the 3+ page replies I get from my typical 2-3 paragraph statements (come on guys, this is a forum).
> 
> I've asked these questions before and didn't get a straight answer but I would like to get clarity on where my brethren here on the Puritanboard are at who defend the TT over the CT. I am seeking simple 'yes' or 'no' answers to the following questions...
> 
> ...



I think these are good questions. I'd also like to see the answers to them. Maybe a little more than 'yes' or 'no' answers but I am sure people could link to other 3-4 page posts that could clarify their yes and no's.


----------



## larryjf (May 8, 2008)

> 1. Do you believe any particular version of the Textus Receptus is absolutely identical with the original autographs?


No.
There is nothing in existence that is identical to the originals. And come to think of it...the originals were never bound together so i guess there never was an original NT as such.



> 2. Do you believe the Majority Text, is absolutely identical with the original autographs?


No. I don't even think that it represents the majority texts.



> 3. Do you believe there are any places in the underlying textual choices in the KJV that are flat out wrong?


yes.



> 4. Do you believe that there are any places in the KJV where the translation is flat out wrong?


yes.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 8, 2008)

No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.


It's not that hard. Just restrain yourselves and answer the man.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 9, 2008)

Hello Robert!

I've bowed out of the textual criticism discussion on the Puritanboard for some time because since entering into the full-time pastorate I just don't have the time to answer the 3+ page replies I get from my typical 2-3 paragraph statements (come on guys, this is a forum).​
Well, that sounds like somebody I know, and what I say in defense of that character is that forums may be chat, longer discussions, or even, when need requires, educational forums. Seeing as the Traditional Text position is not only in the minority, occasionally set up as a straw man, and often openly despised, the marshalling forth of evidence and extended discussion is warranted and appropriate.

I've asked these questions before and didn't get a straight answer but I would like to get clarity on where my brethren here on the Puritanboard are at who defend the TT over the CT. I am seeking simple 'yes' or 'no' answers to the following questions...​
Q. “1. Do you believe any particular version of the Textus Receptus is absolutely identical with the original autographs?”

A. *

[* As the subject is too nuanced for a mere yes or no – neither qualifying as a “straight answer” – the question is left blank. But as an aside – off the record – there are two schools of TT defenders; one says yes, the 1894 TR compiled by Scrivener is absolutely identical with the original autographs due to providential preservation of the text-form by the Lord. The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.

The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (_Believing Bible Study_, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or *sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.* Compare that with the variance between the Greek of the TR and the Greek of the Westcott and Hort text: 9,970 Greek words are changed. That is 7.095%. This would be equal to having the entire book of Romans (9,447 words) plus 2 and 3 John (and then some) thoroughly changed (usually the changes are omissions)! The uncertainty is 1,108.59 times greater in the Critical Text. (The word count for the TR is from D.A. Waite’s, _Defending The King James Bible_, p. xii)]

Q. “2. Do you believe the Majority Text, is absolutely identical with the original autographs?”

A. No.

Q. “3. Do you believe there are any places in the underlying textual choices in the KJV that are flat out wrong?”

A. *

[* Same answer essentially as in Q. 1]

Q. “4. Do you believe that there are any places in the KJV where the translation is flat out wrong?”

A. *

[* Same as in Q.s 1 & 3]


Note: To _require_ a certain form of answer – one framed by the questioner – is to set up the discussion within parameters dictated by same, and is not conducive to the free exchange of ideas. I see the Lord often refused to answer according to the questions posed to Him.

Glad to see you back around here again, Robert. I’ll tell that aforementioned character to try to be less verbose!

Steve


----------



## larryjf (May 9, 2008)

I wonder...is it proper to ask questions that pull in the "original" manuscripts...since they don't exist?

To ask if such and such is the same as the original, while that original doesn't exist doesn't seem like a legitimate question the more i think about it.

It's kind of like saying, "Do you prefer horses or unicorns?"
Well, if unicorns existed they would be pretty cool, but since they don't only horses can get you where you need to be going.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I wonder...is it proper to ask questions that pull in the "original" manuscripts...since they don't exist?
> 
> To ask if such and such is the same as the original, while that original doesn't exist doesn't seem like a legitimate question the more i think about it.
> 
> ...



However, there is a difference. There isn't any evidence that unicorns ever existed. But there certainly was an autograph for every book of the NT.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 9, 2008)

Hi Larry,

That's a good point.

I think the question might be more properly put as, "Did the Lord preserve the New Testament writings -- those which were the originals -- up through the ages, and to what extent?" And if one answered in the affirmative, "On what basis do you assert that?"

But then this turns into a long answer, as one must produce evidences -- or at least a feasible rationale -- for such a view.

Hi Lane!

Steve


----------



## larryjf (May 9, 2008)

Lane,

Still..it's not fair to ask for a comparison of something that does exist to something that doesn't.


----------



## py3ak (May 9, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> However, there is a difference. There isn't any evidence that unicorns ever existed. But there certainly was an autograph for every book of the NT.



[irrelevant remark]Saying that around here could get you mugged.[/irrelevant remark]


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 9, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Note: To _require_ a certain form of answer – one framed by the questioner – is to set up the discussion within parameters dictated by same, and is not conducive to the free exchange of ideas. I see the Lord often refused to answer according to the questions posed to Him.



Right!

Robert,

If you don't understand by now where the TT people are coming from, chances are you aren't ever going to understand it considering you don't seem to be new to the subject. And opening up threads in the manner you opened up this one isn't necessarily going to help.

I'm with Ken on this one. If you want "yes" or "no" answers then you probably should have put out a poll (even if it meant putting out 4 polls).


----------



## Grymir (May 9, 2008)

My answers -

*
no
*
*

for the meaning of the *'s, see JerusalemBlade's post above.

By the way Robert Truelove, these are interesting questions, how come they are worded in such a way?


----------



## Wannabee (May 9, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> There isn't any evidence that unicorns ever existed.




Since the KJV is involved in this discussion perhaps this is particularly pertinent, though still . 


Job 39 (KJV)
9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 
10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? 


I can't wait to see one.


----------



## KMK (May 9, 2008)

I was asked in college once, "Have you ever acted upon your homosexual lusts? Just answer 'yes' or 'no'."

Some questions cannot be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no' because you disagree with the presupposition behind the question.

These questions presuppose that they are answerable but since we do not have the original autographs how can anyone know whether anything is identical to them? All we have to go on is promises that God made to preserve His Word.

Also, these questions imply that my opinion actually has value. It really does not matter what I think, it matters what the church believes. This is what the church believes:



> WCF 1:2 Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.



This is not just a list of book titles but the actual books themselves as they appeared in the TR.

For hundreds of years the English speaking church accepted the KJV as the faithful translation of the TR.

When the church changes her stance on this issue let me know.


----------



## Thomas2007 (May 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I wonder...is it proper to ask questions that pull in the "original" manuscripts...since they don't exist?
> 
> To ask if such and such is the same as the original, while that original doesn't exist doesn't seem like a legitimate question the more i think about it.



Which is why I didn't answer the questions. 

It appears to me that Pastor Truelove is beginning upon the speculative assertion of an "inerrant original autograph" which I perceive within the scope of his questioning. (i.e., "...absolutely identical with the original autographs). Of course, it is entirely possible that of the many books of the New Testament that there are more than one "original" of each and they may not have been identical to each other. Further, it is entirely possible that certain passages were deleted in times of conflict, then added back in during times of theological progress - just as the Comma Johanneum was canonical for centuries and is now rejected. So, centuries from now people will look back to the 20th century and see a hole in the textual record of the Comma Johanneum, just as we look back and see a hole.

This "inerrant original autograph" hypothesis seems to be the presuppositional framework in which the questions are asked and it is this presupposition that we reject. Instead of your unicorn analogy, Dr. Letis' rhetorical question would be better: "So, Larry, have you quit beating your wife? I don't have time for anything but a yes or no answer, but I would like to understand where you are coming from." 

The words such as "inerrancy," "infallible," the doctrines (e.g., Sola Scriptura, Providential Preservation) and the approach to Scripture are redefined contrary to the historic Protestant position, but then men don't want to hear about that, just "yes" and "no" answers to the errant presuppositions in order to "understand where some of you guys are coming from."

One cannot begin, however, to understand either the pre-critical or post-critical defense of the Received Text upon such grounds. That is because we don't begin with mythology, nor do we attempt to reconstruct an original text, but simply receive the extant inspired and infallible canonical apographa.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 10, 2008)

An interesting article by Will Kinney on the unicorn, for those interested: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html


----------

