# KJV?



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 18, 2008)

I am curious about your thoughts on a subject that seems to be always looming in the back corners of my mind lately...

In the pulpit I bounce around from the NASB, NKJV, and the ESV. Since arriving at my new parish last month I have been getting to know the people and their thoughts on this thing and that.

One recurring theme of the direction that I believe the Lord is leading us as a church is to be a place where the Scriptures are elevated. By that I am speaking directly in opposition to what is occurring in many Congregational Churches ( UCC Coalition :: ONA Basics ).

We are an independent Congregational Church where the people are genuinely interested in faithfulness to traditional values, biblical authority, and a traditional worship. 

I have been feeling a strong urge to return to the use of the KJV in the service. I am curious what your thoughts are on the use of the KJV? 

I am not so much talking about the "KJV only" controversy (for those who choose to call it that). I am speaking more to the understandability of it, what it says to a visitor on Sunday morning, etc. 

Blessings!


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 18, 2008)

Follow Up:

Thank you for your thoughts. I am really enjoying interacting with and learning from the folks on this board.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 19, 2008)

*KJV*

I know that this could be a problem in many English churches with so many English translation out there. Five years from now there very well might be another new English translation. It seems that there is a tendency nowadays for many Reformed Churches to switch towards the ESV. This is the case, especially if the publishers of the ESV also happen to published your books. 

I think a pastor should have no problem using either the NASB, ESV, KJV, etc. respectively, as long as he first knows how to preach from such particular translation along with the Hebrew and Greek languages. I do not think it is healthy that a church continues to switch translations every so often. Pastor John MacArthur, for instance, has been preaching from the NASB for more than 20 yrs. And I do not think he is ever going to switch because he relies more on the original languages and is already accustomed to using this translation. It is also very important with these different translation that a person is fully aware of their own weaknesses as how where they translated from the original languages.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 19, 2008)

I have attended churches where the KJV was used exclusively and it worked well. I have also attended a church where the ESV was used and one where the NIV was used. Overall, my preference would be to use the KJV. You could always update the language yourself! I know of a minister that does that. 

How someone can preach expositionally from a version that is not "word-for-word" is beyond me I am afraid.


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 19, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> I have attended churches where the KJV was used exclusively and it worked well. I have also attended a church where the ESV was used and one where the NIV was used. Overall, my preference would be to use the KJV. You could always update the language yourself! I know of a minister that does that.
> 
> How someone can preach expositionally from a version that is not "word-for-word" is beyond me I am afraid.



I have done that on occasion - updating some of the language as I read the passage - although I suppose that is not so different from reading the NKJV.

I know a wonderful man of God (he is a retired Presbyterian Pastor) who I heard deliver a message two Sundays in a row when I first arrived here at First Congregational in Peru, Illinois. He was the interim Pastor for 6 months before my arrival. 

It was wonderful because those were the first two Sundays in a year when I had not been the pulpit and it was nice to get a "pew view" for a change.

Anyway, he read the Scriptures and preached from The Message version! I actually read something written by Eugene Patterson (the author) where he said that he doesn't even think that is what that translation is meant for!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 19, 2008)

The Scripture teaches that we are to come to unity of the faith, to be with one mind and one mouth. (see, Psalm 133, Ephesian 4, Romans 15) Unity in truth is more important than what one's personal opinions are on various textual hypotheses or the perceived perfection of translation, and that unity must be consistent with the Regula Fidei of the historic Reformed Confessions. There is only one english version that maintains that continuity, that is the Authorized Version.

Biblical criticism has created a multitude of schism's in the Church and made it a battleground where a radical individualism is asserted that is contradictory to all Reformed Confessions. It is simply impossible that Sola Scriptura be maintained consistent with the Regula Fidei when multiple translations are in use that are also based upon multiple texts. How can people come to unity of the faith when they disagree with what God even said? How can they know that differences are translational or textual, outside of readily apparent deletions? Critical proponents argue that the Regula Fidei is maintained because some other text maintains a doctrinal teaching, when a particular text that the Confession utilizes has been mutilated. It's simply not true, if there is textual and confessional discontinuity then there cannot be unity of the Faith, because Sola Scriptura has never meant that the individuals preference superseded the Regula Fidei. Nor has the Regula Fidei been some fuzzy principle that a teaching can be derived from some other Scripture that is no longer present. The Church is double minded today and because of that it is unstable in all of its ways. (James 1:8)

What you are preaching and what the congregation may be reading are not of one mind and one mouth. And there is also a radical discontinuity proposed in the government of the body and the soul when the critical texts are taken up. Even if I believed the critical texts were right and were "closer to the original," I wouldn't depart from the Authorized Version. It's just lawlessness. Since all of these versions are in fact all different hypothetical texts, it is a tremendous problem. 

We are also commanded to serve Christ in both our bodies and our spirits (1 Cor 6:20) but one of the major issues that seems to be completely ignored is that no Bible based upon the critical text has any standing at law. Only the Authorized Version has standing at law and when it is taught it provides a word that has real continuity over both body and spirit whereby the Christian man brought under submission to the Holy Ghost can assert his duty.

The Christian profession of faith will and must necessarily move toward a public confession consistent with the Great Commission teaching the nations to obey whatsoever God has commanded. It is a double edged sword, law and gospel, that the saints have the honour of binding Kings and nobles unto the law of God (Psalms 149:6-9). When Christians, though, no longer recognize the Providential working of God in history and the great gift He has given the Church in an established Bible that has an apostolic witness that the heathen is required to receive for the protection, peace and purity of Christ's Church, then he has abandoned the faith. I know that is a harsh saying, but governments are part of the Church as well, and we are commanded to obey every ordinance of man as well. In America the Bible doesn't just pop up in 1901 with the proposition that the Vatican is the proper repository of the text of Scripture - it is part of the organic foundation just as much as the Constitutions are and the proper repository is the English Common Law.

Illinois is a Northwest Ordinance State, if God has called you to service in Illinois then in my belief one needs to consider Providence's work in history, and the covenantal foundations of that. Where you can preach and teach the gospel and do it from the Scripture's in a fully covenantal sense with continuity between law and gospel, then you should do that. It may be old and archaic to you and many other people, it's not to God though, He works through His covenant and works through human covenants that are consistent with that.

I believe our calling is to work toward unity of the faith, to develop the Church into having one mind and one mouth to the Glory of God, not to engage the public life of the Church into an academic debate over textual perfection.

I would encourage you to pray about it and seek the unction of the Holy Spirit and if you feel so led, try preaching and teaching from the Authorized Version. There is power there and covenantal continuity there that the majority of the Reformed Church has abandoned. See for yourself what the fruit is "for by there fruits ye shall know them."

Cordially in Christ,

Thomas


----------



## JM (Feb 19, 2008)

My Pastor uses the AV for all his sermons and readings and it's also the standard text for our Bible studies and we do just fine.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 19, 2008)

It's a shame in my opinion, that so many reformed folks do not use a reformation era bible. I really enjoy hearing Joel Beeke and appreciate his use of the KJV as well as out Free Presbyterian brethren. While our chruch is not KJV only, it is the official bible for preaching and teaching from the pulpit.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 19, 2008)

While on the one hand I don't think I would make the issue of particular translation one of the definitive emphasis of a particular church, I do think adopting an official 'standard' for the church is a wise course.

in my opinion, you would be better making the KJV your 'official' translation for the sake of unity then switching between various different translations from one sermon to another.

The route we took at Christ Reformed Church was to standardize on the ESV. We get modern english that maintains much of the beauty of the KJV and a good translation of a better Greek text (yes, I am of the persuasion that the Critical Text is better than all forms of the Traditional Text ).



PilgrimPastor said:


> I am curious about your thoughts on a subject that seems to be always looming in the back corners of my mind lately...
> 
> In the pulpit I bounce around from the NASB, NKJV, and the ESV. Since arriving at my new parish last month I have been getting to know the people and their thoughts on this thing and that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grymir (Feb 19, 2008)

I've always use the KJV. From 1st graders to adults, from pastors to housewifes, no problems. It also seems that when I read from the King Jimmy, I speak with authority that is lacking when I use modern translations.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 19, 2008)

I say, use the KJV if that is what you're inclined to do. As for updating the language as you preach, isn't that part of good expository preaching? As a preacher, it's your job to make the Word understandable to the congregation, isn't it?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 19, 2008)

I would encourage you to read some of the articles found on The Trinitarian Bible Society website. The KJV is the best we've got and probably will be for a long time to come.

I am thankful that it hasn't been taken from us.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Feb 19, 2008)

PilgrimPastor said:


> I have been feeling a strong urge to return to the use of the KJV in the service. I am curious what your thoughts are on the use of the KJV?
> 
> Blessings!




Pastor Surber,

Our pastor whom I love uses the NASB and honestly sometimes I can not tell when he is reading scripture or preaching. Also different versions detract from something very important "Bible memorization". 

May God bless all you do that pleases Him 

.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 19, 2008)

In regards to TBS refusing to acknowledge a revision upon the KJV it does not make sense to me, because they are currently revising and updating another Bible found in a another language other than English. 

In other words, TBS, along with many other Churches/Pastors, do not want to update the KJV but they (TBS) are updating and revising other Bibles in other languages.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 19, 2008)

I cannot speak for TBS, but real King Jimmy users know that the few textual changes (real textual problems, not the made up ones that come from using faulty texts) that apply to the newer versions, you can apply to the KJV. Real KJV users know this. We also update the KJV to try and reflect what it originally said, as there have been variants. Real KJV users use it for more than a 'historical' translation, but where the original texts come from, and the language that is used. It's written in a 12 grade reading level, so alot of so-called 'unable to understand' comes from the peoples lack of education, not the 'archaic'-ness of it that many people claim. By using a higher level of English, there is more depth and meaning that comes through that the original writers meant.

The Trinitarian Bible Society has a bunch of great articles that expound and refute alot of the 'common' reason that people site as reasons that the modern versions are better. Or that we should even be using them.

Some versions are O.K., But they are best used to come along the KJV and help draw out the meaning for those whose English isn't up to it.

The reason for an English translation is to enable those who don't read Greek and Hebrew to have a copy of God's word that a person can read. And the KJV does it with the most precision of any translation.


----------



## JM (Feb 19, 2008)

Mr. Johnson, is there such thing as a "fictitious or imaginary" KJV user?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Feb 19, 2008)

KJV is te best place for any english speaker to start. The problenm is that Americans expect everything to be thought out for them so that they do not have to think. We must move our people beyond this point and teach them to think through what they believe. It is there that they will begin to value the KJV.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 19, 2008)

Yes there is. Those who drive us real KJV users nuts!!! They apply the same straw-man arguments to the moden versions that some use on the KJV. Or say the KJV has never changed. Although it was let down on a golden cord from God, the original spellings and letters used (like it looks like an f for s) were different than we use today.

P.S. Conan the barbarian used the KJV - therefore there are Fictitious KJV users!

 <----imaginary smiley uses KJV too!


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 19, 2008)

Mr. Johnson--
Are the imaginary KJV users the ones who say,
"King James was good enough for Paul and Silas, so it's good enough for me!" ???


----------



## JM (Feb 19, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Mr. Johnson--
> Are the imaginary KJV users the ones who say,
> "King James was good enough for Paul and Sials, so it's good enough for me!" ???



I think Sials was a fictitious KJV user.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 20, 2008)

No, the "it was good enough for Paul" bit is a joke...but a joke with a point, meaning they believe it to be most true to the text (speaking about the KJVOers, as that is who the "joke" is intended toward and used by).


I'm not KJVO, I'm KJV/Geneva/ESV preferred (and I like my ESV mostly because of the study notes  ) I cannot stand the NIV or the others that come after it's sort (the Translation, the Message) and cannot even follow along with any pastor that uses it.

The KJV might be considered 12th grade reading now...but it used to be considered 8th grade reading...and I thrived on it from an early age, from the time I learned to read.



*I DO have a question though and would love to hear an answer:*
My understanding is that the KJV/Geneva came from the Coptic/Byzantine texts, whereas the ESV/NASB/etc comes from the Alexandrian/Egyptian texts. I understand that these two groups are different, one more wordy, and after their own traditions. The KJVOers argument is against the Alexandrian texts due to corruption within the Alexandrian church (and we know that there were heresies spread throughout varies parts of the church, such as gnosticism, judaizing, etc and those mentioned in the NT). Could someone speak to this issue? What were the issues in the Alexandrian church and did/how did they affect the texts?


----------



## Stephen (Feb 20, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> It's a shame in my opinion, that so many reformed folks do not use a reformation era bible. I really enjoy hearing Joel Beeke and appreciate his use of the KJV as well as out Free Presbyterian brethren. While our chruch is not KJV only, it is the official bible for preaching and teaching from the pulpit.



Remember that the KJV was translated in opposition to the Reformation. The reformers translated the Geneva Bible as a response to these who despised the Reformation and the Puritans brought the Geneva, not the KJV to America.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 20, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > It's a shame in my opinion, that so many reformed folks do not use a reformation era bible. I really enjoy hearing Joel Beeke and appreciate his use of the KJV as well as out Free Presbyterian brethren. While our chruch is not KJV only, it is the official bible for preaching and teaching from the pulpit.
> ...




I know and understand that dear brother. However, the KJV is from the same text and was accepted by and large by our reformed brethren.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 20, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> *I DO have a question though and would love to hear an answer:*
> My understanding is that the KJV/Geneva came from the Coptic/Byzantine texts, whereas the ESV/NASB/etc comes from the Alexandrian/Egyptian texts. I understand that these two groups are different, one more wordy, and after their own traditions. The KJVOers argument is against the Alexandrian texts due to corruption within the Alexandrian church (and we know that there were heresies spread throughout varies parts of the church, such as gnosticism, judaizing, etc and those mentioned in the NT). Could someone speak to this issue? What were the issues in the Alexandrian church and did/how did they affect the texts?



I would suggest you read this. 



Stephen said:


> Remember that the KJV was translated in opposition to the Reformation.



I think you are wrong to say this. It was a product of the Reformation and one of the rules of translation was that "These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible. TYNDAL’S, COVERDALE’S, MATTHEWS’ S, WHITCHURCH’S, GENEVA."


----------



## Stephen (Feb 20, 2008)

Which KJV translation, because noone in this room surely would advocate preaching from the 1611 KJV. The current translation of the KJV has undergone change, so is it not a modern translation?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 20, 2008)

Okay, that answers from the side of KJVOers. I would like to hear a response from those that support the ESV/NASB. I understand that most seminaries do translation lessons from the Alexandrian texts, thus the students all claiming that "original texts always look like the NASB when translated".


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 20, 2008)

The vast majority of NT scholars of all theological stripes (not that there is truth in numbers) are convinced that the eclectic text (aka critical text) is more original and thus more accurate than the Byzantine text form. They argue that older is more likely to be more original. Hence the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, Message, NLT, HCSB, et. al. claim to be based on the older and more original (hence, more accurate, they say) texts.

Proponents of the Critical Text do not believe that it mitigates against either the doctrines of inspiration nor providential perseverance. Indeed, they see that the fact that we now have even more and earlier texts is a testimony to God's providence. Those on the KJV side argue that the text used by Luther and the translators of the KJV is the one God preserved for us and it is the one we should base our doctrine upon and use for church. 

SOME textual critics on the left (e.g., Bart Ehrman) have used the fact of textual criticism to impugn the authority of the Bible. Bart has maintained that since we can't recover the original Bible, how can you believe in inerrancy or any kind of "high view" of Scripture. Those in the TR camp (also the MT folks) maintain that holding to the Byzantine text is more in accord with a high view of scripture.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 20, 2008)

How come nobody is suggesting the NKJV as a preferred (or recommended) standard for a local church? I kinda like the NKJV.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 20, 2008)

Regarding the use of the KJV. I grew up on it and had no problem with it because my pastor explained words that are no longer in common usage. The KJV is a great Bible for memorizing, and all the memorizing I did until I was in my 20s was from the KVJ. 

Having said that, the KJV is archaic in its usage of the English language. Though it is a great intellectual exercise for many to use it, I don't see the point in having to go through the extra step of explaining the language from the pulpit. The whole purpose of translating the Bible into the English language in the first place was to make it so that everyone could read and study the Scriptures. I daresay that most Americans could not pick up a KVJ Bible and read it as William Tyndale wished when he responded to a fellow priest, " If God spares my life, before many years pass I will make it possible for a boy behind the plow to know more Scriptures than you do." 

There is merit in putting the translations in the langague of the common man (accurately of course), and going back to older translations just because they are older and more traditional is no different In my humble opinion than putting the Bible back in Latin. 

I think the NKJV is a good alternative for those who wish to use it.


----------



## Stephen (Feb 20, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> How come nobody is suggesting the NKJV as a preferred (or recommended) standard for a local church? I kinda like the NKJV.




Those who advocate the use of the authorized version (KJV) would not regard the NKJV as based on the authorized translation. The problem you run into is which KJV is authorized if it has been translated so many times?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 20, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> I think the NKJV is a good alternative for those who wish to use it.



Although the NKJV is not simply the KJV with updated English but is based upon more than the _Textus Receptus_.


----------



## JM (Feb 20, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Which KJV translation, because noone in this room surely would advocate preaching from the 1611 KJV. The current translation of the KJV has undergone change, so is it not a modern translation?



I wouldn't call a revision as a different translation. The NASB has gone through many revisions but it isn't a new translation.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 20, 2008)

I use the NKJV after a number of forays with other translations. 

A few of my members would like be to use the NIV or the ESV. ESV maybe, NIV never. However, I'm sticking to my guns. I've told my members that if they want me to switch to another translation I will....to the KJV.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 20, 2008)

You might take an hour and listen to my lecture critiquing the common Traditional Text arguments.

It is available be here...Christ Reformed Church - Audio Messages -



LadyFlynt said:


> Okay, that answers from the side of KJVOers. I would like to hear a response from those that support the ESV/NASB. I understand that most seminaries do translation lessons from the Alexandrian texts, thus the students all claiming that "original texts always look like the NASB when translated".


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 20, 2008)

prespastor said:


> You might take an hour and listen to my lecture critiquing the common Traditional Text arguments.
> 
> It is available be here...Christ Reformed Church - Audio Messages -
> 
> ...



uhm, 6 kids and my day never ends...I'll try to find an hour somewhere in here. But can you break some of it down here, please?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 20, 2008)

It would take me longer to break it down here than for you to listen to the message 

One of the reasons I do these sorts of lectures is so that when people ask me about where I am at on a certain subject, I can just point them to the lecture I gave on the subject.

You might go and start just by looking at the notes that are provided with the lecture.



LadyFlynt said:


> prespastor said:
> 
> 
> > You might take an hour and listen to my lecture critiquing the common Traditional Text arguments.
> ...


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 20, 2008)

Grymir said:


> I've always use the KJV. From 1st graders to adults, from pastors to housewifes, no problems. It also seems that when I read from the King Jimmy, I speak with authority that is lacking when I use modern translations.




I grew up using King James. I memorized scripture from KJV. 

A side benefit of reading KJV from the earliest age: In high school, I was the only one who could read Shakespeare and understand it.

It wasn't until sometime in my 20's (thanks to the new translation's marketing machine) that I found out I couldn't understand it.

I still prefer the King James, but alas-- our church uses ESV!


----------



## MW (Feb 20, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Remember that the KJV was translated in opposition to the Reformation.



"The translators to the reader," under the heading "A satisfaction to our brethren," states quite clearly, "the very historical truth is, that *upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans*, at his Majesty's coming to this crown, the conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints, when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was, as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift, yet even hereupon did his Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this translation which is now presented unto thee. *Thus much to satisfy our scrupulous brethren*."


----------



## Ivan (Feb 20, 2008)

*"Thus much to satisfy our scrupulous brethren."*

LOL...I like that.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 20, 2008)

I can do notes. It's just that I am surrounded when I'm at the computer (sits in our kitchen)...so hearing anything that takes a decent period of time is a challenge.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 20, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> The KJVOers argument is against the Alexandrian texts due to corruption within the Alexandrian church (and we know that there were heresies spread throughout varies parts of the church, such as gnosticism, judaizing, etc and those mentioned in the NT). Could someone speak to this issue? What were the issues in the Alexandrian church and did/how did they affect the texts?



I don't have the time to get into an exhaustive explanation of this, but I can provide you with a cursory explanation that you should be able to study out further if it interests you. I would highly recommend Foundations of Social Order, A Study in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church by RJ Rushdoony. If you've never read it you need to make it a priority. While it's not about the text of Scripture, it is about the development of the early creeds and the heresies with which they dealt and what holding to the orthodox doctrines means and has meant throughout history and the development of Christendom.

The issues were an attempt to synthesize Greek philosophical thought with Scriptural Revelation via Origenism and Arianism whereby the text of Scripture was altered, in the main, regarding the nature, person or work of Christ. (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 5:30, 1 John 4:3 et al.)

Please look up these three example texts for a frame of reference and compare them in the Authorized Version and the Alexandrian Text, any critical text version will do. The bulk of the main differences between the text all have to do with revelation concerning the body or flesh of Christ. In the first God manifest in the flesh is changed to the mystery who, of course the text says this is "without controversy" but there sure is lot of controversy over it today. Ephesians 5:30 the Church is no longer organically connected as part of the flesh and bones of Christ and in the last the flesh of Christ is not the identifying issue, on how to identify what is an antichristian teaching, in the critical text.

Greek philosophy was dialetical - meaning it tried to reconcile two basically hostile concepts and retain both of the alien substances or worlds within its system. These are held in tension and it finally resolves itself in favor of one or other concepts. In Greek thought two substances existed. On one hand was ideas, mind or spirit - the world of forms. On the other was matter, the flesh, of particulars. It is called a form/matter dialetic, soul vs flesh.

Neoplatonism developed in Alexandria Egypt where all of the schools were, for example, Origen was trained under Philo. In 529 the Edict of Justinian finally closed the last academy in Athens and there had been 800 years of continual teaching of Platonic philosophy. Neoplatonism, as a development of Platonism by Plotinus, offered men the belief that there was a common world of truths shared by all men as the foundation of thought. An universal truth that all men can tap into and know. Clement of Alexandria treated it as neutral ground which all men could use and it meant that the spiritual (e.g., non-material) alone was truly real, so the material and historical were depreciated. The development of monasteries, for example, is the result of trying to reconcile apostolic teachings with neoplantonic presuppositions whereby the spiritual (e.g., non-material) life is the higher way and the body is depreciated under a false denunciation of all of material life.

This concept was a basic truth in Hellenic thought and Octavius Caesar represented, as Augustus, not an incarnation of god coming down, but an ascension of man to deity. He provided the way of salvation whereby all men could follow him in the spirit and ascend to deity by and through Rome. Upon Octavian's advent and taking the throne Virgil sent the Advent proclamation, an official twelve day celebration, throughout the Roman Empire that the turning point of the ages had come, "_for there is no other name under heaven by which man can be saved, save Augustus Caesar._" Of course, you're familiar with that language, it is what Peter quoted in Acts 4:12 applicable to Christ, the next verse may make more sense in regards to the "boldness" of the Apostles as unlearned and ignorant men. They were not schooled in philosophical thought but were attacking everything that Rome meant in terms of Jesus Christ. 

Paul ran into this with the doctrine of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, as well, which was "foolishness to the Greek." (1 Cor 1:23) He was teaching that the flesh and blood of Christ was making an atonement for sin - which was dismissed by the Greek's on an axiomatic level as utter and complete nonsense, I mean this was laugh in your face absolute "kookiness" to them. This is because Christianity is in reverse of what they held as truth, in this teaching God was manifest in the flesh, meaning God was coming down into human flesh and doing something in the flesh to restore man. Where in Greek thought all being was on a chain, man was a divine being bound up and inhibited by the flesh from his ascent to his true divine nature. In Biblical teaching man is not in a chain of being, the Creator is uncreated and immortal Being, and man is a created and mortal being with no divine nature - only Christ bridges the gap between Deity and man. He was restoring man to his rightful place on earth to exercise dominion in the name of Jesus Christ and promising to resurrect the flesh. Another just absolutely heinous idea in Greek thought. Everything Christianity taught denied the very nature of being that the Greek's held as true - an essentially evolutionary concept.

In Greek thought the soul was essentially good but held in the prison house of the flesh, so paganism would pray for delivery from the flesh instead of sin. Both Plotinus and Porphyry attacked Christianity for it's doctrine of the incarnation as a downward movement - later it made room for this descent in order to make possible man's ascent. The Biblical doctrine of the resurrection of the body prevented Christians from going as far as neoplatonism would demand, but they still pressed the doctrine as far as was possible within a facade of the faith.

The Alexandrian text comes from Alexandria - the center of neoplantonism and it's schools. Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism &c are all variant deviations of Greek thought syncretised with Scriptural teaching. So, when Erasmus was collating the various manuscripts and examined the Vaticanus which was sent to him by Paul Bombiasius he dismissed it as a corrupted text, Frederick Nolan explains:

"When Erasmus classified the texts into two classes, one representing the Complutenian edition and the other the Vaticanus, he specified the positive grounds upon receiving the former and rejecting the latter. The former was in the possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently provides that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted." An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p 413ff

Of course, the Vaticanus is the "oldest, best and most reliable text" to modern criticism - it was the most corrupted and debased during the Reformation and post-Reformation era. If you get a chance ready Burgon, Revision Revised, he spent six years of his life collating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - Wescott and Hort never collated anything, they worked from printed material - a lot of which has errors of it's own. What Hoskier calls the "trap" laid by Lachman and Tischendorf.

This Alexandrian philosophical text is the foundation of the Latin Vulgate and it's Greek philosophical form/matter dialetic became through Aquinas the nature/grace dialetic of the Church Magisterium of the Middle Ages. When Aquinas returned to Aristole then it provided official continuity between the Latin Vulgate (e.g. Alexandrian text) teachings whereby the errors of the Mass et al. developed centuries before now had coalesced.

Of course, critical text proponents argue that Christians altered the Byzantine text in favor of orthodoxy, which is the main tenet of Greisbach. So, anytime there are variant readings if it's orthodox, it is immediately suspect and dismissed, which is the main basis for rejecting the entire Byzantine text base. It's a "late text," which means that it is presupposed as being altered in favor of orthodoxy because it departs from the older texts which are less orthodox. The problem, of course, from our position is that they assert the same form/matter dialetic and hold the text of Scripture in dialetical tension between the autographa and apographa (e.g., original writings and copies, respectively). The result is a new Scientific Magisterium and a new priestclass that mediates the Word of God unto the Church, the textual critic. 

The social affect in the United States is that the Supreme Court has become the equivalent of the Papacy, complete with a heirarchy of Bishops (the States under the 14th Amendment) and totalitarian control over the social order. The so-called "separation of Church and State" that was developed in 1949 rests on two legal precedents: a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians) in New York in the early 1940's and the same time period a case in Kansas where Roman Catholics sued a public school over the use of the King James Bible. On this foundation the compartmentalization and social segregation of orthodox Christianity officially began known as the "separation of Church and State", we all know the results of it. In 1946 the Jehovah's Witnesses began their work to publish the New World Translation which is based upon the same critical text as all of the other New Versions, they had went to the American Standard Version when it came out and then translated their own. Anyway, that is just to give you some relevance to what all of this really means to us today, as it's not just about the text of Scripture - but absolutely everything that Sola Scriptura means.

The issue today concerning the text of Scripture is the exact same issue it was in historic Reformed orthodox scholasticism defending the Reformation text. They defended it against the Roman Magisterium because they denied the nature/grace dialetic and we are defending it against the Scientific Magisterium because we deny the nature/freedom dialetic. We deny Christians altered Scripture in favor of orthodoxy, but rather that it is the Providentially Preserved original text; and we assert that heretics altered the Scripture in terms of heterodoxy. The Alexandrian text is the exemplar of that heterodoxy altered in favor of Greek philosophical presuppositions in Alexandria. Likewise we reject the Apocrapha on the same grounds, which is part of the Alexandrian canon.

Critical text proponents argue that no essential doctrine of the Christian faith has been altered by their work, of course, that makes one wonder what the purpose of it is if our doctrines aren't heretical in light of the WCF 1:8 that appeals to the original languages are made in controversies of religion. If it's not heretical to believe that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh as 1 Timothy 3:16 teaches, then why would one side with texts that teach the Arian doctrine, especially upon such shaky and faulty grounds as they do? Of course, the real problem for the Reformed today is that with the critical text the Arian can now explicitly find his doctrine in it too, which he prior had to twist through a rubric of interpretation in the Received Text. Now, however, it's just an opinion of textual emphasis between ancient catholic orthodoxy and the heretic, how can his beliefs be anathematized upon the critical text?

In the Reformation and Post-Reformation era the positions that were taken by both sides went like this:

1. Reformers affirmed Sola Scriptura upon Byzantine text theologically rejecting all others.

2. Rome was forced to defend itself, Council of Trent was the result. 

3. Counterattack upon Sola Scriptura by affirming variants in the text of Scripture, hence, you can't know what the original autograph is. No Sola Scriptura, must have Church Magisterium and oral tradition maintained thereby.

4. Reformed orthodox forced to defend itself, high orthodox and reformed scholastic defense resulting in Providential Preservation of the text. Owen, Leigh, and Turretin, for example and the Helvetic Consensus Formula as the last and most explicit creedal defense of the Reformation textual and doctrinal position.

These two positions are antithetical and neither party can be fully understood without seeing both it's positive thesis and it's defensive clarification of that thesis. Likewise, the antithesis between a Reformed defense of historical Protestant orthodoxy and modern textual criticism can't be fully understood either without analyzing it's positive thesis and defensive clarification of that thesis. Today, we are just dismissed on the grounds that our defensive clarification of our positive thesis is presuppositionally rejected in the modern critical claim of scientific neutrality in it's anti-theological approach to the text.

This is very basic to us because we hold to the historic Reformed position where the accepted and received text form is part and parcel of the Regula Fidei of ancient catholic orthodoxy and thereby the text and canon are one. The modern critical position is contrary to this and maintains a philosophical construct and attempt to maintain one foot in Rome and one foot in Confessional orthodoxy straddling the text of Scripture. The result, however, has been the sharp decline of orthodoxy in the 20th century, the rise of the evolutionary-humanist state and the assertion of a Statist Magisterium over all of life. But they can't see that continually questioning the veracity of the Word of God is the problem whereby Authority has been transfered from Scripture to other places. Anytime you set up two disparate authorities that say something different, then the person that decides between them is the Authority.

Textual variants never posed the problem for the Reformed orthodox that they do for modern Christians because they never approached them dialetically - they never set up the autographa against the apographa and never sought to determine the Word of God independent of the text of Scripture.

The Reformed held to Scripture Alone as the absolute authority and principium unicum theologiciae (sole foundation of theology) with the Scripture as a prolegomena to Scripture in the formal absence of a prolegomena. The Romanists affirmed the Church Magisterium as the absolute authority and pricipium unicom theologiciae with Scripture as an adjunct to it.

John Owen, for example, was defending Sola Scriptura against Romanism because he believed, and correctly, that they were attempting to undermine Sola Scriptura which dealt them their death blow by demonstrating that no such things existed independent of the Church Magisterium. Owen believed they wished:

"to place themselves in the throne of God, and to make the words of a translation authentic from their stamp upon them, and not from their relation unto and agreement with the words spoken by God himself. And yet further, as if all this were not enough to manifest what trustees they have been, they have cast off all subjection to the authority of God in His Word, unless it be resolved into their own, denying that any man in the world can know it to be the Word of God unless they tell him so: it is but ink and paper, skin of parchment, a dead letter, a nose of wax, a lesbian rule, - of no authority unto us at all. O faithful trustees! Holy mother church! Infallible chair! Can wickedness yet make any further progress?" (1)

The Romanists, such as Canus, Lindanus, Bellarminus and many others all held the same position. Rome had one universal chorus - variants:

"that the original copies of the Old and New Testament are so corrupted ("ex ore tui, serve nequam") that they are not a certain standard and measure of all doctrines, or the touchstone of all translations." (2)

The latin there, I believe should be translated: "out of your mouth, worthless servant." Which is from the Latin Vulgate Luke 19:22

Owen, on the other hand, held that:

"Of all the inventions of Satan to draw off the minds of men from the Word of God, this of decrying the authority of the originals seems to me the most pernicious." (3)

All of the Reformed held that the copies (apographa) that they had possession of was the original text, so when he says "originals" above he does not mean autographa - citing Owen again:

"Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use was the public possession of many generations, that upon the invention of printing it was in actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as any thing appears to the contrary, let that, then, pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due." (4)

Francis Turretin was a late high orthodox scholastic that defended the Reformation text and doctrine against Rome, in his Institutio Theologiae Elencticae in Locus 2, "The Purity of the Original Text" he sets out the issues:

"This Question is forced upon us by the Roman Catholics, who raise doubts concerning the purity of the sources in order more readily to establish the authority of their Vulgate and lead us to the tribunal of the church." (5)

And he says by the technical term "original text" he means:

"copies (apographa), which have come in their name (autographa) because they record for us that Word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (6)

and the basis in which the so-called "oldest, best and most reliable" texts were rejected is:

"Faithful and accurate copies, not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies...and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these, whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection except the discrepancy." (7)

The Reformers and the Reformed orthodox scholastics following them all dismissed the Vatican as a proper repository of the text of Scripture and all dismissed their text as a corruption. They all, however, recognized that there were minor technical errors and variants, but it was in no way considered as the problem posed today to reconstruct the original autograph in an infinite regress filtered through a dialetical and humanistic presupposition of scientific neutrality. On the contrary, the Reformers were extremely biased against Rome and everything they stood for, including the Latin Vulgate and the texts that agreed with it. Today, the Reformed hold that the textual basis of the Latin Vulgate is the best and nearest to the original text. This is a great dichotomy, because they receive this text upon the doctrinal and canonical grounds of the Reformation - which is an internal inconsistency. If I believed the modern critical position, I would be questioning the veracity of the Reformed faith, because clearly if that is the best text, then on what basis do we reject the Apocrapha?

To the Reformers and to the orthodox the Received Text, for three hundred years, was the very word of God. This is no small matter, as Rushdoony says: "the Faith is at stake." (8)


Notes:

1 John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture, Works, Vol 16, p 284
2 Ibid, p 285
3 Ibid, p 285
4 Ibid, p 366
5 Francis Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture, p 113
6 Ibid
7 Ibid, p 128
8 RJ Rushdoony, The Problem of the Received Text


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 20, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> To the Reformers and to the orthodox the Received Text, for three hundred years, was the very word of God. This is no small matter, as Rushdoony says: "the Faith is at stake." (8)



I continue to maintain that the Reformers and the formerly orthodox were NOT on the "Traditional Text" page. The fact is, textual criticism was not advancing as a discipline until the late 18th Century and its resulting scholarship took over 100 years to advance through continued development and the introduction of new manuscript finds.

To demonstrate John Calvin's view of the text, read the following from one of my prior writings...

---

I came across the following statement in Calvin’s Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

"Where I have rendered -- everything that is called God, the reading more generally received among the Greeks is, every one that is called. It may, however, be conjectured, both from the old translation and from some Greek commentaries, that Paul's words have been corrupted. The mistake, too, of a single letter was readily fallen into, especially when the shape of the letter was much similar; for, where there was written παν το, (everything,) some transcriber, or too daring reader, turned it into παντα, (every one.)"​
This is very interesting...here Calvin argues for an alternate reading on the basis of a supposed scribal error or a 'too daring reader' (this deduced from an alternate reading from the Vulgate and some 'Greek commentaries'--not a variant in another Greek manuscript!). His rejection of 'παντα' in favor of 'παν το' here demonstrates that Calvin did not handle the issue of variants according to any 'Traditional Text' paradigm.

For the record, I think Calvin is wrong here (I would not argue for a reading not found in any extant Greek manuscript). I only intend to point out a place where a sampling of his approach to textual criticism is demonstrated. I find more and more of this sort of thing as I study the old commentaries.

This proves wrong the argument used by Traditional Text advocates that says the 'Traditional Text' approach to handling textual variants was the only known position until the advent of modern textual criticism.

Had Calvin had access to all of the manuscripts we have today, I think it highly likely he would have been an advocate for something like the Critical Greek Text.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 20, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> How come nobody is suggesting the NKJV as a preferred (or recommended) standard for a local church? I kinda like the NKJV.



Because it's Old Testament is a critical text - so you have the same problem just in the Hebrew.

The Reformed orthodox worked extensively in defending the Hebrew. So, the NKJV comes forth to provide an alternative modern translation of the Received Text to settle the dispute and then does a textual switcharoo in the Old Testament to Kittle's critical text.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 20, 2008)

That's not altogether true. Kittle's edition is essentially the same Hebrew text behind the KJV but contains his critical textual apparatus (notes). 



Thomas2007 said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > How come nobody is suggesting the NKJV as a preferred (or recommended) standard for a local church? I kinda like the NKJV.
> ...


----------



## MW (Feb 20, 2008)

prespastor said:


> The fact is, textual criticism was not advancing as a discipline until the late 18th Century and its resulting scholarship took over 100 years to advance through continued development and the introduction of new manuscript finds.



But why wasn't it "advancing" during the high period of reformed orthodoxy when every other aspect of biblical investigation was advancing at a high rate? The textual variants were there, had they been of a mind to utilise them in order to develop the art of textual criticism. But the true state of the case is that they were dogmatically aligned to an uncorrupted text. They possessed the word of God, and no discovery of new mss. would alter their conviction. This is the fundamental point of difference with the proponents of new texts.


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 20, 2008)

Ivan said:


> I use the NKJV after a number of forays with other translations.
> 
> A few of my members would like be to use the NIV or the ESV. ESV maybe, NIV never. However, I'm sticking to my guns. I've told my members that if they want me to switch to another translation I will....to the KJV.



That's interesting that some of your members would like you to switch to ESV or NIV. I have a couple of members who would probably like to see me using the KJV. They are older members who love the Scriptures and their preferences are really more about the beauty of the language more than anything.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 20, 2008)

Hello Pastor Truelove,

I knew I should have put this off to another day, I've got to be brief as I spent too much time in responding to Lady Flynt already.



prespastor said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > To the Reformers and to the orthodox the Received Text, for three hundred years, was the very word of God. This is no small matter, as Rushdoony says: "the Faith is at stake." (8)
> ...



Well, brother, you are maintaining something that is unsupportable.

The text for the Reformers is part and parcel of their return to ancient catholic orthodoxy and is received as a unified whole. That is to say Sola Scriptura is affirmed only in the context of the Regula Fidei of ancient catholic orthodoxy and it has never existed independent of it. Martin Luther's 95 Thesis of October 31, 1517, for example, rests absolutely upon his 97 Thesis of September 1517, and it cannot exist in its absence.

He affirms the doctrine of Grace in September and then sets out on an attack upon the doctrine of Purgatory in October which is derived from the Apocrapha. The Roman defense was in terms of the Greek Old Testament, behind the Latin Vulgate against the Reformers claim of Ad Fontes for the Masoretic Hebrew. In 1562, then, the Second Helvetic Confession is brought forth defending the inspiration of the vowel points of the Hebrew, because this is the locus of the defense at this time, not the New Testament.

It is true that the defense of the New Testament text didn't develop until after Trent (1563), but to argue that they weren't "on the Traditional Text page" because the cause of defending their position had not yet arisen while they were defending the Hebrew is contrary to all of their polemics against Rome. How can they receive Rome's text and deny the Regula Fidei of the Roman Magisterium, they cannot deny the Apocrapha on that ground.

Muller explains the continuity:

"Both the language of sola Scriptura and the actual use of the text of Scripture by the Reformers can be explained only in terms of the questions of authority and interpretation posed by the developments of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Even so, close study of the actual exegetical results of the Reformers manifests strong interpretive and doctrinal continuities with the exegetical results of the fathers and the medieval doctors. (1)" Richard Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2, p 52 citing James Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther, 1969

From the earliest reformatory arguments of Luther and the Swiss disputations and theses, the point was consistently made and dogmatically held forth that Scripture judged tradition and the church, rather than tradition and the church judging Scripture. At the same time, moreoever, the increasingly textual approach and literal hermeneutic of their theology affirming both the high view of inspiration and authority of Scripture, makes it impossible for them to receive the subjective text of the Roman Magisterium and deny the authority of that Magisterium. That would be nothing short of Revolution, not Reformation.

Textual criticism, as a discipline, arose under Richard Simon at the end of the 17th century for the sole purpose of carrying forth the Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura. In the 16th century Rome simply didn't have the philosophical and critical tools at hand to deal a stronger blow to the Protestants other than to assert their arguments. Simon, however, provided the tools - the discipline has been counter-Reformational since that time and worked in relative obscurity until Wescott and Hort brought forth Griesbach's text under the guise of updating the translation of the Authorized Version. Ever since then textual criticism has operated covertly under the guise of "translation" as if they are standing in the Reformed tradition when the opposite is true.





prespastor said:


> To demonstrate John Calvin's view of the text, read the following from one of my prior writings...
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



While I certainly appreciate your opinion, you've just misinterpreted the data. Calvin was a theologian and exegete, the textual work fell upon his protege Theodore Beza, who corrected Calvin's critical method and to whom Calvin acquiesced. It is true that Calvin had an affinity for Colines (1534) edition and utilized it in part of his Institutes of 1540, which is a departure from the established textual tradition of Erasmus and Stephanus, but it is also true that Calvin returned to Stephanus third edition (1550), and then updated subsequent editions of his institutes away from his utilization of Colines text.

However, it is important to understand, that for both Calvin and Beza, and even while Calvin utilized Coline's text he continued to base his critical decisions upon primarily external criteria. It is precisely this aspect of 16th century text criticism that causes modern critical scholars to foam at the mouth. Parker, for example, criticizes Calvin but does so from his position of supporting post-enlightenment methodology which places primacy upon internal evidence. Letis points out that Calvin's critical equipment wasn't faulty as Parker alleges, but that it merely followed a different criterion - *a criterion consistent with the established textual tradition but applied to Colines text in his 1540 commentaries*.

Nevertheless, the scholastic defense of the New Testament doesn't arise until after Calvin and Beza's work had solidified the "Received Text" as not just a publishers advertisement but as an objective reality. Tregelles notes:

"Beza's text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis....After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based." Samuel Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, 1854, p 33 - 35​
Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 1, 2008)

*Addendum to Post 47*

Upon re-reading my responses in this thread, I think another important note needs to be added to my post above, # 47, of February 20, 2008:

I think it is important to make another note of Colines 1534 edition, as it applies for defenders of the Authorized Version, as it would very much fall into the schematic of today's critical text. We are often given the revisionist position that our Protestant father's, such as John Calvin, had no other option but to use the Received Text. That simply isn't true as I've demonstrated above, on the contrary, they abandoned a text that would later become the fountainhead of that recension.

Beza said of this text:

"I have found many things in it emended on sheer conjecture by someone who was in other respect most learned in the Greek tongue." Theodore Beza, Responsio as translated by THL Parker in Calvin's Commentaries, 1971 p 101​
Coline's text, after Beza, was never used by Protestants again and fell into obscurity, it didn't come to the forefront again until Mill and Griesbach, which would be the father's of the critical text. Turner says of this notable and important fact: 

*"It [Coline's text] had no influence on the history of the text, and it was first by Mill and then again by Greisbach that it was rescued from oblivion."* C.H. Turner, Early Printed Editions of the Greek Testament, p 25​
Anyway, I thought this was an important point to bring out as I didn't know if readers were aware of what Coline's text even was.


----------

