# History of KJV and TR



## Andrew P.C.

As I was listening to Dr. White's texual critiscism(I'm behind on the series) I heard him talk about the TR. Before I knew better, I was seeing about attending a Bible college(which by they way is very hostile toward calvinism) and they use the TR. So, here's a good article on the history of the translations of the TR and KJV, but mostly KJV.

http://www.bibletexts.com/KJV-tr.htm


----------



## etexas

I always find it very odd that some use a good translation of the TR like the AV and are anti-Calvinist. It is a matter of history that a good number of the Anglican translators had Calvinist sympathies. You know I read Riplingers book New Age Bible Versions (yes, I admit it, my wife and I were on a trip it was raining we went into a B&N!) anyway Gail in reference to 5 point Calvinist refers to them as the FIVE POINTS OF A PENTAGRAM! OK. First her book was pro AV yet she seems blissfully unaware of the number of Calvinist who had a hand in its making. Dr. Robert L. Thomas (not a TR or AV man) in his wonderful little book "How to Choose a Bible Version" has a chapter on theological bias in translations, Dr. Thomas comments on the number of Calvinist renderins in the AV in that chapter. Wonder if Riplinger ever read that, or if she only reads her own stuff? A Riplinger Onlyist?!?!?!?


----------



## MW

I follow Jesus said:


> Dr. Robert L. Thomas (not a TR or AV man) in his wonderful little book "How to Choose a Bible Version" has a chapter on theological bias in translations, Dr. Thomas comments on the number of Calvinist renderins in the AV in that chapter. Wonder if Riplinger ever read that, or if she only reads her own stuff? A Riplinger Onlyist?!?!?!?



Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?



Lol, they should make the CV bible. Calvinist verison bible. 

I have been back and forth on either ESV or NASB. I really like the ESV, but it's honestly not the version for me. So, I went back to my old NASB.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?



And which are the non-Calvinist versions of Scripture? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering.


----------



## MW

Ivan said:


> And which are the non-Calvinist versions of Scripture? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering.



My first port of call is to see how they render Gen. 4:7.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> My first port of call is to see how they render Gen. 4:7.



And which haven't passed mustard?


----------



## MW

Ivan said:


> And which haven't passed mustard?



From memory, most of them suggest that there is a natural ability in man to master sin.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> From memory, most of them suggest that there is a natural ability in man to master sin.



Now that's a problem.

I use the NKJV most of the time. I do like the KJV. I have used a number of different translation, but the NASB and the ESV basically round out the translations I have used to any great extent. 

Do any of these transaltions, expect for the KJV, have the problem you stated above?


----------



## MW

Ivan said:


> Do any of these transaltions, expect for the KJV, have the problem you stated above?



They all have the problem, the AV excepted.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> They all have the problem, the AV excepted.



Please excuse my misspelling. I'm on some pretty sassy cough syrup!

Still, the AV has some problems, does it not? 

I like the AV because that is what I used for some 20 years of my life. It is the version that is memorized in my brain. The beauty of the text is unsurpassed. 

The problem that is sometimes faced in a congregational worship service is that there are so many translations out among the congregants.

In my church the primary translation is the NKJV. I think I have one lady that has the NASB. Several of us like the ESV. However, I use the NKJV because all but one is using it.

I read a Psalm every Sunday to begin worship. Perhaps I'll use the AV for that.


----------



## MW

Ivan said:


> The problem that is sometimes faced in a congregational worship service is that there are so many translations out among the congregants.



The apostle Paul, in his presbyterial address at Miletus, warns the overseers of the church to watch against grievous wolves entering in and not sparing the flock. This applies as much to Bible translations as to verbal communications. The inherent grievance of doctrinal errors in a Bible translation consists in the fact that they are encapsulated in a volume which purports to be the living and abiding Word of God. Blessings!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> The apostle Paul, in his presbyterial address at Miletus, warns the overseers of the church to watch against grievous wolves entering in and not sparing the flock. This applies as much to Bible translations as to verbal communications. The inherent grievance of doctrinal errors in a Bible translation consists in the fact that they are encapsulated in a volume which purports to be the living and abiding Word of God. Blessings!



Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake. But if you're trying to get at something else, please plainly say it, since i'm a man of a simple mind.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

armourbearer said:


> My first port of call is to see how they render Gen. 4:7.



I see what you're saying about Gen. 4:7. I read it in several other versions and see the difference. I noticed the Geneva bible reads the same as the KJV.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Andrew, you say, "Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake." 

Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "*God* was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?

Steve


----------



## Ivan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Andrew, you say, "Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake."
> 
> Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "*God* was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?
> 
> Steve



I think there are some threads that deal with this issue.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations?



That is it in a nutshell!


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> That is it in a nutshell!



Was there any doubt?!


----------



## MW

Ivan said:


> Was there any doubt?!



No!


----------



## etexas

armourbearer said:


> Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?


I would say a Calvinist who undermines his own theology with a weak translation. Look at the Living Bible (yes, I know it is a paraphrase), the thing is horrible on many levels not the least of which would have been Ken Taylors "Arweenian" leanings he twists almost every verse so much I call it the FREE-WILLY version. Just look at it sometimes.


----------



## pickwick

Forgive me for sounding stupid, but how does the translation of Gen. 4:7 reflect on a translation's worthiness?


----------



## MW

pickwick said:


> Forgive me for sounding stupid, but how does the translation of Gen. 4:7 reflect on a translation's worthiness?



I think it shows that the translation is not made by "men of our profession," to borrow a phrase from the preface to the AV.


----------



## Chris

pickwick said:


> Forgive me for sounding stupid, but how does the translation of Gen. 4:7 reflect on a translation's worthiness?




Call me stupid, too. I don't 'get it'.

For what it's worth, though, I find this thread fascinating. I'm thoroughly enjoying it and hope to see it develop more....


----------



## satz

I know this issue is sensitive and do not intend to step on any toes, but...

I really believe that the fact that we have to chose between multiple 'versions' of scripture today is detrimental to the church and to christians.

It is said that the differences between the faithful versions are small and are primarily a matter of wording as opposed to meaning, but if every word of God is pure, wouldn't we want to be able to hang on his every word, including the grammer and phrasing, instead of having to chose between several versions of his word that might sort of mean the same thing, but have sometimes completely different words.

Isn't it interesting that no one in the New Testament, when referring back to the Old, ever found the need to correct translation or copying errors in the versions of scripture their hearers were using? Why do we need to do so today then?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me ask a few questions of those more informed about the TR. I want to get past the dross on this issue because I'm trying to understand your position a bit better.

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authorative manuscript that translators should refer to.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scribner based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?

Is all of that immaterial against the idea that the Reformed Church ruled combined with the idea that God's hand of Providence ensured that the possibility for any human error by the AV translators in their manuscript choices was overcome?

Also, why would God wait until the 17th Century to determine the corpus of His perfect manuscript choices based on the decisions of English translators? The Textus Receptus as an authoratative "these are the critical texts" didn't exist prior to that by Church decree. Why an English translation?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scribner based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?



The TR is not a ms, nor even a group of mss. It is a belief in the canonical principle. We do not approach mss with neutral minds. We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence. Textual critics are working with the evidence, and insofar as they adhere to their side of the fence then we are content to let them do their work. But especially since the 19th century they have encroached upon the work of the ministry, deeming it fit to pronounce what is and what is not the word of God. We must look again at the title deeds, map out the lay of the land, determine what is the province of the ministry and what the province of the critic, and kindly ask them to return to their own backyard. The word of God cannot be ascertained by counting and dating mss.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rev. Winzer,

Do you have a Greek Text or not? If you do then what is the history behind how it was formed? That is what I'm asking.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Andrew, you say, "Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake."
> 
> Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "*God* was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?
> 
> Steve



Sir, if you are referring to the Recieved Text(which the KJV is derived from), then yes, I will stand on my charge that the KJV is not the superior version.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Do you have a Greek Text or not? If you do then what is the history behind how it was formed? That is what I'm asking.



I understand what you are asking, Rich; but I reject the implication that the basis of my faith is dependent upon man's wisdom, art or industry, simply because there has been a process of rediscovery since the renaissance. You are urging me to start with the physical text, which obviously has a history, and can be quantified. Whereas I must start with the nature of the text as the living and abiding word of God.

This issue has nothing to do with mss. We possess mss. of non-canonical books. It is the nature of the writing, not its physical attributes which determines canonicity. Every argument used to support the canonicity of Mark likewise supports the inclusion of its last twelve verses. Blessings!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> The TR is not a ms, nor even a group of mss. It is a belief in the canonical principle. We do not approach mss with neutral minds. We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence. Textual critics are working with the evidence, and insofar as they adhere to their side of the fence then we are content to let them do their work. But especially since the 19th century they have encroached upon the work of the ministry, deeming it fit to pronounce what is and what is not the word of God. We must look again at the title deeds, map out the lay of the land, determine what is the province of the ministry and what the province of the critic, and kindly ask them to return to their own backyard. The word of God cannot be ascertained by counting and dating mss.




Sir, are you aware that you are a KJV only advocate. You state:



armourbearer said:


> The TR is not a ms, nor even a group of mss. It is a belief in the canonical principle. We do not approach mss with neutral minds. We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence.



Is this ignorance? Now, please correct me if i'm wrong, but "ms" means manuscript right? If so, to say that God's Word exists independent of ms. evidence is to cover your eyes and plug your ears. 

Yes, I do believe God has preserved His Word through the ages, but at the same time He used us, as vessels, to pass down His Word from generation to generation. Now is the time, if ever, to be critical about texts we have. We have so many manuscripts; and with lots of prayer, I believe God has improved the English translations through the older manuscripts that we have now today then they did in the 17th century.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK, will someone who is willing to answer my question without the conviction that they are betraying God by doing so, answer the question: what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew,

Let's not get bogged down here. Rev Winzer knows he is only an advocate of the AV. The rest of us know that too.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Sir, are you aware that you are a KJV only advocate.



No. Are you aware of the difference between KJV only and KJV preferred? I believe it is faith to be able to identify the Word of God, and faithfulness to adhere to it. You may as well tell me that I can live with a faulty confession as a faulty Bible.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Is this ignorance? Now, please correct me if i'm wrong, but "ms" means manuscript right? If so, to say that God's Word exists independent of ms. evidence is to cover your eyes and plug your ears.
> 
> Yes, I do believe God has preserved His Word through the ages, but at the same time He used us, as vessels, to pass down His Word from generation to generation. Now is the time, if ever, to be critical about texts we have. We have so many manuscripts; and with lots of prayer, I believe God has improved the English translations through the older manuscripts that we have now today then they did in the 17th century.



On the basis of this theory we have no supreme standard of faith. If the standard is determined by men, it has no means of correcting men.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> OK, will someone who is willing to answer my question without the conviction that they are betraying God by doing so, answer the question: what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?



Rich, are you willing to go back a few steps further. Why do you believe John 3:16. Had you even heard of the idea of traditional and critical texts before you believed it?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> OK, will someone who is willing to answer my question without the conviction that they are betraying God by doing so, answer the question: what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?



Brother, you would have to do research on such things as "The majority text" and the "alexandrian text."

Here's a good site that talks about many translations and greek texts:

http://www.bible-researcher.com


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> Rich, are you willing to go back a few steps further. Why do you believe John 3:16. Had you even heard of the idea of traditional and critical texts before you believed it?



Brother, that's not the issue here. God's sovreignty and textual criticism are to seperate areas. First and foremost, God will save people through the message of the gospel. Secondly, once saved, we have the liberty to choose a translation. Knowing the source of the translation is something, I believe, is a must for every believer and criticising texts, used by certain translations is hard, I will admit I know little compared to others, but the time and research spent into this has been a blessing to me; knowing that the translation I picked is accurate, rather then "thoughtful". (I'm saying that literal translations are a must and though-for-thought translations, or "equivalent dynamics", need to be done away with.)


----------



## nicnap

Andrew,

I think Rich is well informed on textual issues...I think that he is merely drawing out why men such as Rev. Winzer and myself and brother Rafalsky hold to the TR...which both of these men are more qualified, and tend to have more time than I do to discuss. Otherwise, I might jump into this rehash of 100,000 previous threads.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, that's not the issue here. God's sovreignty and textual criticism are to seperate areas. First and foremost, God will save people through the message of the gospel. Secondly, once saved, we have the liberty to choose a translation. Knowing the source of the translation is something, I believe, is a must for every believer and criticising texts, used by certain translations is hard, I will admit I know little compared to others, but the time and research spent into this has been a blessing to me; knowing that the translation I picked is accurate, rather then "thoughtful". (I'm saying that literal translations are a must and though-for-thought translations, or "equivalent dynamics", need to be done away with.)



This is precisely the issue; and God's sovereignty is as much regulative of the text of Scripture as any other area of life. I do not buy into this Thomistic idea that scholarship moves on neutral ground, which is neither here nor there to faith.

You count and date mss. today which leads you to accept a certain text of Scripture. Those mss. probably only account for about 1/1000th of the total mss. that have been created over the centuries. What would you do in a years time if a mass of scholars told you they had discovered another 2/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is precisely 9/10ths of what you had accepted as Scripture. Then in two years time they discover another 5/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is merely 8/10ths, and so on and so forth. And what if it so happens that of the newly edited NT, it turned out there was no ms. evidence for the doctrine of the Deity of Christ? Would you be somewhat suspicious of the so-called "assured results" of scholarship then?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> This is precisely the issue; and God's sovereignty is as much regulative of the text of Scripture as any other area of life. I do not buy into this Thomistic idea that scholarship moves on neutral ground, which is neither here nor there to faith.
> 
> You count and date mss. today which leads you to accept a certain text of Scripture. Those mss. probably only account for about 1/1000th of the total mss. that have been created over the centuries. What would you do in a years time if a mass of scholars told you they had discovered another 2/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is precisely 9/10ths of what you had accepted as Scripture. Then in two years time they discover another 5/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is merely 8/10ths, and so on and so forth. And what if it so happens that of the newly edited NT, it turned out there was no ms. evidence for the doctrine of the Deity of Christ? Would you be somewhat suspicious of the so-called "assured results" of scholarship then?



Brother, the reality of it is that we do have mss. God has preserved His word. There are no "what ifs" but rather there is reality. Therefore, we, as human beings, and guidance from God, can only conclude what mss are more accurate by comparing them to other mss. Alot of the mss are consistent with one another in what they say, but there are some out there that we must disregard because of the nonsense that is on them. For example, some of the mss contain Gnostic writings. Would you want Gnostic writings in your bible? That's why we must be critical about certain manuscripts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> This is precisely the issue; and God's sovereignty is as much regulative of the text of Scripture as any other area of life. I do not buy into this Thomistic idea that scholarship moves on neutral ground, which is neither here nor there to faith.
> 
> You count and date mss. today which leads you to accept a certain text of Scripture. Those mss. probably only account for about 1/1000th of the total mss. that have been created over the centuries. What would you do in a years time if a mass of scholars told you they had discovered another 2/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is precisely 9/10ths of what you had accepted as Scripture. Then in two years time they discover another 5/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is merely 8/10ths, and so on and so forth. And what if it so happens that of the newly edited NT, it turned out there was no ms. evidence for the doctrine of the Deity of Christ? Would you be somewhat suspicious of the so-called "assured results" of scholarship then?



I have two issues with the above:

1. The hypothetical that paints the doomsday scenario. In the four centuries since the AV1611 came out we have far, far less than 10% of the text that has been challenged as being original. Your argument produces the "shock and awe" that it is intended to produce: Every 2 years the text changes by 10%?! Run for the hills!

2. You are perfectly willing to talk about how modern scholarship is messing up the process of how the selected texts but you be-knight the process that people used in the 17th Century and place it beyond discussion and above reproach. You won't even discuss the issue of whether a parallel corruption might have occured and whether Erasmus might have erred in a few choices he made.

You see, I'm willing to grant that I don't buy all the scientific arguments that say that "we _know_ this to be true because 9 times out of 10 this error occurs". I don't want to turn the process over to scientists either.

I just find a bit of unwillingness for the TR folk to look in their back yard and see if the "scientific" method that translators made way back when were dubious or not. They act as if this generation is the first to make mistakes.


----------



## MW

Rich, it is not a matter of percentage per annum, but of whether the money should be put into that unsafe bank at all. Andrew, please let me know when the scholars have tracked down the ms. which we can all put our trust in. Blessings, gentlemen!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Rich, it is not a matter of percentage per annum, but of whether the money should be put into that unsafe bank at all. Andrew, please let me know when the scholars have tracked down the ms. which we can all put our trust in. Blessings, gentlemen!



Honestly, I think you're engaging in sophistry here.

I guess I've always thought of the refining process as being under the governance of God's Providential hand. I believe, in history, He rescued His Church from years of darkness under a false Gospel. A Jesuit might fold his arms at me and state: "Do let me know when you discover a doctrine of Justification that you can settle on. We had one that was just fine for 1000 years."

If God can refine His Church and rescue her from a false understanding of Justification then He can certainly perfect His Word by exposing obvious errors to us that occured during the process of "settling" the text in the 17th Century.

Thus, do let me know when I can stop counting on God to be working all things together for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> If God can refine His Church and rescue her from a false understanding of Justification then He can certainly perfect His Word by exposing obvious errors to us that occured during the process of "settling" the text in the 17th Century.



I assert the Word of God IS perfect. Our Confession speaks of "the entire perfection thereof." I can't remember reading any reformed divine which thought of this as a process.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rev. Winzer,

I don't want to argue with you on the perfection of Scripture. I believe God's Word is inspired and perfect.

I just have a hard time understanding how the Word of God existed for people who only had Mss. that were "imperfect" until the AV translators pulled them all together to produce it.

Were the Monks who read Sinaticus all those years able to trust that what they were reading was the Word of God?

I apologize for letting this degenerate on my part. I do hold you in high esteem and consider you to be a man of great integrity.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Were the Monks who read Sinaticus all those years able to trust that what they were reading was the Word of God?



They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket. 

Blessings, Rich. You are a good brother.


----------



## DTK

armourbearer said:


> They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket.


I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.

DTK


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.



Perhaps you haven't had to listen to some of the ignorant remarks I have been privy to. If so, you would understand my natural inclination to see your evaluation as classic over-exaggeration. Since the leisureliness of my statement appears offensive to you, I will retract it and replace it with a quotation -- quotations from authorities usually meet with academic approval.



> I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked up by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 12]


----------



## DTK

armourbearer said:


> Perhaps you haven't had to listen to some of the ignorant remarks I have been privy to. If so, you would understand my natural inclination to see your evaluation as classic over-exaggeration. Since the leisureliness of my statement appears offensive to you, I will retract it and replace it with a quotation -- quotations from authorities usually meet with academic approval.


I'm not interested in some of the ignorant remarks to which you've listened. It is excusable for a laymen to make such mistakes, but not for one who should know better, but is unwilling to investigate that claim beyond Burgon. Following the incident that Tischendorf observed of the burning of mss., Sinaiticus was discovered on his revisit to the monastery.



> *Bruce M. Metzger:* In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catharine, hoping to acquire other portions of the same manuscript. The excitement which he had displayed on the occasion of his discovery during his first visit had made the monks cautious, and he could learn nothing further about the manuscript. In 1859 his travels took him back once more to Mount Sinai, this time under the patronage of the Czar of Russia, Alexander II. The day before he was scheduled to leave he presented to the steward of the monastery a copy of the edition of the Septuagint which he had recently published in Leipzig. Thereupon the steward remarked that he too had a copy of the Septuagint, and produced from a closet in his cell a manuscript (i.e., codex Sinaiticus) wrapped in a red cloth. There before the astonished scholar’s eyes lay the treasure which he had been longing to see. Concealing his feelings, Tischendorf casually asked permission to look at it further that evening. Permission was granted, and upon retiring to his room Tischendorf stayed up all night in the joy of studying the manuscript—for, as he declared in his diary (which as a scholar he kept in Latin), _quipped dormire nefas videbatur_ (‘it really seemed a sacrilege to sleep’)! He soon found that the document contained much more than he had even hoped; for not only was most of the Old Testament there, but also the New Testament was intact and in excellent condition, with the addition of two early Christian works of the second century, the Epistle of Barnabas (previously known only through a very poor Latin translation) and a large portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, hitherto known only by title.
> The next morning Tischendorf tried to buy the manuscript, but without success. Then he asked to be allowed to take it to Cairo to study; but the monk in charge of the altar plate objected, and so he had to leave without it. Bruce M. Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 43-44.


You have tried to reduce Rich's honest questions directed to you as if they lead to doubt and confusion over both the text and canon, instead of engaging them in a meaningful way. I guess jokingly dismissing his inquiries is a sign of piety to you, but it has yet to offer him anything but you own bias for a particular text. Burgon was a very godly man, but his critical remarks for Tischendorf's discovery doesn't make for the best reporting of history. Sinaiticus was not recovered from a waste-paper basket, and yes I have his books on my shelf, but it doesn't mean that he got his "facts" right. And you would serve yourself well to look beyond Erasmus and Burgon, instead of trying to argue that Rich's faith in the text and canon of Holy Scripture lies in the hands of men.

You can do better than this.

DTK


----------



## MW

DTK, Well either it is the most ignorant statement you have heard or it is not. The person making the statement should not influence the decision. The fact that the legend has a scholarly background should at least give you pause before making the outlandish claim. And even if it is mere legend, the rescue at the eleventh hour seemed to serve the purposes of the codex's advocates at the time, only for it to be discredited when it was turned against them.

This is a discussion board, DTK. Light remarks are part and parcel of discussion. I added the smiley to indicate it was a light remark. You will just have to accept it as such.

As for my approach to Rich, I have done the best I can in the limited time and scope of this forum. If you can do better, please be my guest to address the issue from the perspective of the reformed faith. I have never been inclined to listen to back seat drivers, they are a distraction; please be my guest and take the wheel.


----------



## DTK

> This is a discussion board, DTK. Light remarks are part and parcel of discussion. I added the smiley to indicate it was a light remark. You will just have to accept it as such.


Yes, it is a discussion board that trafficks in holy things, and indeed there is often a place for light remarks. But in the context of rebuking a man as though his faith in Holy Scripture rests in the hands of men with nothing but his own personal bias, and then offer an ignorant remark about the discovery of Sinaiticus is incongruent.


> As for my approach to Rich, I have done the best I can in the limited time and scope of this forum. If you can do better, please be my guest to address the issue from the perspective of the reformed faith. I have never been inclined to listen to back seat drivers, they are a distraction; please be my guest and take the wheel.


I did take the wheel and corrected your repetition of Burgon's error. I've never been inclined to listen to front seat drivers, especially when they don't know where they're going, or in this case, where they've been.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I would _definitely_ agree with DTK here.

Personally, the best translation I have come across is the Geneva Bible (my personal preference), which was copied by the AV "translators" for almost 80% of the text without the Genevan notes (that and the Bishop's Bible of the day were used). 20% of the AV is translated, and definitely where we find some of the best translations of the Hebrew and Greek MSS to date.

I love the AV version, but love the GB more, aside from the original Hebrew or Greek texts.

However...

Rich is trying to have you answer the question as to "where you find" the Word of God you stand on.

You said, "I assert the Word of God IS perfect."

So does Rich.

You asked Rich, "Why do you believe John 3:16."

He is asking "Where do you find John 3:16?"

You said, "whether the money should be put into that unsafe bank at all."

Rich is asking where you get the information for "your bank."

You said, "If the standard is determined by men, it has no means of correcting men."

Rich knows that God determines the standards, but wants to know where to find it.

You said, "It is the nature of the writing, not its physical attributes which determines canonicity."

Rich wants to know how the nature of the writing is determined wihout physcial attributes of the writing itself.

You said, "We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence."

Rich is curious as to how this squares with: "and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the *more sure *establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same *wholly unto writing*; which maketh the holy *Scripture* to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

Rich is wondering where that "writing" is, the _graphe_?

The WCF states very clearly - "Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:" and then names them - 

Rich is wondering where they looked to find them.

The WCF states, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Rich wants to know how they knew the difference between the Apocrypha and the writings of Scripture.

The WCF states, "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

Rich wants to know, since it does not rest on men, but on God, where God told him it was the word of God, and what he should recieve *AS* the word of God.

I enjoy the WCF here as well: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

Rich is curious as to what these divines could be talking about, or what they used (i.e. what MSS) to determined such excellencies, and perfections. The divines said that it is clearly EVIDENCED. What evidendce might they be talking about?

One might say "THE AV!"

Rich will ask where they got that.

One might say "GOD!"

One might ask, we know that but how did God give it to us, and where did they find it, and who found it, and how did they compile it.

Hopefully, at that point, one will not say "GOD!" again or "THE AV!" again.


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> Yes, it is a discussion board that trafficks in holy things, and indeed there is often a place for light remarks. But in the context of rebuking a man as though his faith in Holy Scripture rests in the hands of men with nothing but his own personal bias, and then offer an ignorant remark about the discovery of Sinaiticus is incongruent.



That certainly wasn't my intention.


----------



## MW

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Rich is trying to have you answer the question as to "where you find" the Word of God you stand on.



I omit the rest of your post as it makes no attempt to record the discussion either in order or in context. To answer this simple question, look up at the subject line. If that is all Rich were asking, I would have suggested he look up at the subject line too.

One thing I know -- both you and DTK have as little hope of proving that the Bible is the Word of God from crumbly old mss. as I do. That is why I insist that it should not even be attempted. I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I had to take care of a few things. I appreciate Revs. King and McMahon taking time here. I just want to say that, at no time did I feel Rev. Winzer was rebuking me. I consider him a friend. I do not share his conviction wrt to the AV but share his love and zeal for Christ.

Matt: That was an excellent summation of the issue.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I won't rehash by saying you are avoiding the question, so I'll ask - 

"Which Bible tells you so?"


----------



## DTK

armourbearer said:


> One thing I know -- both you and DTK have as little hope of proving that the Bible is the Word of God from crumbly old mss. as I do. That is why I insist that it should not even be attempted. I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!


I don’t think any man can prove that the Bible is the Word of God. I think that the Bible is, as the Reformers and the Post-Reformation Reformed insisted, true in and of itself (_autaletheia_) trustworthy in and of itself (_autopistis_), because it is the word of the true and living God. And because it is the word of God, it is _axiopistos_ (worthy of faith). This was not novel because it simply echoed the patristic consensus, who likewise recognized and submitted to the witness of God in Holy Scripture. If Scripture is trustworthy in and of itself, it stands in no need of any external authority, be it church or tradition, as witness to approve, endorse, validate, substantiate, or sanction its divine origin.

Here’s the difference, I suspect, between you and I. You look at all the manuscripts (we have some 5,000 or more today) and the subsequent variants, and you regard these as a threat to what you perceive to be the pure texts behind the AV. Your presupposition is based on a desire for no variation in any texts, without which you think we can have no certainty regarding the Bible. On the other hand, I do not believe that textual variations equal textual corruption. It is well known by students of the Bible that textual variations between the Hebrew text, the Septuagint (LXX), and copies of both existed in the days of our Lord. Yet, Jesus and the New Testament writers quote repeatedly from contemporary copies of both the extant Hebrew texts and translations of the Septuagint, never once calling into question the certainty, integrity, and adequacy of these copies to communicate infallibly the word of the true and living God. To suggest otherwise is to call into question the integrity of the New Testament witnesses themselves. Moreover, the preservation of the New Testament text (from the first century to our own day) has been shown many times over to possess the highest degree of accuracy in comparison to other ancient texts. Commenting on the phrase ‘as it is written,’ Roger Beckwith has pointed out:


> The quotations are treated as having finality, and it is the contemporary text of the quotations which is treated in this way. Philo quotes from the Septuagint translation, as the New Testament often does and the Fathers regularly do, but when the Hebrew is quoted or reflected (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls and sometimes in the New Testament), there is nothing to suggest that anything other than contemporary manuscripts of the Hebrew is being used. Paraphrase, where paraphrase is employed, is evidently designed to draw out the most relevant implications of the passage quoted, and not to restore a more primitive form of the text. In all this, the practice of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament is like that of their Jewish contemporaries.
> What this implies is that God’s ‘singular care and providence’ was understood to extend not just to the traditional form (or forms) of the original text, but even to standard and accepted translations of the text, such as the Septuagint. See Beckwith’s ‘Toward a Theology of the Biblical Text’ in Donald Lewis and Alister McGrath, eds., _Doing Theology for the People of God: Studies in Honor of J.I. Packer_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), p 48.


 
Likewise, Roger Nicole has observed, “When the New Testament authors appealed to Scripture as the Word of God, it is not claimed that they viewed anything but the original communication as vested in full with divine inerrancy. Yet their willingness to make use of the LXX, in spite of its occasional defects, teaches the important lesson that the basic message which God purposed to deliver can be conveyed even through a translation, and that appeal can be made to a version insofar as it agrees with the original" (p. 143). See his ‘New Testament Use of the Old Testament,’ in Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 143. Bruce Metzger (who was the leading authority in the field of textual criticism) has pointed out that:



> …the overwhelming majority of such variant readings involve inconsequential details, such as alternative spellings, order of words, and interchange of synonyms. In these cases, as well as in the relatively few instances involving the substance of the record, scholars apply the techniques of textual criticism in order to determine with more or less probability what the original wording was. _In any event, no doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain._ Bruce M. Metzger, _The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content_, 2nd ed., enlarged (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), p. 281.



Your point is basically there can be no certainty apart from everyone using the AV as the standard text, and anything otherwise is laying one’s head down in a mess. Well, then, pray tell what is the standard German text, or the standard French text, or the standard Korean text? The language of the world isn’t restricted to English. Your point, as I’ve tried to argue, is not only ahistorical in contrast to the witness of the NT writers themselves, but ignores the richness of the great certainty to which the overall manuscript tradition testifies! As F. F. Bruce observed:


> By the ‘singular care and providence’ of God, the text of Scripture has come down to us in such substantial purity that even the most uncritical edition of the Hebrew and Greek, or the most incompetent (or even the most tendentious) translation of such an edition, cannot effectively obscure its essential message or neutralize its saving power. F.F. Bruce’s remarks in the forward to Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973). See also the comments of Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), p. 185.


Your response to Rich is that, “I refuse to lay my head down in a mess,” which I paraphrase as “I refuse to deal with it.” It’s not helpful, and it certainly isn’t going to give someone like a Korean believer anywhere to pillow his faith against the critics of Holy Scripture.

Apparently, according to your view, God has only preserved his word pure for the English-speaking peoples of the world. Now, you certainly do not argue this, but it leaves no place, for example, for the Korean believer as noted above. 

My preferred text for reading and study and from which I preach is the NKJV. But to use it does not require that I bury my head in the sand and ignore the richness of the vast evidence for the certainty of the NT text of Holy Scripture. In other words, I don't simply say, "I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!" as if, obliviously, my non-English speaking brethren can fend for themselves because I'm standing alone on the Word of God. No, one need not agree with you to know whence they came and where they're going.

I would suggest that, in the end, your argument is similar to that of the Romanist, because he likewise argues for a uniformity of agreement, and that otherwise there can be certainty.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Andrew,

Okay, we differ as to the first part of my statement, but what about the second:

Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "*God* was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?​
Ivan is right when he says there are threads here devoted to these questions, and which cover them quite thoroughly.

Is it solely Dr. White's testimony on which you are basing your certitude?

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

_They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket._

I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.​
Perhaps facts will throw a little light upon this. This subject was recently discussed on this board, and here are the two posts that I believe will settle the matter:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=223739&postcount=3

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=223954&postcount=4

On the first of these posts you will find a link to Tischendorf’s published account of the finding of Aleph.

Steve

---------

P.S. Rich, I will shortly endeavor to answer some of the questions you have posed.


----------



## DTK

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perhaps facts will throw a little light upon this. This subject was recently discussed on this board, and here are the two posts that I believe will settle the matter:


No, your interpretation of Tischendorf's testimony doesn't make it clear for me. You're welcome to your attempt to reconstruct what you think happened, but I don't buy it.

DTK


----------



## Robert Truelove

I recently did a lecture in which I critiqued some of the key arguements for the Traditional Text. For those interested, you can hear it at...

http://www.hpcministry.org/audio/traditionaltext2.mp3


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Andrew,
> 
> Okay, we differ as to the first part of my statement, but what about the second:
> 
> Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "*God* was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?​
> Ivan is right when he says there are threads here devoted to these questions, and which cover them quite thoroughly.
> 
> Is it solely Dr. White's testimony on which you are basing your certitude?
> 
> Steve



To answer your questions: No Dr. White's testimony isn't the only one i listen to, there are others like Dr. John MacArthur. Here's what he says about the last verses Mark:



John MacArthur said:


> The external evidence stronly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark's gospel. While the majority of Greek manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not. A shorter ending also existed, but it is not included in the text. Further, some that include the passage note that it was missing from older greek manuscripts, while others have scribal marks indicating the passage was considered spurious. The fourth-century fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9-20.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

David,

I won’t be dismissed so easily. It pays to look closely at the texts we are discussing.

Your quote of Metzger says what I have also said: “In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catharine, hoping to acquire *other portions of the same manuscript.*”

It was in fact part of a, the MSS Tischendorf _first_ rescued from the flames, and he went back for the remainder (the value of which the monks now discerned), eventually with success.

What have I said (or Burgon, for that matter) that is at odds with Metzger’s own account?

Another thing: in post #56 you opined, “Jesus and the New Testament writers quote repeatedly from contemporary copies of both the extant Hebrew texts and translations of the Septuagint…” Would you kindly show me, David, where the Lord Jesus quotes from the Greek Old Testament (the LXX), _thus speaking the Greek language_ in His discussions with either His opponents or His disciples? Unless you are saying He quoted the LXX but translated it back into Hebrew or Aramaic, the which I would also be interested in seeing an example of.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Rich,

I want to answer some of the things you have raised good questions about. I am only previewing it here in this post, as I have also to prepare two sermons for this weekend, plus help my wife do some yard-work. These are the areas I will set myself to answer, as briefly but cogently as I can:

"I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authoritative manuscript that translators should refer to.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?"​
--------

“what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​
--------

“I just have a hard time understanding how the Word of God existed for people who only had Mss. that were "imperfect" until the AV translators pulled them all together to produce it.

Were the Monks who read Sinaticus all those years able to trust that what they were reading was the Word of God?”​
These are all good questions, and as I have a different approach to defending the AV/1894 TR than Rev. Winzer, I will address them.

In Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform_, they posit an important axiom:

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)​
It is this orientation I always seek to operate in, and thus it is _important_ (to my way of thinking) to give a clear understanding of textual history, knowing, of course, that a good part of it will be conjecture, as there are periods where we do not have sufficient data to arrive at conclusions based on facts, and thus we interpret the data we have. In the end (and beginning, truth be told) it is our _presuppositions_ that guide how we interpret the data, some according to the dogma of a “neutral science,” and others according to the dogma of a providential preservation.

If you will be patient, I will seek to give good answers to your questions.

Steve


----------



## etexas

armourbearer said:


> They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket.
> 
> Blessings, Rich. You are a good brother.


----------



## Barnpreacher

> _
> One thing I know -- both you and DTK have as little hope of proving that the Bible is the Word of God from crumbly old mss. as I do. That is why I insist that it should not even be attempted. I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so! _



Amen! Amen! Amen! 




> Originally Posted by *DTK*
> _I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.
> _
> 
> _Yes, it is a discussion board that trafficks in holy things, and indeed there is often a place for light remarks. But in the context of rebuking a man as though his faith in Holy Scripture rests in the hands of men with nothing but his own personal bias, and then offer an ignorant remark about the discovery of Sinaiticus is incongruent.
> _
> 
> _I've never been inclined to listen to front seat drivers, especially when they don't know where they're going, or in this case, where they've been.
> _



And your remarks are also some of the most ignorant and classless remarks I've read on here in a long time. Just because you don't agree with Rev. Winzer's stance gives you no right to jump in the thread and start making false claims about him. Rev. Winzer has just stated his position and answered questions. Don't blame him because you can't handle the answers!


----------



## etexas

I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Rich you said,

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authoritative manuscript that translators should refer to.​
Yes, this is so.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?​
Yes, that is accurate.

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?​
The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs. 

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, said he found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:

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 chose 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)​
* Owen’s _Divine Original_ online: http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p5.htm. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God _completely_ – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever. And a very strong case could be made for that position also.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: _The Majority Text_, and _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind_. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, _The Ecclesiastical Text_, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield _redefined_ the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from the bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.

I know I have wandered from the strict path of discussing the TR, Rich, but these thoughts are related.

To be continued.

Steve


----------



## MW

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> "Which Bible tells you so?"



The AV, of course.


----------



## etexas

armourbearer said:


> The AV, of course.


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> Likewise, Roger Nicole has observed, “When the New Testament authors appealed to Scripture as the Word of God, it is not claimed that they viewed anything but the original communication as vested in full with divine inerrancy. Yet their willingness to make use of the LXX, in spite of its occasional defects, teaches the important lesson that the basic message which God purposed to deliver can be conveyed even through a translation, and that appeal can be made to a version insofar as it agrees with the original" (p. 143). See his ‘New Testament Use of the Old Testament,’ in Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 143. Bruce Metzger (who was the leading authority in the field of textual criticism) has pointed out that:



I think if one is going to concede to the "professional monopoly" of modern scholarship then they should be aware that modern scholarship barely believes there was any such thing as the LXX. Why are we at liberty to discard what they say about the Greek mss. of the OT, while we are bound hand and foot to their judgements on the Greek mss. of the NT?


----------



## MW

I follow Jesus said:


> I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.


----------



## etexas

armourbearer said:


>


I believe it! Glad you dig the train o' thought.


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> Apparently, according to your view, God has only preserved his word pure for the English-speaking peoples of the world. Now, you certainly do not argue this, but it leaves no place, for example, for the Korean believer as noted above.



DTK, You were far more competent driving the car from the back seat. Now that you have taken the wheel, you have crashed and burned. If you knew whence you came and whither you were going you would know the argument for the AV only pertains to English speaking peoples and that AV preferred advocates insist that the BIble is to be translated into the vulgar tongue of each nation.

The German, Dutch, French, Italian, and other languages all have their standard reformation Bibles. The Trinitarian Bible Society is doing tremendous work in providing the equivalent of the AV in other languages that have not been blessed with quality translations.


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> I would suggest that, in the end, your argument is similar to that of the Romanist, because he likewise argues for a uniformity of agreement, and that otherwise there can be certainty.



Besides the fact that this statement is posted under the wrong thread, I can only respond that, in the end, your argument severs your theology from the "christendom" in which the reformers' theology was forged. The alomost anything goes approach, under a wide and open providence, was not their worldview.


----------



## etexas

armourbearer said:


> Besides the fact that this statement is posted under the wrong thread, I can only respond that, in the end, your argument severs your theology from the "christendom" in which the reformers' theology was forged. The alomost anything goes approach, under a wide and open providence, was not their worldview.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Rich,

Your next question:

“what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​
God preserved the true reading of the NT in the majority of mss. Great defenses of this position are made by the Majority Text people; I list three, Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont (their valuable Introduction has a link in one of my above posts); Wilbur N. Pickering, and his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, and Jakob van Bruggen’s, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html.

One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings. Westcott and Hort tried to invalidate this clear numerical superiority by a theory of an official church edition in the 4th century which resulted in this 90% agreement of mss, and for a while the “church intelligencia” bought into their theory, but increasingly it was proven to be groundless speculation, and today is entirely debunked, save for those who are “not up to speed” in text critical matters.

So the priority of the Majority (or Byzantine) text remains, at least for some.

But the AV adherents go a step farther than the MT folks: they see God’s preservation of the Greek text not only in the Byzantine mss, but in the confluence of those and other sources which contained readings lost in the Byzantine, such as disappeared during the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, and the struggle against the Sabellians, in the 4th century, namely those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ.* 

The AV folks hold that God, even though He had _adequately_ (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. It was a matter of _adequate_ preservation compared to _preservation in the minutiae_.

I refer to another post which discusses this in further detail: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=219226&postcount=39

* see Frederick Nolan’s classic, _AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEK VULGATE OR RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT_: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry0.html.

I am trying to be concise, and so I may not answer all your questions, and would be glad to if you state them further. This also is why I give links to resources, and to other posts.

To be continued.

Steve


----------



## Herald

> Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?



I've never heard of a non Calvinist version of scripture. I suppose if there is a version out there that omits Romans 9, Ephesians 1 & 2, 1 Peter 1 etc. then you it could be called a non Calvinist version of Scripture. But if that were the case I wouldn't call it scripture at all. 

Let me see...yep...my NASB has all those chapters.


----------



## Theoretical

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I've never heard of a non Calvinist version of scripture. I suppose if there is a version out there that omits Romans 9, Ephesians 1 & 2, 1 Peter 1 etc. then you it could be called a non Calvinist version of Scripture. But if that were the case I wouldn't call it scripture at all.
> 
> Let me see...yep...my NASB has all those chapters.


Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.


----------



## MW

Theoretical said:


> Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.



Scott, that is right on target. How about this for a scenario? What if I told everyone I was looking for a new confession of faith, something more modern which speaks to the people of this generation in their own language. What's more, I would be happy if this confession of faith drew from the scholarship of all denominations -- liberal and conservative. How would everyone respond? Why should the response be so stern in relation to the confession of faith, the subordinate standard, buit not in relation to the translation of holy Scripture, the supreme standard. Blessings!


----------



## Herald

Theoretical said:


> Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.



Scott - the two translations that I use most are the NASB and ESV. The translation committee of the ESV would pass Reformed scrutiny. I have to plead ignorance on the Lockman Foundation (NASB). I don't know the background of their scholars. This is more than a C.T. or T.R. issue. Lost in all the discussion are two important questions:

1. Can we trust the major scholary English transations that we have today (I am including the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, AV, RSV and the ASV. I am excluding the NIV)?

2. Is it possible to lose our focus on Christ while we center our attention on peeling back the layers of textual criticism on these translations I just mentioned?

I am not an expert on textual criticism. I am knowledgeable about the major positions, but I am not versed to the point of chapter and verse. I tend to look at the big picture and drill down when it becomes necessary. My anger starts to burn when I am told that my NASB/ESV is not a faithful translation, and thus not the word of God. 

I am probably waaaay off topic here. I'll retreat back into my cave. I just felt compelled to weigh in.


----------



## bookslover

Jerusalem Blade said:


> One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings.



Here's the part I don't understand, Steve. Since, as you say, 90% of the extant 5,000+ manuscripts "represent the text form commonly used by the people of God," in other words, 90% of all the manuscripts we have _say the same thing_, then why do the KJV-only folks say that only those manuscripts from which the AV is derived are "the true text of the Bible"?

Why do they get to claim that only they have the Word of God? How come the ESV guys (like me) don't get to say the same?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Richard Z.,

These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian. There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh & souls, what would they do to paper?

At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.

The ESV guys _can_ say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.

The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.

For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s _Modern King James Version_.

There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.

Early on in my walk, coming as I did out of the 60’s counter-culture, drugs, and occult stuff, I saw quickly that for me to withstand Satan I would need certainty of mind as regards the reliability and authenticity of His Scripture. It was a close combat for many years, and I *had* to *know* my sword and shield would hold in the fray. That’s the furnace I was forged in. And it was the Doctrines of Grace which enabled me to stand before my God, in His power and grace, not trusting in myself. Though it was years before I took to heart the things in this previous sentence.

Hope this clarifies somewhat, Richard.

Steve


----------



## CDM

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Richard Z.,
> 
> These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian. There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh & souls, what would they do to paper?
> 
> At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.
> 
> The ESV guys _can_ say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.
> 
> The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.
> 
> For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s _Modern King James Version_.
> 
> There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.
> 
> Early on in my walk, coming as I did out of the 60’s counter-culture, drugs, and occult stuff, I saw quickly that for me to withstand Satan I would need certainty of mind as regards the reliability and authenticity of His Scripture. It was a close combat for many years, and I *had* to *know* my sword and shield would hold in the fray. That’s the furnace I was forged in. And it was the Doctrines of Grace which enabled me to stand before my God, in His power and grace, not trusting in myself. Though it was years before I took to heart the things in this previous sentence.
> 
> Hope this clarifies somewhat, Richard.
> 
> Steve



Steve, I am especially looking forward to your input on the thread I just created here.


----------



## bookslover

Jerusalem Blade said:


> There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.



I appreciate your humility here, but just remember that, ultimately, they _don't_ have "better" hearts than you. In and of ourselves, we're all nothing more than filthy sinners. God chose you, and them, and me for exactly the same reason: out of His sovereign electing love; and for exactly the same purpose: glorifying Him and enjoying Him forever. If it weren't for the magnificent doctrines of grace, _all_ of us would be rotting in Hell forever. Also, I don't think God uses some people _more_ than others; I think it's better to say that God uses some people _differently_ than others. We are all given our places to work in the Lord's vineyard but in the end, since it's all for His glory, it's ultimately not a matter of "more" or "better". We're all just bondservants.

We've all got the same goal, brother - and it's all of grace!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Richard,

That's a bit too egalitarian for my taste. You are right at setting the baseline for human behavior low: "we're all nothing more than filthy sinners". Yet how we respond to and use the grace given us varies: some produce fruit "an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty" (Matt 13:23). I do not think it depends on gifts, but on heart. The work of some will be found "wood, hay, stubble," and that due to motive, diligence, and love or lack thereof.

Paul tells us to "each esteem other better than themselves" (Phil 2:3), and I do not think he's just talking religious "fluff". I can see that my wife's character is better than my own in certain areas, and I try to yield to her at such times.

Are not some bondservants more faithful than others? I call "sovereignitis" that malaise which belittles human responsibility due to our knowledge of God's overriding sovereignty. An accurate assessment of human behavior discerns a full spectrum of diligence, proper motive, and self-sacrificing love.

Some hearts are better than others. It grieves me that mine is as bad as it is. That's not humility, but inescapable accuracy....and yet, I am loved notwithstanding. As Tim Keller is wont to say, "We are more wicked than we ever dared to think, and -- simultaneously -- more loved than we ever dared to hope." Such love is transforming.

Maybe, Richard, it's that you're around some really godly folks, and this influences your view. Or maybe this is what R.C. Sproul means with his expression, "judgment of charity."

Steve


----------



## Mathetes

I follow Jesus said:


> I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.



Except that you could use the same argument to conclude that the NASB or the ESV is the Word of God in English.


----------

