# KJV Proponents of Note



## Bondman (Mar 29, 2007)

Recently, I was having a discussion with my pastor concerning my new-found conviction about the authenticity of the TR and the Masoretic text, and he challenged me to find any proponents of this view who are recognized for their skill or intelligence in the area of translation.

Anybody?


----------



## nicnap (Apr 8, 2007)

Edward Freer Hills, Theodore Letis, Dean John Burgon.....


----------



## nicnap (Apr 8, 2007)

It is free on E-sword. I use it often.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 8, 2007)

Greetings:

Steve Rafalsky (Jerusalem Blade), John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Owen, R.L. Dabney, The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 1, section 8).

To name just a few.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 8, 2007)

nicnap said:


> It is free on E-sword. I use it often.



What is the module named?

JH


----------



## nicnap (Apr 8, 2007)

I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific...computer's aren't my thing (what's a module). I do have a guess at what you mean...it is in the Bible section. It is the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible...I think he was a part of the Modern King James Version as well.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 8, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> ...The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 1, section 8)...



_The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, *and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages,* are therefore pure and authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..._ (WCF 1.8)

There's nothing in that language to suggest that the divines were specifically citing, much less giving their sole blessing to, the TR; they were merely remarking that God had preserved His Word through the historical ages in all the manuscripts (collectively speaking) that were accessible, or at least known to, the divines up to that point in the 17th century. It's just a general statement about God's sovereign preservation of His Word. So, that's not a very strong reed you're hanging onto, there.


----------



## Scot (Apr 8, 2007)

> Jay P Green I think did a very literal translation based on the "KJV manuscripts".



http://www.sovgracepub.com/


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2007)

Ashbel Green: "The author ... considers it as one of the very best translations that ever was, or ever can be made; and he has never seen any other English version, even of a single book of this part of the sacred volume, which, taken as a whole, he thought equal to the vulgar version."


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2007)

William Plumer: "The author thinks proper here to record his high estimate of the value of the English Bible now in common use. It seems to him that his brethren, who seek to bring it into disrepute, might be much better employed. He gives it as his deliberate judgment that he has never seen even one chapter done into English so well anywhere else. The learning of the men, who made it, was vast, sound, and unquestionable. In this respect their little fingers were thicker than the loins of the men, who decry their labours. The common people ought to be told that they have God’s word in a better translation than that of the Septuagint, which was freely quoted by Christ and his apostles."


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2007)

William Plumer: "none have, as a whole, been comparable to the authorized English version. Its amazing mastery of our mother tongue, its pure Anglo-Saxon diction and its very careful rendering of the true idea of the author still place it far above all competition."


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 9, 2007)

bookslover said:


> _The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, *and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages,* are therefore pure and authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..._ (WCF 1.8)
> 
> There's nothing in that language to suggest that the divines were specifically citing, much less giving their sole blessing to, the TR; they were merely remarking that God had preserved His Word through the historical ages in all the manuscripts (collectively speaking) that were accessible, or at least known to, the divines up to that point in the 17th century. It's just a general statement about God's sovereign preservation of His Word. So, that's not a very strong reed you're hanging onto, there.



Greetings:

The Byzantine/TR was the only Greek Text known at the time.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## jaybird0827 (Apr 9, 2007)

A good example of a well-known proponent is the late Prof. John Murray.

Also see this article by the late Edward Hills.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Apr 9, 2007)

MERITS OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION


Merits of the Authorized Version 
Remarks by J. C. Philpot, M.A., 1802-1869 
Strict Baptist Minister, England 
and Editor of the "Gospel Standard Magazine," 1849-69 
"The more a man's heart is alive unto God, the more will he read his Bible; nor can there be a surer sign of a sickly state of soul than distaste to the Word of God…But we made a remark also on the grace and wisdom bestowed upon our translators to give us such a faithful and noble, clear and beautiful, yet simple and plain version. The blessing which has rested upon our English Bible in the thousands of souls who by it have been quickened and fed, liberated, sanctified, and saved, eternity alone can unfold. But much of this, under the blessing of God, has been due to the plain, simple, yet strong and expressive language which our translators were led to adopt. They were deeply penetrated with a reverence for the Word of God, and therefore they felt themselves bound by a holy constraint to discharge their trust in the most faithful possible way. Under that divine constraint they were led to give us a translation unequalled for faithfulness to the original, and yet at the same time clothed in the purest and simplest English. How suitable is all this to the simplest understanding, and how in this way the most precious truths of God are brought down to the plainest and most uncultivated mind. 

"No one can read, with an enlightened eye, the discourses of our blessed Lord without seeing what a divine simplicity ran through all His words; and our translators were favoured with heavenly wisdom to translate these words of the Lord into language as simple as that in which they first fell from His lips. What can exceed the simplicity and yet the beauty and blessedness of such declarations as these? – "I am the bread of life"; "I am the door"; "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; "I lay down my life for the sheep"; "I am the vine"; "God is love"; "By grace are ye saved". Even where the words are not monosyllabic, they are of the simplest kind, and as such are adapted to the capacity of every child of God, in whatever rank of life he may be. 

"The blessedness of having not only such a Bible, but possessing such a translation of it can never be sufficiently valued. If the Scriptures had been written in a style of language which required a refined education and a cultivated mind to understand, how could they have been adapted to the poor of the flock? Or had our translators wrapped up the simple language of the original in high flown expressions, how it would have set the Word of truth beyond the grasp of he poor of the flock! But now, as soon as the Blessed Spirit is pleased to communicate light and life to the soul, the Bible is open to the simplest man to read and to understand; and as the Lord by His Spirit is pleased to raise up faith in his heart to believe His testimony, he can not only understand what he thus reads without the necessity of a worldly education, but, under the unction of His grace, can also feel its power and blessedness in his own soul. 

"But apart from the blessing which it has been thus made to the family of God, our English Bible has been a national treasure. It has much interwoven itself with our national character, has set up a pure standard of religion and morality, and is daily influencing thousands of hearts to actions of goodness and benevolence, as well as exercising a widely spread power in upholding good and condemning evil. This natural effect of the Bible, as distinct from its spiritual effect, is sometimes too much overlooked or undervalued, but is not less real and substantial. It is something akin to the effect produced on a congregation where truth is preached, or in a family where its heads are partakers of the grace of God. In a congregation many are influenced by the truth, who are not regenerated by it; in a family the children are often affected by the parents' example and admonitions, who are not reached by their grace. So, apart from its sanctifying influence upon the vessels of mercy, the Bible has exercised an amazing amount of good on society at large; and in this way it has been made a great national blessing. 

"But it is because the language of our Bible is such pure, simple, unaffected, idiomatic, intelligible English, that it has become so thoroughly English a book, and has interwoven itself with our very laws and language…" 

– Selected from Volume II of "Reviews by the late J. C. Philpot, M.A."


----------



## Tallen (Apr 9, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> The Byzantine/TR was the only Greek Text known at the time.
> 
> ...


 
CH,

See Dr. Letis' comments about this (Edward Freer Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Eccllesiatical Text), as the Reformers (Beza and Calvin esp.) were quite aware of "other text" and probably had access to them at one time or another to inspect and work with them.

The Reformers had rejected the "other text", knowing of them, and rejecting them, on the basis that they were corrupted. The idea that if we repackage old error with a new cover, it does not make it anything but error repackaged. Hence the fundamental difference between the two schools of thought, one the one hand we have a text that is handed down via divine providence and on the other hand we have a text that is placed into an empirical scientific process, whereby we use scientific method to determine the biblical text.

I fail to see the historical idea of _sola fide _in the second paradigm that places it's entire argument on the discovery of an original text. I see the biblical idea of divine providence, that God looks after his word, in the first.

Blessings.


----------



## Tallen (Apr 9, 2007)

Bondman said:


> Recently, I was having a discussion with my pastor concerning my new-found conviction about the authenticity of the TR and the Masoretic text, and he challenged me to find any proponents of this view who are recognized for their skill or intelligence in the area of translation.
> 
> Anybody?


 
I would put your pastor in touch with Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. Robinson, in my view, is a well respected textual critic on the edge of where the field is today.

See the articles attached, HERE  AND HERE 

I think you will find Robinson's work most helpful. Also the names of others as well that have been mentioned in this thread. And finally, if ones feet are held to the fire of the WCF, then one must come to understand that this was speaking about a particular family of text and a particular method that was in use by the Reformers that had written it.

Blessings.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 9, 2007)

With due respect, Robert W., Rafalsky isn't even near the same class as the others -- not at all, although a student of theirs, and without skill in translation.

Richard, it is widely understood and accepted that the framers of the WCF (and 1:8 in particular) referred to the Hebrew and Greek texts they had in hand, and not the "inerrant autographs" Warfield wrongly theorized concerning, and in so postulating opposed the Westminster divines. Letis amply documented this.

There were Greek texts known at that time; Vaticanus, for example, was known, even to Erasmus, and the Roman Catholics used this and other inferior texts with variant readings to try to overthrow the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which was based upon the Reformation texts of Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, and the Elzevirs, which were virutually the same, with but minuscule differences between them. And these texts were based upon manuscripts these men knew. Rome sought to refute the doctrine of Providential Preservation of Scripture by displaying their polyglots and their numerous (significant) variant readings.

They failed then, as the Reformers were able to defend their position. But now.... The citadel has all but been taken, not by Rome, but those within the camp -- even the Reformed camp! -- seduced by the arguments of our old enemies.

The defenders are now in the fields and the mountains, no longer holding the fortresses. In spirit, yes, they hold fortresses, but in the world, very few.

But the spiritual strongholds they defend are sufficient for others to find shelter in. And to learn, and go out again to spread understanding.

Matthew V., there are a number of threads in this section with ample demonstrations and evidences to support your new-found convictions -- along with not only the names (many of those listed above) of skilled, renowned proponents, but quotes from their works as well. It may just take a little digging.

Steve


----------



## Bondman (Apr 9, 2007)

Thanks very much to all who posted here.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 10, 2007)

Tallen said:


> CH,
> 
> See Dr. Letis' comments about this (Edward Freer Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Eccllesiatical Text), as the Reformers (Beza and Calvin esp.) were quite aware of "other text" and probably had access to them at one time or another to inspect and work with them.
> 
> ...



Yes, and that is why the WCF is referring to the Byzantine mss - because the preserved mss were the ones which the WCF was talking about - and those mss are the Byzantine as represented by the TR.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 10, 2007)

The 'other text' was only known by Codex Vaticanus (which was locked away in the Vatican Library) at the time. Even had there been a thorough evaluation of this codex at the time, there was no context available to truely evaluate the value of the text. The unique qualities of Vaticanus would have looked like a fluke. 

To state that the Reformers had a position on the Alexandrian manuscripts before the discovery of Codex Siniaticus and the papryi finds of the last century; and the subsequent establishment that this type of text existed as an actual text-type and was a regional text (upper Egypt) of the first three centuries (versus a fluke) is to grossly mis-evaluate the whole situation.

What you are claiming the Reformers 'rejected', history shows they never knew existed.



Tallen said:


> CH,
> 
> See Dr. Letis' comments about this (Edward Freer Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Eccllesiatical Text), as the Reformers (Beza and Calvin esp.) were quite aware of "other text" and probably had access to them at one time or another to inspect and work with them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 10, 2007)

Agreed. For an arguement for the Byzantine text type, Robinson's Byzantine Priority position is the best available.

If I could buy the arguements for the superority of the Byzantine Text Type as a whole (which I don't), I would hold the Byzantine Priority position (as opposed to the TR or the MT).

Robinson, more or less, accepts that modern textual criticsm has the correct approach in its methods for textual criticism but believes it has mis-evaluated the Byzantine Text Type. He would see the Byzantine to be the textual family with the most 'weight' and would then use the science of textual criticism to produce a critical text from these manuscripts.

Here is a good article on the Byzantine Priority Theory:
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html



Tallen said:


> I would put your pastor in touch with Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. Robinson, in my view, is a well respected textual critic on the edge of where the field is today.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 10, 2007)

How about Dr. Joel Beeke?

Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV

Q. Can you give me any good, practical reasons for retaining the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible?

Here are thirteen reasons:

1. The Standard Test of the English Bible. It is wiser to choose the known over against the unknown. The weaknesses and disadvantages of a particular version of the Bible cannot really be assessed apart from a thorough trial of daily usage over many years. Many who welcomed the New International Version (NIV) with great enthusiasm when it first appeared are now prepared to admit its serious weaknesses as a translation.

The KJV is well established in the marketplace and in the literature of Christian scholarship. It will continue in production in many editions for years to come. Helps and reference works are commonly available. It is not likely that the KJV will fade from view and disappear as have many versions produced to supplant it.

Likewise the KJV is widely studied and commented on in the literature of biblical scholarship. It will always be a standard of reference and comparison for Bible commentators. All other versions are compared to it, contrasted with it, tested by it. Campaigns to sell other versions must attack it. The same cannot be said of any other Bible version.

2. Based on the Full Text of the Hebrew and Greek Originals. Based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek NT), and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT), the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the NIV.

a. Oldest Does Not Mean Best – The Westcott and Hort arguments that “the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable” and that “age carries more weight that volume” are not necessarily ture. It could well be that the two oldest, complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts. This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.

b. Volume – The King James Version is based upon the Traditional Text. The vast majority of the more than 5,000 know partial and complete Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading.

c. Church History – The “Received” or “Ecclesiastical” Text has been used by the church historically. The English, French, Dutch, and German Reformation churches all used Bibles based on the Traditional Text. (the Dutch “Statenvertaling” is also based upon the “Ecclesiastical” Text.)

3. A More Faithful Method of Translation. The KJV translators employed a method of verbal equivalence (“word for word”) rather than the method of paraphrase of dynamic equivalence (“meaning for meaning”) used in the NIV. The result is that the KJV gives you what biblical authors wrote, not what a committee thinks they meant to write.

4. A More Honest Translation. The text of the KJV uses italics to identify every word or phrase interpolated (supplied by the translator) and not given in the original. Such a practice was not followed in the NIV, lest the loose method of its translators be unmercifully exposed to view.

5. A More Precise Idiom. Often attacked at this very point, the KJV actually is a more accurate and helpful translation precisely because of the archaic pronouns (“thou, thy, thee, “ etc.). Both Hebrew and Greek distinguish clearly between the 2nd person singular (“thou”) and the 2nd person plural (“ye, you”). In many statements this makes an important difference (e.g. John 3:7). In a sense it is correct to say that in praying the Lord Jesus used “Thou” – God is one, not many! – for He definitely used the Hebrew or Greek equivalent.

6. The Best Liturgical Text. The KJV excels as a version to be used in public worship. This is why it has been used so widely in the churches. The requirements of the sanctuary are not those of the classroom. Other versions may be helpful on occasion to the student, but none is more edifying to the worshipper.

7. The Best Format for Preaching. The KJV traditionally has been laid out verse by verse on the page, rather than in paragraphs; thought for most of the text, paragraphs are indicated by a sign. The Hebrew and Greek texts, of course, have no paragraphing at all. The verse-by-verse format best serves the purposed of verse-by-verse consecutive expository sermonizing.

8. The Most Beautiful Translation. The KJV gives classic expression to many important passages in the Bible. (e.g. Ps. 23, Isa. 53, Luke 2, and the Parable of the Prodigal Son). Our seniors need to hear these passages as a comfort and help as they draw near to the end of life’s journey and our children need to hear them in the KJV as part of their nurture and education. They need to understand that the KJV is an important part of the spiritual and cultural heritage of all English-speaking Christians, and a key to our greatest literature. Children well instructed in the KJV will be greatly advantaged over other children, spiritually, linguistically, educationally, and culturally.

9. An Ecumenical Text for Reformed Christians. No other version has been used so widely among evangelical Christians. More significantly for Reformed Christians, this version is used by preference in many conservative Reformed congregations. The KJV is also used in the Christian schools these churches sponsor. Using the KJV is one way to underscore our unity and identity with other conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians.

10. A Practical Choice. The KJV is available in many editions; with a full range of helps and reference materials, not to mention computer software; in large-type, clear-print editions; and often priced well below modern translations.

11. “Sounds” Like the Bible. More than any other version, the KJV sounds like the Word of God, even to unbelievers. The KJV translators aimed at this very thing. Even in 1611 the KJV sounded old-fashioned, ancient, a voice from the past. This was to command reverent hearing, and to suggest the timeless and eternal character of God’s Word.

The modern unbeliever, if he has any spiritual concern at all, is well aware that the contemporary scene really offers him no hope. He expects church to speak in a way that is timeless and other-worldly.

Many churchgoers and occasional visitors to a church go much more by “feel” and “mood” than by intellectual contact or apprehension. They are more likely to take seriously what is said to them if they sense that this is something more important than a casual conversation.

12. The Character of the Translators. The fifty men appointed to translate the King James Version were not only well-known scholars, but were also men of sound religious faith. They were strong believers in every word of the Bible being inspired by God and in all the central doctrinal truths of the Scriptures. They were God-fearing men whose lives testified of a saving knowledge of these truths. This same testimony cannot be made of all translators serving on modern translation teams.

13. Upholds “Old Paths.”
Joel R. Beeke


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 10, 2007)

JOwen said:


> How about Dr. Joel Beeke?
> 
> Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV
> 
> ...




 Very nice!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 10, 2007)

nicnap said:


> Edward Freer Hills, Theodore Letis, Dean John Burgon.....



Burgon, yes.

Letis - only among a fringe group who believe in providential preservation. Letis is an intelligent man, though.

Hills - the same.

Jay P. Green - on the fence about him. He does good work, though.

Robinson - definitely. But he's Majority Text, not KJV.

Beeke - yes.

The Holman Standard Bible was supposed to originally use the Majority Text, but after one of the guys pushing for it died, they switched it to the NA27. 

I'd love to see a modern translation besides the KJV use the Majority Text.

and I am one of those people who believes the bible should use the vocabulary of the common people, so since language changes over time, a new translation is a necessity from time to time.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 10, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Letis - only among a fringe group who believe in providential preservation. Letis is an intelligent man, though.
> 
> Hills - the same.



Is providential preservation now a fringe doctrine??


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 10, 2007)

providential preservation of one text type has always been for the fringey folks.


----------



## KMK (Apr 10, 2007)

Hey! What about Dr. Eugene Scott! He used the KJV and I bet no one here would have dared to disagree with him to his face.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2007)

prespastor said:


> The 'other text' was only known by Codex Vaticanus (which was locked away in the Vatican Library) at the time. Even had there been a thorough evaluation of this codex at the time, there was no context available to truely evaluate the value of the text. The unique qualities of Vaticanus would have looked like a fluke.



The so-called "Western" text was known to Beza. Codex Alexandrinus was being consulted in Britain. The divines were well acquainted with the various readings through the medium of the ancient versions. The critical readings of the Vulgate were rejected. But besides all this, the reformed church insisted that the fountains were not corrupted, contrary to what the Romanists alleged.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 10, 2007)

Maybe what the world needs is a KJV that:

1. is laid out verse by verse (no paragraphing)

2. in a modern font

3. with a complete cross-reference system

4. and with vocabulary footnotes; that is, everytime an archaic word appears, there's a footnote giving the definition and/or a modern equivalent word, just so the reader knows what the archaic word means.

5. and published with the KJV scholars's "The Transaltors to the Reader", not just their short note to Jimmy.

Would all that help make it more acceptable to modern folks?


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2007)

Richard, you just described my Bible.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 10, 2007)

Joel,

When you say, "providential preservation of one text type has always been for the fringey folks", it seems to me you are asserting a contradiction in terms, for if you say the Alexandrian text type (for example) was providentially preserved _as well as_ the Byzantine/Textus Receptus, you have a problem, for they contradict one another.

Of course it is by God's providence that we have Aleph, B, and P75 preserved, as there is nothing that escapes His sovereign will, yet were they meant to be preserved as the authentic text of His Word? Does He not sometimes give us "difficulties" so as to exercise and develop our judgment and skill? Not everything is the world He has "preserved" is for our good (as poisons, sorcerous potions, etc), except that we learn to discern the ill.

More practically, when we observe the differing readings of the various text types, and have to choose between the Alexandrian and the Byzantine/TR versions of Matthew 1:7, 10, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 Timothy 3:16 (to list but a few), at least one must needs be false, for they are opposed. Either God preserved one or He preserved neither -- as far as His authentic word is concerned.

It was the position of the Reformation divines -- and I hold with them -- that He preserved the Byzantine/TR. It was these divines, moreover, who developed the doctrine of Providential Preservation _of the Byzantine/TR_ over against the other text types in their formulation of Sola Scriptura in order to overthrow the claims of Rome that their Tradition and Councils determined the authoritative voice of God. It was Rome's contention, in the counter-reformation, that the Scriptural variants of the other text types disproved the Protestants' Sola Scriptura. The Reformers successfully withstood this attack on the textual front.

Are we who hold with them thus to be dismissed as "fringey folks"?

It will not do to say we have more textual information today than they did then, for there is _essentially_ nothing new they did not know, notwithstanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Papyrus finds, Aleph, etc, seeing as they knew these readings and rejected them. And would you say our Reformation forebears were _in error or ignorance_ in their judgment regarding Sola Scriptura, as they formulated it?

Steve


----------



## bookslover (Apr 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Richard, you just described my Bible.



Oh? Can you give me a detailed description? Such as: who's the publisher, how's the font look, are the vocab explanations lucid, etc., etc.

I wonder if your Bible is available here in the States.


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2007)

TBS publish it. Should be available in the US. The glossary is well done, taking in not only archaic words but also those that mightn't be a part of every day speech.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 11, 2007)

Matthew,

What is the ISBN of it?

Steve


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2007)

Steve, I think it is 0 907861 71 7.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 11, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> providential preservation of one text type has always been for the fringey folks.



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## CDM (Apr 11, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Richard, you just described my Bible.





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Matthew,
> 
> What is the ISBN of it?
> 
> Steve





armourbearer said:


> Steve, I think it is 0 907861 71 7.



There is also this one [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0521164389/ref=cm_rev_next/002-9270251-5356069?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11"]here[/ame].

by Baker Publishing Group


----------



## larryjf (Apr 11, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It was Rome's contention, in the counter-reformation, that the Scriptural variants of the other text types disproved the Protestants' Sola Scriptura. The Reformers successfully withstood this attack on the textual front.



Henry Grey Graham (Roman Catholic Bishop) from "Where We Got the Bible"...



> Pious Protestants may hold up their hands in horror and cry out, "there are no mistakes in the bible! it is all inspired! it is God's own book?" Quite true, if you get God's own book, the originals...These, and these...only, were inspired...The original Scripture is free from error, because it has God for its author; so teaches the Catholic Church...but that does not change the fact that there are...thousands of differences in the old manuscripts..and I should like any enquiring Protestants...to see if they can possibly reconcile it with their principle that the Bible alone is the all-sufficient guide to salvation. Which Bible? Are you sure you have got the right Bible?...You know...that you must trust to some authority outside of yourself to give you the Bible...We Catholics...glory in having some third party to come between us and God, because God Himself has given it to us, namely, the Catholic Church, to teach us and lead us to Him.


(from "The Ecclesiastical Text..."; by :Theodore Letis; pg 55-56)


----------



## KMK (Apr 11, 2007)

My Companion Bible is very thorough with onboard appendices that cover a wide range of Hebrew and Greek words. As with all study Bibles (unless Mr. Rafalsky comes out with his own) you need to be discerning with the helps. Although I am appreciative that Bullinger put so much work into his appendices, he is so Scofieldian in his dispensationalism that a large portion is worthless unless you just want to get to know dispensationalism better. 

I will check out Mr. Winzer's Bible, however, because the print in the Companion Bible is so darn small. I know I am getting old because I had to buy a large print KJV to preach from last year)


----------



## Tallen (Apr 11, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When you say, "providential preservation of one text type has always been for the fringey folks", it seems to me you are asserting a contradiction in terms, for if you say the Alexandrian text type (for example) was providentially preserved _as well as_ the Byzantine/Textus Receptus, you have a problem, for they contradict one another.


 
I agree with Steve here Joel, but I think one thing needs to be made clear. God in His providence did not see that we had the originals preserved, and that would have ended all controversy had that happened. Instead, and I think this is what the Westminster divines had in mind when they wrote what they did. _God has preserved his message_. The focus of the discussion, has become "what text" is preserved, and this is quite different than the scriptural promise that God will preserve His word. 

What does that mean?

We are spending too much time arguing the finer points of the law, becoming legalists in the way we handle the word, and forgetting the message of scripture. _And it is the message that is preserved_. Just as God has preserved His law, and written it within the heart of man leaving man no excuse, and He has written it within nature testifying of the Creator, so He has preserved His word. And _the Spirit will bear witness to that word_.

For instance:

The Lord is God. ( A perfect and inerrant text, something within the capability of man btw.)
The Lord is Gode. (An infallible message preserved by the Spirit, despite the scribal error, something not capable of by man.)

It is the message of the scripture that is preserved, and it is this message that the Spirit gives witness to. So the question for me becomes, which translation does the Spirit give witness to? It is the translation that is done according to scriptural mandate and by the faithful in Christ, those that are called to handle His word. Private corporations, and private interpretation has never been the scriptural mandate.

With this in mind, which texts have been historically viewed as the ones having the message of God? What texts have the church (the faithful in Christ) looked to for that message? And what texts has the church used to give that message with?

It is the texts that the Spirit filled and faithful have held in common, and the ones that the Spirit has given testimony about.

So we should consider this also, as we consider what the WCF has said:

*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 (1Th_2:13; 2Ti_3:16; 2Pe_1:19, 2Pe_1:21; 1Jo_5:9) WCF 1:4

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture (1Ti_3:15). 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*(Isa_59:21; Joh_16:13, Joh_16:14;1Co_2:10-12; 1Jo_2:20, 1Jo_2:27). WCF 1:5

The argument of which text is secondary to realizing what the Spirit of God gives us assurance of. And what is happening in this debate, between the various textual family supporters, is that "FAITH" is finding a back seat to "man's ability" and we are loosing site of what the faithful in Christ should be looking for. We should not be looking at discovering the word of God, it has always been preserved as He has promised, we should be looking for what the Spirit witnesses to within the faith of the historical Christian community.

My opinion, blessings.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 11, 2007)

This, I believe, is Rev. Winzer's Bible [when you get to the Trinitarian Bible Society's page, enter the item no. PSC8H into the search field]:

http://www.tbs-sales.org/

---------

Steve


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 11, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Joel,
> 
> When you say, "providential preservation of one text type has always been for the fringey folks", it seems to me you are asserting a contradiction in terms, for if you say the Alexandrian text type (for example) was providentially preserved _as well as_ the Byzantine/Textus Receptus, you have a problem, for they contradict one another.



When I said providential preservation above, I meant providential preservation of _one specific text type or text family of readings_ as *the* only 'true' Word of God (i.e.- TR/KJV). While I *am* a Maj/Byz advocate, I don't have a problem with using a translation based on the critical text (and I use my ESV frequently).

My position on the providential preservation of manuscripts to the present:
http://theologicallycorrect.com/studycenter/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=34



> In all fairness, we need to note that the Majority/Byzantine advocates are NOT to be confused with the 'KJV Only' advocates (D.A. Waite, Gail Ripplinger, Peter Ruckman, Jack T. Chick and others) or 'Theological Preservationists' (Theodore Letis, the late Edward F. Hills). The former base their choice for the KJV (whose text is poor representation of the Byzantine text, but unfortunately, the only 'major' translation which uses ANY Byzantine text today) on some alledged conspiracy to 'corrupt' the Word of God- the latter base it on circular reasoning (i.e.- the Majority Text best preserves the truth of the Christian faith, therefore it is correct).
> 
> Robinson and Pierpont make the following observation, in regard to modern translations (which I believe all believers worried about a Bible translation should take note of):
> 
> ...



I believe that God has providentially preserved _all_ of the copies of the New Testament that we have to date, regardless of text family. I also believe that 'variant readings' don't go away. So, somewhere between all of the readings, we have *every single word* from the original NT as penned by Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and so on. 

So rather than waste time forcing people to read an archaic translation frought with various difficulties and _wrongly_ translated in some places (though excellently done in some others - but that's EVERY translation), I'd rather recommend someone to a solid modern translation done by godly men where the text and teaching are clear in the majority of passages. Koine greek was the common language of the people at the time the NT was written. Likewise, eureonne spoketh inn thee saame manner as thee olde elisabethann anglish tongue whenn thee authorised version was made auailable to thee commone manne, which therefore, made it acceptable to publish it in their dialect at the time. Even the KJV has been 'revised' between 1611 and the 1789/1859 ones that most people use today.

I say all that to say.... it's a silly position to hold and based on nothing more than _bad_ circular reasoning and tradition. I'm not surprised it finds a foothold in some reformed circles simply because some people in reformed circles are ultraparanoid of anything that appears the least bit 'modern' (anything beyond 1747).

The fruit of it, unfortunately, has been nothing more than a stream of divisive men and women who continually rail and assail against the rest of their brethren over their choice in translations. I've seen churches split and re-split over the issue. I'm more than convinced it's nothing more than someone's hobby horse, personal paranoia and fleshly thinking combining to create a conspiracy (I'm thinking of a Star Trek: Voyager episode here....) where none exists. I have yet to meet any KJV-only person who does not turn unChristlike and vitriolic when challenged or told that their position is in error - including on this board. Such is not of Christ.

Kerry


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 11, 2007)

Matthew Poole:



> After this, King James coming to the crown, being a prince of great learning and judgment, and observing the different usage of some words in his age from the usage of then In King Henry VIII or in Queen Elizabeth's time, and also the several mistakes (though of a minute nature) in those more ancient versions, was pleased to employ divers learned men in making a new translation, which is that which at this day is generally used. *With what reverence to former translators, what labor, and care, and pains they accomplished their work, the reader may see at large in their preface prefixed to those copies that are printed in folio, and in their epistle to King James in our Bibles of a lesser form; of which translation (though it may not be with its more minute error) yet I think it may be said that it is hardly exceeded by that of any other church.*


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 11, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> The fruit of it, unfortunately, has been nothing more than a stream of divisive men and women who continually rail and assail against the rest of their brethren over their choice in translations. I've seen churches split and re-split over the issue. I'm more than convinced it's nothing more than someone's hobby horse, personal paranoia and fleshly thinking combining to create a conspiracy (I'm thinking of a Star Trek: Voyager episode here....) where none exists. I have yet to meet any KJV-only person who does not turn unChristlike and vitriolic when challenged or told that their position is in error - including on this board. Such is not of Christ.



Kerry,

I don't think this statement is accurate or fair. I have seen gentlemen on this board who handle their position on the King James without turning unChristlike. Not everybody that holds to a KJV-only position have ungodly attitudes like Peter Ruckman. I think it's men like Ruckman that people tend to think of when it comes to KJV-only, and that causes a lot of people to be turned off from the issue. But don't throw everybody in that same company. I don't think the few churches you've seen split over the issue or the few people you know who turn unChristlike can be constituted as that many. (To you yes, but not in the whole scheme of church history.)

Perhaps those that accuse the KJV-only folks of error are just as unChristlike in their attitudes against the issue as you say those are who stand for it. 

God bless!


----------



## larryjf (Apr 11, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> somewhere between all of the readings, we have *every single word* from the original NT as penned by Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and so on.



When you say "all of the readings" are you only including original languages texts or versions as well?

Can you then tell me where the correct readings are in the following passages of the OT?...

1 Sam 13:1 - Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel
(at least one of the numbers has been lost)

2 Sam 8:4 - David took from him one thousand chariots, seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.
(contrasts to its parallel…)
1 Chr 18:4 - David took from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.

2 Ki 8:26 - Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.
(contrasts to its parallel…)
2 Chr 22:2 - Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.

2 Ki 24:8 - Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
(contrasts to its parallel…)
2 Chr 36:9 - Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 11, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This, I believe, is Rev. Winzer's Bible [when you get to the Trinitarian Bible Society's page, enter the item no. PSC8H into the search field]:
> 
> http://www.tbs-sales.org/
> 
> ...



I've got 2 TBS Bibles and neither are on their site. They are really nice calfskin with zipper enclosure. And one of them fits nicely in my Bible holster...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 12, 2007)

larryjf said:


> When you say "all of the readings" are you only including original languages texts or versions as well?
> 
> Can you then tell me where the correct readings are in the following passages of the OT?...
> 
> ...



Thanks for proving my point. Between both manuscript readings, we know one of them is right. We can haggle and discuss that one for a while and see which one is most consistent with the text, ancient witnesses, etc..... but at least we know it's there and has NOT been lost. 

Every.

Single.

Word.

and I'm not including foreign language translations, though I could. The major issue with KJVonlyism has always been the NT, since everyone pretty much uses the same standard masoretic text.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 12, 2007)

Kerry,

As Ryan mentioned, there are some KJV/TR proponents on this board who do remain in the Spirit of Christ even when challenged. It is stereotyping to assert such blanket judgment; consider yourself to have met one in me.

I haven’t had a chance to thoroughly look over your posted link & article on preservation as I have two sermons to prepare for Sunday, but I will. I see you have done a lot of work on the issue.

It is not adequate for me and for many others to hear the assertion,

I believe that God has providentially preserved _all_ of the copies of the New Testament that we have to date, regardless of text family. I also believe that 'variant readings' don't go away. So, somewhere between all of the readings, we have *every single word* from the original NT as penned by Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and so on.​
To us you are saying, “The Lord has preserved ‘every single word’ of NT Scripture in the massive collection of differing manuscripts – but you must muddle through and sort it out for yourselves!” In effect you are saying, “The truth is in there somewhere, even though I don’t know exactly what it is. I only know it’s in there.” Is that any help to those who want to know the _particular_ Scriptures that are authentic?

Which brings me back to my question, which you did not answer:

More practically, when we observe the differing readings of the various text types, and have to choose between the Alexandrian and the Byzantine/TR versions of Matthew 1:7, 10, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 Timothy 3:16 (to list but a few), at least one must needs be false, for they are opposed. Either God preserved one or He preserved neither -- as far as His authentic word is concerned.​
Could you be saying we cannot discern the genuine from the spurious? That it is sufficient to know “it’s in there somewhere.” I rather doubt you would take that position.

And what about my remarks concerning the Reformers and the texts they used contra Rome and its assaults? Were they also “fringey folks” caught in error or ignorance when they used the *Textus Receptus only* upon which to base their doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation? Was the Reformation built upon a foundation of falsehood, however well intentioned?

I will continue interacting with you when I have looked over your material.

Steve


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> The major issue with KJVonlyism has always been the NT, since everyone pretty much uses the same standard masoretic text.



This is incorrect. The principle of correcting the originals from the versions is utilised by critical scholars. But this thread has nothing to do with textual criticism.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 12, 2007)

The KJV translators 'corrected' the original from the versions in places.

A couple that come to mind are...

1 Chronicles 18:6 'KJV adds the word 'garrisons' which is not in the Hebrew but is in the Septuagint and the Vulgate.

Deuteronomy 32:36 KJV uses the word 'judge' following the Septuagint whereas the Hebrew has the word 'vindicate' (note: ESV keeps with the Hebrew in this text).



armourbearer said:


> This is incorrect. The principle of correcting the originals from the versions is utilised by critical scholars. But this thread has nothing to do with textual criticism.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 12, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Thanks for proving my point. Between both manuscript readings, we know one of them is right. We can haggle and discuss that one for a while and see which one is most consistent with the text, ancient witnesses, etc..... but at least we know it's there and has NOT been lost.



Just to clarify, i was quoting from a Bible version, not from two manuscripts.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 12, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Maybe what the world needs is a KJV that:
> 
> 1. is laid out verse by verse (no paragraphing)
> 
> ...



Richard,

Do you perhaps mean a KJV *with* paragraph formatting? The only KJV I know of that is *not* in verse by verse format is the Cambridge Paragraph Bible. 

I have a KJV published by Zondervan that has a cross referencing system, although it is not as thorough (nor is the NKJV) as are reference versions of the NASB and ESV. 

I have also seen versions that define archaic terms. 

What is your criteria for a "modern font"?


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2007)

prespastor said:


> The KJV translators 'corrected' the original from the versions in places.



The examples you provide are translation choices, not emending the Hebrew text on the basis of the versions. Read some critical commentaries for an idea of what I am talking about.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2007)

larryjf said:


> 2 Ki 8:26 - Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.
> (contrasts to its parallel…)
> 2 Chr 22:2 - Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.



It is interesting to note that if you calculate the dynasty of Omri down to the accession of Ahaziah it comes to 42 years. So the statement in 2 Chron. 22:2 is probably referring to the age of Ahaziah's house, not his own age.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2007)

larryjf said:


> 2 Sam 8:4 - David took from him one thousand chariots, seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.
> (contrasts to its parallel…)
> 1 Chr 18:4 - David took from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.



If a company is ten, we might consider 2 Sam. to be referring to "companies" of horsemen rather than individual horsemen as they are spoken of in 1 Chron. See Matthew Poole in loc.

This shows the wisdom of preserving in translation the difficulties which exist with the original text. If a translation smooths over the difficulties the options for reconciliation are minimised.


----------



## MW (Apr 13, 2007)

The emendation of the Hebrew text may be seen in the following example from Gen. 49:10. The original form is Shiloh, which has always been retained because of its obvious Messianic intention. This is thought to require correction to "asher lo," as in the NIV and the footnote of the ESV. The ESV is keeing within its own guidelines of translation when it chooses to emend the Hebrew text, as is clear from the preface: "In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text."


----------



## larryjf (Apr 13, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> This shows the wisdom of preserving in translation the difficulties which exist with the original text. If a translation smooths over the difficulties the options for reconciliation are minimised.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 14, 2007)

Hi Steve,

I'll have to keep this short, since it's already 4:35 and I should've been asleep hours ago:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is stereotyping to assert such blanket judgment; consider yourself to have met one in me.



I retract my comment and modify it to FEW.  I apologize if I have offended you.



> I haven’t had a chance to thoroughly look over your posted link & article on preservation as I have two sermons to prepare for Sunday, but I will. I see you have done a lot of work on the issue.



A bit. Around the time I'd just been introduced to the Maj/Byz position and found it fairly convincing (as you'll see below in my answers on 1 Tim. 3 and Mark 16:9-20), I sat the issue aside for the doctrines of grace and started spending more time there. Haven't picked it back up since, really.




> To us you are saying, “The Lord has preserved ‘every single word’ of NT Scripture in the massive collection of differing manuscripts – but you must muddle through and sort it out for yourselves!” In effect you are saying, “The truth is in there somewhere, even though I don’t know exactly what it is. I only know it’s in there.” Is that any help to those who want to know the _particular_ Scriptures that are authentic?



Again, I'm of the opinion that with 88% of the text being the same in all text families and the bulk of text problems being grammar, I don't have a problem with calling either text type the Word of God. I believe it's a false dichotomy, though, to think we only have to choose between Alexandrian and TR readings, especially when the TR does not agree with the Maj/Byz in a few hundred places. So yes, we do have to 'muddle' through it a bit. 


> More practically, when we observe the differing readings of the various text types, and have to choose between the Alexandrian and the Byzantine/TR versions of Matthew 1:7, 10, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 Timothy 3:16 (to list but a few), at least one must needs be false, for they are opposed. Either God preserved one or He preserved neither -- as far as His authentic word is concerned.​



Again, a false dichotomy, since there are more than these two text types available to choose from. IN addition, how do you KNOW that the TR is the one He preserved ? We do have other text types.

On John 7:53-8:11, I believe it's authentic, but a part of Luke (I'd have to check my critical text again to see where some manuscripts place it in there). 

Mark 16:9-20 has 2nd century patristic support. Case closed. 

1 Timothy 3:16 - it's a theta. It should read God, not 'OS'. Burgon's work on this settles the issue.

I'll address the rest soon. I need to get some rest (it's 5 am! Yikes!).

Take care and God bless.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 16, 2007)

Kerry,

No offense taken, that is, personally. Though there is a truth-issue at stake when you make the assertion [even after modifying “any” to “few,” as you graciously did], “I have yet to meet any KJV-only person who does not turn unChristlike and vitriolic when challenged or told that their position is in error - including on this board. Such is not of Christ.” It is important to note that many Christians are not scholars or scholarly, but simple working people, and when they are told that the Bibles they, their parents, grandparents and going back generations even further, have used and hold to be the trustworthy Word of God, when they are told by scholars (some of whom are apparently not even genuine believers – such as the late Bruce Metzger? – [from “The merits of the A.V.” thread]), they get understandably irate. That which is most holy to them in the world is denigrated and called _false_, “held to only by the ignorant and unlearned”! It’s at least as bad as insulting their mother. So beyond insensitivity to others, there is the truth-issue as well.

Then you say regarding the “'Theological Preservationists' (Theodore Letis, the late Edward F. Hills)….[they] base their choice for the KJV (whose text is poor representation of the Byzantine text, but unfortunately, the only 'major' translation which uses ANY Byzantine text today)….on circular reasoning (i.e.- the Majority Text best preserves the truth of the Christian faith, therefore it is correct).”

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of Letis’ or Hills’ views. Hills proceeded – after embarking on a successful career as a Harvard-trained textual critic – to repudiate the _naturalistic / rationalistic_ approach to textual criticism in lieu of one based upon the presupposition that God promised to preserve His word and did, down even to the minutiae. Presuppositionalism is not to be confused with “circular reasoning”. The latter assumes what is to be proven – without offering any proof – while the former says that which is presupposed is presupposed upon that which is greater than evidences: God’s promises. In other words, God’s promise to do something means it will be or has been done. And Hills, after long study and consideration of the textual data, sought to discern the hand of God upon the Scriptures. His book, _The King James Version Defended_, was the result of his careful scholarship _combined_ with his faith in the Lord’s promises. Was Abraham’s proceeding to the land of Caanan “circular reasoning” (“I’m going where I want to go”), or did it have a more solid foundation?

And to dismiss Letis so lightly! His historical research into textual criticism from Erasmus, to Stephanus, Beza, and on is significant, as is the formation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (and its corollary, Providential Preservation) in the conflict with Rome, a matter I brought up previously and which you seem reluctant to answer! Then there is his research into B.B. Warfield’s view of the Westminster Confession of Faith’s statement on Providential Preservation in 1:8, which opposed the meaning its very framers had of the matter. Letis has done some exceedingly valuable scholarly research.

When you talk about D.A. Waite, I think you do him a disservice to lump him with some of the others you mention, when you should talk of him in the same breath with David Cloud, Jack Moorman, David Otis Fuller, William Grady, Kirk DiVietro, Floyd Jones and others who do engage in genuine scholarship, albeit with a bit of an attitude. To say of him (and by association, them) he but bases his view “on some alleged conspiracy to 'corrupt' the Word of God,” are _you_ alleging there is _no_ conspiracy to do this? If you study their writings, Messieurs Westcott and Hort _did_ conspire to supplant and overthrow the Textus Receptus, which is the fray John Burgon threw himself into, whom you seem to admire. And then there is the satanic conspiracy against the Word of God, to corrupt it, so that God’s people lose their faith in its reliability. Do you not think this is the case? To dismiss men such as this on such a superficial basis is not to do justice to the hard facts of their work. Moorman, in fact, in his, _When The KJV Departs From The “Majority Text”_, breaks new ground in the examination of the Majority Text vis-à-vis the TR/1894. It is a most valuable work.

With regard to “some people in reformed circles…[being] ultraparanoid of anything that appears the least bit 'modern' (anything beyond 1747),” I suppose you may have a point there, though there is the phenomenon of a massive – widespread – falling away of multitudes from the integrity of the Gospel in lieu of watered-down and often false doctrines, as well as such a laxity in recognition of and obedience to the commandments of Christ, that extramarital sex and even sorcery (psychedelic drugs) are considered within the pale of sound praxis in the churches. Little wonder some folks stay with the “old paths” rather than the new ones.

Kerry, I honestly don’t think you have spent much time on this board so as to see how we conduct ourselves in interacting with those who differ with us. Nor in seeing the level of scholarship and discernment that is brought to the fore in discussion – else how could you assert as you have?

-----------

When you say that “88% of the text being the same in all text families…I don't have a problem with calling either text type the Word of God,” I can agree with you to a point, as I often have stated on this board, though 12% is a _large_ figure. 12% of one million dollars is $120,000! 12% of my body would perhaps be an arm and a good part of a leg! I would not like to lose that 12%! Nor would I like to have that amount of my Bible cut away!

You seem to posit two areas needing discernment: between the TR and the Alexandrian text types (let me call this latter the Critical Text, so as to be more inclusive), and between the TR and the Byzantine. And I would agree. But I do not think that standing them against each other so is having “false dichotomies,” for these are the basic choices given us in the current translations available. Incidentally, we have done a lot of looking at just these two textual situations here in the past months, with especial attention to the Byzantine/Majority view and the TR/1894.

You said, “On John 7:53-8:11, I believe it's authentic, but a part of Luke (I'd have to check my critical text again to see where some manuscripts place it in there).” On what sure authority do they place it there? What manuscripts? How reliable are they? Are you aware that Burgon mounted an able defense of this passage in his, _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_, pp. 232-265, proving it was genuine _and_ rightfully in John’s Gospel?

I notice you do not give much credence (weight) to vast number of Greek miniscules, 90% or more of which support the Traditional Text, in your paper on the preservation of the Biblical text, though perhaps this was written before you began gravitating somewhat toward the Majority Text position.

We try not to be slouches regarding scholarship, and we seek to be gracious and godly – even if vigorously arguing our points! – in our interactions.

I am curious to know what you think of the _TR only_ position of the Reformers in their formulating Sola Scriptura against the Roman arsenal, mentioned in earlier posts in our discussion.

Steve


----------

