# Requesting basic manuscript information



## Username3000 (May 18, 2015)

As some may know from other threads I have started, I am currently trying to find my way through the wilderness that is Bible versions and their underlying manuscripts. I have been reading past discussions on this topic, of which there is no shortage, but I am no closer to a personal conviction in the matter than when I had begun. There is such a large amount of information from each side of the CT/TR debate, that it begins to overwhelm and I don't know what to think. 

Therefore, I would like to begin with the very basics. I am asking if those who are knowledgeable and competent in this area could post one (1) succint paragraph for the CT and one (1) for the TR explaing the fundamentals and essentials of each. 

Please forgive me for yet another thread like this. I do not want it to become a debate, I just want a clear starting point on the issue. If you think someone is misrepresenting your preferred text type, please try to keep from going down that path too far. 

Thank you.


----------



## Logan (May 18, 2015)

The conclusion I have come to is that both of the main views tend to come at it from different starting positions, and that there are strong points and weak points in both. Here are a few I thought of quickly:

TR Pro:
Weight of use (been around for a long time)
Based largely upon widely circulated and referenced manuscripts (Byzantine)
Is stable (though this is perhaps misleading, since any given edition of the CT could also by definition be called "stable")

TR Con:
Does not have very good evidence for some readings
Was based originally off of comparatively few manuscripts
Still multiple variants of the TR

CT Pro:
An approach that looks at all biblical manuscripts
Is open to any better evidence
This approach has been supported by nearly every reformed theologian for the last 150 (?) years

CT Con:
Is prone to subjectivity in determining weight accorded to each manuscript
Has the potential for change over time
Makes use of manuscripts not widely available to the church for many years


----------



## Peairtach (May 18, 2015)

I'm ordering a couple of books from Amazon to see if I can understand the issues more clearly:

New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide: David Alan Black: 9780801010743: Amazon.com: Books

Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism: David Alan Black: 9780801022807: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 18, 2015)

To the OP. Don't feel you must come to a settled position immediately. Get an ESV (CT) and a NKJV (TR) and read them side by side when you study or do your devotions.


----------



## jwithnell (May 18, 2015)

Friend, God has promised to preserve his word throughtout the ages, and it is remarkable, despite the debates, how little the translations (as opposed to paraphrases) vary. A far more important question: how are you pursuing its study and application?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

E.R. CROSS said:


> As some may know from other threads I have started, I am currently trying to find my way through the wilderness that is Bible versions and their underlying manuscripts. I have been reading past discussions on this topic, of which there is no shortage, but I am no closer to a personal conviction in the matter than when I had begun. There is such a large amount of information from each side of the CT/TR debate, that it begins to overwhelm and I don't know what to think.
> 
> Therefore, I would like to begin with the very basics. I am asking if those who are knowledgeable and competent in this area could post one (1) succint paragraph for the CT and one (1) for the TR explaing the fundamentals and essentials of each.
> 
> ...



I am right with you Brother. I am struggling somewhat with this. There is A LOT of information and even more opinions on that information. My advice as I have said of late don't let your emotions blind you of any of the facts. And Jim makes a great point until you come to terms with this. Read both a good CT(ESV,NASB) translation and a good TR(KJV,NKJV) translation. I recommend the World English Bible as well which is mostly online(esword)I use it a little, it's based on the Majority Text not the TR.


----------



## JimmyH (May 18, 2015)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> To the OP. Don't feel you must come to a settled position immediately. Get an ESV (CT) and a NKJV (TR) and read them side by side when you study or do your devotions.



Great advice. That is precisely what I do, only with a few more translations in the mix. You can go to Bible Gateway and select one translation, and add a parallel translation with the two side by side. I've done this quite a lot. They offer everything from mainstream translations to Young's Literal. 

I haven't checked it out yet, but I was there the other day and they are providing Ligonier Ministries newly revised Reformation Study Bible notes for free, among other similar resources.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> > To the OP. Don't feel you must come to a settled position immediately. Get an ESV (CT) and a NKJV (TR) and read them side by side when you study or do your devotions.
> ...



If you don't know the original language well, multiple translations and strong's and all the other resources will more than suffice. I think we take for granted how blessed we are in the English world with regards to bible translations and the thousands of other resources we have. Really no excuse for anyone to not have a working knowledge of scripture!


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

Rather than a paragraph, how about an exercise.

Why is 3 John 1-14 undisputed, while Mark 16:9-20 is disputed?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

MW said:


> Rather than a paragraph, how about an exercise.
> 
> Why is 3 John 1-14 undisputed, while Mark 16:9-20 is disputed?



Is there a variant in 3 John?


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Rather than a paragraph, how about an exercise.
> ...



3 John is the variant. That is the point of the exercise. Why accept the book of 3 John but not the last twelve verses of Mark? The exercise is intended to provoke thought on the way "canon" and "text" are interrelated.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



Oh really I wasn't aware of that, it's not in the Alexandrian text-type?


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Oh really I wasn't aware of that, it's not in the Alexandrian text-type?



Its canonicity was disputed in the early church. And some non-canonical books were sometimes used in the church. The question is, Why should a "book" be accepted on the basis of one set of principles and its "text" accepted on the basis of a different set of principles?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Oh really I wasn't aware of that, it's not in the Alexandrian text-type?
> ...



Never thought of that could you elaborate a little more?


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Never thought of that could you elaborate a little more?



Why is 3 John 1-14 accepted as the word of God and do not require a chain of manuscript evidence to establish them? Why aren't the last verses of Mark accepted as the word of God and require a chain of manuscript evidence to establish them?


----------



## Username3000 (May 18, 2015)

Thank you for the responses. I do use the ESV and KJV together currently, but I desire to have a primary translation for reading and memorization. 

Logan, thank you for the overview. 

Rev. Winzer, that is interesting, but I'm not ready to weigh it yet until I have my scale zeroed. If you wouldn't mind, I would really like to read your overview. 

And yes, either way we are blessed with a wealth of resources, which should be helping us to live godly lives. Thank you for the reminder.


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Rev. Winzer, that is interesting, but I'm not ready to weigh it yet until I have my scale zeroed. If you wouldn't mind, I would really like to read your overview.



There is no need to weigh in. The exercise was for personal use. It will zero the scale and show that the weight given to arguments based on hypothesised manuscripts is "more light than vanity."

My overview -- The TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.


----------



## SeanAnderson (May 19, 2015)

I did originally support the CT and was convinced by the oldest manuscripts argument. 

But then I was faced with the following issues:

1) For some readings deleted from the CT, there are older witnesses, for example some Church Fathers, than the oldest _available_ manuscripts. There may be many manuscripts no longer available which favour TR readings.

2) Modern critical methods are not consistent. There is a philosophy which favours the shortest variant reading in the NT manuscripts, but then longer readings are added to the Masoretic Text based on the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

3) There are verses which were removed in the CT which have since been added back in. There may be verses rejected in our current versions which are restored in years to come. I do not like this state of flux.

At the end of the day, however, I still like the ESV (though I now favour the KJV) and I take heart in the fact that even between the CT and the TR, there is very little difference compared to other historical manuscripts.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 19, 2015)

One of the concerns of mine regarding the continued orthodoxy of evangelical Christianity is the too easy acceptance of the methods of criticism (both higher and lower) among conservative Christian scholars. A legacy of the Enlightenment, the critical mindset leads to a scholar affecting the mien of a white lab-coated scientist, treating the Word of God like a frozen slice sample under the microscope. The observer/scholar objectifies the Word, diligently plying his canon of methodological techniques in a "scientific" way, exercising sovereign control over it. 

Textual criticism is nothing new. Even notables among the Fathers had to decide between variant readings. But, the use of it post Wescott and Hort seems to be done with presuppositions (or at least embedded biases) that could result in the same "lab coat" rationalism that may inevitably destroy the faith. 

I am old enough to have watched orthodox schools and beloved professors participate in a drift to the left. It is difficult to believe that the methods of scholarly scrutiny are not part of the problem. My current denomination takes an official stand against "higher criticism" in its seminaries. So far, it has helped the group stay orthodox.

This is not to be construed as an anti-intellectual bias. The Reformers were diligent exegetes of the original languages. The issue is not one of scholarship, but what presuppositions will guide that scholarship. How you ask the questions, often determine the answers you will receive.

It would be nice to see a fuller debate, ala Pastor Winzer's comparisons in post #17, on the embedded biases of the various approaches to textual criticsm, the so-called "lower" criticism.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 19, 2015)

MW said:


> There is no need to weigh in. The exercise was for personal use. It will zero the scale and show that the weight given to arguments based on hypothesised manuscripts is "more light than vanity."
> 
> My overview -- The TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.





DMcFadden said:


> The Reformers were diligent exegetes of the original languages. The issue is not one of scholarship, but what presuppositions will guide that scholarship. How you ask the questions, often determine the answers you will receive.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> One of the concerns of mine regarding the continued orthodoxy of evangelical Christianity is the too easy acceptance of the methods of criticism (both higher and lower) among conservative Christian scholars. A legacy of the Enlightenment, the critical mindset leads to a scholar affecting the mien of a white lab-coated scientist, treating the Word of God like a frozen slice sample under the microscope. The observer/scholar objectifies the Word, diligently plying his canon of methodological techniques in a "scientific" way, exercising sovereign control over it.
> 
> Textual criticism is nothing new. Even notables among the Fathers had to decide between variant readings. But, the use of it post Wescott and Hort seems to be done with presuppositions (or at least embedded biases) that could result in the same "lab coat" rationalism that may inevitably destroy the faith.
> 
> ...



You make some excellent points Dennis! Thanks because you basically articulated how I feel. The state of flux is kinda startling and the Word of God is not to be treated like a science experiment. I do think the Alexandrian manuscripts can be profitable but the more I look into this unfortunately the CT does not reflect any specific manuscript. 


MW said:


> With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.


Rev. Winzer your statements always hit home with me and you make an excellent point here.


----------



## Logan (May 19, 2015)

MW said:


> My overview -- The TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.



I have a hard time seeing this line of reasoning because of the TR's history. 
The TR is "fixed" by convention (any revision is by definition, not a TR).
The TR is "preserved" only if you assume this is true about the portions like those Erasmus said he supplied from the Latin.
The TR is "received" only if you talk about one specific variant of the TR (Hills believed the KJV was one variant and it seems the TR in widest use is the one "reconstructed" by Scrivener from the KJV).
With the TR, you may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn, but you still are doing so with a text that men like Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza "stood over and exercised judgment upon".

The CT has been very stable for many years. Let's say it continues to do so for 400 years. Will that put it on equal footing of being "fixed, preserved, and received"? Or will it always be an unattainable goal because the TR is older? Would a "critical text" based off of all known Byzantine manuscripts be considered better than the TR, or is the presupposition that the TR is God's preserved text preclude it being considered as worthy of pursuit?

I definitely have a sympathy for the position, but it does seem to make some assumptions that I've not been able to reconcile myself to. Yet I definitely see and take to heart the critiques of the CT.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 19, 2015)

> The CT has been very stable for many years.



First off, let's all agree that the Word of God is the Word of God regardless of translation or intramural arguments over mss.
Secondly, I readily confess that none of this is my field of expertise. My knowledge of textual criticism is pretty limited, having only gotten the CT arguments since college. My first real exposure to a case for the TR or Majority text was after joining the PB!

But, in what sense is the CT fixed? The SBL critical text is quite different from the one produced by the UBS. In Mark 1:41, for instance, was Jesus "indignant" or "moved with compassion"? Michael W. Holmes makes a number of critical judgments that are quite different from the text of WH or NA28. It sounds as if there is some wiggle room on what the CT is. If you can handle the difference between the SBL critical text and NA28 as fixed, then how can you argue against the variants to the TR or the MT? 

We probably need to differentiate between those who defend the KJV text (e.g., Pastor Winzer) and those who believe that the Byzantine is superior to the Alexandrian (cf. Robinson-Pierpont). Many of the arguments used against the CT are really about privileging the Alexandrian readings (older) over the Byzantine ones (majority), or the old weigh vs. count debate. I'm guessing that the preservation arguments for the majority mss. are a bit different from those for the KJV per se. 

Using a NT that represents a Bible in continuous use by actual worshipping Christians for centuries may be a sign of divine preservation too. And, is it so difficult to believe that such a Bible might be preferred to one discovered that may have been used by heretical sects, even it it is older? Wouldn't a Bible in continuous use help explain the absence of older mss? They were worn out and replaced by subsequent copies (and so on and so on).

If a "Living Bible" or copy of "The Message" got buried in the desert and discovered centuries later, would it necessarily be superior to a formal correspondence translation that had been in continuous use for centuries? Older does not necessarily equate with better.


----------



## JimmyH (May 19, 2015)

If I may be so bold, speaking as a layman in this esteemed company, regarding the Word of God, I feel as if it is akin to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's statement regarding p0rnography, (paraphrasing) "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." 

Am I mistaken or is it not true that of all of the Greek texts from which the RT, or CT are derived, they have been collated by one scholar, or a team of scholars. Judging which reading from the few to many manuscripts they worked with was the most accurate ?

That first century Christians never saw a complete NT ? The Bible that holds the record for continuous use is the Latin Vulgate @ 1,000 years ?

I have read, by CT advocates, that regardless of particular verses, portions of individual books footnoted or in brackets, no doctrine of Scripture is affected by mainstream CT translations such as the RV, ASV, ESV, NIV. Is this an accurate assessment. 

If it is not, please elaborate.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

This is good stuff I love the PB!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 19, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> If a "Living Bible" or copy of "The Message" got buried in the desert and discovered centuries later



I am willing to risk the second part if we can do the first part


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 19, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> I have read, by CT advocates, that regardless of particular verses, portions of individual books footnoted or in brackets, no doctrine of Scripture is affected by mainstream CT translations such as the RV, ASV, ESV, NIV. Is this an accurate assessment.



Is this a doctrine of Scripture?



> WCF 1.8
> 
> VIII. 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),
> ...


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I have read, by CT advocates, that regardless of particular verses, portions of individual books footnoted or in brackets, no doctrine of Scripture is affected by mainstream CT translations such as the RV, ASV, ESV, NIV. Is this an accurate assessment.
> ...



Yes it is, but is this doctrine not upheld in say, the ESV? Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.ESV Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. 
Psa 12:7 You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever. ESV


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 19, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> If I may be so bold, speaking as a layman in this esteemed company, regarding the Word of God, I feel as if it is akin to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's statement regarding p0rnography, (paraphrasing) "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
> 
> Am I mistaken or is it not true that of all of the Greek texts from which the RT, or CT are derived, they have been collated by one scholar, or a team of scholars. Judging which reading from the few to many manuscripts they worked with was the most accurate ?
> 
> ...


Romecontends no such deposit existed until they declared it so well over a thousandyears later (1546 AD). History and God disagrees with them. Are we to believethat the church had no canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Councilof Trent? The history of the church makes it clear that the church did, infact, have a functioning canon long before the Council of Trent (or even thefourth-century councils). For example, Origen (died in 254 AD), well beforeAthanasius (died in 373 AD), is the earliest extant source to advocate thetwenty-seven-book New Testament canon.


----------



## Logan (May 19, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> But, in what sense is the CT fixed?



Dennis, if I may defend myself, I said "very stable" not "fixed", and I recognize that this is subjective, but that wasn't my main point.

I don't argue against variants in the TR or MT, I just think both sides should recognize that they exist. Sometimes it feels like the TR is presented as one uniform text with no variants that was in use in the Greek church, for millennia, by all the Reformers and Puritans and virtually all Christendom, and has never been revised. And that's just not true. The TR is subject to many of the criticisms that are laid against the CT, and my hope is that people would be frank about that.

And I have a deep sympathy for the argument that the most reliable texts would be the ones in continuous use (i.e., Byzantine). I wouldn't mind seeing a critical text based off of that, but let's be honest and say that the TR isn't entirely it. Erasmus stated of his compilation: "quanquam in calae hujus libri nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in graecis exemplaribus ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus. (Although in the writings of this book, you have yet discovered, we have added only from the Latin (the) several words being absent from us in our Greek copies.)". Hills' belief was that Erasmus providentially "recovered" from the Latin what had been "lost" to the Greek. 

I'm not a huge fan of the Alexandrian texts and I think there is definitely merit to the argument that it is dangerous to use texts that had been "lost" to the church, so to speak. But in that case, wouldn't it be fair to also say that the Greek church would have ample reason to argue against Hills belief that portions of God's Word were "lost" to them only to be found in the Latin? Why is it acceptable that it was "recovered" or "purified" in the 1500s/1600s (TR), but not the 1800s/1900s (CT)?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 19, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Yes it is, but is this doctrine not upheld in say, the ESV? Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.ESV Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
> Psa 12:7 You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever. ESV



Yes the ESV contain the scripture defending this doctrine, but the philosophy upon which the ESV was built denies it.

What is kept "pure", the actual "words" or only the doctrine revealed through theses words?

According the Critics as long as a doctrine can be found in another portion of scripture then it mean that it is not being "affected" by any verse being altered. This means they do not believe WCF 1.8 is a true doctrine and should instead state that the "doctrine" of the New and Old Testament are kept pure in all ages instead of the New and Old Testament "themselves" being kept pure in all ages.

Now this begs the question, how can you have confidence in any doctrine if the scriptures upon which it's derived from are not fixed.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it is, but is this doctrine not upheld in say, the ESV? Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.ESV Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
> ...



Okay i get your point now. I misunderstood what you were getting at.


----------



## Logan (May 19, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> What is kept "pure", the actual "words" or only the doctrine revealed through theses words?



Etienne, I think this is one of those examples of where a criticism can be a two-edged sword. What did the Westminster Assembly mean by the words "kept pure in all ages"? If they meant it how you seem to be presenting it, then how can the TR itself stand? If it had been "kept pure" in that sense, then what did Erasmus do?

It seems that many contemporaries defended the original languages specifically against the claim of the Papacy that said they had been corrupted, and the Vulgate was the only preserved Word. They recognized that there were variants (many even preferred variant readings not found in the TR) so it seems they can't have been necessarily arguing for a single manuscript or text. I've read multiple authors from that period who said something equivalent to "what is deficient in one copy, may be found in another". Is that the kind of preservation they mean? Primarily referring to the original languages against the claim of Rome for the Latin?

Regardless, I do agree that they believed the text in their hands (TR) represented the true text and submitted to its authority. But I don't think they meant "kept pure" in the sense you seem to be arguing for, unless I've misread what you've said.

Edit: and I do apologize to the OP, I'm going to try to leave this alone and just read other responses from people regarding your question.


----------



## JimmyH (May 19, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it is, but is this doctrine not upheld in say, the ESV? Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.ESV Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
> ...


 So this begs another question, whether, "God by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages," extends beyond Erasmus, and/or the AV ? I have faith that indeed His providence continues. What was the vulgar language in bygone ages no longer being the lingua franca of English speakers, God's Word is now being translated, still with His providence and care, as it has been through all ages.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 19, 2015)

Logan said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > But, in what sense is the CT fixed?
> ...



Logan, good points. As I said, this is not my area of expertise. I do have a chip on my shoulder against the theology of some of the textual experts (WH, Ehrman, et. al.) and find it as easy to believe in the superiority of the Byzantine text type (perhaps due to the inadequacy of my level of expertise???). It has never been my wish to defend the TR per se for some of the reasons you adduce. However, I do not want to overstate the few verses where Erasmus translated from the Latin into Greek. And, despite the real problems with Erasmus, he served the cause of Christ by providing a text that became the basis for the Bibles of the Reformation (e.g., Luther Bible, Geneva Bible, KJV, etc.). 

If it were up to me, there would be a modern language version of the majority text that all rational people accept as the standard. However, that isn't gonna happen, so the ESV (the Bible of my denomination) is my Bible (for now). I really like the NKJV with its notes indicating where the TR, CT, and MT differ and the KJV. That is a feature I truly miss in other translations as it would be quite helpful.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (May 19, 2015)

As this issue of the OP slides readily into other areas (as seen in the above discussion), may I recommend Bahnsen's thoughtful article, The Inerrancy of the Autographa.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

E.R. CROSS said:


> As some may know from other threads I have started, I am currently trying to find my way through the wilderness that is Bible versions and their underlying manuscripts. I have been reading past discussions on this topic, of which there is no shortage, but I am no closer to a personal conviction in the matter than when I had begun. There is such a large amount of information from each side of the CT/TR debate, that it begins to overwhelm and I don't know what to think.
> 
> Therefore, I would like to begin with the very basics. I am asking if those who are knowledgeable and competent in this area could post one (1) succint paragraph for the CT and one (1) for the TR explaing the fundamentals and essentials of each.
> 
> ...



To get back on track real quick Elijah have you read DA Carson's King James Version Debate(he is a CT guy) But it's a short book that gives a lot of basic info about textual criticism,text-types and so forth. I am almost done reading and I have learned quite a bit from it. It's only about 100 pages so you can bang it out pretty quick. The King James Version Debate: D.A. Carson: 9780801024276 - Christianbook.com


----------



## tleaf (May 19, 2015)

If I may humbly put my 2 cents in, Elijah, pick two translations, no more, and read them.
I've succumbed to the temptation of acquiring many translations, only to find I rarely read them.
Get comfortable with those two, and drown yourself in them.
Otherwise, it's something like your earthly father coming home everyday in a different disguise - which is the real one?!
Don't do what I've done: read your Bible, don't just think about it.

Blessings.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 19, 2015)

Logan said:


> Regardless, I do agree that they believed the text in their hands (TR) represented the true text and submitted to its authority. But I don't think they meant "kept pure" in the sense you seem to be arguing for, unless I've misread what you've said.



WCF 1.8 says the scriptures, not only the doctrine, of the Old and New Testament are kept pure in all ages. The presupposition behind modern textual criticism denies this. If you attempt to "reconstruct" something it means you believe it has been lost. We can point to textual variants all day long, it won't give us anything if we do not believe the scriptures have been preserved. Pointing to perceived discrepancies in the TR does nothing to validate the approach of modern textual criticism and the CT, it only cast doubt on the TR and the doctrine of taught in WCF 1.8. Trying to prove the supernatural preservation of scriptures via secular means only is futile. I'm aware of the textual variant and I don't try to deny them, I just believe God guided faithful men to preserve the correct readings by his providence, but I don't believe these men are those who reject providential preservation.



JimmyH said:


> So this begs another question, whether, "God by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages," extends beyond Erasmus, and/or the AV ? I have faith that indeed His providence continues. What was the vulgar language in bygone ages no longer being the lingua franca of English speakers, God's Word is now being translated, still with His providence and care, as it has been through all ages.



Yes it's still being kept pure of course, the work of the reformers are still available today, plus you have faithful men today such as members of The Trinitarian Bible Society who still participate in propagating and translating the pure word of God in vulgar languages.


----------



## MW (May 19, 2015)

Logan said:


> The CT has been very stable for many years. Let's say it continues to do so for 400 years.



It does not come close to stability and its internal program means it must be continually updated. It is subject to re-examination every time there is a new discovery. Moreover, since academia prides itself on continually subjecting the existing theories to scrutiny, we can be guaranteed the "critical" text will never reach any kind of stability.

Dennis has mentioned the enlightenment influence. What is worse, textual criticism as a science has evolved through the periods of modernism, postmodernism, and post-postmodernism. The only way one can now hope to find the Word of God in this mutated mess is by an existential leap of faith into no man's land.


----------



## MW (May 19, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Am I mistaken or is it not true that of all of the Greek texts from which the RT, or CT are derived, they have been collated by one scholar, or a team of scholars. Judging which reading from the few to many manuscripts they worked with was the most accurate ?



The received text came to us through the ordinary means of the church with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, and was particularly nurtured by the reformation's commitment to sola scriptura. The idea of the critical text emerged when men decided that faith was not sufficient and the word of God required empirical science to substantiate it. They then subjected the word of God to "new discoveries," "experiments," "probabilities," and "paradigm shifts."


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority This is pretty interesting Byzantine Priority theory


----------



## Username3000 (May 19, 2015)

Wow, there has been a lot of action here since I last looked. I appreciate this all very much, and seeing where these discussions are going, feel free to continue the rabbit trails. I will look into the posted links when I get the opportunity.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 20, 2015)

Regarding the matter of what the framers of the WCF meant when they asserted the Scriptures had been “kept pure in all ages” (1:8), it’s an interesting question. In a nutshell this is my view: *the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages*. Not entire manuscripts, but _the readings_ were kept intact and in the Lord’s timing put into a particular edition. This in bold above I took from a private conversation with a friend, and I put part of that here below, slightly tweaked for posting here.
A friend asked while discussing these things: "what about before the reformation if all the words were not in one place, wouldn't there be uncertainty and doubt? Not sure which was the original in the manuscripts? Therefore isn't the TR position of uncertainty similar to CT for all the saints before 1500?"

My understanding is this: the sort of textual scrutiny we focus upon the manuscripts in the present century – and increasingly have in the centuries since 1500 – was not typical prior to 1500. Various locales had their Bibles based on mss in their respective possession; they were for the most part content with what they had. True, Rome persecuted the Waldenses (Vadois) and Albigenses with their Antiochian versions of the Bible and theological dissenting; while in the East the Greeks had their settled Byzantine manuscripts and a fairly settled Bible – as far as the Greek Orthodox Church was concerned; Rome was content with its Latin version. All were pretty much satisfied with their status quo. The Renaissance, however, changed that; _Ad fontes_ (a Latin expression which means "to the sources" – literally "to the fountains") was the cry of Valla and Erasmus, and they began examining the various manuscripts, mostly Greek, and comparing them with the Latin, as regards the New Testament. At this point scrutiny did become focused on the various text-types. (It later intensified in the contention between the RCC and the Reformers.)

It has been similarly asked by some, “If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different texttype – did they not have a preserved and adequate Bible?” And I would answer:

There is a preserving of the text, and there is a preserving of the text — the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The _minute preservation_ occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James translation) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an _adequate_ preservation as distinguished from preservation in the _minutiae_.

As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word. When the Lord prophesies, does it have to come about instantly? Is there not sometimes progression, as in the development seen in the Olivet discourse of events from the time Jerusalem fell till the time of the end?

Concerning the statement in the Westminster Confession, 1:8​
The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​
Warfield introduced a new understanding of this section differing from that of the framers, (I can elaborate on this if necessary). What I want to say concerns what this “kept pure in all ages” entailed. Does it mean that there was a pure text – intact in the sense of the autographic documents – in all generations and all locales? Does it mean every generation and geographical area had an equivalent of an autographic copy? I do not believe so. I believe this means that *the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages*; when in certain textual traditions (I am thinking of the Greek here) some readings were removed they were retained elsewhere – and later restored to the Greek by His providence. The Hebrew and Greek copies – the apographs – the WCF divines had in hand exemplified this.

[end quote from conversation]​__________

The trouble with discussing theory / theses is that it gets removed from the actual texts. Part of my labors here at PB has been to deal with evidences to support the thesis I hold, and to show the soundness of my understanding by concrete examples of Byz / TR readings compared to CT variants clamoring for acceptance; to give a few examples:


*Defending the Lord's Prayer 1 thread (Matt 6)*

Defending the Lord's Prayer 1


*Defending the Lord's Prayer 2 thread (Luke 11)*

Defending the Lord's Prayer 2


*On Enoch in Jude thread *(I start in post #9)

Peter Enns, A Blog


*Granville Sharp thread*

Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Granville Sharp
*

Mark 16:12** thread*

Mark 16:12


*John 7:53-8:11** thread*

John 7:53-8:11


*Colossians 1:14** thread*

Colossians 1:14


*Johannine Comma thread*

Nolan on 1 John 5:7: Johannine Comma

Minute vs. adequate preservation: Johannine Comma

Pickering on the early history of the text: Johannine Comma

Holland on 1 John 5:7: Johannine Comma

________

and then a couple of threads that deal with both text-critical theory *and* various evidences—one vis-à-vis James White of AOMin and the other one of Dr. White’s lieutenants, Alan Kurschner.


*Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin thread*

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Hort on early Byz majority: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Borland essay; Lake, allegation Alexandrian text majority examined: ibid

W&H text not the same as CT/ET per White: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin


*Responding to James White of AOMIN thread*

Responding to James White of AOMIN


When we deal with evidences that either support or seek to invalidate various readings we are getting into the trenches and hand-to-hand combat, so to speak. It takes a mix of both theory and evidences to establish a defensible view. I don’t think this will be settled before the Lord returns; I labor for the sake of those who need—with certainty—to know that God has indeed provided a settled Biblical text, both OT and NT, that the saint may declare, “Thus saith the LORD” both to devils and to men—and to his or her own heart.

We either have a Bible one can hold in one’s hand of God’s word preserved in the minutiae, or we do not, but instead a theoretical Bible cobbled together with provisional readings, till perhaps a newer MS—or newer opinions—may be produced. Either God preserved His word in *a* Book, or it’s scattered around in a number of them. I hold with the former.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 20, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Regarding the matter of what the framers of the WCF meant when they asserted the Scriptures had been “kept pure in all ages” (1:8), it’s an interesting question. In a nutshell this is my view: *the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages*. Not entire manuscripts, but _the readings_ were kept intact and in the Lord’s timing put into a particular edition. This in bold above I took from a private conversation with a friend, and I put part of that here below, slightly tweaked for posting here.
> A friend asked while discussing these things: "what about before the reformation if all the words were not in one place, wouldn't there be uncertainty and doubt? Not sure which was the original in the manuscripts? Therefore isn't the TR position of uncertainty similar to CT for all the saints before 1500?"
> 
> My understanding is this: the sort of textual scrutiny we focus upon the manuscripts in the present century – and increasingly have in the centuries since 1500 – was not typical prior to 1500. Various locales had their Bibles based on mss in their respective possession; they were for the most part content with what they had. True, Rome persecuted the Waldenses (Vadois) and Albigenses with their Antiochian versions of the Bible and theological dissenting; while in the East the Greeks had their settled Byzantine manuscripts and a fairly settled Bible – as far as the Greek Orthodox Church was concerned; Rome was content with its Latin version. All were pretty much satisfied with their status quo. The Renaissance, however, changed that; _Ad fontes_ (a Latin expression which means "to the sources" – literally "to the fountains") was the cry of Valla and Erasmus, and they began examining the various manuscripts, mostly Greek, and comparing them with the Latin, as regards the New Testament. At this point scrutiny did become focused on the various text-types. (It later intensified in the contention between the RCC and the Reformers.)
> ...



Mr. Rafalsky you defend the TR very well. I don't completely agree at this point with you but I respect your obvious research and dedication. I suppose there is something in me that would like to believe there is a Bible completely preserved down to every detail. I am not there at this moment but through prayer and study I will examine both sides of the fence. Thanks for this though it was a pleasure to read.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 20, 2015)

Mr. Rafalsky you defend the TR very well. I don't completely agree at this point with you but I respect your obvious research and dedication. I suppose there is something in me that would like to believe there is a Bible completely preserved down to every detail. I am not there at this moment but through prayer and study I will examine both sides of the fence. Thanks for this though it was a pleasure to read.


----------



## Username3000 (May 20, 2015)

Thank you for that Mr. Rafalsky. To become thoroughly knowledgeable in this area, one must have to spend a lot of time and effort. 

I am finding that it is very hard for me to get anywhere by only looking at the empirical manuscript facts, and that perhaps I need to consider other things as well. What are these other things? Presuppositions brought to the issue? Beliefs about preservation? Or pragmatic issues such as the translation used by 90% of my local church (ESV), and the fact that the KJV has proven to be difficult for my wife? 

I know those who have a strong conviction in the matter will cringe to hear me say this, but, as one who does not have such convictions, I am really beginning to believe that this issue is nowhere near as important as serving my wife and being unified with my elders and church.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 20, 2015)

Hello Edward, and Elijah,

I think you both are going about this in the right way, that is, examining the various points of view (there are basically two, albeit with minor subdivisions in each) and the arguments that support them—and seeking, prayerfully, to discern what is true.

As with all other aspects of our walk with the living God, this is a supernatural business we are about, from beginning to end. Our regeneration was accomplished by the supernatural, sovereign power of God; likewise with our justification, and sanctification; again, our faith is given us and sustained in us by the supernatural grace of our Saviour and Father, and His love is likewise conveyed to us through the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures were given us by "holy men of God [who] spake [and wrote] as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21); again, it is written, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16). 

Can it possibly be that once He had accomplished the delivering of His word to humankind, and having it recognized and compiled by His people (in the Old and New Testaments respectively), He then cut it loose from His ongoing _minute_ care, leaving it up to the science and philosophy of men (many of them in the Text Criticism Industry unbelievers) to pick and choose what seemed best to them what words were His and what not? This most precious Deposit to mankind for their salvation and comfort no longer superintended by His mighty providential care and preservation, but left to the ingenuity of men? The science of men and no longer the supernatural power and care of the Almighty?

Friends, consider this: In eternity past in God's omniscience He knew you before ever He created you; fast forward through the creation, the fall in the garden, the long centuries of mayhem and destruction, the toxins introduced increasingly with the advent of the industrial age, the havoc wrought in the human gene pool — and yet through all this, He preserved those molecules and atoms, those strands of DNA, that would eventually comprise the persons you now are. From His eternal vision of you to your creation and development in time, you are the very persons He envisioned before the creation of the world. Talk about providential preservation – down to very molecules and genes! Is this not far more complex a feat than preserving a Book of writings intact through around three millennia? Okay, there was a concerted effort to destroy this Book by the prince of demons, so that made it more complex; but the thought still stands: if He could bring the exact you into being, could He not bring His Book?

I assert He could, and He did. And many Scriptures attest to this very preservation. But, as I said, you are going about this the right way: by the supernatural activity of prayer, asking Him to show you the truth of the matter. And I believe He can be trusted to do this very thing with regard to the truths of His supernatural Book, His inscripturated living word.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 20, 2015)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Thank you for that Mr. Rafalsky. To become thoroughly knowledgeable in this area, one must have to spend a lot of time and effort.
> 
> I am finding that it is very hard for me to get anywhere by only looking at the empirical manuscript facts, and that perhaps I need to consider other things as well. What are these other things? Presuppositions brought to the issue? Beliefs about preservation? Or pragmatic issues such as the translation used by 90% of my local church (ESV), and the fact that the KJV has proven to be difficult for my wife?
> 
> I know those who have a strong conviction in the matter will cringe to hear me say this, but, as one who does not have such convictions, I am really beginning to believe that this issue is nowhere near as important as serving my wife and being unified with my elders and church.



Maybe make the ESV your main Bible, and the KJV for personal use. I highly doubt you'll be losing out by using the ESV. It's not my favorite but it's an excellent translation. It reads well and it's overall pretty accurate. And If you really are feeling the TR go with NKJV. Honestly the NKJV could be a blessing for you considering all it's textual footnotes. I think it's a fantastic translation I love how the NKJV reads and from my research it's at least as literal as the NASB. It's also very bold in herbrewism like it's parent the KJV, the NKJV probably retains hebrew idioms and such more than any other modern translation in my opinion. Something to consider check this out when you get a chance New King James Version I like Michael Marlowe's reviews I think they are pretty solid.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 20, 2015)

Hello Elijah,

My own wife uses the NIV (1984), and I do not lord it over her in this matter, though she now checks with the AV and other versions to see their readings. And she listens when I tell her about verses that are omitted in her version, and other differences in the texts. The church I belong to (I am not pastoring now) uses mostly the NIV and ESV, though the pastors listen when I talk to them about serious errors, and have changed their views in particular instances. (They returned to using the traditional reading of the Words of Institution for the Lord's Supper—"Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" -1 Cor 11:24—after omitting the word "broken" for a good while, when I talked with the pastors about the textual and ecclesial situation. . . to my great joy.)

Still, a couple of months ago I had to tell the person in charge of getting readers for the Scripture readings in the service that I would no longer do it as I could not always in good conscience say the words, "This is the word of God", after the reading, seeing as the ESV and NIV will sometimes omit, add to, or change what is in the Bible of the Reformation.

It remains that there are godly and anointed men who minister the word of God who use other versions than the AV, and I benefit greatly from them, and have in past years also. But for me, I will continue to use what I know is the true Scripture, and will teach others so as well. There is a growing crisis in the churches regarding the authority of the word of God, and it will be impacting the young people the most, who will inherit the confusion engendered by the Scriptures being handled and determined by the academy—many of whose scholars are rationalists and unbelievers—and the Text Criticism Industry, instead of the believing church. The Bible belongs to the church. I think this is an assault on the people of God pertaining to the end of the last days, and it will worsen. Which is _not_ to say that users of the modern versions are less godly or wise than AV users, not at all (my wife is a very godly and wise sister!), but that for many they have great confusion in their minds, and this is not a work of God, as He is not the author of confusion. The Lord will enable His true people to persevere in holiness and faith _whatever_ version they use, but the matter of a reliable-in-the-minutiae Bible is nonetheless a significant matter.

You do well to study the matter.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 20, 2015)

Edward, what do you think about the ESV's reading in Matthew 1:7, 10, replacing Asa and Amon, Christ's royal ancestors, with Asaph and Amos? That's how the Critical Greek Text reads. The scholars who put the CT together opined that Matthew simply got it wrong, and left it at that. The ESV is one of the few versions with the nerve to actually go public with that travesty. That does not bespeak a reliable Bible!

Now I do have on my shelf next to where I study and pray in the mornings the ESV, NASB, MKJV, LB, NKJV, and NIV (1984), so that I can compare the various readings and translations—they all have value. But I stay with the standard, the Bible I trust and can defend against all comers.

______

P.S. Alas, there are _significant_ flaws in the NKJV also, though it it far better than the other modern versions.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 20, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Edward, what do you think about the ESV's reading in Matthew 1:7, 10, replacing Asa and Amon, Christ's royal ancestors, with Asaph and Amos? That's how the Critical Greek Text reads. The scholars who put the CT together opined that Matthew simply got it wrong, and left it at that. The ESV is one of the few versions with the nerve to actually go public with that travesty. That does not bespeak a reliable Bible!
> 
> Now I do have on my shelf next to where I study and pray in the mornings the ESV, NASB, MKJV, LB, NKJV, and NIV (1984), so that I can compare the various readings and translations—they all have value. But I stay with the standard, the Bible I trust and can defend against all comers.
> 
> ...



Mr. Rafalsky I respectably differ with you on this issue. But to be fair I have found areas where the NKJV seems to depart from the TR though not many, the MKJV is probably more on track. Though my preference isn't for the TR at this time. I personally read multiple translations and oftentimes the Authorized Version because I do really enjoy it. If after my time in seminary I were to Pastor a church that had a preference for the KJV I would have no problem using it. But of course my opinion could change in all this and I eventually could be right with you in regards of the TR and the KJV but only study, prayer and time will tell.


----------



## Logan (May 21, 2015)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I know those who have a strong conviction in the matter will cringe to hear me say this, but, as one who does not have such convictions, I am really beginning to believe that this issue is nowhere near as important as serving my wife and being unified with my elders and church.



I think more than several people here share your belief. The most important thing is that we read. For years I have used the ESV in a NKJV congregation and my wife grew up using KJV in NIV congregations. And never once did either of us feel like what we were reading was deficient or that what everyone else was reading was deficient. I think that difference in translation overshadows almost any textual difference---I think it's likely that 99% of Christians wouldn't even guess there is a textual difference between some versions without being told. 

Currently my wife enjoys listening to the ESV (audio) while we're trying the old Geneva Bible in family worship.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 21, 2015)

Logan said:


> E.R. CROSS said:
> 
> 
> > I know those who have a strong conviction in the matter will cringe to hear me say this, but, as one who does not have such convictions, I am really beginning to believe that this issue is nowhere near as important as serving my wife and being unified with my elders and church.
> ...






E.R. CROSS said:


> I know those who have a strong conviction in the matter will cringe to hear me say this, but, as one who does not have such convictions, I am really beginning to believe that this issue is nowhere near as important as serving my wife and being unified with my elders and church.


Elijah I think your making a good humble choice because you don't want to put a stumbling block in front of your wife. Plus your Church uses it which would make it easier to follow along and there's some unity there as well. I understand Mr. Rafalsky's opinion because of his strong convictions but since you don't currently share those convictions I think your decision is a humble and meek one.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> My own wife uses the NIV (1984), and I do not lord it over her in this matter, though she now checks with the AV and other versions to see their readings.


Mr. Rafalsky that's good to hear. You have a very level head on this issue. It's a shame more folks can't share your meekness about it because I see hardcore KJV onlyist really causing trouble and making people stumble.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 23, 2015)

Hi Edward,

I much appreciate your energy, and desire to gain needed knowledge. Though when you give counsel to a brother to make the ESV their main Bible and have the KJV for personal use, it seems to me you don’t yet have the lay of the land on this issue. Which is needful to assess the terrain you will be covering in your studies and investigations.

The ESV and the KJV are at serious odds with one another in some respects, and to counsel as you have will but engender confusion. The ESV omits many words, phrases, sentences, and even verses that the Byzantine text and the KJV include. That’s because they have different origins and histories (given that around 85% of the both of them are identical—in virtual agreement). But 15% difference is significant. (I will be the first to admit, I do like some of the translations of both the Hebrew and the Greek in the modern versions—that’s one reason why I have these versions close at hand when I am studying God’s word, though my Standard is always primary.)

When I brought up the Asa and Amon issue in my post #51, you “respectfully differ[ed]” but didn’t address the discrepancy in that passage. Then we have John 7:53-8:11 (the woman taken in adultery), the last 12 verses of Mark’s gospel, the omission of “*God* manifest in the flesh” in 1 Tim 3:16, and on and on. In Ephesians 5:30 the phrase, “of his flesh, and of his bones” are omitted without even a margin note so that CT users may never even be aware that the vast majority of Byz manuscripts have this Biblical text! (I see you have one of Dr. Maurice Robinson’s essays on the Byz text; another great writing by him is his and Wm. Pierpont’s Introduction to their Greek Byz NT; also outstanding is Jakob Van Bruggen’s essay, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_. These are both world-class Byzantine text scholars—though I would say Robinson is the foremost.)

What I mean is that one has to come to terms with the difference between these two basic textual lines of origin and transmission. Are the omissions (or additions, depending on your point of view) warranted? What presuppositions guide each? They can’t both be valid. Are there historical and textual evidences that may be brought to bear on the question to aid in coming to an informed opinion?

It is true that godly and learned men and women are in both camps. One would be wise to avoid those who denigrate and scorn their opponents (there are many such in _both_ camps), although documented, sustained departure from either saving faith or Christian morals are valid testimony regarding a person’s fitness to deal with holy things, as Scripture says,
But unto the wicked God saith,
What hast thou to do to declare my statutes,
or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
Seeing thou hatest instruction,
and castest my words behind thee (Psalm 50:16-17).​ 
And I see you understand, important as the textual issue is, our Saviour and God’s command supersedes this: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:12). If we do not obey this, our talk is worthless. I am glad you know that—which is a great start!


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 24, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hi Edward,
> 
> I much appreciate your energy, and desire to gain needed knowledge. Though when you give counsel to a brother to make the ESV their main Bible and have the KJV for personal use, it seems to me you don’t yet have the lay of the land on this issue. Which is needful to assess the terrain you will be covering in your studies and investigations.
> 
> ...



I do respect and understand your opinion but understand my main point was that he clearly stated that he didn't have strong convictions either way at the moment. If he did it would be a different story. But since he doesn't I think the ESV seems like the reasonable choice in his situation. I am not aware of the Asa & Amon issue as I don't use the ESV much myself. The ESV I that have has both John(adultery) and the end of Mark passages in it but of course as most modern version has a marginal note. But I am not one to really debate for the ESV as I personally don't prefer it much. But I am aware of most of the textual issues you raised between the CT & TR and I am believe Elijah(from what I've seen so far) has looked into these matters and I am believe he's aware of a lot of these differences between manuscripts. So if he is aware of these things and has no problem with the ESV I think it's a fair choice in his situation. Maybe I am assuming too much. Elijah may not know as much as I am amusing he does. But I agree I don't like a lot of these the CT has done and omitted from their text. That's why I prefer the KJV/NKJV & NASB isn't as bad as some with omitting but brackets a lot. My reasons for using the AV are more of preference than anything though the text matters too.


----------



## Username3000 (May 24, 2015)

You probably have given me too much credit for my knowledge of the textual issues, but I have looked into it enough to be comfortable with my choice thus far. Having begun using the ESV again, after a couple months of straight KJV, I very much appreciate the 'being on the same page' with my church aspect. It feels as though a hurdle has been removed. Now wouldn't that be a wonderful thing for the entire English-speaking church? I understand a little more why so many KJV folks lament the plurality of translations.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 24, 2015)

E.R. CROSS said:


> You probably have given me too much credit for my knowledge of the textual issues, but I have looked into it enough to be comfortable with my choice thus far. Having begun using the ESV again, after a couple months of straight KJV, I very much appreciate the 'being on the same page' with my church aspect. It feels as though a hurdle has been removed. Now wouldn't that be a wonderful thing for the entire English-speaking church? I understand a little more why so many KJV folks lament the plurality of translations.



Yeah That last part is true. I wouldn't mind if the KJV was the standard like it was way before my time.I can understand how that was unifying.


----------



## Username3000 (May 24, 2015)

What is the translation used in your church pulpit?


----------

