Why side with the KJV

[MW]

Let's consider the attestation of Scripture by Scripture itself. Why do we believe the Scriptures are inspired? Because Scripture itself states it plainly and quotes itself as inspired. Since later Scriptures make this attestation of earlier Scriptures, it must include within it the belief in the preservation of Scripture. What is inspired is also preserved, according to the self-attestation of Scripture. When Moses is quoted 1400 years later, or David is quoted 1000 years later, it is always on the presupposition that what was written has been preserved in its original purity. Now the question is, Which text-critical theory gives the greatest weight and place to the attested preservation of Scripture? Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal? I do not think it is difficult to decide once the doctrine of preservation is accepted as an essential part of the self-attestation of holy Scripture. It is undoubtedly true that there are difficulties connected with the work of textual criticism regardless of which view one takes. But these difficulties should not decide one's position. The testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should decide that point.

 

[Logan]

Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?

I don't think those are the only possible viewpoints.

 

[MW]

Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?

I don't think those are the only possible viewpoints.

What sui generis will you devise for us?

 

[JimmyH]

Reverend Winzer, in this brief example from William Milligan DD in his commentary on Revelation, from the Expositors Bible, circa 1889, on page 7 Professor Milligan gives this exposition ;

1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

"The true reading of the original is not that of our Authorised Version, "Into Him that washed," but "Unto Him that loosed" us from our sins. We have received not merely the pardon of sin, but deliverance from its power."

Looking at the translation of the ASV, ESV, and NIV, I note that their translation of that verse agrees with Dr. Milligan's . I'm not questioning the inerrancy of Scripture with this example, but I'm seeing this, from Professor Milligan, as a prime example of how the AV, or any translation, can be improved for clarity of the meaning the Apostle was trying to convey, and if that is recognized, should be improved upon.

 

[MW]

I'm seeing this, from Professor Milligan, as a prime example of how the AV, or any translation, can be improved for clarity of the meaning the Apostle was trying to convey, and if that is recognized, should be improved upon.

Jimmy, How does this relate to what I said? I am failing to see any connection.

 

[JimmyH]

I'm seeing this, from Professor Milligan, as a prime example of how the AV, or any translation, can be improved for clarity of the meaning the Apostle was trying to convey, and if that is recognized, should be improved upon.

Jimmy, How does this relate to what I said? I am failing to see any connection.

Reverend Winzer, perhaps it doesn't apply to your post ...... rather to the OP's question of adhering to a CT translation as opposed to moving to a RT text translation. I'm only asking if you would agree that in some instances the AV, or any other translation, may be improved upon ? The aforementioned example being one of a few I've run across, in the opinion of those commentators I've been reading. Bruce Metzger's works tell us that through textual criticism we can come close to the original autographs. So if that is the case, and through a more complete understanding of the Koine,by the papyri discovered in Egypt for example, we can better discern the meaning of the Scriptures, can't we attempt to do that in our day and time ?

 

[MW]

Reverend Winzer, perhaps it doesn't apply to your post ...... rather to the OP's question of adhering to a CT translation as opposed to moving to a RT text translation. I'm only asking if you would agree that in some instances the AV, or any other translation, may be improved upon ? The aforementioned example being one of a few I've run across, in the opinion of those commentators I've been reading. Bruce Metzger's works tell us that through textual criticism we can come close to the original autographs. So if that is the case, and through a more complete understanding of the Koine,by the papyri discovered in Egypt for example, we can better discern the meaning of the Scriptures, can't we attempt to do that in our day and time ?

Jimmy, if there is some dispute as to the meaning then appeal is to be made to the Greek. I can only see where you have appealed from one translation to another. Do you have some evidence from the Greek that one is better than another?

May I ask, When will you know you have come close to the original and fulfil Metzger's dream? It looks to me like boatmen rowing against the tide where every row leaves them farther away. For every row of criticism there is a new discovery which pushes them away from the shore.

 

[Free Christian]

I believe it is a faithful translation. I also believe the ESV is a faithful translation.

Hi Logan. How can they both be considered the same? When comparing Mathew 17 v 21, 18 v 11, 19 v 9 or Mark 6 v 11, 11 v 26 or Luke 9 v 56 or John 5 v 4 even Acts 8 v 37 with the KJV and ESV. How can two so different Bibles be considered the same? Either God said something or He did not. If one shows He did and another suggests or shows He did not, how can they both be faithful? If I wrote something that said something and later saw two translations of what I wrote with one giving all accounts of the original and another with things left out then how could I declare both faithful? Say I went fishing and camping and caught 5 trout in a river and told a couple of friends, Joe and Jack, and later hear someone say "I heard Joe said you went fishing and camping and in a river caught 5 trout" and then another say "I heard Jack say you went fishing in a lake and caught two fish" How can they be the same? How can they both be faithful when they give different accounts of the original?

 

[One Little Nail]

Sounds like 6 of one & half a dozen of the other

 

[Logan]

Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?

I don't think those are the only possible viewpoints.

What sui generis will you devise for us?

I will be honest and say that it bothers me to receive what seems an uncharitable reply.

I don't know of any CT-users on this board who would hold with your first category of belief, as you seem to intimate, but would fall under some subset of the second belief: i.e., that the Scriptures have been faithfully transmitted through means of the church, and yet that "there is no doubt but that in the copies we now enjoy of the Old Testament there are some diverse readings, or various lections. But yet we affirm, that the whole Word of God, in every letter and tittle, as given from him by inspiration, is preserved without corruption. Where there is any variety it is always in things of less, indeed of no, importance. God by his providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word." (Owen, Divine Originals)

(i.e., there are some variants in some copies that we'll never really be certain about, yet the entirety of the original is still preserved in them.).

And

"If any other [lections] can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered. Men must here deal by instances, not conjectures. All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church." (Owen, Integrity and Purity).

I believe that Scripture is found in a diligent comparing of all the readings, preserved through all ages, in all churches everywhere. Not just the readings preserved by one branch of the church and compiled during one period of late church history. Both views admit of some uncertainty, yet neither believes the originals are lost.

 

[JimmyH]

Reverend Winzer, perhaps it doesn't apply to your post ...... rather to the OP's question of adhering to a CT translation as opposed to moving to a RT text translation. I'm only asking if you would agree that in some instances the AV, or any other translation, may be improved upon ? The aforementioned example being one of a few I've run across, in the opinion of those commentators I've been reading. Bruce Metzger's works tell us that through textual criticism we can come close to the original autographs. So if that is the case, and through a more complete understanding of the Koine,by the papyri discovered in Egypt for example, we can better discern the meaning of the Scriptures, can't we attempt to do that in our day and time ?

Jimmy, if there is some dispute as to the meaning then appeal is to be made to the Greek. I can only see where you have appealed from one translation to another. Do you have some evidence from the Greek that one is better than another?

May I ask, When will you know you have come close to the original and fulfil Metzger's dream? It looks to me like boatmen rowing against the tide where every row leaves them farther away. For every row of criticism there is a new discovery which pushes them away from the shore.

I hadn't thought of 'going to the Greek' myself since I assumed Professor Millgan's credentials would have made that presumptuous on my part, but I will give it the best I can from my admittedly limited experience in that field, I need all the practice I can get.

The word translated 'washed' in the AV, and 'loosed' in the RV, is λυσαντι. The ESV interlinear translates it 'freed.' Looking in BGAD I could not find it, nor in Liddel-Scott, so I was somewhat puzzled.

The closest I came was λυσιος, which Liddel & Scott define as a verb meaning 'releasing, delivering'. The ESV Interlinear keys to Strong's # 3089 which shows 'λυω' defining it as "to loose", among other similar variables.

So I'm assuming that λυω is a root and the word in the text derives from it. So I go to a copy of the Byzantine textform, edited by Robinson and find the same λυσαντι but with a footnote that defines it as 'λυοω lit. (or merely ceremonially), I wash, bath,(the body); :mid: of washing, bathing one's self; met: I cleanse from sin.

My curiousity piqued I go to Farstad/Hodges Majority textform, and find λουσαντι, not exactly the same word in Farstad's majority text, and footnoted ; λουσαντι (majority); λυσαντι (TR) ; ελουσεν (Coptic i.e. Egyptian)

Back to BGAD and I find the same info as is footnoted in the Robinson Byzantine with lexical info by Dodson. So I went back to Liddel & Scott and the closest I can find is λυσιος, a verb meaning releasing or delivering.

Still in L&S for λουσαντι the closest I can come is λουσις, defined as washing, bathing. For the Coptic reading, ελουσεν the most I could find was a reference, in the Robinson & House Analytical Lexicon, to Strong's # 3068 which defines the root of the word as bathing/washing.

So since going through this exercise I am more confused than I was when I started but perhaps a bit wiser. I will no longer be so quick to assume. Thank you Reverend Winzer for prompting me to spend the time and effort.

 

[One Little Nail]

I hadn't thought of 'going to the Greek' myself since I assumed Professor Millgan's credentials would have made that presumptuous on my part, but I will give it the best I can from my admittedly limited experience in that field, I need all the practice I can get.

The word translated 'washed' in the AV, and 'loosed' in the RV, is λυσαντι. The ESV interlinear translates it 'freed.' Looking in BGAD I could not find it, nor in Liddel-Scott, so I was somewhat puzzled.

The closest I came was λυσιος, which Liddel & Scott define as a verb meaning 'releasing, delivering'. The ESV Interlinear keys to Strong's # 3089 which shows 'λυω' defining it as "to loose", among other similar variables.

in this brief example from William Milligan DD in his commentary on Revelation, from the Expositors Bible, circa 1889, on page 7 Professor Milligan gives this exposition ;

1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

"The true reading of the original is not that of our Authorised Version, "Into Him that washed," but "Unto Him that loosed" us from our sins. We have received not merely the pardon of sin, but deliverance from its power."

Looking at the translation of the ASV, ESV, and NIV, I note that their translation of that verse agrees with Dr. Milligan's . I'm not questioning the inerrancy of Scripture with this example, but I'm seeing this, from Professor Milligan, as a prime example of how the AV, or any translation, can be improved for clarity of the meaning the Apostle was trying to convey, and if that is recognized, should be improved upon.

Having checked my PocketSword App KJB with Strongs Numbers it turns out that the Textus Receptus does indeed use a different Greek word to the Revised (text) Version, it being

Strong's # 3068 λούω [LOU/W] {loúō} \loo'-o\
a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively):--wash.

The KJB does not in fact mistranslate λυσαντι as washed as it uses an entirely different greek word, which does indeed mean wash, if you have 2 differing Texts that have different Greek words in places you'll find that they'll have a different meaning,
I'm sure the RV does accurately translate the greek word it uses as loosed.

The question now becomes not which text has translated its greek words the most accurately but which version uses the correct greek text & greek word in that place, and I would have to side with the KJB.

 

[Free Christian]

Where there is any variety it is always in things of less, indeed of no, importance. God by his providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word." (Owen, Divine Originals)

Hello Logan. Did he mean, or write that to also encompass, the removal of entire sentences and passages? What I mean is are those entire sentences and passages which are omitted by some like the ESV of no importance? Does that quote apply to those omitted sections also?

I believe that Scripture is found in a diligent comparing of all the readings, preserved through all ages, in all churches everywhere

Where does that leave the poor and unlearned, those without the resources or knowledge with which to do so? Wouldn't just having 1 truly faithful version suffice?
Why should I for example need to get all different versions and compare them, being that you say from "all churches everywhere", some of which may very well be corrupt churches using highly corrupted versions, to come to an understanding of what Gods Word says? Is that like saying all versions lead to the truth?
That seems like a pretty complicated way to arrive at it!

 

[MW]

I will be honest and say that it bothers me to receive what seems an uncharitable reply.

It is regrettable that you can be so easily bothered and find uncharitable intent in the most harmless of challenges. A sui generis is simply a position which brings together conflicting principles. As you had suggested that there is such a position I challenged you to devise it for us. I can understand the challenge might be too great for you, but there was nothing uncharitable in my remark, unless of course setting you a difficult challenge is to be looked upon as uncharitable.

Concerning your contention that there is another position which brings together the conflicting principles, it is well known that the "neutral text" of Westcott and Hort deliberately laid aside the text which was handed down through the agency of the church, and it was done so with the thought of "restoring" the original to the church. One will find that B. B. Warfield shared this view. The present day eclectic approach which underlies the critical text has gone even farther away from the agency of the church. It is simply false to assert that one can adopt critical text principles and maintain the agency of the church in providential preservation.

 

[MW]

So since going through this exercise I am more confused than I was when I started but perhaps a bit wiser. I will no longer be so quick to assume. Thank you Reverend Winzer for prompting me to spend the time and effort.

Sorry you had to go through that, Jimmy. This is the difficulty the minister faces as he has to wrestle with these questions week in week out.

 

[JimmyH]

So since going through this exercise I am more confused than I was when I started but perhaps a bit wiser. I will no longer be so quick to assume. Thank you Reverend Winzer for prompting me to spend the time and effort.

Sorry you had to go through that, Jimmy. This is the difficulty the minister faces as he has to wrestle with these questions week in week out.

On the contrary Reverend Winzer, I genuinely do thank you for stimulating me to go through the exercise, even if that wasn't your intent. I really did learn that there is much more to this than meets the uneducated eye. Hats off to those ministers who, week in and week out, have the awesome responsibility of rightly dividing the word of truth for their flock.

 

[One Little Nail]

I've posted this from another thread as it has relevance to this thread...

apparently what helps the KJB's readability is the fact there are over 900 verses in the King James Bible that contain only one syllable words. Here's one, and what could be simpler, Jesus wept.

Here is a weblink that shows its Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level:
A Red Herring, "The Readability of the KJV"

And what was the result? The King James Bible literally “blew the doors off” the ESV! The following verifiable scientific results do not lie.

DESCRIPTION ......................................KJB.. ESV
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Lower Easier to Read) 4.32 8.22
Sentence Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) .........29 ..61
Vocabulary Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) ........2 ..10
Short Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........10342 3441
Simple Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........5728 2301
Big Words (Lower Easier to Read) ................7020 13478
Average Words per Sentence (Lower Easier to Read)8.78 18.82

As you can see from our easy to verify results, the readability statistics of the much aligned "hard-to-understand" King James Bible clearly knocks the ESV out of the park!

also another thing when reading the KJB apparently you need to know a smaller vocabulary as well, which I suppose is its comprehensibility
Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand Than The Others?

The national bestseller, The Story of English, writes of the simplicity of the King James Bible:

"The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teaching in homely English for everyman." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 113)

Did I also fail to mention it's a better Sounding Bible, yes Listenability!
so what could be better for a Family & Pulpit Reading Bible?

One of the amazing personalities of the King James Bible is it’s poetic beauty. Nothing ever penned in the English language can match it’s sound and rhythm. For a work of it’s volume and serious subject matter – the poetic splendor defies human logic. The very sound of reading of the King James Bible bears the resemble of a music concerto. It’s timbre grabs you, as it’s melody sings God’s word. What an amazing book!

It’s worth noting the emphasis the King James translators placed, not only on the readable text of the King James Bible, but also it’s sound. Before the King James Bible was published and after the initial translation work was completed, a re-working took place, The Story of English describes this unique process, "they were to go through the text, re-working it so that it would not only read better but sound better, a quality for which it became famous throughout the English-speaking world." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 112)

 

[jgilberAZ]

The question now becomes not which text has translated its greek words the most accurately but which version uses the correct greek text & greek word in that place, and I would have to side with the KJB.

That is the crux of the matter, In my humble opinion.

I tend to think that the version that has been copied and copied and copied the fewest number of times (ie, the oldest manuscripts), would likely yield a more accurate representation of the originals.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I tend to think that the version that has been copied and copied and copied the fewest number of times (ie, the oldest manuscripts), would likely yield a more accurate representation of the originals.

The problem is we cannot know how many generations a MS is the product of. Nor is it accurate to conclude that a if a MS is older that it has fewer generations between it and the autograph than a later MS. If a MS was copied in the year 1500 from a MS that dates from circa 150, then it holds the same place as the MS that was copied from the same text in the year 151. While there is a vast difference in their age, they nonetheless are the product of same number of generations in the process of transmission. It is conversely true that an earlier MS may be the product of more copies than a later MS. We really cannot say definitively how many generations of copied MSS lie between any particular MS and its autograph based solely on its age. It is therefore unsafe to base all of our conclusions in the area textual criticism merely on the age of the MSS. Unfortunately, that has been the received wisdom for more than a century.

 

[Logan]

It is regrettable that you can be so easily bothered and find uncharitable intent in the most harmless of challenges. A sui generis is simply a position which brings together conflicting principles. As you had suggested that there is such a position I challenged you to devise it for us. I can understand the challenge might be too great for you, but there was nothing uncharitable in my remark, unless of course setting you a difficult challenge is to be looked upon as uncharitable.

Reverend Winzer, I attempted to act in a Christian manner by saying that your former remark bothered me (instead of bottling it up). Your response (which could have been simply "that was not my intent") now seems condescending; perhaps you find humor in that, but I will once again say that the way you have related to me does bother me. Maybe I am too sensitive, but if that is the case, would you mind at least trying to treat me as a weaker brother?

I believe the heart of the difference is that you promote a view of preservation that admits of no alternatives, and see all other views as invalid. For this reason, you will not discuss anything on any grounds but your own, which is fine, but it makes further discussion unfruitful. However, I would like to say that I believe that view is too narrow, to the point where Erasmus, Beza, Estienne, etc., had they held its, would not have been able to produce what they did. I also think there is a problem in this interpretation of preservation of believing that the texts were "kept pure in all ages", for apparently some things were lost to the Greek manuscripts for a thousand years, only to be inserted back in by the Latin.

I have been reading about the history of the Geneva Bible and all the translation and textual work that went on in Geneva at that time, with numerous editions of the Greek being printed by Estienne and Beza as they compared manuscripts and sought to correct readings based on textual criticism. There appears to be an almost constant analysis of the text to see whether the reading is correct or no. The idea of a static text that could not be corrected does not appear to have been an option for them, though certainly there was a reverent approach as well that I admire and hope our own translators follow.

I believe there is a danger in declaring a view of preservation and then holding to it regardless of evidence. Many KJVO people hold to a view of preservation that says the Greek can't really be trusted and yet accept "by faith" that the KJV is the providentially preserved word of God, regardless of any evidence. I think the question should not be "what do I think God should have done" but rather "how did God do this?". I believe in providential preservation because it is an extension of my belief in the nature of God. However, God did not preserve every single manuscript without error (though he certainly could have). Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume that is how he did it, regardless of the evidence. Likewise, I cannot just assume that God preserved his word through one group of Western Europeans and the variants they collected (especially since they didn't seem to believe this themselves), until I have looked at the evidence. It is certainly possible, but I cannot accept that view based on what I know. I can certainly sympathize with those who do hold it.

 

[MW]

Maybe I am too sensitive, but if that is the case, would you mind at least trying to treat me as a weaker brother?

Logan, a weaker brother in Scripture is not one who is "too sensitive," but one who feels himself bound by Old Testament commandments of God wherein others consider themselves to be free. You are not the weaker brother.

I am genuinely sorry you are always taking offence at my manner. In my honest opinion, you are far too sensitive. If you are going to discuss an issue, discuss the issue, and leave personal things out of it.

you will not discuss anything on any grounds but your own

Nonsense! If you can't meet the challenge, simply say so. Stop trying to deflect your inadequacies onto me.

There appears to be an almost constant analysis of the text to see whether the reading is correct or no.

This is not denied. It has already been recognised on numerous threads. The fact that there are variants and difficulties is part of the work of criticism regardless of the stream one works with.

Likewise, I cannot just assume that God preserved his word through one group of Western Europeans

The Byzantine text is eastern.

 

[chuckd]

Let's consider the attestation of Scripture by Scripture itself. Why do we believe the Scriptures are inspired? Because Scripture itself states it plainly and quotes itself as inspired. Since later Scriptures make this attestation of earlier Scriptures, it must include within it the belief in the preservation of Scripture. What is inspired is also preserved, according to the self-attestation of Scripture. When Moses is quoted 1400 years later, or David is quoted 1000 years later, it is always on the presupposition that what was written has been preserved in its original purity. Now the question is, Which text-critical theory gives the greatest weight and place to the attested preservation of Scripture? Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal? I do not think it is difficult to decide once the doctrine of preservation is accepted as an essential part of the self-attestation of holy Scripture. It is undoubtedly true that there are difficulties connected with the work of textual criticism regardless of which view one takes. But these difficulties should not decide one's position. The testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should decide that point.

I believe this is a good view. It is bothersome that the Greek text continually changes every few years. Often churches will attempt to straddle the fence on this issue and accept the latest Greek text and say "the original is inspired." Do we have the original? "No." So what good is that statement?

The TR view is new to me and it makes sense. My question for TR is with the bolded above. Again, I'm new to it so don't know the history, but has the TR text been faithfully transmitted through means of the church? That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?

 

[JimmyH]

Again, I'm new to it so don't know the history, but has the TR text been faithfully transmitted through means of the church? That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?

The Vulgate was the dominant text for a thousand years up until Erasmus. Here is a brief overview of the history of the TR.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This from the Wiki on the KJV; King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[124] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[125] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus.

For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[126] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[127]"

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Logan,

With regard to the view of preservation held by some here (myself included) you say,

“I would like to say that I believe that view is too narrow, to the point where Erasmus, Beza, Estienne, etc., had they held it, would not have been able to produce what they did.”​

Rightly they considered the variant readings, and text critical issues. I think the point is that what they came up with, and the King James Bible translators sifted through and used (along with other translations, language versions, etc), resulted in a Greek (and also Hebrew) edition (back-translated into a text compiled by Scrivener’s 1894 Greek) resulting in the Greek Received Text and the English-language AV. Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were part of the process of God’s providentially preserving His word.

And then you continue,

“I also think there is a problem in this interpretation of preservation of believing that the texts were ‘kept pure in all ages’, for apparently some things were lost to the Greek manuscripts for a thousand years, only to be inserted back in by the Latin.” (Post #80)​

This you quoted is from the Westminster Confession 1:8 (the 1689 Baptist Confession reading virtually the same),

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...​

I want to say concerning this “kept pure in all ages”, what I think it 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, or even one area in each generation? 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.

In other words, God, even though He had adequately (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. Yes, later even CT-based Bibles went out to the nations (though causing great confusion in some areas, as I learned when I taught in Africa). Still, they did good in the main, giving even more peoples the word of God.

As I said earlier in the thread, the Reformation Protestants desired “a precise and sure text to withstand the onslaught of Rome”, and this they had in the Received Hebrew and Greek Texts and its English translation. Were they wrong? Was Rome right after all? Was the Roman Catholic Vaticanus the best MS as they would later claim?

The alternative to this view is that we in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century have an uncertain text, provisional at best, and are dependent on academicians (not all of whom are even believers) to sort it out for us. Some of the “best” textual scholars are pessimistic the NT text can ever be discerned or restored, as noted in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] post of this thread.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Let's consider the attestation of Scripture by Scripture itself. Why do we believe the Scriptures are inspired? Because Scripture itself states it plainly and quotes itself as inspired. Since later Scriptures make this attestation of earlier Scriptures, it must include within it the belief in the preservation of Scripture. What is inspired is also preserved, according to the self-attestation of Scripture. When Moses is quoted 1400 years later, or David is quoted 1000 years later, it is always on the presupposition that what was written has been preserved in its original purity. Now the question is, Which text-critical theory gives the greatest weight and place to the attested preservation of Scripture? Is it the belief which holds the original is lost for ever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal? I do not think it is difficult to decide once the doctrine of preservation is accepted as an essential part of the self-attestation of holy Scripture. It is undoubtedly true that there are difficulties connected with the work of textual criticism regardless of which view one takes. But these difficulties should not decide one's position. The testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should decide that point.

I believe this is a good view. It is bothersome that the Greek text continually changes every few years. Often churches will attempt to straddle the fence on this issue and accept the latest Greek text and say "the original is inspired." Do we have the original? "No." So what good is that statement?

The TR view is new to me and it makes sense. My question for TR is with the bolded above. Again, I'm new to it so don't know the history, but has the TR text been faithfully transmitted through means of the church? That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?

I think the key here is "transmitted through means of the church". For that we have only the TR textual tradition. Now when and if I pray, the church takes up the need for a new translation or modification of its existing translation, we will all be quite blessed. When the pastor states "this is the Word of God" we should be able in good conscience to make an affirmation accordingly, not sit in judgment of the same.

 

[MW]

That is, what was the purpose of Erasmus' work if the church already had the TR text?

It might help to liken it to the truth of the gospel in the church. The church had it, but it took a Luther with the help of others to bring it out into the open. Once brought out it caused a division. The reformation churches held to the truth and the Romanist church opposed it. In the same way, the church has always had the preserved Word, but it took the agency of some men to bring it out into the open. At that point the Reformed embraced it and the Romanists opposed it.

Just to clarify, the received text position does not deny there are variants and difficulties. But these are addressed from the point of view that the word has been preserved for the church. This is in direct contrast to those who engage in criticism with the thought that the word has been corrupted and must be restored to a tolerable approximation to the original.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Some food for thought
The Comma Johanneum, Reformed Baptists, and Doing Apologetics | Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

[MW]

Some food for thought
The Comma Johanneum, Reformed Baptists, and Doing Apologetics | Alpha and Omega Ministries

"Doing Apologetics" might just get to the heart of the problem. Apologists are natively concerned with what unbelievers think and how to make them think better of Christianity. Pastors are concerned to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers. An "apologist" is not a distinct ministry of the New Testament church.

Dr. White states regarding the position of Turretin and co.: "What they have to say isn't all that relevant anymore." Roman Catholics would say that what they said never was relevant.

Some food for nourishment:

(1) Certain "variants" were rejected because they were outside the mainstream, even though the mss. containing the "variants" might not have been discovered or examined.

(2) There are certain canonical principles which steer the reading of evidence. If a new book was found which could be traced back to the pen of the apostles it would not be considered as canonical because it has not been received as such by the church. If the church were to make a new canon it would effectively remove itself from the claim of being "catholic" (universal). What applies to a book applies to the text. The last twelve verses of Mark are not that much different to one of the smaller epistles of the New Testament.

(3) The Scriptures are the rule of faith and life. The critics said for a long time that the new criticism does not alter the "essential" doctrines of the church. In recent years that has not been the case. Both evangelicals and non-evangelicals have started to concede that "essentials" are affected. But even where essential doctrines are not apparently affected, it is beyond dispute that other doctrines which are included in "the whole counsel of God" are affected by the alterations.

 

[Reformed Roman]

Maybe I am too sensitive, but if that is the case, would you mind at least trying to treat me as a weaker brother?

Logan, a weaker brother in Scripture is not one who is "too sensitive," but one who feels himself bound by Old Testament commandments of God wherein others consider themselves to be free. You are not the weaker brother.

I am genuinely sorry you are always taking offence at my manner. In my honest opinion, you are far too sensitive. If you are going to discuss an issue, discuss the issue, and leave personal things out of it.

you will not discuss anything on any grounds but your own

Nonsense! If you can't meet the challenge, simply say so. Stop trying to deflect your inadequacies onto me.

There appears to be an almost constant analysis of the text to see whether the reading is correct or no.

This is not denied. It has already been recognised on numerous threads. The fact that there are variants and difficulties is part of the work of criticism regardless of the stream one works with.

Likewise, I cannot just assume that God preserved his word through one group of Western Europeans

The Byzantine text is eastern.

Still when a brother feels your talking to him in a disrespectful way the least you could do is show some love and class towards him. Instead this very arrogance is the reason why he probably won't be too intent on listening to any more of your arguments.

 

[MW]

Still when a brother feels your talking to him in a disrespectful way the least you could do is show some love and class towards him. Instead this very arrogance is the reason why he probably won't be too intent on listening to any more of your arguments.

"Arrogance." Where is your love and class? I see double standards at work here. This is what happens when people will only maintain truth with respect to persons.

Show me the person who is willing to sacrifice self for the sake of defending the truth, and I will listen to that person.