Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still studying all this. Is this whole debate not more fundamentally based on what one perceives to be “better” manuscripts instead what method is applied?

In other words, do not those who are in the TR-Only group have to deal with text variants with the Byzantine Copies? Picking some within that group as more accurate than others.

As I said i am still studying this, but the TR-Onylist think those in the CT camp believe the Word is corrupted....but are not the TR-Onlysist the ones saying that ALL other manuscripts (specifically) Alexandrian are corrupt outside the TR?

Could this line of thinking not then imply that the manuscripts used in CT are more in line with the idea expressed in the Westminster Standards?

Just looking for help. Today I am a CT guy mainly because I like the fact that it pulls from a wider range of manuscripts, which for me says that God has kept his word pure, not ONLY in all ages, but also in a wider range of places.
 
Last edited:
Still studying all this. Is this whole debate not more fundamentally based on what one perceives to be “better” manuscripts instead what method is applied?

In other words, do not those who are in the TR-Only group have to deal with text variants with the Byzantine Copies? Picking some within that group as more accurate than others.

As I said i am still studying this, but the TR-Onylist think those in the CT camp believe the Word is corrupted....but are not the TR-Onlysist the ones saying that ALL other manuscripts (specifically) Alexandrian are corrupt outside the TR?

Could this line of thinking not then imply that the manuscripts used in CT are more in line with the idea expressed in the Westminster Standards?

Just looking for help. Today I am a CT guy mainly because I like the fact that it pulls from a wider range of manuscripts, which for me says that God has kept his word pure, not ONLY in all ages, but also in a wider range of places.
Grant,
Those of us who are more in keeping with the TR are happy to consider all the manuscript evidence. We doubt the modern theory of text types/families. The handful of manuscripts that are sometimes viewed as the "Alexandirian manuscripts" are weighed along with the rest of the textual evidence out there.
 
What you hold with regard to only one narrow range of manuscripts, I hold with regard to the full range of manuscripts.

In theory, yes, but in practice this is simply not the case. The CT, while produced in consultation with the full range of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in only a few manuscripts, while the TR, even though produced by consulting only a handful of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts.
 
In theory, yes, but in practice this is simply not the case. The CT, while produced in consultation with the full range of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in only a few manuscripts, while the TR, even though produced by consulting only a handful of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts.
The Majority text/Bzt one, would be the text that does more so that then the TR does though.
 
Let's pretend for a moment that Westcott and Hort are bad people. Does that make their arguments false?
The Lord had no inspiration given to translation team though, as that was only applied towards the originals, as those advocating for 1611 KJVO would be assuming that the Holy Spirit inspire them to translate into English, and yet they acknowledge that other valid Bibles were used by them to revise, and that there would be a need to revise their Bible in the future also.
And which TR is the right inspired one to use, as Erasmus Himself had 6 editions, and used the Vulgate renderings at times, and the translation team also used Beza, so they practiced that dreaded textual criticism themselves.
Which KJV also would be the perfect one, as had 1611, 1769, 1842, and 1894?
 
Last edited:
Chris, as to Andrew's definition of the CT position (that the CT position is that the manuscript tradition is corrupted and must be put back together), I have already answered that part of his statement. Firstly, it is not what Reformed CT folk believe. We believe that God's Word is in the manuscripts. Put all the differences among the manuscripts together, and they don't amount to a hill of beans, even the differences between the TR and the CT. But this paragraph is not his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. It is only his description of the CT position, a description I noted as faulty with regard to Reformed versions of it. The paragraph you quoted is NOT his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. The paragraph that makes the argument is the other paragraph that mentions ONLY questions of origin as to why it is wrong. He says it is only an aside, but that is not really an aside. That is the substance of Andrew's argument as to why the CT position is wrong.

Here is why Andrew committed the genetic fallacy: the only reasons he gives as to why the CT argument is wrong are reasons of historical origin of how the CT arguments came about. In other words, Andrew is not rejecting (so far) the CT arguments based on the merits of the arguments themselves. He (so far) only rejects them on the basis that their historical origin is suspect. That is the genetic fallacy. That the CT arguments might be taken in another sense by those of us who are Reformed, and might therefore lack the unbelieving baggage of Metzger, et al, doesn't ever seem to occur to TR defendants (and, by the way, is the main source of frustration in the controversy: Reformed folk who hold to the CT inevitably get tarred with Metzger's, and WH's brush, quite unfairly I might add). This is why Jacob has not fallen foul of your post-modern fallacy accusation: Jacob and I, and many others, who hold to the CT, do not hold it in the same way as Metzger does, or others like him, who accuse the TR tradition of being corrupted. There are nuances here in the CT positions that are getting left out, and confusion and suspicion are the typical result.
Per the OP question , there is no scripture to support the TR/KJVO position, as that would be assuming in some well sense that the Lord Himself supervised and inspired the decisions made when rendering from the Greek/Hebrew texts into their English 1611 KJV.
One can prefer the TR/Majority/Critical Greek texts, and can prefer a certain English translation, but cannot be seeing only one Greek text/one English Bible the only right one for use.
 
Is this whole debate not more fundamentally based on what one perceives to be “better” manuscripts instead what method is applied?

I don't think so. I am not sure where I fall in this debate, but speaking only of the providential preservation aspect of this issue, it seems to me that the TR position disfavors manuscripts which—again, providentially speaking—"went off the radar" for a good many centuries. In other words, providential preservation would entail that a manuscript be both known and used/consulted in the Christian Church. Manuscripts that were rediscovered after many centuries because of disuse, or because they were plain forgotten and became unknown, would not be considered providentially preserved.

@Romans922, @TylerRay, and @Bill The Baptist, am I representing this position faithfully?
 
I don't think so. I am not sure where I fall in this debate, but speaking only of the providential preservation aspect of this issue, it seems to me that the TR position disfavors manuscripts which—again, providentially speaking—"went off the radar" for a good many centuries. In other words, providential preservation would entail that a manuscript be both known and used/consulted in the Christian Church. Manuscripts that were rediscovered after many centuries because of disuse, or because they were plain forgotten and became unknown, would not be considered providentially preserved.

@Romans922, @TylerRay, and @Bill The Baptist, am I representing this position faithfully?
Taylor,
It's not so much about manuscripts as it is about readings. It's not that those manuscripts haven't been preserved--clearly, if we have them, they have been preserved. But the idiosyncratic readings in some of those manuscripts are not readings that God, by his singular care and providence, has given to his church at large. So, we consider them highly suspect.

Again, we believe that God has preserved his word in the church, and that it doesn't need to be reconstructed or recovered, only discerned.
 
Last edited:
But the idiosyncratic readings in some of those manuscripts are not reading that God, by his singular care and providence, has given to his church at large. So, we consider them highly suspect.

That begs several questions: 1) no verse promising providential preservation of this sort of a text; 2) why favor this mss care and providence and not the other one?
 
Again, we believe that God has preserved his word in the church, and that it doesn't need to be reconstructed or recovered, only discerned.
Tyler,

Don’t you think there are reformed CT guys who feel the same way about using a larger variety and number of manuscripts? I admit, from my own reading of KJV and ESV, that their are many differences in rinderings; however I do not feel that any major or minor doctrines are altered in those variations. So I have confidence that the confessional reformed guys in EITHER camp, see themselves as trying to discern as close as possible the original writer’s intent. I am greatful for many on PB helping me learn more about the TR, because I was extremely ignorant (and likely still am). I now hold the TR translations in a much higher opinion. However I share the same respect for a few of the “modern” translations which are also used in many reformed elcessiastical bodies. I do not wish to complain against either the TR or the CT because I have a great respect for translation in general.
 
That begs several questions: 1) no verse promising providential preservation of this sort of a text; 2) why favor this mss care and providence and not the other one?

I think of two streams:

CT position- We have discovered lost texts that take away or add to what has been past down through the church.

TR position- We have the text (or canon) which has been preserved through the church and kept pure through all ages.
 
however I do not feel that any major or minor doctrines are altered in those variations.


In the text itself I can’t say one way or the other. However, the philosophy behind each position is drastically different. So, in one sense, doctrines are altered.
 
Taylor,

Doesn’t the fact that we have them now mean that they were providentially preserved? How could they have been preserved outside of providence?

To be clear: I was not arguing for what I said. Rather, I was merely trying to present what I see to be the TR position. In other words, what I wrote above, which you quoted, was not me giving my personal position. @TylerRay helpfully clarified what I said.
 
Tyler,

Don’t you think there are reformed CT guys who feel the same way about using a larger variety and number of manuscripts? I admit, from my own reading of KJV and ESV, that their are many differences in rinderings; however I do not feel that any major or minor doctrines are altered in those variations. So I have confidence that the confessional reformed guys in EITHER camp, see themselves as trying to discern as close as possible the original writer’s intent. I am greatful for many on PB helping me learn more about the TR, because I was extremely ignorant (and likely still am). I now hold the TR translations in a much higher opinion. However I share the same respect for a few of the “modern” translations which are also used in many reformed elcessiastical bodies. I do not wish to complain against either the TR or the CT because I have a great respect for translation in general.
Again, both parties are happy to use all the manuscripts. Erasmus and Beza used the manuscripts that are now designated "Alexandrian." Both parties produce critical editions (critical texts, if you will). The question is whether God's word has been discernibly preserved in every age. One group does their textual criticism with the presupposition that it has, the other from the presupposition that it hasn't.
 
the other from the presupposition that it hasn't.
Can those who prefer a conservative CT translation be charged as guilty of this in every case? I am honestly wrestling with this and I am grateful for your answers.
 
Again, both parties are happy to use all the manuscripts. Erasmus and Beza used the manuscripts that are now designated "Alexandrian." Both parties produce critical editions (critical texts, if you will). The question is whether God's word has been discernibly preserved in every age. One group does their textual criticism with the presupposition that it has, the other from the presupposition that it hasn't.

Practically speaking, when you say "both parties produce critical editions" or both parties are happy to use all manuscripts, what does that mean for today? Is there any textual criticism going on within the TR camp today or has that all been considered complete through Erasmus, Beza, the KJV translators, and Scrivener?

To bring up one of the big elephants again, the 1 John 5:7 has essentially no manuscript evidence, yet almost universally TR advocates say it should be included because it was providentially preserved (from the Latin). Genuinely asking: practically speaking, what does a TR critical edition mean? What are the practical results? Not trying to be combative, but I haven't figured that out.

Or put another way, if no change will ever be made to the TR at this point, regardless of evidence one way or another, then does textual criticism or consideration of all manuscripts mean anything, in practice? Is it just a convention that "well, it's been a standard for so long so we might as well use it even if we have better readings"?
 
Last edited:
Can those who prefer a conservative CT translation be charged as guilty of this in every case? I am honestly wrestling with this and I am grateful for your answers.
In my opinion, they often don't realize it. They embrace the view that's popular in academia today. They're righly turned off by the bad arguments that many KJV/TR advocates use, so they embrace the popular view, which has a lot of scholarship behind it. But at the end of the day, their view presupposes that significant, undiscernable corruptions have been a part of the common Bible for a large part of history.
 
Practically speaking, when you say "both parties produce critical editions" or both parties are happy to use all manuscripts, what does that mean for today? Is there any textual criticism going on within the TR camp today or has that all been considered complete through Erasmus, Beza, the KJV translators, and Scrivener?

To bring up one of the big elephants again, the 1 John 5:7 has essentially no manuscript evidence, yet almost universally TR advocates say it should be included because it was providentially preserved (from the Latin). Genuinely asking: practically speaking, what does a TR critical edition mean? What are the practical results? Not trying to be combative, but I haven't figured that out.
Those are great questions, and I can't really give satisfactory answers. As far as producing a new critical edition with TR presuppositions, I don't think I know of any efforts. Burgon suggested a number of corrections. I've also heard individual men argue for readings different from what's in the KJV/Scrivener.

The I John 5:7 issue is an interesting one. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I think you may be oversimplifying it. It's certainly a debatable reading, and it's not a hill I would die on.
 
Does the NKJV usually have footnotes for any of the “debatable” verses?

I primarily use the ESV (and KJV for comparison ). I have noticed sometimes the ESV leaves out a verse and will not even add footnotes.
 
Does the NKJV usually have footnotes for any of the “debatable” verses?

I primarily use the ESV (and KJV for comparison ). I have noticed sometimes the ESV leaves out a verse and will not even add footnotes.
The NKJV goes further than that--it has marginal notes showing every place where the NA/UBS differs from the TR. I don't think it includes variants that arent in either.
 
[QUOTE="Reformed Covenanter, post: 1189997, member: 1396] M Text reads …" or "NU Text reads …"

Can you give the full names for your shorthand? (Forgive my ignorance):detective:[/QUOTE]
Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society. It's the standard modern critical edition.
 
Can those who prefer a conservative CT translation be charged as guilty of this in every case? I am honestly wrestling with this and I am grateful for your answers.
Sometimes those who argue for the TR seem to be saying that God inspired them in same way He did the originals, and thus the KJV itself would be inspired also!
 
Last edited:
Sometimes those who argue for the TR seem to be saying that God inspired them in same way he did the originals, and thus the KJV itself would be inspired also!

I don't get this. Why are we talking about KJV or KJVO in this conversation that has nothing to do with English translations. It really is when you are start attacking whether on the puritanboard or elsewhere, it's just a strawman argument to somehow link those who believe in TR that they are somehow some of those crazy KJVO people. It's ridiculous and needs to stop.
 
Those are great questions, and I can't really give satisfactory answers. As far as producing a new critical edition with TR presuppositions, I don't think I know of any efforts. Burgon suggested a number of corrections. I've also heard individual men argue for readings different from what's in the KJV/Scrivener.

The I John 5:7 issue is an interesting one. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I think you may be oversimplifying it. It's certainly a debatable reading, and it's not a hill I would die on.

I prefer "cutting to the chase" rather than "oversimplifying" :)

Thanks for the response. I have great respect for people like Maurice Robinson and would love to see the TR folks come together and produce a more critical version based off of Burgon's studies, Scrivener's, Robinson's etc., and really the past five centuries of TR use.
 
Widening the debate a little, what about the text of the OT? Would the preservation position insist on the "majority" Rabbinic Bible? Would it allow for corrections from Leningrad (which was obviously not part of the church's tradition for years? Corrections from the Septuagint, which clearly has a different Hebrew original in some places, now attested from Qumran? It seems to me that often these discussions only treat half the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top