Traditional Text Interaction between Christian McSchaffrey, Brett Mahlen, and James White

[Logan]

So I posted a link to this earlier but I found this analysis of the various manuscripts with the Comma Johanneum (CJ) very interesting:

The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)

An academic forum to discuss the Bible's manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.

evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com

Summary:
1. 629 is the earliest. It was not used by Greek speaking churches but appears to be Roman Catholic. It is a diglot (Latin and Greek) and the version of the CJ does not have any definite articles for the three witnesses, which is a hallmark of Latin, but not Greek. This does not match the CJ found in TR versions after Erasmus' fourth edition, and appears to be inserted from the Latin.

2. 61 Also a Roman Catholic (not Greek church) manuscript. It also lacks definite articles and does not match the TR.

3. 429 margin, known to be added after Erasmus' third edition, some of its marginal notes actual cite Erasmus' edition.

4. 918 Also Roman Catholic (not Greek church) manuscript, appears to have been derived from Erasmus' third edition and the scribe was post-Erasmus.

5. 2473, manuscript dates itself as 1634. Well after Erasmus.

6. 2318, dated some time in the 1700s. Well after Erasmus.

7. 177 margin, this is an 11th century manuscript but the margin includes the CJ...with a verse number. Since Stephanus added verse numbers it's clearly added after those printed editions.

8. 221 margin, apparently this manuscript dates to the 10th century, but a catalogue of manuscripts in 1854 explicitly noted it didn't have the CJ, so it was added some time after that.

9. 88 margin, 12th century manuscript with a Latin note that notes the CJ is omitted and adds it in the margin and used chapter/verse numbers. Likely well after printed versions.

10. 636 margin, 15th century manuscript, also lacks definite articles, could be from Erasmus' third edition.

Summary of the summary
So if this is correct (I can't view the manuscripts myself but have no reason to doubt it), then we can remove 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the pool as later additions/editions. That leaves 1, 2, and 10 as potential witnesses for the TR, and of those three, none contain the comma in the form in which it is in the TR(!) and of those, at least two came from Roman Catholic sources, not those in use by the Greek church (which I bring up because the TR often uses the apologetic that it is the text of the Greek-speaking church).

I feel comfortable in this instance saying that without exception, ALL of the Greek evidence (at least extant) is against the reading found in the TR. The only evidence for it comes from the Latin.

Here's another fascinating note:
Gill says that Stephanus had something like 16 copies and that 9 of them contained the Comma. This led many to believe that we must have lost those manuscripts, that the evidence did at one time exist. Apparently the actual case is that Stephanus in his critical apparatus examined 14 manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles and marked 7 of his manuscripts as not having it, but failed to include markings for any of the manuscripts he examined at the Royal Library at Paris, so Beza and others believed that since the omission marks had been...omitted, it must be contained. These manuscripts were investigated as early as 1580 by by Franciscus Lucas Brugensis and not one of them contained the Comma. The manuscripts Stephanus used for his 1550 edition do still exist, but they don't contain it so the evidence cited in this case appears to stem from a typographical error...
I will note that some dispute this and say that maybe there were other manuscripts Stephanus had, but it seems speculative.

 

[Andrew35]

Isn't this contradictory? "We all know what Mark wrote..." yet we don't; because scholars must ensure that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. So it seems to me we're still waiting to know what Mark wrote. And the discovery of further manuscripts might raise doubt about other passages that we're now "sure" of.

I think this confuses the popular and technical terms of "what someone wrote" unhelpfully.

Indeed, we do know "what Mark wrote."

That is not the same, however, as knowing every word that Mark himself wrote in the exact order that he wrote it and, presumably, with the original spelling and punctuation implied.

We can get the former without the latter--or the process of communication itself becomes an impossibility--but the latter is a noble and worthwhile goal.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I think this confuses the popular and technical terms of "what someone wrote" unhelpfully.

Indeed, we do know "what Mark wrote."

That is not the same, however, as knowing every word that Mark himself wrote in the exact order that he wrote it and, presumably, with the original spelling and punctuation implied.

We can get the former without the latter--or the process of communication itself becomes an impossibility--but the latter is a noble and worthwhile goal.

I was referring to the disputed ending of Mark 16, just to clarify.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I know you believe this is a belief you draw from Scripture, but for my currently, I don't see it supported by Scripture (The TR specifically being the received text). I hold myself to Sola Scriptura (as I know you do) and so I believe all beliefs need to be tested by scripture and proved by it. I don't see any Chapter and Verse to support the TR as the received text. That is where I am currently at.

I haven't had time to weigh in on this, and I really still don't, but I just have to point this out as a brother in the Lord. My previous posts in the MT thread from a bit ago summarize where I'm at and how I evaluate the arguments. That is, you'll find my replies there.

Brother,

Do you have a chapter and verse for covenant baptism? Do you have a chapter verse that explicitly says that only professing adults (or those of sufficient age subjectively determined) are to be baptized (just in case the Baptist brethren got excited ). What about the Trinity? Even for people who accept the Comma as Scripture, and I'm one of those, don't have explicit "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost." What about those pesky flat-earthers? Can we refute them with a chapter and verse? Can I sing man-made hymns? Or should I only sing the from the Psalter?

If we left the bulk of our doctrines to only having explicit chapters and verses, and especially in the wording we want, we would hardly have the basis for growing to the robust theology we have now. Granted, there are times we have definite chapters and verses, and praise God for that! But we must praise God that he gave us the ability to reason in faith and to stand on the shoulders of giants, too.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I haven't had time to weigh in on this, and I really still don't, but I just have to point this out as a brother in the Lord. My previous posts in the MT thread from a bit ago summarize where I'm at and how I evaluate the arguments. That is, you'll find my replies there.

Brother,

Do you have a chapter and verse for covenant baptism? Do you have a chapter verse that explicitly says that only professing adults (or those of sufficient age subjectively determined) are to be baptized (just in case the Baptist brethren got excited ). What about the Trinity? Even for people who accept the Comma as Scripture, and I'm one of those, don't have explicit "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost." What about those pesky flat-earthers? Can we refute them with a chapter and verse? Can I sing man-made hymns? Or should I only sing the from the Psalter?

If we left the bulk of our doctrines to only having explicit chapters and verses, and especially in the wording we want, we would hardly have the basis for growing to the robust theology we have now. Granted, there are times we have definite chapters and verses, and praise God for that! But we must praise God that he gave us the ability to reason in faith and to stand on the shoulders of giants, too.

I think what Jason is saying is that you cannot equate the TR theory with doctrines such as six-day creation because, in his view, one is easily provable from scripture, while the other is merely an assumption based on conjecture.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I think what Jason is saying is that you cannot equate the TR theory with doctrines such as six-day creation because, in his view, one is easily provable from scripture, while the other is merely an assumption based on conjecture.

More or less, yes

@J.L. Allen Yours is a fair response. When you mention reason though, my reason does not lead me to the conclusion that the TR is "the" text based on all of the information I have seen on both sides.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I think what Jason is saying is that you cannot equate the TR theory with doctrines such as six-day creation because, in his view, one is easily provable from scripture, while the other is merely an assumption based on conjecture.

Oh ok. I see what you're getting at.

As for my view on Scripture, I'll have to reevaluate the assumptions and conjectures from which I launch.

 

[J.L. Allen]

More or less, yes

@J.L. Allen Yours is a fair response. When you mention reason though, my reason does not lead me to the conclusion that the TR is "the" text based on all of the information I have seen on both sides.

Fair enough. I started staunchly pro CT. My reason led me differently.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Fair enough. I started staunchly pro CT. My reason led me differently.

I would not even consider myself staunchly CT. I use the NKJV and the NASB as my main translations. I find value in the CT, MT, and TR. I don't hold to any "only" positions.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A note re defense of Eph 3:9, from a previous discussion: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ecclesiastical-text-—-response-to-james-white.87309/page-4#post-1083862.

I'll be getting back to 1 John 5:7 and your remarks, Logan, shortly. I'm in no way daunted by your stats re the Greek mss that do not have it.

 

[Logan]

I'll be getting back to 1 John 5:7 and your remarks, Logan, shortly. I'm in no way daunted by your stats re the Greek mss that do not have it.

Steve, I'm not sure how useful it would be to spend your time on it. You will always default to the position that we have the TR, God providentially guided it, therefore regardless of the Greek evidence (or lack thereof) it must be genuine. You'll post some quotes from someone talking about the internal consistency and the grandeur and how ancient Arians tried to eliminate it (successfully, apparently) from the Greek.

And I'll always come back to looking at the Greek evidence to see whether it supports that presupposition. And when 500 manuscripts (I counted them!) don't contain it, and none prior to Erasmus do (in the form in which it is found in the TR), then you're left with two recourses:

1) The speculation that it did exist in the Greek but all were lost (which is astounding when we have 500 of them and everybody including the Roman Catholics were looking for them). How was it then "kept pure" for the Greek speaking church?

2) It was preserved in the Latin in the Vulgate and a handful of possible references in the Latin fathers. And this I can confidently affirm is not standing on the same ground that any of the Reformers or Puritans stood upon. It was unthinkable to them. And how did we even get to this point? We're denying the original languages are authoritative in certain instances? How did we get to this point?

So ultimately, like I said, the evidence does not matter for your position. The position matters and any positive evidence is used and any negative evidence is explained away. But your presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of any evidence. None could ever exist that would alter your presupposition so I find it misleading when it is appealed to in support.

That the TR is the preserved word of God, above and beyond any correction by any Greek source whatsoever, is purely an opinion and is not a position that is demanded by either Scripture, Confessions, or necessary consequences.

 

[Polanus1561]

The TR view (from my understanding, and has not been changed from the discussion here) is that evidence is secondary. If a TR person says that, "My view is that God has preserved the readings of the JC and Eph 3:9", I would understand that and I won't debate it (unless I want to debate the assumptions of that theory). But I won't push evidence in his face because I know he comes from a theological, not evidential perspective.

But when the TR view wants to debate the evidence, then that confuses me. Because that means the TR person is trying to say that the MT/CT guy must accept (a lesser amount of) the evidence for a TR reading and thus be silenced. Again, the silencing of the MT/CT view from a TR perspective is their view of providential preservation, and I only see a debate about evidence to hinder the TR view's own cause.

This is nothing personal and I say this with all respect to @Jerusalem Blade whose posts and presence in the PB is invaluable.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Steve, I'm not sure how useful it would be to spend your time on it. You will always default to the position that we have the TR, God providentially guided it, therefore regardless of the Greek evidence (or lack thereof) it must be genuine. You'll post some quotes from someone talking about the internal consistency and the grandeur and how ancient Arians tried to eliminate it (successfully, apparently) from the Greek.

And I'll always come back to looking at the Greek evidence to see whether it supports that presupposition. And when 500 manuscripts (I counted them!) don't contain it, and none prior to Erasmus do (in the form in which it is found in the TR), then you're left with two recourses:

1) The speculation that it did exist in the Greek but all were lost (which is astounding when we have 500 of them and everybody including the Roman Catholics were looking for them). How was it then "kept pure" for the Greek speaking church?

2) It was preserved in the Latin in the Vulgate and a handful of possible references in the Latin fathers. And this I can confidently affirm is not standing on the same ground that any of the Reformers or Puritans stood upon. It was unthinkable to them. And how did we even get to this point? We're denying the original languages are authoritative in certain instances? How did we get to this point?

So ultimately, like I said, the evidence does not matter for your position. The position matters and any positive evidence is used and any negative evidence is explained away. But your presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of any evidence. None could ever exist that would alter your presupposition so I find it misleading when it is appealed to in support.

That the TR is the preserved word of God, above and beyond any correction by any Greek source whatsoever, is purely an opinion and is not a position that is demanded by either Scripture, Confessions, or necessary consequences.

Again, I have no intention of getting drawn into debate at this time, but just one question so I understand your position better. If the TR position as you characterise it was unthinkable to the Reformers and Puritans, and they would never have accepted the Comma on that basis, what in your view is the reason that so many of them did accept it? For instance, why did the Westminster divines, who articulated the doctrine of providential preservation in the Confession, believe that the Comma was part of the scriptures so preserved?

 

[beloved7]

Personally I appreciate the additional manuscripts and have no issues with the CT position, yet my favored translation is still the KJV. My reasons are that I prefer it for memorization and find comfort in that it is a locked translation, as it were.

I do at times check the ESV and then the NASB if I’m struggling to understand the wording of a passage, which helps. The ESV in particular is strikingly well done, but the fact that it is still being updated is a drawback for me.

Textual criticism is such an important study, yet I wonder how many others there are that prefer the KJV for non TR reasons such as myself? So long as a version is a formal translation, I view several as safe and solid. Though I do think someone should pick one and stick with it for memorizing purposes.

 

[Logan]

Again, I have no intention of getting drawn into debate at this time, but just one question so I understand your position better. If the TR position as you characterise it was unthinkable to the Reformers and Puritans, and they would never have accepted the Comma on that basis, what in your view is the reason that so many of them did accept it? For instance, why did the Westminster divines, who articulated the doctrine of providential preservation in the Confession, believe that the Comma was part of the scriptures so preserved?

I don't have to speculate, they say why:
Calvin on the Comma:

"But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to received it as the true reading."
(i.e., he was looking to evidence from the Greek)

Turretin on the Comma:

"The statement that...the Greek of the New have become defective is false, and the passages which are offered in proof of this by our adversaries cannot demonstrate it...Not the saying in I John 5:7, although formerly some called it into question, and heretics do so today. All the Greek witnesses (exemplaria) have it, as Sixtus Senensis recognizes: "The words always were of unquestioned truth, and are read in all Greek manuscripts from the time of the apostles themselves."

Now clearly Turretin was mistaken, he was relying on a source that said all Greek manuscripts from the time of the apostles had it and that simply isn't true. I don't know what source Calvin was using but he likewise made the assumption that it was well-attested in the Greek. The point being that they both turned to the Greek. Neither said "well, we have this printed copy in our hands that must be providentially preserved." Or "maybe the Greek was corrupted and the true reading was preserved in the Latin."

Every reformed commentator I've ever read, points to other manuscripts "some say this" or "the best say that". This too is a fundamental departure from the modern TR view which would never place any manuscript reading above the TR.

Capel (appointed to the Westminster Assembly but unable to attend), for example:

"For the originals, though we have not the primitive copies written by the finger of God in the tables, or by Moses and the prophets in the Hebrew, or by the Apostles, and the rest in the Greek for the New Testament, yet we have copies in both languages, which copies vary not from the primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concerns only the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides amongst Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hat preserved them uncorrupt.

What if there be variety of readings in some copies? and some mistakes in writing or printing? this makes nothing against our doctrine, sith for all this the fountain runs clear, and if the fountain be not clear all translations must needs be muddy...

Now Christians of all parties do agree, as touching the Originals, that they are kept pure: Only some of and among the Papists, passionate men do bite at the Originals; but herein they do but blur their own vulgar translation, since they confess it to be drawn out of the Originals.

Therefore I like that of Bellarmine, who stands upon it, that of such like things a certainty may be had from the testimonies of men, in some sort comparable to natural evidence itself, for that it leaves no scruple or dubitation in our minds: But what of all this? Why it shows that the general consent of (in a manner) all Hebricians and Grecians in the Christian world, consenting that our Originals are by the good hand of God preserved uncorrupt, and pure, is a sufficient persuasion to breed a moral certainty answerable to natural evidence, excluding all reasonable dubitation to the contrary...

Thus the case stands. The Originals are to be received and believed. That the Hebrew and Greek are the true Originals we believe by human testimonies, which leave the mind without perplexity, without all doubting, and so it follows, that by man's testimony the Originals are to be received, and believed by us, so that the heart stands free from any true cause of any doubting at all, which being equivalent to the highest certainty that is, it cannot but lay a foundation to build our faith upon...

Never does he point at the printed copies above the originals. He still looks to the originals and believes that it is kept pure in the whole, not in appealing to providence in printed editions.

They likewise believe that the Scriptures had been "kept pure in all ages" which has to mean ages before the TR as well. The view of providence has to be broad enough to encompass the TR and pre-TR.

Did they believe that what they had accurately represented the originals for the most part? Absolutely! I do too! Did they believe their printed copies were perfectly and providentially without error? No, as is clear from any reference to manuscripts. And that is the difference between them and the modern TR advocate. You are coming to the same manuscript with vastly different assumptions and thinking that because it's the same outcome (mostly) that it's the same position. It's not.

 

[Polanus1561]

Personally I appreciate the additional manuscripts and have no issues with the CT position, yet my favored translation is still the KJV. My reasons are that I prefer it for memorization and find comfort in that it is a locked translation, as it were.

I do at times check the ESV and then the NASB if I’m struggling to understand the wording of a passage, which helps. The ESV in particular is strikingly well done, but the fact that it is still being updated is a drawback for me.

Textual criticism is such an important study, yet I wonder how many others there are that prefer the KJV for non TR reasons such as myself? So long as a version is a formal translation, I view several as safe and solid. Though I do think someone should pick one and stick with it for memorizing purposes.

definitely, many reasons for people for example

1. Affinity with psalters which uses KJV language
2. To help read the Puritans
3. To use a translation that has been used for 400 years is wonderful

 

[beloved7]

definitely, many reasons for people for example

1. Affinity with psalters which uses KJV language
2. To help read the Puritans
3. To use a translation that has been used for 400 years is wonderful

Yes agreed, another aspect I forgot to mention is that it matches the hymns we sing in church, the LBCF, and to your point, the writings of the puritans. Though admittedly I don’t read them as often as I ought. I do read Valley of Vision often though.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I don't have to speculate, they say why:
Calvin on the Comma:


Turretin on the Comma:


Now clearly Turretin was mistaken, he was relying on a source that said all Greek manuscripts from the time of the apostles had it and that simply isn't true. I don't know what source Calvin was using but he likewise made the assumption that it was well-attested in the Greek. The point being that they both turned to the Greek. Neither said "well, we have this printed copy in our hands that must be providentially preserved." Or "maybe the Greek was corrupted and the true reading was preserved in Latin"

So, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but isn't your point that there are no Greek copies from before that time with the Comma as found in the TR? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, how do you square that with them appealing to the fact that it's in the Greek? I know you think Turretin was just flat out wrong (and presumably sloppy in his scholarship, making statements on something he apparently didn't know about) - is it the same issue with Calvin, and the rest of them?

Is it possible, even likely, that there were older Greek manuscripts available to them which did attest the Comma, but which are now lost, for example? Or would you still say that it was never in the Greek, but they all claimed it was and so accepted it? Afraid I don't find that convincing at all.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I can't write much as I'm in a Starbucks near the church building, the internet being down where I live. @John Yap , I think you have my TR view down clearly. But because my presuppositional view is primary, am I thus disqualified from bringing confirmatory evidences supporting my view, or explaining why seemingly overwhelming evidences to the contrary are not as conclusive as they might seem? My presuppositional view informs me, but it doesn't muzzle me! It lights my path, but I can also explain that there are ditches on either side of it. There is a practical application to my view.

Also, John, when you say of my position, it is "a theological, not evidential perspective", I would say rather it is "a Scriptural, not evidential perspective" – as "theological" is too broad a term. I thank you for the irenic interactions!

Hello Logan – I wonder on what basis Calvin said, "I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies", giving those copies such warrant of excellence? But even so – i.e., whatever – I am not Calvin in his particular century, but now here in the second decade of the 21st, and I must formulate the ground of my epistemological stand as regards whatever I know concerning the Faith – and in particular my understanding and knowledge of the LORD's word.

My view is by faith, not by sight – as is the case with all of my Christian life. I do not resort to that I can see as my primary foundation, but to the word and promises of my God. All Hell can break against me, and, by Christ's sustaining power I will stand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand (Eph 6:13).

So do not wonder, friends, if I seem backwards, or archaic, or whatever – I simply live by faith, and can defend the faith, and teach others to stand so. In this times of rising, raging violence, and madness in many lands, such an impregnable faith – confidence – is a good and needful thing.

 

[Logan]

So, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but isn't your point that there are no Greek copies from before that time with the Comma as found in the TR? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, how do you square that with them appealing to the fact that it's in the Greek? I know you think Turretin was just flat out wrong (and presumably sloppy in his scholarship, making statements on something he apparently didn't know about) - is it the same issue with Calvin, and the rest of them?

Is it possible, even likely, that there were older Greek manuscripts available to them which did attest the Comma, but which are now lost, for example? Or would you still say that it was never in the Greek, but they all claimed it was and so accepted it? Afraid I don't find that convincing at all.

Let me lay it out a little more clearly then:

You today, with all the information you have at your fingertips, books, articles, online repositories of Greek manuscripts, have never done a complete analysis of all the Greek manuscripts. How then would you expect someone during that time period, where travel took months, there was no instantaneous communication, and no catalogues of manuscripts detailing exactly where they were or what was in each (let alone being able to actually look at them). What do you do? You rely on what people tell you. You are doing that yourself in this conversation when you talk about any of the Greek or Latin evidence: you are relying on what someone else said.

So what is more natural than that once something gets in print and is easily available, that you would assume the evidence supporting it is out there, somewhere? You literally cannot check it yourself but you assume it's correct, and if someone tells you it's correct, you believe it.

And as I highlighted earlier, Gill pointed to Beza saying that Stephanus had found 9 manuscripts that had the Comma (he said, he said, he said). But as was pointed out as early as 1580, the manuscripts referred to were all in Paris and still available and none of them had it and beyond doubt were the same ones Stephanus had examined. Beza's misunderstanding arose not from positive evidence (being told directly the manuscripts had them) but from negative evidence: from Stephanus failing to include marks around the passage: a typo (i.e., if there aren't marks saying this passage wasn't in those manuscripts, then they must contain it).

Turretin is flat out wrong, that's undeniable, he gives his source. It was not manuscripts he saw himself, but something he read about (he said, he said) from someone who said it was in all the Greek copies. But that's obviously untrue because well, just ask the Greeks: there is no evidence they had it even in some or most, and it clearly wasn't "all" because the 500 we do have don't have it. So Turretin is wrong, but it's also natural and easily understandable.

Let's turn this the other way, does it seem convincing that say, let's suppose for the sake of argument that half of the Greek manuscripts used to have 1 John 5:7 and half didn't. Of the ones that don't contain it, 500 survived, and of the ones that do contain it, ZERO survived, despite everyone looking for them? I have yet to find any person from that time period who said "yes, I saw the Greek manuscript and it contained it". They all rely on some source other than the actual manuscripts, and while that's natural, it's clearly not reliable in the two primary instances I just dissected.

 

[retroGRAD3]

We can stop the debate. I have great news, Andy Stanley has solved the problem.



According to Stanley we can now "unhitch" the old and new testament and there is no problem (end sarcasm).

 

[beloved7]

We can stop the debate. I have great news, Andy Stanley has solved the problem.

View attachment 9019

According to Stanley we can now "unhitch" the old and new testament and there is no problem (end sarcasm).

He’s firmly in the mark and avoid category, this much we can all probably find common ground on.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

After listening to the GPTS discussion and chewing on it, i can’t help but come back to the gentlemen stating that their preserved Word of God is the Scrivener edition of the TR, which is not identical to any of the printed editions of the TR from days past.

What is it identical to? Why, the King James Version NT of course.

I’m convinced Dr. Scrivener edited this for the purpose of language study, but it seems that certain elements of the TR movement pretty much say this IS the one.

Any why is it The One to Rule Them All? Intentional or not, the answer is “because it matches up with the King James Version.” The English has, once again, become the true standard rather than the original Greek, though in a roundabout way.

 

[JH]

The English has, once again, become the true standard rather than the original Greek, though in a roundabout way.

That would be incorrect. Those who do hold to the Scrivener believe the readings that are represented in the KJV were the ones the translators chose from various Greek texts to represent what they perceived to be the authentic reading. That is a far cry from actual Ruckmanism, wherein the English itself truly is the standard.

 

[retroGRAD3]

That would be incorrect. Those who do hold to the Scrivener believe the readings that are represented in the KJV were the ones the translators chose from various Greek texts to represent what they perceived to be the authentic reading. That is a far cry from actual Ruckmanism, wherein the English itself truly is the standard.

Side question, are TR advocates ok with the NKJV and Geneva Bible? Or, is it only the KJV?

 

[JH]

Side question, are TR advocates ok with the NKJV and Geneva Bible? Or, is it only the KJV?

It depends who you ask and what you mean by OK with. TR advocates are not monolithic, y'know. I personally would recommend it before an ESV (because it contains the readings I'm persuaded are legitimate).

 

[retroGRAD3]

It depends who you ask and what you mean by OK with. TR advocates are not monolithic, y'know. I personally would recommend it before an ESV (because it contains the readings I'm persuaded are legitimate).

I guess the main issue is I don't think the KJV is very readable anymore to modern English speakers. I do understand that it can be learned. However, the NKJV (which I use) is very readable. I have heard though from KJV onlyists (which I know are different) that anything other than the KJV is wrong.

 

[JH]

I guess the main issue is I don't think the KJV is very readable anymore to modern English speakers. I do understand that it can be learned. However, the NKJV (which I use) is very readable. I have heard though from KJV onlyists (which I know are different) that anything other than the KJV is wrong.

While I certainly don't believe anything other than the KJV is wrong, I am persuaded of it's surpassing faithfulness and accuracy. Personally, I have more trust in the capability and theological aptness in the biblical languages than men of today, that's why I prefer and trust it. That is not to say that the KJV is above improvement.

Like anything, reading the KJV becomes easier with exposure. I used to be in the very same boat myself. Beeke has a section in the very preface of the Reformation Heritage Study Bible about reading the KJV, and it becoming easier with exposure. Again, I say, if teaching our children the biblical languages is a goal of ours, it really ought not to be too difficult of a task to pickup early modern English.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Logan, you said,

"But your presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of any evidence. None could ever exist that would alter your presupposition so I find it misleading when it is appealed to in support."

Were someone to say to me – with many persuasive arguments and supposed evidences – that the deity of Jesus Christ was a false and evil (being false) teaching, it is true that my presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of any purported evidence! Upon what is my presupposed position based? On two things: the Spirit of God revealing to me the reality of Christ's deity, along with the testimony of His written word.

Likewise, my faith in God's word is based upon the self-attesting truths of that word. Is that "circular reasoning", as I believe you have alleged? It might seem circular to you, from your vantage, trying to compass it, but to me it is the strong tower of His name (Prov 18:10), which name I know solely by His word, "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalm 138:2 AV).

So my position, standing upon this rock, does not prohibit me from speaking of the pitfalls of those standing on the sand, such as showing how sand is not firm support for a life, or that foundations built on that sand reveal a faulty epistemology – to sort of mix my metaphors.

If you, a friend, are exasperated at my stand, the devil is far more so, and with good reason.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Logan, you said,

"But your presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of any evidence. None could ever exist that would alter your presupposition so I find it misleading when it is appealed to in support."

Were someone to say to me – with many persuasive arguments and supposed evidences – that the deity of Jesus Christ was a false and evil (being false) teaching, it is true that my presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of any purported evidence! Upon what is my presupposed position based? On two things: the Spirit of God revealing to me the reality of Christ's deity, along with the testimony of His written word.

Likewise, my faith in God's word is based upon the self-attesting truths of that word. Is that "circular reasoning", as I believe you have alleged? It might seem circular to you, from your vantage, trying to compass it, but to me it is the strong tower of His name (Prov 18:10), which name I know solely by His word, "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalm 138:2 AV).

So my position, standing upon this rock, does not prohibit me from speaking of the pitfalls of those standing on the sand, such as showing how sand is not firm support for a life, or that foundations built on that sand reveal a faulty epistemology – to sort of mix my metaphors.

If you, a friend, are exasperated at my stand, the devil is far more so, and with good reason.

From my viewpoint this looks like a category error. The deity of Christ is clearly revealed in scripture (in the CT, the MT, and the TR). The TR version of the Bible being the providentially preserved text is not. Everyone on this message board believes that God's word has been preserved. It's seems like there is a passive aggression message from most TR advocates though that if someone does not hold to TR only, then they don't actually believe in the preservation of God's word. If you want to assert this, that is one thing, but know it is not correct.