Bible Translation Sales Rankings (June, 2021)

Not open for further replies.

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hello Grant,

In your saying (post #111), “the manuscripts discovered after the 1611, which held a claim of predating the manuscripts used by the 1611” – I gather you are referring to major manuscript finds such as Vaticanus (B) or Sinaiticus (aleph) (although B was known – and catalogued in the Vatican library – around 1475 or 1481). Though there were other very early mss found after 1611; but B and aleph are the major ones – the critical text exemplars! – brought to light after the Reformation.

It is not simply “that the older manuscripts from other areas could not be trusted”, though Egypt / Alexandria did not receive any of the NT autographs as Europe and Asia Minor did – but the quality of the mss themselves, and the profound disagreements between B and aleph (some 3036 in the Gospels alone) is one further reason.

Another reason is that in the Reformation’s understanding of God’s providential preservation of His word, it was at the time of the Reformation He brought the mss and versions to Erasmus and the other editors of the NT which were to comprise the various editions of the Textus Receptus. He brought them the mss He wanted the Reformers to have a) in their battle with harlot Rome, and b) to settle His word in the original tongues according to His ancient promises He would preserve His word for His people.

It is certainly true that there are other views of how He preserved His word, which scholars like Rev. Lane Keister ably defend. I think it well known that the CT or ET (eclectic text) as seen in the modern Bibles are certainly preserved adequately for the Lord’s saving of souls and sustaining the churches in His love and truth by means of them. The debate is really about which variants are or are not original to the autographic text – preservation in the minutiae as well as in the main.

This ought not be a thing which divides churches, or friendships! I myself value the modern versions for the light on shades of meaning they offer in their translations, while keeping the TR/AV as my gold standards. There are godlier men than I who use these modern versions. I have pastored churches, and may pastor again, and see no need to disturb a church’s congregational life over this issue – though I may certainly challenge, irenically, a variant reading in the text. So I can hold a strict Reformation view, and a non-divisive pastoral view at the same time; it’s a fine balance, but can be done.
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.