English Bible translations based on the majority text?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Logan, me saying "I doubt not the authenticity of it" was only in regards to MT and some TR guys rejecting or even doubting the legitimacy of it, since even within said camps, there is a variety of opinions. It was not intended to castigate those who hold to the CT position, as I do not doubt your sincerity or others here. As for CT "scholars", (Wasserman, Dan Wallace, Epp, Jan Krans, etc.) that's a different story.
I realise this might be taking us off topic, but would you be able to elaborate on your last sentence or even just point me in the right direction to look into on my own? I'm fairly new to this whole discussion and trying to make up my own mind.
 
I realise this might be taking us off topic, but would you be able to elaborate on your last sentence or even just point me in the right direction to look into on my own? I'm fairly new to this whole discussion and trying to make up my own mind.
It is not entirely off topic, but I will address it briefly. Many men who hold an esteemed position in the eyes of the textual criticism world are theological liberals, virgin birth deniers, agnostic, atheist, and woke. Now, one may say I'm simply poisoning the well (what most consider a fallacy); but I do believe it is a relevant thing to realize and consider.

“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain.” - Dan Wallace

“In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” - Jan Krans

"In any case, for me a high view of Scripture is a matter of personal belief. I have no intention of trying to prove that this or that textual variant is the original word of God. I would like to work as a text-critic as if God didn't exist, so to speak. On the other hand, I have a personal faith which certainly affects also my scholarship, and I try to be honest about that. I am certain that other people's belief or disbelief affects what they do to. I prefer not to be put in a box of privileged white male text-critics who just pretend to do real scholarship." - Tommy Wasserman

You could find more insight into the TR position(s) on a blog called "Young Textless and Reformed". I do not hold to all the opinions posted there, but it is a good starting point. For a less polemic presentation of the TR position(s), as formerly mentioned, Jeff Riddle's Word Magazine series on SermonAudio is loaded with resources.

In all honesty, I do think you will be a sound Christian regardless of what side you come out on, though I pray people come to a TR position. God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick. My only other word of advice is to not rush the process.

Edit: If I may add one last thing, I find both CT and TR advocates often trying to dismantle the other position, instead of defending their own. It really just ends up muddying the discussion. It's easier to speak against what you reject, than to defend what you believe in.

Edit 2: I see you are a pastoral intern; make sure you're consulting your elders in this matter as well.
 
Last edited:
Talking of these passages JR gave lectures on these at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London recently. I have not listened to them yet so cannot comment but those who enjoy JR on textual criticism, no doubt will find them informative.
Just to balance my other post, here is a discussion by the PCA pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar Dr M Everhard. He tends to defend the CT but speaks very fairly towards the TR and actually defends some TR readings. He is gracious and gentle in the discussion. I appreciate that.
 
Just to balance my other post, here is a discussion by the PCA pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar Dr M Everhard. He tends to defend the CT but speaks very fairly towards the TR and actually defends some TR readings. He is gracious and gentle in the discussion. I appreciate that.

I pressed play because I thought that I was going to get to see someone playing Street Fighter II. Once that did not materialise, I switched it off. ;)
 
Hello Steve @StevieG ,

You will find a lot of good material from Jeff Riddle here: https://pvcc.academia.edu/JeffreyRiddle, and here: http://www.jeffriddle.net . He is scholarly and irenic.

I'd also refer you to my own writing on this topic here on PB - In my signature (below), the link Textual Posts will lead you to see my method in defending various TR / KJV views. As I noted earlier, I am not KJV only, but KJV preferred, as I recognize the validity and value of other differing versions. It is a nuanced position.
 
One group here is trying very hard to defend the Scriptures from anything being taken away. And the other group is trying hard not to add anything to the Scriptures that God did not put there.

Both are admirable.

Is this warning (Revelation 22:18-19) "avoided" with this (Romans 14:22-23) declaration?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me @Jerrod Hess and @Jerusalem Blade. I appreciate the information you've provided and also the reminders both for patience in thinking this through and also whether I stick with the Bible I've been using for 15 years or make the decision to change, I'm still studying God's word.

Having did that, reading those quoted, especially the last one did make me feel a bit uncomfortable
 
Steve, what Bible have you been using for 15 years?
I've been using the ESV, although I'm only using it for my own personal devotions now because the church I've been placed in for my assistantship uses the original version of the NLT as their preaching and pew bible, so I'm currently having to go back and forth between them.
 
...the church I've been placed in for my assistantship uses the original version of the NLT as their preaching and pew bible...
That's remarkable. I actually really like the NLT, but the most recent update is a massive improvement over the original. The original is far inferior.

What church is this? I would love to listen to one of the sermons.
 
That's remarkable. I actually really like the NLT, but the most recent update is a massive improvement over the original. The original is far inferior.

What church is this? I would love to listen to one of the sermons.
It definitely wouldn't be usual in PCI for sure. The church is called First Donegore Presbyterian Church. You can find all our Sunday livestreams there. With regards to the NLT, generally I think it is fairly good and certainly easy to read, but a bit strange when you are used to reading something else.
 
It definitely wouldn't be usual in PCI for sure. The church is called First Donegore Presbyterian Church. You can find all our Sunday livestreams there. With regards to the NLT, generally I think it is fairly good and certainly easy to read, but a bit strange when you are used to reading something else.
No doubt
 
Random post, somewhat related. I was at half price books today and found a mint condition NIV from 1978. Thought it was a good find.
 
Random post, somewhat related. I was at half price books today and found a mint condition NIV from 1978. Thought it was a good find.

I read Psalm 130 from the NIV (1978) in devotions earlier before I began reading Octavius Winslow's sermons on this psalm, Soul Depths & Soul Heights. I am taking a break from Peter Martyr Vermigli's commentary on Romans in order to read these sermons. So far, so good.
 
Although it can be clear and plain speaking – which I much appreciate – the basic problem I have with the NLT is that it is based primarily (though not absolutely) on the Critical Text and omits / marginalizes significant NT readings. I can profitably read it, but not as the intact authoritative NT.
 
The guys over at Bible Hub (publishers of the Berean Bible translations) are working on aligning a version of their Greek NT with the Robinson-Pierp Majority Text. After that, they plan on modifying the Berean Study Bible translation to account for all of the big variants and flipping the footnotes so that the Majority Text is in the main text. They don’t have an official timeline yet but it’s in the works!
 
The guys over at Bible Hub (publishers of the Berean Bible translations) are working on aligning a version of their Greek NT with the Robinson-Pierp Majority Text. After that, they plan on modifying the Berean Study Bible translation to account for all of the big variants and flipping the footnotes so that the Majority Text is in the main text. They don’t have an official timeline yet but it’s in the works!
This is incredible news. I cannot wait.
 
The guys over at Bible Hub (publishers of the Berean Bible translations) are working on aligning a version of their Greek NT with the Robinson-Pierp Majority Text. After that, they plan on modifying the Berean Study Bible translation to account for all of the big variants and flipping the footnotes so that the Majority Text is in the main text. They don’t have an official timeline yet but it’s in the works!
Saw this in FB. This could be the biggest English MT translation when it comes out. The BSB also reads very well and I’m looking forward to seeing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top