History of KJV and TR

[Andrew P.C.]

As I was listening to Dr. White's texual critiscism(I'm behind on the series) I heard him talk about the TR. Before I knew better, I was seeing about attending a Bible college(which by they way is very hostile toward calvinism) and they use the TR. So, here's a good article on the history of the translations of the TR and KJV, but mostly KJV.

http://www.bibletexts.com/KJV-tr.htm

 

[etexas]

I always find it very odd that some use a good translation of the TR like the AV and are anti-Calvinist. It is a matter of history that a good number of the Anglican translators had Calvinist sympathies. You know I read Riplingers book New Age Bible Versions (yes, I admit it, my wife and I were on a trip it was raining we went into a B&N!) anyway Gail in reference to 5 point Calvinist refers to them as the FIVE POINTS OF A PENTAGRAM! OK. First her book was pro AV yet she seems blissfully unaware of the number of Calvinist who had a hand in its making. Dr. Robert L. Thomas (not a TR or AV man) in his wonderful little book "How to Choose a Bible Version" has a chapter on theological bias in translations, Dr. Thomas comments on the number of Calvinist renderins in the AV in that chapter. Wonder if Riplinger ever read that, or if she only reads her own stuff? A Riplinger Onlyist?!?!?!?

 

[MW]

Dr. Robert L. Thomas (not a TR or AV man) in his wonderful little book "How to Choose a Bible Version" has a chapter on theological bias in translations, Dr. Thomas comments on the number of Calvinist renderins in the AV in that chapter. Wonder if Riplinger ever read that, or if she only reads her own stuff? A Riplinger Onlyist?!?!?!?

Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?

Lol, they should make the CV bible. Calvinist verison bible.

I have been back and forth on either ESV or NASB. I really like the ESV, but it's honestly not the version for me. So, I went back to my old NASB.

 

[Ivan]

Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?

And which are the non-Calvinist versions of Scripture? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering.

 

[MW]

And which are the non-Calvinist versions of Scripture? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering.

My first port of call is to see how they render Gen. 4:7.

 

[Ivan]

My first port of call is to see how they render Gen. 4:7.

And which haven't passed mustard?

 

[MW]

And which haven't passed mustard?

From memory, most of them suggest that there is a natural ability in man to master sin.

 

[Ivan]

From memory, most of them suggest that there is a natural ability in man to master sin.

Now that's a problem.

I use the NKJV most of the time. I do like the KJV. I have used a number of different translation, but the NASB and the ESV basically round out the translations I have used to any great extent.

Do any of these transaltions, expect for the KJV, have the problem you stated above?

 

[MW]

Do any of these transaltions, expect for the KJV, have the problem you stated above?

They all have the problem, the AV excepted.

 

[Ivan]

They all have the problem, the AV excepted.

Please excuse my misspelling. I'm on some pretty sassy cough syrup!

Still, the AV has some problems, does it not?

I like the AV because that is what I used for some 20 years of my life. It is the version that is memorized in my brain. The beauty of the text is unsurpassed.

The problem that is sometimes faced in a congregational worship service is that there are so many translations out among the congregants.

In my church the primary translation is the NKJV. I think I have one lady that has the NASB. Several of us like the ESV. However, I use the NKJV because all but one is using it.

I read a Psalm every Sunday to begin worship. Perhaps I'll use the AV for that.

 

[MW]

The problem that is sometimes faced in a congregational worship service is that there are so many translations out among the congregants.

The apostle Paul, in his presbyterial address at Miletus, warns the overseers of the church to watch against grievous wolves entering in and not sparing the flock. This applies as much to Bible translations as to verbal communications. The inherent grievance of doctrinal errors in a Bible translation consists in the fact that they are encapsulated in a volume which purports to be the living and abiding Word of God. Blessings!

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The apostle Paul, in his presbyterial address at Miletus, warns the overseers of the church to watch against grievous wolves entering in and not sparing the flock. This applies as much to Bible translations as to verbal communications. The inherent grievance of doctrinal errors in a Bible translation consists in the fact that they are encapsulated in a volume which purports to be the living and abiding Word of God. Blessings!

Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake. But if you're trying to get at something else, please plainly say it, since i'm a man of a simple mind.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

My first port of call is to see how they render Gen. 4:7.

I see what you're saying about Gen. 4:7. I read it in several other versions and see the difference. I noticed the Geneva bible reads the same as the KJV.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Andrew, you say, "Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake."

Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "God was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?

Steve

 

[Ivan]

Andrew, you say, "Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake."

Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "God was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?

Steve

I think there are some threads that deal with this issue.

 

[MW]

Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations?

That is it in a nutshell!

 

[Ivan]

That is it in a nutshell!

Was there any doubt?!

 

[MW]

Was there any doubt?!

No!

 

[etexas]

Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?

I would say a Calvinist who undermines his own theology with a weak translation. Look at the Living Bible (yes, I know it is a paraphrase), the thing is horrible on many levels not the least of which would have been Ken Taylors "Arweenian" leanings he twists almost every verse so much I call it the FREE-WILLY version. Just look at it sometimes.

 

[pickwick]

Forgive me for sounding stupid, but how does the translation of Gen. 4:7 reflect on a translation's worthiness?

 

[MW]

Forgive me for sounding stupid, but how does the translation of Gen. 4:7 reflect on a translation's worthiness?

I think it shows that the translation is not made by "men of our profession," to borrow a phrase from the preface to the AV.

 

[Chris]

Forgive me for sounding stupid, but how does the translation of Gen. 4:7 reflect on a translation's worthiness?

Call me stupid, too. I don't 'get it'.

For what it's worth, though, I find this thread fascinating. I'm thoroughly enjoying it and hope to see it develop more....

 

[satz]

I know this issue is sensitive and do not intend to step on any toes, but...

I really believe that the fact that we have to chose between multiple 'versions' of scripture today is detrimental to the church and to christians.

It is said that the differences between the faithful versions are small and are primarily a matter of wording as opposed to meaning, but if every word of God is pure, wouldn't we want to be able to hang on his every word, including the grammer and phrasing, instead of having to chose between several versions of his word that might sort of mean the same thing, but have sometimes completely different words.

Isn't it interesting that no one in the New Testament, when referring back to the Old, ever found the need to correct translation or copying errors in the versions of scripture their hearers were using? Why do we need to do so today then?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me ask a few questions of those more informed about the TR. I want to get past the dross on this issue because I'm trying to understand your position a bit better.

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authorative manuscript that translators should refer to.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scribner based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?

Is all of that immaterial against the idea that the Reformed Church ruled combined with the idea that God's hand of Providence ensured that the possibility for any human error by the AV translators in their manuscript choices was overcome?

Also, why would God wait until the 17th Century to determine the corpus of His perfect manuscript choices based on the decisions of English translators? The Textus Receptus as an authoratative "these are the critical texts" didn't exist prior to that by Church decree. Why an English translation?

 

[MW]

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scribner based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?

The TR is not a ms, nor even a group of mss. It is a belief in the canonical principle. We do not approach mss with neutral minds. We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence. Textual critics are working with the evidence, and insofar as they adhere to their side of the fence then we are content to let them do their work. But especially since the 19th century they have encroached upon the work of the ministry, deeming it fit to pronounce what is and what is not the word of God. We must look again at the title deeds, map out the lay of the land, determine what is the province of the ministry and what the province of the critic, and kindly ask them to return to their own backyard. The word of God cannot be ascertained by counting and dating mss.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rev. Winzer,

Do you have a Greek Text or not? If you do then what is the history behind how it was formed? That is what I'm asking.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew, you say, "Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake."

Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "God was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?

Steve

Sir, if you are referring to the Recieved Text(which the KJV is derived from), then yes, I will stand on my charge that the KJV is not the superior version.

 

[MW]

Do you have a Greek Text or not? If you do then what is the history behind how it was formed? That is what I'm asking.

I understand what you are asking, Rich; but I reject the implication that the basis of my faith is dependent upon man's wisdom, art or industry, simply because there has been a process of rediscovery since the renaissance. You are urging me to start with the physical text, which obviously has a history, and can be quantified. Whereas I must start with the nature of the text as the living and abiding word of God.

This issue has nothing to do with mss. We possess mss. of non-canonical books. It is the nature of the writing, not its physical attributes which determines canonicity. Every argument used to support the canonicity of Mark likewise supports the inclusion of its last twelve verses. Blessings!

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The TR is not a ms, nor even a group of mss. It is a belief in the canonical principle. We do not approach mss with neutral minds. We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence. Textual critics are working with the evidence, and insofar as they adhere to their side of the fence then we are content to let them do their work. But especially since the 19th century they have encroached upon the work of the ministry, deeming it fit to pronounce what is and what is not the word of God. We must look again at the title deeds, map out the lay of the land, determine what is the province of the ministry and what the province of the critic, and kindly ask them to return to their own backyard. The word of God cannot be ascertained by counting and dating mss.

Sir, are you aware that you are a KJV only advocate. You state:

The TR is not a ms, nor even a group of mss. It is a belief in the canonical principle. We do not approach mss with neutral minds. We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence.

Is this ignorance? Now, please correct me if i'm wrong, but "ms" means manuscript right? If so, to say that God's Word exists independent of ms. evidence is to cover your eyes and plug your ears.

Yes, I do believe God has preserved His Word through the ages, but at the same time He used us, as vessels, to pass down His Word from generation to generation. Now is the time, if ever, to be critical about texts we have. We have so many manuscripts; and with lots of prayer, I believe God has improved the English translations through the older manuscripts that we have now today then they did in the 17th century.