One More Textus Receptus Critique Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Physeter

Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you. I like to use the NKJV with young students.

I do find some of the renderings in translations such as the NIV lacking. The NKJV is still a robust translation.
 

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
The following is a skeleton form of answers to your very honest questions. Each could be expanded into a book length and has been but I'm skimming at 30,000ft.

1. The collating was largely done before Erasmus. Erasmus was the first one who put the entire Greek NT canon to print. So the answer really is that until then they were still hand copying manuscripts. Therefore it is the invention of the printing press when manually transmitting the text ceased.

2a. It could and has been argued that the process [of collation] was frozen prior to 1516 and Erasmus mostly "assembled" things rather than deciding on anything.

2b. We could also ask this question as to the books in the Canon. Why was the process "frozen" in the 4th Century A.D.?

3. Because of the great uniformity of the manuscripts and their wide use in the churches for more than 1,300 years.
See E. F. Hills https://www.amazon.com/Text-Time-Reformed-Testament-Criticism-ebook/dp/B07DB7ZBLC
See John "Dean" Burgon https://www.amazon.com/Revision-Revised-Dean-William-Burgon/dp/1888328010 especially pgs 312-316

4. Doctrinal error and tampering. The Alexandrian text family evidences Gnostic tampering. The Patristics don't cite them not do other churchmen since. The Arian controversy also plays into this as they used Alexandrian texts to support their heretical doctrines.

5. Use in the Churches is the PRIMARY evidence of Providence. God has always preserved His Word for His people. The WCF and LBC 1689 both cite Matt 5:18 (not one jot or tittle shall perish) as a proof text for the assertion of preservation in 1:8.
Thanks. I’ll go through this when I can.
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you. I like to use the NKJV with young students.

I do find some of the renderings in translations such as the NIV lacking. The NKJV is still a robust translation.
I prefer the KJV but do on occasion use a NKJV and find it quite useful. This article gives a good overview of things to be aware of in its use. Some points they make are more meaningful than others but an interesting read nonetheless.

 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
Steve, I'm not quarreling but isn't there a courteous maximum length for a comment? And then you append it PDF. Why not just copy the first paragraph and then link to the full length version? That's how many news aggregators do it and I think there is a good reason.
I for one read the posts but not the pdf. So I appreciated the longer posts in the thread.

Just my :2cents:
 

Physeter

Puritan Board Freshman
I prefer the KJV but do on occasion use a NKJV and find it quite useful. This article gives a good overview of things to be aware of in its use. Some points they make are more meaningful than others but an interesting read nonetheless.

I did find that it messed up the section in Job about the Leviathan. The translators sanitized it too much. The thing I appreciate about the KJV is that it is very direct.
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
To be clear Im not advocating a KJV-O position with the tbs articles. Just that one aught to be aware it isn’t strictly a revision of the KJV. I also wouldn’t say the KJV couldn’t use a good bit of updating and one does need to be aware of its translational choices when using it as well. So I would say I take heed with what TBS says but also wouldn’t be at odds with this fellow either.

I think this is probably true for the CT brothers as well: None of the available translations have achived peak readability and accuracy.

For me the NKJV comes close to the ideal but I wish there was like a “you”, “you(s)” distinction as well not capitalized pronouns and no red letter. The textual notes are useful as us TR folk do interact with people using CT based bibles. There are a few readings where I may prefer the KJV rendering but these are easily noted (much like Easter=passover when using a KJV). That being said I would prefer a translation that stays close to the KJV for the sake of consistency in the English speaking church (past, present, future) as it aids in reading works of the past and interacting with saints of a previous generation. (Its not good if Grandpa’s bible and ours is wildly different just because).

Using the KJV has benefitted me by forcing the learning of older terms and phrases that have helped make reading puritans and other older works more accessible. This is a big benefit as the church has produced many edifying works in the last several centuries. Though, I am not saying one should always use a KJV because of this - just that it a benefit I noticed in my personal experience.
 

NM_Presby

Puritan Board Freshman
I’ll chime in and add from my perspective that while the TBS articles do provide some helpful info for comparison, I think they strain too hard to discredit the NKJV. Certainly there are differences, and one can compare the relative merits of the KJV and NKJV; but if your primary concern is the TR, then the NKJV is a legitimate choice contrary to what some TBS people may say.

(For what it's worth I do appreciate TBS overall and their work on behalf of the TR).
 

John Yap

Puritan Board Sophomore
that begs the idea, TBS should do a more... 'conservative' revision to the KJV with revision to some archaic words (as per their own standard when they define such words in the margins of their TBS Westminster reference bible)
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
that begs the idea, TBS should do a more... 'conservative' revision to the KJV with revision to some archaic words (as per their own standard when they define such words in the margins of their TBS Westminster reference bible)
Im not at all opposed!

Edit: it needs to remain a copyright free edit so it may be the possession of the church.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
Hello Rut, there is also the KJV 2016 by Nick Sayers.

Graham, you're right in what you say about length, but I have found that few people go to the trouble of clicking on links (maybe wary of malware?), and thus never become exposed to differing views.

It has always been my style to post vital scholarship in toto. Those who can't be bothered reading it are not who I am writing for anyway, but those hungry for often hard-to-find facts and views. I love scholarship, and in-depth study on particular topics, such as amil eschatology, paedobaptism defense, and the transmission of the Bible up through the ages – also the whole cluster of spiritual realities pertaining to our union with Christ: Justification, Sanctification, and our being "clothed" in Him, which are foundational to our standing before God.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
For me the NKJV comes close to the ideal but I wish there was like a “you”, “you(s)” distinction as well not capitalized pronouns and no red letter.

There is a translation which makes that distinction and has no red letter: the KJV, as published by the TBS.
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
There is a translation which makes that distinction and has no red letter: the KJV, as published by the TBS.
My statement about the NKJV was in the context of if a revision was done to the KJV by TBS (which I dont think they are interested in). So the KJV could not fit that bill. I do use it as my primary text and supplement NKJV when with brothers to whom it would be a distraction.

that begs the idea, TBS should do a more... 'conservative' revision to the KJV with revision to some archaic words (as per their own standard when they define such words in the margins of their TBS Westminster reference bible)
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
For me the NKJV comes close to the ideal but I wish there was like a “you”, “you(s)” distinction as well not capitalized pronouns and no red letter.
I use the NKJV McLaren edition (beautiful edition) which is a Black letter edition.

https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-large-print-bible-maclaren-series/
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."
Right I hope I have not come across that way. Ill use an ESV if it helps a brother seek the scriptures - ill just include any footnoted texts while reading with him (i know there are other differences but there are often bigger fish to fry in the rhythms of life and its not worth causing one to doubt their bible when they are struggling with something else).

I keep an ESV in my van because i have many of them from before it was TR. They are still useful but not what I do my deep study and daily reading in. KJV is what I use in my personal study most of the time but if im going to a bible study Ill be bringing a NKJV typically.

I use the NKJV McLaren edition (beautiful edition) which is a Black letter edition.

Thank you for the link! Black letter would be very nice to have!
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Thank you for the link! Black letter would be very nice to have!
As I said I love this Bible. I got a genuine leather with 3 ribbons. I followed the buying guide on that website, and Amazon had it with a 44% discount. The font and text layout are excellent.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."
I admit I am tired of the pejorative comments many make about Christians who adhere to the confessional text position. I wonder if more of them would be open to using the NKJV (a translation I love) it would slow down the name calling.
 

Brian R.

Puritan Board Freshman
As I said I love this Bible. I got a genuine leather with 3 ribbons. I followed the buying guide on that website, and Amazon had it with a 44% discount. The font and text layout are excellent.
And if you want get really brave you can pick up the Maclaren "personal size" version. It's tiny. About a 7-point font. Same beautiful layout. I love being able to hold it with one hand and read. Requires strong reading glasses, though.
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
Oh I was poking around late last night and discovered they also have single column versions - which I really like also. I might be getting a new bible soon :cheers2:.
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
Right I hope I have not come across that way. Ill use an ESV if it helps a brother seek the scriptures - ill just include any footnoted texts while reading with him (i know there are other differences but there are often bigger fish to fry in the rhythms of life and its not worth causing one to doubt their bible when they are struggling with something else).

I keep an ESV in my van because i have many of them from before it was TR. They are still useful but not what I do my deep study and daily reading in. KJV is what I use in my personal study most of the time but if im going to a bible study Ill be bringing a NKJV typically.


Thank you for the link! Black letter would be very nice to have!
Amen. That wasn't in response to you brother or anyone else. It was just a general observation.
 

NM_Presby

Puritan Board Freshman
It doesn't help us any that many of my brothers in the TR movement will criticize the NKJV the way they do and only use the KJV. So when opponents say "see you are just KJV only!" The only response is "no I'm not. I just only use the KJV and think all other translations of the TR are bad."
This is an important observation. It’s fine to have translation preferences, but some brothers talk about the translation question almost as if it’s on the same level as the textual question.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy. While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading." (Arthur L. Farstad, "The New King James Version in the Great Tradition," 2nd edition, 1989, Thomas Nelson Publishers).
 

Before

Puritan Board Freshman
The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading." (Arthur L. Farstad, "The New King James Version in the Great Tradition," 2nd edition, 1989, Thomas Nelson Publishers).
The influence of modern-day democracy on biblical theology.
 

J.L. Allen

Puritan Board Sophomore
I think this thread has evolved into something different than what the OP asked (I believe the OP has been sufficiently answered, too). Can a new thread be started on TR-adherents and Bible translations? Keep the party going.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top