PRTS & the KJV

[JOwen]

Thanks for the clarification.... Is there really that much of a difference between even the CT/MT, as thought both pretty much agreed up the major truths of scripture?

My pleasure. The differences only lie in their differences. Where they agree, they are both the very Word of God. The problem arises in methodology, namely, scientific reasoning determining the true text, vs Divine Providence. The doctrine of preservation of the biblical text (WCF I:VIII) says that we have always had the complete Word of God. The CT method says we can never be sure. So for me it is not a manuscript problem so much as methodology.

 

[Dachaser]

My pleasure. The differences only lie in their differences. Where they agree, they are both the very Word of God. The problem arises in methodology, namely, scientific reasoning determining the true text, vs Divine Providence. The doctrine of preservation of the biblical text (WCF I:VIII) says that we have always had the complete Word of God. The CT method says we can never be sure. So for me it is not a manuscript problem so much as methodology.

Think both would be saying though that the task of textual criticism would be to attempt to reconstruct the text to get as close to what the originals were, correct?

 

[JOwen]

Think both would be saying though that the task of textual criticism would be to attempt to reconstruct the text to get as close to what the originals were, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[bookslover]

When Beeke became a co-editor of the Lectio Continua expository commentary series (with Jon D. Payne), Beeke announced that "the goal is to publish two volumes per year in the King James or New King James Version, according to the choice of each author" (the statement appears on page xv of Beeke's volume on Revelation).

Limiting the choice of translation the authors can use seems unfair to the authors but, if they're fine with it, I guess it's not a problem.

Beeke's statement does seem to show his (over) commitment to the KJV, in my opinion.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Based upon that, this school would seem to fit the definition of being KJVO!

Believing that a particular translation is the best and exclusively using it in light of this belief does not meet the criteria of "KJVO." In fact, most people probably do this in their own life and ministry. The defining mark of KJVO is a belief that the King James is not only the best translation, but that it is superior even to the Greek and Hebrew originals, and further ,that all other translations are not merely the product of faulty methodology, but the product of Satan. Nothing has been shown that would indicate that PRTS falls into that category.

 

[Dachaser]

When Beeke became a co-editor of the Lectio Continua expository commentary series (with Jon D. Payne), Beeke announced that "the goal is to publish two volumes per year in the King James or New King James Version, according to the choice of each author" (the statement appears on page xv of Beeke's volume on Revelation).

Limiting the choice of translation the authors can use seems unfair to the authors but, if they're fine with it, I guess it's not a problem.

Beeke's statement does seem to show his (over) commitment to the KJV, in my opinion.

He would seem to be one who is close to holding the KJVO position, but his works such as in Puritan theology jas been very good!...

 

[Dachaser]

Believing that a particular translation is the best and exclusively using it in light of this belief does not meet the criteria of "KJVO." In fact, most people probably do this in their own life and ministry. The defining mark of KJVO is a belief that the King James is not only the best translation, but that it is superior even to the Greek and Hebrew originals, and further ,that all other translations are not merely the product of faulty methodology, but the product of Satan. Nothing has been shown that would indicate that PRTS falls into that category.

The difference between holding to the KJV as being the best or the only one to use would be if one held to all modern translation are all bad, and if the KJV was a perfect english translation, as if their translators had inspiration from God to make that perfect version....

 

[greenbaggins]

Jerrold, I hope you are aware that not all proponents of the CT hold to a position denying God's providence, but that some hold that God's providence can work in many different ways, including preserving manuscripts out of sight.

 

[Dachaser]

Jerrold, I hope you are aware that not all proponents of the CT hold to a position denying God's providence, but that some hold that God's providence can work in many different ways, including preserving manuscripts out of sight.

God preserved for us today all of the original manuscripts close enough in all of the various sources to be able to reconstruct really close to the original text in the CT...

 

[JimmyH]

When Beeke became a co-editor of the Lectio Continua expository commentary series (with Jon D. Payne), Beeke announced that "the goal is to publish two volumes per year in the King James or New King James Version, according to the choice of each author" (the statement appears on page xv of Beeke's volume on Revelation).

Limiting the choice of translation the authors can use seems unfair to the authors but, if they're fine with it, I guess it's not a problem.

Beeke's statement does seem to show his (over) commitment to the KJV, in my opinion.

Here is a link to Joel Beeke's own stated reasons for preferring the KJV.
https://youngpuritan.wordpress.com/...ions-practical-reasons-for-retaining-the-KJV/
If posting this link is in any way against PB policy will a moderator please delete it. I think the post is pertinent to the discussion since Joel Beeke's point of view was referred to specifically.