Featured Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

Discussion in 'Translations and Manuscripts' started by BayouHuguenot, Feb 10, 2019.

  1. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Sophomore

    Still studying all this. Is this whole debate not more fundamentally based on what one perceives to be “better” manuscripts instead what method is applied?

    In other words, do not those who are in the TR-Only group have to deal with text variants with the Byzantine Copies? Picking some within that group as more accurate than others.

    As I said i am still studying this, but the TR-Onylist think those in the CT camp believe the Word is corrupted....but are not the TR-Onlysist the ones saying that ALL other manuscripts (specifically) Alexandrian are corrupt outside the TR?

    Could this line of thinking not then imply that the manuscripts used in CT are more in line with the idea expressed in the Westminster Standards?

    Just looking for help. Today I am a CT guy mainly because I like the fact that it pulls from a wider range of manuscripts, which for me says that God has kept his word pure, not ONLY in all ages, but also in a wider range of places.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  2. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Grant,
    Those of us who are more in keeping with the TR are happy to consider all the manuscript evidence. We doubt the modern theory of text types/families. The handful of manuscripts that are sometimes viewed as the "Alexandirian manuscripts" are weighed along with the rest of the textual evidence out there.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Senior

    In theory, yes, but in practice this is simply not the case. The CT, while produced in consultation with the full range of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in only a few manuscripts, while the TR, even though produced by consulting only a handful of manuscripts, is reflective of what is contained in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Amen Amen x 1
    • List
  4. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    There would be none.
     
  5. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    The Majority text/Bzt one, would be the text that does more so that then the TR does though.
     
  6. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    The Lord had no inspiration given to translation team though, as that was only applied towards the originals, as those advocating for 1611 KJVO would be assuming that the Holy Spirit inspire them to translate into English, and yet they acknowledge that other valid Bibles were used by them to revise, and that there would be a need to revise their Bible in the future also.
    And which TR is the right inspired one to use, as Erasmus Himself had 6 editions, and used the Vulgate renderings at times, and the translation team also used Beza, so they practiced that dreaded textual criticism themselves.
    Which KJV also would be the perfect one, as had 1611, 1769, 1842, and 1894?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  7. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Per the OP question , there is no scripture to support the TR/KJVO position, as that would be assuming in some well sense that the Lord Himself supervised and inspired the decisions made when rendering from the Greek/Hebrew texts into their English 1611 KJV.
    One can prefer the TR/Majority/Critical Greek texts, and can prefer a certain English translation, but cannot be seeing only one Greek text/one English Bible the only right one for use.
     
  8. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Sophomore

    I don't think so. I am not sure where I fall in this debate, but speaking only of the providential preservation aspect of this issue, it seems to me that the TR position disfavors manuscripts which—again, providentially speaking—"went off the radar" for a good many centuries. In other words, providential preservation would entail that a manuscript be both known and used/consulted in the Christian Church. Manuscripts that were rediscovered after many centuries because of disuse, or because they were plain forgotten and became unknown, would not be considered providentially preserved.

    @Romans922, @TylerRay, and @Bill The Baptist, am I representing this position faithfully?
     
  9. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Sophomore

    Taylor,

    Doesn’t the fact that we have them now mean that they were providentially preserved? How could they have been preserved outside of providence?
     
  10. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Taylor,
    It's not so much about manuscripts as it is about readings. It's not that those manuscripts haven't been preserved--clearly, if we have them, they have been preserved. But the idiosyncratic readings in some of those manuscripts are not readings that God, by his singular care and providence, has given to his church at large. So, we consider them highly suspect.

    Again, we believe that God has preserved his word in the church, and that it doesn't need to be reconstructed or recovered, only discerned.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    That begs several questions: 1) no verse promising providential preservation of this sort of a text; 2) why favor this mss care and providence and not the other one?
     
  12. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Sophomore

    Tyler,

    Don’t you think there are reformed CT guys who feel the same way about using a larger variety and number of manuscripts? I admit, from my own reading of KJV and ESV, that their are many differences in rinderings; however I do not feel that any major or minor doctrines are altered in those variations. So I have confidence that the confessional reformed guys in EITHER camp, see themselves as trying to discern as close as possible the original writer’s intent. I am greatful for many on PB helping me learn more about the TR, because I was extremely ignorant (and likely still am). I now hold the TR translations in a much higher opinion. However I share the same respect for a few of the “modern” translations which are also used in many reformed elcessiastical bodies. I do not wish to complain against either the TR or the CT because I have a great respect for translation in general.
     
  13. Andrew P.C.

    Andrew P.C. Puritan Board Junior

    I think of two streams:

    CT position- We have discovered lost texts that take away or add to what has been past down through the church.

    TR position- We have the text (or canon) which has been preserved through the church and kept pure through all ages.
     
  14. Andrew P.C.

    Andrew P.C. Puritan Board Junior


    In the text itself I can’t say one way or the other. However, the philosophy behind each position is drastically different. So, in one sense, doctrines are altered.
     
  15. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    As I said, it's about readings, not manuscripts.
     
  16. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Sophomore

    To be clear: I was not arguing for what I said. Rather, I was merely trying to present what I see to be the TR position. In other words, what I wrote above, which you quoted, was not me giving my personal position. @TylerRay helpfully clarified what I said.
     
  17. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Again, both parties are happy to use all the manuscripts. Erasmus and Beza used the manuscripts that are now designated "Alexandrian." Both parties produce critical editions (critical texts, if you will). The question is whether God's word has been discernibly preserved in every age. One group does their textual criticism with the presupposition that it has, the other from the presupposition that it hasn't.
     
  18. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Sophomore

    Can those who prefer a conservative CT translation be charged as guilty of this in every case? I am honestly wrestling with this and I am grateful for your answers.
     
  19. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    Practically speaking, when you say "both parties produce critical editions" or both parties are happy to use all manuscripts, what does that mean for today? Is there any textual criticism going on within the TR camp today or has that all been considered complete through Erasmus, Beza, the KJV translators, and Scrivener?

    To bring up one of the big elephants again, the 1 John 5:7 has essentially no manuscript evidence, yet almost universally TR advocates say it should be included because it was providentially preserved (from the Latin). Genuinely asking: practically speaking, what does a TR critical edition mean? What are the practical results? Not trying to be combative, but I haven't figured that out.

    Or put another way, if no change will ever be made to the TR at this point, regardless of evidence one way or another, then does textual criticism or consideration of all manuscripts mean anything, in practice? Is it just a convention that "well, it's been a standard for so long so we might as well use it even if we have better readings"?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  20. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    In my opinion, they often don't realize it. They embrace the view that's popular in academia today. They're righly turned off by the bad arguments that many KJV/TR advocates use, so they embrace the popular view, which has a lot of scholarship behind it. But at the end of the day, their view presupposes that significant, undiscernable corruptions have been a part of the common Bible for a large part of history.
     
  21. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Those are great questions, and I can't really give satisfactory answers. As far as producing a new critical edition with TR presuppositions, I don't think I know of any efforts. Burgon suggested a number of corrections. I've also heard individual men argue for readings different from what's in the KJV/Scrivener.

    The I John 5:7 issue is an interesting one. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I think you may be oversimplifying it. It's certainly a debatable reading, and it's not a hill I would die on.
     
  22. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Sophomore

    Does the NKJV usually have footnotes for any of the “debatable” verses?

    I primarily use the ESV (and KJV for comparison ). I have noticed sometimes the ESV leaves out a verse and will not even add footnotes.
     
  23. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    The NKJV goes further than that--it has marginal notes showing every place where the NA/UBS differs from the TR. I don't think it includes variants that arent in either.
     
  24. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Yes, they usually say "M Text reads …" or "NU Text reads …" or something to that effect.
     
  25. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Sophomore

    Can you give the full names for your shorthand? (Forgive my ignorance):detective:
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  26. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Can you give the full names for your shorthand? (Forgive my ignorance):detective:[/QUOTE]
    Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society. It's the standard modern critical edition.
     
  27. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Sometimes those who argue for the TR seem to be saying that God inspired them in same way He did the originals, and thus the KJV itself would be inspired also!
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  28. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    I don't get this. Why are we talking about KJV or KJVO in this conversation that has nothing to do with English translations. It really is when you are start attacking whether on the puritanboard or elsewhere, it's just a strawman argument to somehow link those who believe in TR that they are somehow some of those crazy KJVO people. It's ridiculous and needs to stop.
     
  29. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    I prefer "cutting to the chase" rather than "oversimplifying" :)

    Thanks for the response. I have great respect for people like Maurice Robinson and would love to see the TR folks come together and produce a more critical version based off of Burgon's studies, Scrivener's, Robinson's etc., and really the past five centuries of TR use.
     
  30. iainduguid

    iainduguid Puritan Board Freshman

    Widening the debate a little, what about the text of the OT? Would the preservation position insist on the "majority" Rabbinic Bible? Would it allow for corrections from Leningrad (which was obviously not part of the church's tradition for years? Corrections from the Septuagint, which clearly has a different Hebrew original in some places, now attested from Qumran? It seems to me that often these discussions only treat half the Bible.
     

Share This Page