Apparently, Erasmus and the Reformation era translators did not share the view that variant readings give us confidence in the organic inspiration of the scriptures.

Mr. Rafalsky, to be fair, are you aware of any scholarly works that refute the assertions of Cloud, Letis, Hills, Burgon etc? Or are they simply ignored? And if so, what reason do modern text critics give for their silence?

__________________

Hi Ken,

You said,

You are correct in your first paragraph above, nor did I espouse that view, it was only Bryan Chapell in your OP, and which has been the topic here. To my thinking such a view is an anomaly.

Actually Erasmus did personally accept some variants, but deferred to the "common readings" of the church (and not the RC) in his Greek editions.

And yes, there are those who attempt to refute the men you mention in your 2nd ¶.

I realize it is a laborious task, reading the arguments of one school, then the other, then comparing and weighing them. I was actually — it was around 1981 or 82 — about to spend my hard-earned $ on an NASB and separate like concordance, when I first heard the argument for the AV, so I held off and considered it. I already had a quality RSV & concordance (& other Bibles — along with my KJV), but I appreciated the arguments for the AV, and eventually held to it.

There is a remark attributed to Erasmus, "When I have a little money I buy books, and if there is anything left over I buy food, and clothing." That's how I conducted myself. Where some people save and buy homes, or cars, or guns, clothing, etc etc, I bought books. I said to myself, after Machen's saying, "I will not be held under 'the tyranny of experts'." There are so many apostate "expert" teachers, Greek and Hebrew scholars, even theologians! I was determined to have the scholarly resources and lexical tools to study and learn of things for myself.

I know that the view I espouse is in the minority today (it certainly was not in the Reformation and post-Reformation periods), but I am convinced of the position I hold. I continue to study the arguments of those who oppose me, 1st, so as to be ready for them, and 2nd, to be better able to interact intelligently with them, hopefully giving more light than heat. I am currently studying Dr. James White's arguments on the textual situation. I have even learned — and had to change some views — from opponents.

I may not have convinced you of the superiority of the TR 1894 / AV, but I am willing to share the information I have gathered and which I believe is in accord with the truth. A lot is at stake in this textual business. Language is my forte, and I see the decline in confidence in the language of the Bible — the very words of it — a distancing of the heart & mind from the heart and mind of God. The diminishing of this confidence is a slow, gradual process, like the growing of a great tree. There are trends that develop over the course of generations, over decades and even centuries. It is said that in the present is the seed — or embryo — of the future. The variants you brought up in your OP are like a cancer in the minds of many, even today. It was the variants Rome used as a weapon to try to subvert the Reformation, and its doctrines built on Sola Scriptura against the doctrine of "Sola Rome". And weapons they are! Arrows designed to foment doubt, and instill distrust. Such are deadly.

"A man is only as good as his word," the saying goes. It is patently obvious the sure word of God is not that "good" anymore in the views of many. What we get by on, our grandchildren may not be able to rely on. "Has He really spoken," they may say, "and even if He has, have His words been preserved down to our day? The experts tell us the Scripture text is uncertain, we have a general idea of what they are, and perhaps we can muster up a general faith in them."

I have been asked to visit a Jordanian couple (Eastern Orthodox) a woman from church knows, who are experiencing poltergeist and other satanic-type phenomena on Friday. I'd better have a sure confidence in my Lord and His word to mix in that stuff! [Prayer solicited, folks!]

At any rate, Ken, I will be praying for the Lord to give you wisdom and discernment in these matters. Since you seem to ask close, detailed questions, perhaps the Burgon book I recommended, The Revision Revised, will be the best to start with. Few and far between are those who even attempt to refute his assertions, so meticulous is his research, evidence, and argumentation. He covers the things you show interest in.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky. And I was not doubting or disagreeing with you. I was just curious as to the reaction of the opposition. Since critics in favor of the CT are in the majority, maybe they do not feel the need to refute the arguments of Burgon, Hills, Letis etc. Or maybe they are just speechless.

This to me is really the heart of the issue today. It is not so much between the versions themselves such as the NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, RSV and so on, but the heart of it comes down to as Pastors what MSS are we going to go to in our Greek studies?

I am an NASB users and like to use the NA27 in my Greek studies. Recently though I came across some discrepancies that really bugged me between the NASB/NA27 and the TR/Majority text. Words/phrases have been dropped from the NASB without notation or cause. I understand that numerous verses had been bracketed and noted as not being in earlier MSS, but I always thought they made note on every difference between the NA27 and the TR/Majority text. That is not the case. There were over 60 plus verses with words/phrases dropped for no reason or changed without notation.

The main question I keep coming back to is why would God allow the TR/Majority text to have been the MSS of choice for hundreds of years though bibles like the Geneva and the KJV and then in the early to mid 1900's come back and say that He wants to change things and reveal a different set of MSS that remove and change verses?

Now I remind you that I am a huge NASB fan so this is really tough for me to consider, but when I see so many differences between the NA27 and the TR/Majority text it really begins to bother me and I have to ask what shall we do with two different MSS? Which one do we go to as the finnal authority on a verse with so many differences? Is it the MSS version that came out in the early to mid 1900s or the one that has been around for hundreds of years?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

__________________
Neh 8:10 "For the joy of the LORD is your strength."

Mark B Johnson, MDiv
Pastor/Elder
Brier Community Church
Dmin program
www.Faithseminary.edu

No thoughts, just a testimony.

Brother, I have blindly followed modern evangelical scholarship and outright rejected the KJV. Surely White and Carson could not be wrong? It was good in it's day, let's move on. I only use it to read the Scriptures to old people in nursing homes and hospitals.

That was then, now I am slowly doing my own research and I find myself retreating back to the old paths. Lately, I have been saying things in my sermons like, "I believe the KJV has it right and my NAS does not". I even desire to read the KJV for personal devotion and let the NAS collect dust. I am not sure what has come over me. Once a KJVO basher, now a KJV praiser coming out of the darkness.

__________________
Paul W.
Ordained Pastor, SBC
Girard, Illinois

My blog: A Pilgrim's Ponderings Wife's blog: Grace in Bloom

This is precisely what we are discussing at our church. I'd appreciate more thoughts, links or references in this matter.

__________________
Ivan Schoen, Pastor
Maranatha Baptist Church
Poplar Grove, Illinois USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org/
Husband to Nancy
Father to Sherril, Sarah, Kathryn
Grandfather to Phillip
Faith is the refusal to panic. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

What a testimony! God is good!

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Ivan, this thread answers that question well IMHO. But, a thorough reading of the texts that Steve suggested would be a start. Also, one would be amiss not to ask, what did the reformers and puritans use? Therein, I believe, is your answer. What did they whom God used most mightily in recent ages past,IMO, use as there primary mss? This is where I am at.

Thank you, Paul.

Ivan,

Look through the table of contents of this online book, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible -- http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleV...s/kjcforv1.htm, -- and see if there isn't info you desire, such as in ch. 11, "Examples Of The Patristic Support For The TR Readings". I have the hard copy of this as well -- my only caveat about it is he doesn't cite his references. I have many of the works he cites, but I prefer documentation.

What was said above by Paul is right, that the texts the Reformation and post Reformation men used -- the TR editions and the Geneva, AV, etc -- are those God provided for His people. They were aware of the old Egyptian/Roman Catholic mss, and rejected them.

Steve

Paul,

Thank you for that Paul. I am right there with you. It really makes me mad because now I am beginning to question what I thought was the final word on Scripture, the once anointed NAS. I don't know about you, but when I use the KJV as my primary text I feel out of place or lost because I am so use to my NAS and where things are and how things read in Scripture.

Another thing that is interesting to note about the NAS is that it claims to have no differences in doctrinal issues. The haunting question for me is what about the doctrine of Bibliology and the inerrancy of scripture? If you come back and add/change/remove text by claiming to have a more accurate original "earlier" MSS are you not stating that you believe that what we have in the TR/Majority Greek text is wrong and is in error and thus by default messing with the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture?


That is also a great point Paul.

Thank you, Steve.

Steve,

This is a good book. I may have to get it for my shelf. The auther makes a great point in relation to:

Check this quote out. Pretty amazing thought. It's from the bottom of page 171. That whole section is actually interesting to read on foreign language versions:


http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleV...rv6.htm#XXVIII

A paper by Dennis Kenaga, a member of of Grace OPC in Lansing, MI, that deals in part with this question was recently posted at the Grace OPC website. It can be found here.Skeptical Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism

__________________
Thomas Yeutter,
Mason, MI
Member St. Patrick's Anglican Church, Comstock, MI

Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to do it and to teach its statues in Isreal.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

How can I know if what I'm reading in the Bible is part of scripture or not?

I just came across this article. It favors the Byzantine Text but of course the KJVO's won't like it because the author thinks the NKJV is an acceptable translation as well. Although I haven't had the chance to read it all yet, but overall it seems to articulate the position that I have come to. I found some excellent portions like this:

__________________
C.P. --Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"Where is the young man who fears the judgment to come? What is the breath of an enemy of God to the blast of the soul by the breath of the Almighty? If you fear the frowns of a fellow worm, how will you stand in judgment with an angry God?" --Asahel Nettleton

Click to get: Board Rules--Signature Requirements--Suggestions?