Thread: A History Of The Authorized Version

The King James Version of the Bible

And why it is the best translation available today. Very good read put out by the PRCA.


A Puritan's Petition
Four Puritans along with fourteen representatives of the Church of England were gathered together at Hampton Court for an ecclesiastical conference in January 1604. The Puritans had many objections concerning the English Church as it was then established. They were hoping that their new king, James I, would so guide the Church of God in England that there would be further reformation of the Church. They wanted to make the Church of England more like the Reformed Church of Geneva and the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. They had already met James on his way to London where he was to receive the English crown and had presented him with a petition stating their grievances. The petition was signed by about a thousand clergyman and therefore called the Millenary Petition. It was on account of that petition that James had called the conference to hear and determine things pretended to be amiss in the Church.

It did not go so well for the Puritans, however. Not only were they in the minority at the conference, but King James, rather than sympathizing with them, supported the cause of the High Churchmen or Conformists who did not want the Presbyterian form of Church government. In the midst of their struggle Dr. John Reynolds, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, suddenly petitioned the king, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original. This motion of the Puritan leader evidently was not something which he had planned but something that was introduced incidentally in order to keep from losing all ground at the conference.

This is confirmed by the preface to the readers entitled The Translators To The Readers which was found in the first edition of the King James Version. There we read, ...the very historical truth is that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesties coming to the crown, the conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints; when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion Book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation.

The Puritans did object to the translations of the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible which were quoted in the Prayer Book, but they did not zealously demand a new translation. They were content with their Geneva Bible and its Calvinistic notes. The motion for a new translation was incidental to them. In fact, if it were up to them, there probably would not be a King James Version of the Bible.

so there is no way, other folk today could meet these reasons as put forth in the article?
1) It was translated by men who are unsurpassed in their knowledge of Biblical studies.
operitive phrase would be unsurpassed at that time. to insist that there are no people equally as brilliant or learned in Biblical studies would be silly no?
2) The translators were pious men of God who believed in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?
3) It is the mature fruit of generations of English translations as well as the careful work of its translators.
~ so there is no way that there could be other groups today of Godly scholars with a vast knowledge of those tounges?

4) The King James Version is based upon the Received Text rather than the critical Greek text of modern versions.
~have we at any point since the KJV, found OLDER manuscripts of Scripture? wouldnt it be important to make sure that translations reflect the oldest available? there are a lot of variants.

5) It is a word-for-word translation which faithfully and accurately reflects the originals.
~ how are the versions today that claim the same thing any different? some words have multiple meanings that would not effect the rest of the verse.
6) The language is one of reverence and respect which gives honor to the majesty of its Author.
~ there are other translations that do, please share specific proofs that support this. Using versions that most here would probably aggree with (ESV/Geneva/NASB/etc.)

8) Our spiritual forefathers thought so highly of it that they were willing to suffer and even die for it.
~ so folk are persecuted like they were. this is not a valid argument for supremecy.
---------------------------
still, it was an intresting article, thanks for sharing

Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!

furthermore I would have to ask, Doesnt the KJV state that language changes hence there must be changes in the KJV version? also, which KJV version to my reckoning there are more than one revisions of the KJV.


bear in mind, these are questions ive had for a while and so far no one has been able to provide a non heresay? or non conjecture? answer?? (which ever one is he said she said)

Originally Posted by Grymir

Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!

I really liked this part:




God's Word To His Church
Authorized Bible
The new translation did not immediately take over all others. For some time there was a struggle with the Geneva Bible. But in the end, the people of God recognized the superior qualities of the King James Version so that it conquered all others. It has gone through hundreds and hundreds of editions since it was first published in 1611. Some changes have been made in the spelling, punctuation, italicizing, and cross references. Nevertheless, the King James Version which we have today is basically the same as that published in 1611. It is still the choice of God's people too. Even with all the competition from the modern versions, the King James Version is one of the most popular of all versions.

As far as we know the King James Version, also called the Authorized Version, was never authorized. Even thought it was appointed by the King, it was never approved by Parliament nor the Convocation, nor the Privy Council. Nevertheless, it is recognized by God's people as the Authorized Bible-God's Authorized Bible. God has so worked in the hearts of His people that it has been recognized as God's Word by generation after generation of English-speaking Christians. It has been recognized as the version which God has given to us in His good providence. There is no other translation so universally regarded as God's Word.

Jeff,

Sorry I can't take the time to answer your questions / objections above as as it is I am stealing from my sleep to be writing, but perhaps you would find some extended discussions of these very issues of value. I post here some threads where these things are delved into.

I hope some of the things you question may be answered here (I know it's a good bit of reading, but there's good info, which you may appreciate).

Steve


Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?

What is the authentic New Testament text?

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Textual Manuscripts?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/defe...yer-1-a-27974/

"Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?"

Do textual variants give us confidence?

verbal plenary preservation

Mark 16:12

From the article:

The King James Version, although it is almost 400 years old, is still the best translation available today.

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.

Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?

Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

Originally Posted by Poimen

From the article:

The King James Version, although it is almost 400 years old, is still the best translation available today.

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.

I think you are correct is saying that this was not the author's original intent. He probably would agree that the best translation of the Bible in English is the AV (rather than saying the best translation is in English). It is my understanding that the Old Dutch Bible and the Old French (Louis Segond) are TR based and still endorsed by TR advocates although they obviously use older Dutch and French vocabulary and style. Someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken here.

Originally Posted by Hippo

Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?

Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Originally Posted by ADKing

Originally Posted by Hippo

Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?

Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

because God gave us his word in Hebrew and Greek period, end of that discussion.

2) many learned men from 100 AD till this very second have vast depths of learning and knowledge in the ORiginal HEbrew and greek. TO insist that the KJV is better because the folk who translated it had superior language expertise is a fallacious he said she said argument

3) God promised that HIs Original words in hebrew and greek would be preserved. Not translations.

4) if the KJV folk were inspired in the translation how can you say others arent? to say they arent is to deny GOD the ability to grant them the necessary knowledge to translate,

5) to insist that the AV is the best translation or the only "God apporoved" is erroneous. THe KJV borrows from the Geneva Bible around 60% or so??

6) there are translations errors in the KJV, As with any translation, the translation is subject at all times to human error. WHy on earth do you think the puritans were so big on teaching children the original tounges??

im not arguing against the Textus receptus at this point. Im arguing against the silly notion that the KJV is the best God ordained english translatiton.

Originally Posted by Poimen

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in [I]English[/I], and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.

Poimen,

The Reina-Valera is a Spanish Bibles that :

is important to note that this translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Edition, 1525) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus' Edition, 1550). As secondary sources Reina was aided by the Ferrara Bible for the Old Testament and the Latin Edition of Santes Pagnini throughout.

In other words it is older than the KJV. By the way the Greek New Testaments (i.e.,Polyglot Bible) that Erasmus used, was from the Spain. And the Greek New Testament that the KJV translators used was the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition (also from Spain if I am not mistaken).

So you say that the KJV is the best bible translated, I think is an overstatement, since where did you think the KJV came from?

FYI, Francisco de Enzinas, of Spain, who help translate the Reina-Valera even taught Greek in Cambridge thanks to Thomas Cranmer. This Enzinas, Spanish Reformer, was also where John Foxe, author of the famous English Book, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, got his eyewitness accounts which were originally penned by Enzinas and not John Foxe. Much more can be said... but this is good enough.

Having said that, I nevertheless, when I read my Bible in English it is the KJV.

Originally Posted by Hippo

Originally Posted by ADKing

Originally Posted by Hippo

A claim for KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolitrous. KJV prefered or support for the MT are fine in my book, but to go beyond such positions is very questionable.

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

With all due respect, friend, I think you are missing my point. I did not assert that because I had a conviction that it was right. I asked, what about that conviction you found to be "verging on idolatry" (to use your words). I am glad we are agreed that faith derives from apostolic truth

I just happen to believe that that truth is accessible in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (in the NT) are what we commonly call the TR. This certainly is not a Romish doctrine (the Romanists disagreed!). I think the comparision is not valid.

Originally Posted by ADKing

Originally Posted by Hippo

Originally Posted by ADKing

This is very strong language, friend. What about the conviction that God has providentially preserved his word in the body of texts we know as the TR strikes you as verging on idolatry?

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

With all due respect, friend, I think you are tilting at windmills. I did not assert that because I had a conviction that it was right. I asked, what about that conviction you found to be "verging on idolatry" (to use your words). I am glad we are agreed that faith derives from apostolic truth

I just happen to believe that that truth is accessible in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (in the NT) are what we commonly call the TR. This certainly is not a Romish doctrine (the Romanists disagreed!). I think the comparision is not valid.

But do you hold the the TR (i.e that particular manuscript) or do you believe that similiar manuscripts (i.e. non Alexandrian) can be examined in order to ascertain what the original form of the underlying text was(i.e. MT)?

The problem with the TR position is that to say that one particulat text was providentially preserved is a "because it is argument" and that is problematic. It is like saying that a particular translation is providential and must have supremacy be that the KJV or the Vulgate.

THE best version?????????? It is the one that I will actually read and study on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Originally Posted by Poimen

Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in [I]English[/I], and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue? Perhaps we should be looking at our cultural preferences, not making assumptions about the superiority of our translations.

Poimen,

The Reina-Valera is a Spanish Bibles that :

is important to note that this translation was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Edition, 1525) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus' Edition, 1550). As secondary sources Reina was aided by the Ferrara Bible for the Old Testament and the Latin Edition of Santes Pagnini throughout.

In other words it is older than the KJV. By the way the Greek New Testaments (i.e.,Polyglot Bible) that Erasmus used, was from the Spain. And the Greek New Testament that the KJV translators used was the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition (also from Spain if I am not mistaken).

So you say that the KJV is the best bible translated, I think is an overstatement, since where did you think the KJV came from?

FYI, Francisco de Enzinas, of Spain, who help translate the Reina-Valera even taught Greek in Cambridge thanks to Thomas Cranmer. This Enzinas, Spanish Reformer, was also where John Foxe, author of the famous English Book, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, got his eyewitness accounts which were originally penned by Enzinas and not John Foxe. Much more can be said... but this is good enough.

Having said that, I nevertheless, when I read my Bible in English it is the KJV.

I am not sure I understand your post. I didn't say that the KJV is the best bible translation, the author of the article that was cited did.

From your post you wrote:

[QUOTE=Poimen;388965]
Although this was probably not the intent of the original author it is rather revealing that the best translation of the Bible is in English, and not in Dutch, Chinese etc.

I was informing you that there are other languages such as Spanish with a fine translation of the Bible.

And I was trying to answer your below question;

As I wonder if other language groups make translations of the Bible in an older, antiquated version of their current tongue?

I guess I misunderstood what your wrote, sorry.

Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?

Ill look into those posts. but im not asking which Greek text should be the basis of translation. Im asking on what authority can we insist that the KJV is an inspired English translation to be held up above all others? what about the mistranslations of the KJV? ITs fine if one prefers the KJV, but to assert KJV primacy is rather silly i should think.

I have to prepare for my lesson tomorrow evening, so I don't have time to get into anything tonight.

First, would you please indicate where the author or anyone in this thread has asserted that "the KJV is an inspired English translation?"

Second, the textual issue is the heart of the debate, and primacy rests first there, secondarily upon the Authorized Version as a five fold revision of English Bibles beginning with Tyndale and ending with the Bishops Bible.

Third the Authorized Version is the fountainhead through which the English language itself, and the divine foundation upon which English common law countries rests. It shouldn't be silly to argue for the primacy of the Declaration of Independence unto the political institutions of the United States, should it? Nor should it be perceived as silly to argue for the primacy of the Authorized Version as the binding tie between law and gospel in the sociological foundations of American society, it's just a matter of historical facts.

Originally Posted by Hippo

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

Well, sir, it is evident you are arguing from a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding of our Reformed heritage. May I suggest you read through some of the links provided by Elder Rafalsky? The Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is a reference to the Mastoretic Hebrew and Received Greek text. It is quite silly to propose that these divines placed their sanction upon any hypothetical text whatsoever before seeing it and approving of it.

Blueridge, thanks again for the article. A couple of great quotes from the article really caught my attention -

"Many tell us that the King James Version is no longer useful because its language has become obsolete, but what they do not realize is that its language is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. Oh, it was such that the people could understand it, but it was, nevertheless, a particular language deliberately chosen to make the King James Version a version that reflects the reverence and respect which is due unto its Divine Author. In that respect, they succeeded too, for there is no version that even comes close to the beauty and majesty of the King James Version."

"Therefore, Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva, a great Reformer himself, was a leading influence upon our King James Version."

"Indeed, we find fountains of living water in the King James Version of the Bible. It is the living Word of the living God. Do not despise it and reject it for the unreliable modern versions as so many do today. Do not let anyone take this great Bible away from you. This version is the Bible we ought to use in our homes and churches. It ought to be the authority for both our faith and practice. We ought to stand up for and defend this Bible which has been given to us by the good providence of God."

Beza! Who can forget that Beza himself had a hand in it?

And from the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (although unofficial), Sigh, I wish I wasn't in this liberal wasteland, and could find a reformed church that uses the KJV. I think that using the KJV keeps Church's from going down the liberal/modernist/barthian path.

Thanks! It's nice to hear people stand up for the best Bible ever! - Grymir

Jeff,

You spoke (in post #2) about the quality of the translators of the AV – and other versions as well – and that is an issue, but you also brought up in that post and #13 the matter of the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the various versions, and that I would think, along with you, the foremost issue.

Perhaps it has been made clear in the posts above that Authorized Version defenders – at least here at PB – do not claim “inspiration” for the translation. Inspiration pertains to the original writings of the Old and New Testament documents alone.

Your claim Mike (post #9), that “KJV primacy or support for the TR also verges on the idolatrous” – as well as Jeff’s (#8) that it’s “rather silly” – bespeak a lack of familiarity with the bases of the King James Bible and Textus Receptus defenses, and likely also an indoctrination in those views, such as Dr. James White’s, which look askance at the AV/TR position, or in some cases even ridicule it.

The primary issue in this entire matter centers on the Hebrew and Greek text-forms used, and as pertains to the Greek, there are – arguably – only two: the Byzantine and the Alexandrian (note, please, that the TR 1894 [which is the Greek underlying the King James translation] is one of a number of editions of what may generically be called the Textus Receptus, and the “Eclectic text” [say, that which purportedly underlies the NIV] for all intents and purposes is Alexandrian in its variant readings; and there is no printed edition of the so-called “Western text-form”; it is but a theoretical construct).

The Hebrew is a different matter, and can be discussed at a later time, if desired.

Now the qualities of these two respective text-forms, the Byzantine (or Traditional – for it existed before its appearance in the Byzantine Greek churches) and the Alexandrian are open to inspection. Much labor has been exerted on analyzing the merits or demerits of these text-forms. It is readily granted that in terms of mere age the Alexandrian documents are the oldest, but when we look at their characteristics other factors enter in. I refer to the discordance between the two primary exemplars – in legal terms, witnesses – of this text-form, codices Vaticanus or B, and Sinaiticus or Aleph (a). It is well known that there are 3,036 differences between these two witnesses in the Gospels alone (according to the careful collation done by Herman C. Hoskier, in his two-volume, Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment).

It also should be noted that the age of these exemplars may well not reflect as ancient a text-form as the younger documents of the Traditional text, which latter comprise at least 90% of the extant Greek mss.

In the Alexandrian text-form, which I will henceforth generally term, the “Critical Text” or just CT, there are numerous omissions (a phenomena which characterizes the CT throughout), which, when examining the evidences for omission, are found wanting, that is, without warrant (pardon my understatement here, please). Much work has been done in this area.

So we have in the CT a text-form which is considered corrupt by accomplished text critics, both of the Majority Text (MT) schools (also called the Byzantine Text schools) and the AV/TR school. These scholars have compiled massive evidences to support their views, to the point where there is a shift among many critics and scholars from the CT to the MT.


I submit a pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:

Both schools [the TR and the CT –SMR] interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text?

He closes the essay with these words,

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204). [From, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.]

If it is brought to my attention that the CT can also claim the providence of God in preserving their manuscripts, then we move to hand-to-hand combat, as it were, in the trenches of examining specific readings. To list but a few: Mark 16:12-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 1:7, 10. What are the evidences pro and con for retaining these readings in the AV/TR as the original readings? On what bases does the CT seek to omit or alter them?

One will see that to allege “silliness” or “idolatry” to the position of KJV primacy – which is based not only on the presupposition that God has preserved His word, but on close examination of textual transmission (the history of it), and specific readings – is not a responsible allegation.

Thus far we have really spoken only of the Greek text, and not concerning the translation of it into English, which is another matter. But until we settle the matter of the authentic Greek text as providentially preserved by God, it is almost pointless to go on to discussing the English translation.

Dr. Rafalsky,

You've don it again! I accepted the arguments of CT reflexively frrom the time Bob Gundry taught them to me in beginning Greek back in 1971. Since then, I have only studied, preached, and taught from CT translations. But, every time you post on this topic, it shakes to the core my predispositional preference for the CT that was simply accepted uncritically as a college freshman.

If you keep this up much longer, you will make me a devotee of your "quaint," "old fashioned," "unscholarly," "tendentious," "dogmatic," "tunnel vision," etc. views . . . which, after reading your pieces, seem none of the above! Thanks!

About a hundred years ago I read Pickering and Carson (in that order). My vague recollection is that Carson succeeded in knocking down the ideas Pickering raised. Assuming that I am masochistic enough to want to scramble my brains with another dip in the chilly waters of textual criticism, what would you advise?

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Thus far we have really spoken only of the Greek text, and not concerning the translation of it into English, which is another matter. But until we settle the matter of the authentic Greek text as providentially preserved by God, it is almost pointless to go on to discussing the English translation.

I thank you for your response Blade. But so we are clear- I see it in two ways:

I see the greek NT text (text recept)

I see translations of the text recept

Im not arguing against wether the Original greek TR is the best. Im fine with the assertion that the Origianl greek TR is the best and most complete NT.

My only argument is with those that would say the KJV is the best/only "acceptable" translation of the TR. I find no reason that a group of Godly men couldnt accurately translate the TR today, using current, professional, scholarly english (none of the "yo man/dude trash) version.

so again, im arguing against a the primacy of a translation of the TR, NOT the primacy of the Actual Greek Textus Recepticus

but thank you for your response and the effort you put into it!

see, the KJV borrows heavily from the GEneva Bible and another translation.

Id like to see how a ESV/NASB would have any negative effect on Doctrine, reproof, Instruction, etc.. as far as I can read the ESV/NKJV/NASB all use the TR as the primary ORigianl greek.

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

Originally Posted by Hippo

Just because I have convictions it does not make them right and we should all examine our convictions in light of the faith.

Any sect can claim that its beliefs have been providentially preserved, it is a Roman argument and is always an assertion. I just cannot see the logic in asserting the TR has been providentially preserved especially as the TR contained noted that have been corrected.

I really do not mean to be confrontational about this, but the faith derives from apostolic truth not "because it is" type arguments.

Well, sir, it is evident you are arguing from a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding of our Reformed heritage. May I suggest you read through some of the links provided by Elder Rafalsky? The Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is a reference to the Mastoretic Hebrew and Received Greek text. It is quite silly to propose that these divines placed their sanction upon any hypothetical text whatsoever before seeing it and approving of it.

I have read quite alot around this subject and will continue to do so. While I disagree with some of Elder Rafalsky emphasis I agree or at the very least can see merit in nearly everything that he says. In particular that it is perfectly respectable to reject the CT and hold to the corruption of Alexandrian manuscripts.

The problem is that if we hold that God providentialy preserved the TR why can we say that? is it beacuse we use the TR and want confidence, what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparantly decided not to providentailly provide with his word?

To say that one particular text has been preserved because it is the one we use is a circular argument. To say that the Byzantium texts were not corrupted after an examination of those texts and the Alexandrian texts can be a logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by Grymir

And from the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (although unofficial), Sigh, I wish I wasn't in this liberal wasteland, and could find a reformed church that uses the KJV. I think that using the KJV keeps Church's from going down the liberal/modernist/barthian path.

Thanks! It's nice to hear people stand up for the best Bible ever! - Grymir

Timothy -- I know that Davenport is not exactly next door to Des Moines, but you might be interested to know that the Presbyterian Reformed Church, which has a Des Moines congregation, and does stand up for the KJV:

The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

That congregation is also home to the widow of Edward Hills, a notable scholar who wrote The King James Version Defended and other such works.

Thanks VirginiaHuguenot! Both for the church and book. Des Moines is about a three hour drive. I wish it was closer, because I would be there. My wife and I are getting together a list of good Reformed church's together, so this summer we can go on day trips and visit some. I've added the Des Moines Congregation to my list for sure! By that time I'll have read the book you've linked to too. Maybe I'll get to meet her.

There are a few KJV-Only Fundamentalist Baptist Church's in my area. When I first saw them, I thought it would be a match made in heaven! Little did I know how arminian they were when I went. And don't you dare mention Church History or Calvin! They almost threw me out because there was a Liberal Episcopalian (an ex-bishop) who also came the day I did. In the Sunday School class, a Young-Earth view was being taught, and he was bringing up Greek words and church historical views to debunk the young-earth view, and make a case for evolution, which was going right over the pastors and teachers heads. I spoke up and showed what the Greek really said (from my KJV, which is one of the many reasons I like it.), and showing the correct church history. After my second visit, the Pastor accused me of being in league with him and that we came together to overthrow his church. I was quite disheartened. And didn't go back.

That book looks great. Thank you so much. It's nice to see scholarly work on the subject. The Chapter on the history of unbelief is excellent work. And to trace it in the philosophies is so easy to understand. Edward Hills speaks my language! This will be an enjoyable and applicable read.

Mega Ditto's again VirginiaHuguenot!! - Grymir

Originally Posted by ModernPuritan?

2) many learned men from 100 AD till this very second have vast depths of learning and knowledge in the ORiginal HEbrew and greek. TO insist that the KJV is better because the folk who translated it had superior language expertise is a fallacious he said she said argument

You yourself said that the puritans trained their children in the original language. I trust the translation of someone who grew up in a godly home and was reading and writing in Greek and Hebrew from an early age more than I would trust most ministers' abilities today. I've only had a year of Greek and I've found on several occasions that I can explain grammar better and even read some passages of the NT better than some ministers I've come across. Frankly it scares me. I guess the guys who have done the newer translations know their stuff, though.

Originally Posted by Hippo

I have read quite alot around this subject and will continue to do so. While I disagree with some of Elder Rafalsky emphasis I agree or at the very least can see merit in nearly everything that he says. In particular that it is perfectly respectable to reject the CT and hold to the corruption of Alexandrian manuscripts.

The problem is that if we hold that God providentialy preserved the TR why can we say that? is it beacuse we use the TR and want confidence, what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparantly decided not to providentailly provide with his word?

To say that one particular text has been preserved because it is the one we use is a circular argument. To say that the Byzantium texts were not corrupted after an examination of those texts and the Alexandrian texts can be a logical conclusion.

Hello Sir,

Thank you for your kind response and please forgive the abrupt tone of my initial post, it was late and I was way behind in my preparation for today, so I hurriedly replied.

As Elder Rafalsky correctly points out the heart of the issue is the textual priority of the RT vs the CT, for the two main positions supporting the Authorized Version and modern translations, respectively.

To begin grasping the historicity of this issue one must comprehend the basis and foundation upon which the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was championed against the Roman Magisterium and the textual basis for that development.

The issue of the authentic edition of the Scriptures enters Reformed theology by way of the polemic with Rome. Failure to understand that and simply presume that one is standing upon neutral ground in this debate, and one is able to just pick and choose however one may wish, is an incorrect understanding of the historical situation. Contrariwise, the orthodox argued for an authentic and legitimate textual tradition, this then eliminated private or obscure copies in the evidentiary debate.

Following that, one must learn of the historical position of Rome at the Council of Trent and its formal Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura - which was raising the issue of variant readings. Hence, Rome countered the Protestant doctrine of Authority by simply demonstrating that the variant readings in the manuscripts were so numerous that no one could possibly know what the original autograph was, hence, there is no certainty for faith or theology without the tradition of the Roman Church and Authority of the Magisterium.

Leigh, then summed up the issue quite well:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or ortherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ asking "How is it written," and "How readest thou," is now either of none effect, or not sufficient." Leigh, Treatise, I.vi (pp 102-103)

This, of course, was precisely the position of Rome - although Scripture was truly the Word of God, it cannot stand as Authority on its own outside of the Roman Magisterium and its tradition.

Hence, for the Protestants the issue of Providential Preservation and the development of that doctrine comes by way of the polemic with Rome and it rests upon the textual tradition of the Received Text as the authentic and legitimate text of Scripture. This is precisely the type of language you will find in the Westminster Confession of Faith - not a concept of some hypothetical text that may be extrapolated from the manuscripts, but an actual text received from Greek Churches and that was in use and authority for centuries and merely changed from a manuscript form to a printed form in the work of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.

This is not, as you say, a circular argument - but a linear one in the development and apologetical defense of Sola Scripture. Hence, we receive from our Protestant fathers, use and defend the Received Text because it is the Providentially Preserved text, not that it is Providentially Preserved because we use it.

This is a very brief sketch of the outline of the main issues simply to provide you a simple basis to comprehend and answer to your question, hence it is not to be considered an exhaustive presentation, which I simply don't have time for at present. However, if you wish to study this more there are numerous threads that carry these arguments forward and numerous books that also explain it better than I can. In this line I would recommend "The Ecclessiastical Text" by Theodore Letis.

Cordially,

Thomas

Hello Dennis,

Thank you for your kind remarks. Though I’m not a doctor, but an educated layman (true, I’m a Ruling Elder, functioning as a Teaching Elder in a foreign-field mission church). I don’t even have a high school diploma save in the USMC the equivalency diploma I received there (1959/60) and the GED I received in a college in Florida upon being tested before matriculation. I don’t have a college degree, and haven’t darkened the door of a theological cemetery (oops, seminary). I reveal all this to encourage folks to undertake the not-very-difficult study of the basic principles of textual criticism and textual history. I mean, one does not need to be a trained and certified mechanic to understand the production history, quality control, and all-around superiority of a Mercedes-Benz over a poorer-quality vehicle. As our Bibles are without a doubt the most important book in our lives – upon which we stake our eternal destinies, and those of our families – it is appropriate to give some time and effort to study those matters pertaining to it. One does not need to be a textual scholar or critic, or even fluent in the Greek or Hebrew – which I am not – to know the textual and historical issues necessary to comprehend which Bibles are the best. We are not – to use Machen’s memorable phrase – to be under “the tyranny of experts”, seeing as the Lord has made these matters plain to all His people, not just the formally educated. And I flout my inferior educational background to prove this point, perhaps similarly to Paul’s boasting in his weakness and infirmities, in which Christ’s strength may be manifest in fulness (2 Cor 12:9, 10). Note, however, I do not in the slightest mean to denigrate those who have labored in seminaries and universities to better serve the Lord and His people! Were it not for such I would not have the resources I have! My point is that simple folks may know which Bibles are best, and be able to defend their views, discerning the misinformation so prevalent in these times.

A book I would recommend is Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, by Dr. Thomas Holland.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crowned-Glory-Ancient-Authorized-Version/dp/0595146171]Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version[/ame]


It is irenic, simple, clear, yet astute in its scholarship. It not only deals very well with the issues of the Greek text, but has an unusually good grasp of the Hebrew Masoretic, and that in light of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts. An easy read.


Jeff,

The ESV, NASB, NIV and most all modern versions (save the NKJV, MKJV and maybe one or two others in a similar vein) do use the Critical Text as their Greek base, and this is the primary reason for their inferiority.

What is left? The NKJV has some errors due to poor translation, even using the TR in the New Testament, though in the Old it does not use the Masoretic Text as its sole base – which the KJV does – but is eclectic. Notwithstanding this, it is not a bad translation. In fact, it is the pew Bible in the church I serve (the planting church gave me a choice between the NKJV and the ESV, and I opted for the former). The Modern King James Version, by Jay Green, is also not bad, though he has a preference for the Majority Text which shows through in a couple of brackets and some accompanying notes.

I would welcome – for the record – an updated-language AV, as long as the meanings, and the majestic (Hebrew-Greek language-structure rendered into) English were retained. Jakob Van Bruggen’s lesser-known work, The Future of the Bible (available from Russ Spees <email@kjv-ibts.org>, along with all of Ted Letis’ works), deals extensively and in great depth on the translation issue, as well as some textual matters. This is an excellent book.

I would no doubt keep and exclusively use my AV, though an updated form of it would be most welcome, and I could well use it in the church.

It has often been noted that the English of the AV remarkably captures the structure of both the Hebrew and Greek language as spoken by the prophets and apostles, thus re-presenting the majestic cadences of those tongues, as the Lord speaks through them. This is something not accomplished by the modern versions, which generally have a different translation principle. Bruggen goes into these things quite deeply.

Some folks don’t like the old language, and yet there is something to be said for there being a “set-apart” language, set apart from common discourse, for use in the House of God. When in the presence of an earthly king or president, we would be careful to use that speech which is acceptable in protocol on such occasions. Of course, if the king were our dad, we would be intimate in our communication, except when in formal occasions.

So far, the AV is the best translation I have to use.


Mike,

You bring up a good point when you say,

“The problem is that if we hold that God providentially preserved the TR....what about the Alexandrian Church that God apparently decided not to providentially provide with his word?”

The question has also been phrased thusly:

“Would this mean that God’s people had no access to the TR readings before they were included in the TR? If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about other locations in the world that had a different text-type — did they not have an adequate Bible?”

I answer, There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text — where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless adequate is analogous to the Bibles based upon the Critical Text (underlying the modern versions) being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. (It is accepted by many today that the English language is now the universal language — the second language of most other nations.) There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text” — as do multitudes in this present day — though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it. I am aware some scoff at what they may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me? I do not have faith in their “science” or in their “learning,” so their judgment of my approach is not relevant to me. Some may term this (as I have heard said) “invincible ignorance,” but if my approach to knowledge is approved by my Lord, I care not for their disapproval.

Many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word.

I look at the completed act of His providential preservation, the manuscripts He brought into the possession of (despised-by-many) Erasmus, and those editors who came after him; I follow the transmission backwards, the nature of those texts – behold, in the main they are those of the Byzantine text-type, with some few readings from the Latin Vulgate – and I seek to discern and construct what Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont posited in their Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform,

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)

I am likewise aware that Messrs. Robinson and (the late) Pierpont would disown me as one of their illegitimate progeny, as they make clear on their page xli, but – as mentioned above – I want to make clear I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts”. I do not need the knowledge of “experts” who proceed according to methodologies I do not subscribe to. I will consider their work (as much as I am able) and use it if I please.

Consider something else: When the Lord said, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against...My church” (Matt 16:18), did this mean that no church would ever fail or apostatize? We have in Revelation evidence that some churches were in deep decline even then, and we know from history that many churches have been destroyed by succumbing to satanic wiles. But this does not in the slightest negate the saying of the Lord, for His true church will remain victorious over the dark powers, and He will preserve His elect. Likewise with the Scriptures, does the carelessness of men in handling and copying them, or their wickedness in altering them, negate the Lord’s saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away”? (Matt 24:35) No, it does not, for others have been careful to preserve them, by the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. Does the disobedience of men negate the truthfulness of God?

I repeat what I said above:

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

To give you an example. I know a godly woman who loves God’s Word; she uses the NIV, and that has been her Bible since her conversion over 12 years ago. She may not even be aware of certain missing portions of it. For the last part of Ephesians 5:30, “of his flesh, and of his bones” is omitted from her version, without being testified to by a margin note! So also is Acts 8:37 in its entirety missing. Is her case much different from those pre-TR or MT people living in regions which had very similar omissions? God has preserved His word; the sinfulness of man and the wickedness of the devil have sought to deprive many of it in its unsullied integrity, yet God has triumphed over such darkness by adequately preserving it for the salvation of His beloved elect.

I hope this is helpful.

For King and Kingdom!

Steve

Steve, where you able to get all this information into a Blog?

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text” — as do multitudes in this present day — though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it. I am aware some scoff at what they may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me?

I certainly wouldn't use the word "unscientific" since we're dealing with pure faith, not science. And "ignorant" may be a bit too strong as well, but you do need to be aware that if one can find three mistakes in the KJV, a different spelling in any of the texts that compose the TR etc.. then it becomes a question of degree. None of the verses you quote come anywhere near to proving that God would preserve a text "minutely" in any event.

The best that you can argue for is that there are less mistakes in, say, the KJV than in the, say, NIV. And then it becomes a question of "degree" not some such phrase like "minutely preserved" which implies no place name spelling differences etc... I mean that kind of faith boarders on the fanatic and non-systematic to me, although I also prefer the the same texts that you do.

Talking to Afrikaners, who have a similar sub-set to our KJV only crowd (the "Old Translation" is God's Word while the "New Translation" isn't as good since there're several mistakes) I could never understand what they were saying. I suppose most any language with more than one Bible translations has this particular subset of people.

I'll bet there were those types of people during the time of Christ, and that may very well be one of the reasons He mixed his quotes, sometimes quoting the Septuagint and sometimes quoting the Hebrew, perhaps to make the point that while God's Word will never pass away, we shouldn't equate God's Word to any particular text at the expense of others.

Leigh, then summed up the issue quite well:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or ortherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ asking "How is it written," and "How readest thou," is now either of none effect, or not sufficient."

I don't know who Leigh is or was (like Elder R., my degree's in agriculture not theology) but that quote seems, at least on the surface, to be remarkably not well thought out. First, it simply isn't true. In the PCA and I assume most confessional denominations, there is a "high court of appeal" and they allow several translations based on several texts. May I ask which denomination you know of doesn't? This guy seems to be taking personal opinions to the point of excess. Second, Christ Himself, when asking those questions, quoted from two texts which in places are hugely different, so why on earth the man would appeal to an example which refutes his theory is beyond me. (Or, I may not understand the subject, and I trust I will be willing to change my views!).

BTW Thomas, in your fourth paragraph above you shouldn't use the term orthodox as excluding Catholics. It's a technical term.

Originally Posted by Grymir

Long live the King!! Nice article!! Mega-Ditto's!

Hail King Jimmy!

Originally Posted by TimV

Leigh, then summed up the issue quite well:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or ortherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ asking "How is it written," and "How readest thou," is now either of none effect, or not sufficient."

I don't know who Leigh is or was (like Elder R., my degree's in agriculture not theology) but that quote seems, at least on the surface, to be remarkably not well thought out. First, it simply isn't true. In the PCA and I assume most confessional denominations, there is a "high court of appeal" and they allow several translations based on several texts. May I ask which denomination you know of doesn't? This guy seems to be taking personal opinions to the point of excess. Second, Christ Himself, when asking those questions, quoted from two texts which in places are hugely different, so why on earth the man would appeal to an example which refutes his theory is beyond me. (Or, I may not understand the subject, and I trust I will be willing to change my views!).

BTW Thomas, in your fourth paragraph above you shouldn't use the term orthodox as excluding Catholics. It's a technical term.

Hello Tim,

The gentlemen is Edward Leigh, he was an English puritan and theologian of the 17th century. Probably his most important work was his Critica Sacra that he did for the Westminster Divines. The quote there is very well thought out, it echos the general consensus of the high orthodox defending Sola Scriptura against the Tridentine counterattack, others would also utilize very similar language such as John Owen and Francis Turretin which culminated in the Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675.

The modern departure from historic Reformed orthodoxy that you relate in reference to the PCA is precisely what we are arguing against - and why there is no "high court of appeal" today.

The whole idea of an authentic and legitimate tradition of the original language texts that preserved quoad verba (word) and quoad res (substance) the very words of God is completely redefined today. The historical definition has been abandoned following most notably BB Warfield and his radical departure with his "inerrant original autograph" hypothesis that places Scripture in dialetical tension arguing for priority of the autographs against the apographs. That is what is a "remarkably not well thought out" position. Our Protestant fathers would view that as a concession to Rome, because it was precisely Rome's argument standing upon the nature/grace dialetic of Aquinas and asserting the Roman Magisterium against Sola Scriptura. Rushdoony has insightful comments that would be applicable here:

"The modern view is a development of the position of the Council of Trent, but with an ironic twist. The center of authority is shifted now from the leaders of the Church (Catholic or Protestant) to the scholars of the Church. Well before the 19th century was over, Catholic scholars were questioning the right of Rome to deny them the freedom to pursue their studies to whatever conclusion they deemed necessary. In the second half of the 20th century, Catholic and Protestant prelates increasingly echo the conclusions of textual scholars.

The role of the Spirit of God has been transferred to the spirit of some men, i.e., those Biblical scholars engaged in textual studies. Not the text of Scripture itself but the word of the scholars determines the reading and dating of the text, i.e., its meaning and validity.
Paul tells us, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Faith and hearing are the work of God in the life of man. It is a direct and personal relationship through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Now we have another mediator, the scholar.

The historic belief of Christians has been that the God who gave the Word preserved the Word. This is the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God. The Word gives the direct and authentic Word of God. Now preservation has a new meaning. The Biblical scholars hold their’s is a word of restoration, so that preservation requires their restorative word. The triune God is replaced by scholarly men.

Thus, the denial of the Received Text’s validity is no small matter. It rests on a religious revolution with far-reaching implications. This means that many men of Reformed or Arminian theologies, who profess the orthodox doctrines of their communions, hold to a position which undermines their faith. It should not surprise us that seminaries and Biblical scholars have for generations led their churches into various forms of humanism. By playing god over God, they begin with the essence of original sin and humanism, man as his own god, determining the validity of everything, including the Word of God, for himself (Genesis 3:15). In effect, they say, “Yea, hath God said?” (Genesis 3:1) of the best of Scripture." RJ Rushdoony, The Problem of the Received Text

Today, modern Reformed Christians nominally utilize the language of our Confessions but they don't have the same definitions and meaning. And Authority no longer rests in Scripture we possess but in Scripture we don't posses, thus, a new Magisterium has arisen - the textual scholar who mediates God's word to us, quoad verba, through publishing corporations.

The Bride of Christ has been turned into a marketplace where publishing corporations bring forth a new Bible every five or six years that is finally going to get us a little bit closer to the inerrant original autograph, but not quite, and they make merchandise out of her in the process. For example, when the RSV was brought out it was published by Thomas Nelson, when the NKJV was brought out it too was published by Thomas Nelson - two different texts based upon two different theories - but there is a lot of money to be made from Christians with itchy ears always searching for some new thing. Now we have an evangelical update to the RSV called the ESV, something else to buy that finally gets you a little bit closer, but not quite, and still no Authority. Modern Christians spout out "Sola Scriptura" but they don't have the faith of our Fathers and don't believe they have in their hands the actual inspired and infallible Word of God. They are ashamed of that type of thinking and culturally despise those that affirm it.

The primarily theological and Pastoral approach of our Protestant Fathers to preserve and propagate the Prophetic Word unto the Church, has been replaced with a non-theological, non-Pastoral and Profitable Word of unordained and unelected textual scholars. Prophet and Profit may sound the same, but they have radically different meanings, and like Christ we need to take whips into our hands and drive those from the Church of our God that turn it into a den of thieves.

The historic view and arguments concerning autographa and apographa in the Protestant scholastics is one of linguistic continuity, not verbal inerrancy. Muller explains it better than I:

“By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.” Richard Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2 - Holy Scripture the Cognitive Foundation of Theology, p. 433

Thus, your statements to Elder Rafalsky clearly indicate that while you may "prefer" the Received Text your thinking is presuppositionally standing upon the thinking of modern criticism. Its just that this thinking is not historically connected to the meaning of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation, it's a redefinition of the terms. I don't say that to be a judgment of you as you are probably unaware of the change, but just to inform you of that change.

An analogy that may put this into context and give you a frame of reference is the way in which the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been reinterpreted through the 14th Amendment and the federal government becomes a central government lording over the States. Hence, the meaning of the First Amendment has been turned "inside out" via the 14th Amendment.

Consistent with this analogy, the "inerrant original autograph" becomes the "14th Amendment" to Sola Scriptura and turns the doctrine inside out. The logical trap erected by Warfield in his "inerrant original autograph" hypothesis to confound the critics asserting errancy now traps Christians also searching for inerrancy - Sola Scriptura as a doctrine of Authority now has no meaning. Rome explicitly understood this because yielding to their position allows them to erect the Magisterium as Authority over Scripture. In legal teminology this is called a "negative pregnant," it's a very sophisticated and complex way of thinking using double negatives to assert a positive and it is this complexity that makes unraveling this mess so difficult.

Hence, I would not approach the issue of the Alexandrian text upon the same grounds that Elder Rafalsky is doing above because the issue has never been one of Authority of that text. In other words, the Alexandrian text never was asserted by our Protestant Fathers in terms of Sola Scriptura and has always been maintained as subordinate to the Church Magisterium as its Latin Translation ascended to priority within that Church over the Hebrew and Greek. Contrariwise, the Byzantine text of the Greek speaking Churches was always appealed to by the continual usage of that text as having Authority over the Latin Vulgate by those who spoke that language. Hence, the authentic and legitimate tradition identified by the Reformers and defended by the Protestant Orthodox following them is based upon the "canonicity" of the text. Thus, Providential Preservation is a doctrine of Authority of the text resting upon the doctrine of inspiration and infallibility of the Word maintained within the linguistic continuity of the authentic and legitimate tradition of the Greek speaking Churches, not one of verbal inerrancy.

Therefore, I follow Turretin and simply dismiss the Alexandrian text as not being a part of the authentic and legitimate tradition because of its descrepancies from it. It must be conformed to the Providentially Preserved text.

“Faithful and accurate copies, not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies...and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these, whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection except the discrepancy." Turretin, Doctrine of Scripture

Finally, your reference to Christ and the Apostles quoting the Septuagint is backwards - rather the Septuagint was reverse engineered to quote the New Testament. I think Elder Rafalsky has done some work there on PB, you may try searching for it as I don't know which thread it is in.

In conclusion, then, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation has always been a doctrine of Authority - not a doctrine of verbal inerrancy. It has never been one of pitting the autographa against the apographa. The radical shift at the beginning of the 20th century to the schools of thought within the text critical position is a heterdox aberration that undermines the Authority of Scripture in the name of Sola Scriptura.

I would point out, then, that denominations like the PCA and even my own, the OPC, have radically departed from the historic Reformed orthodox definition of Sola Scriptura and Providential Preservation. They need to be reformed.

Cordially,

Thomas

Hello Tim,

You will probably agree that pure faith and pure science are in perfect accord.

When Jesus says, in Matt 5:18, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” He is referring to the smallest of the Hebrew letters and parts thereof. Is this not talking of letters and words being kept from passing away, i.e., preserved?

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, said he found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to choose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word” [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)

* Owen’s Divine Original online. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever. And a strong case could be made for that position also. Besides the verse (Matt 5:18) mentioned above, there is also Matt 4:4: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Was the Lord indulging in hyperbole in that statement?

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek editions (the Hebrew is another discussion) used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, (to obtain contact Russ Spees <email@kjv-ibts.org>) are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer extant autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from the bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the recent entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.

But to return to the matter of the text.

Dr. Hills (who got his doctorate in text criticism at Harvard) writes concerning the matter of providential preservation (in Believing Bible Study, pp. 217, 218),

The Logic of Faith – Maximum Certainty

God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version.

In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clearness. Hence in New Testament textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But this circumstance does not in the least affect the fundamental certainty which we obtain from our confidence in God’s special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures. Through this believing approach to the New Testament text we gain maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty that we need. Embracing the common faith, we take our stand upon the Traditional Text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and acknowledge these texts to be trustworthy reproductions of the infallibly inspired original text. Admittedly there are some readings which remain undecided, but these are very few. For the special providential preservation of the Scriptures has kept this element of uncertainty down to a minimum.

Throughout Hills’ books he does take this stance, that in a very few instances there are small errors, or variants about which we do not have certainty. There are other KJVO defenders who will not allow even this minimal uncertainty. In this case Romans 7:6 is more of an issue (to me, at any rate) than 1 John 5:7. Concerning Romans 7:6 (one of the three instances he admits) Hills says concerning the readings,

that being dead wherein we were held, opposed to, being dead to that wherein we were held

that the latter phrase is the correct one, and this error was due to “Conjectural emendation by Beza; correct reading given by KJV translators in margin.” As I said, I am still looking into this.

Let’s look at this matter of certainty versus uncertainty for a moment. I have looked elsewhere at this portion from Pickering’s The Identity of the NT Text where he examines the evidence concerning the CT’s reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 compared to the TR’s (the former deletes “God” and the latter retains it):

The argument from statistical probability enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75, B text form for example). Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who." So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.

To do some numerical comparing of our own: the three phrases Hills says are errors (BBS, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent. Compare that with the variance between the Greek of the TR and the Greek of the Westcott and Hort text: 9,970 Greek words are changed. That is 7.095%. This would be equal to having the entire book of Romans (9,447 words) plus 2 and 3 John (and then some) thoroughly changed (usually the changes are omissions)! The uncertainty is 1,108.59 times greater in the Critical Text. (The word count for the TR is from D.A. Waite’s, Defending The King James Bible, p. xii)

This is what Hills means when he says we opt for maximum certainty instead of maximum uncertainty. I suppose technically you can say that sixty-four one thousandths of one percent is but a degree less than seven percent and ninety-four one hundredths of one percent, but the difference is immense. At any rate, this is a view concerning the degrees of difference.

But in light of the Lord’s saying that man should live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, for you to say it “borders on the fanatic” to hold to a “minutely preserved” text is a bit risky. And when He assures us that “His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3) this may easily include that by which we must live, that being His “every word”. So those who make the claim for a perfectly preserved text have warrant for their presupposition that He would fulfill His promises to do so. It is neither far-fetched nor fanatical, although it must indeed take into account the providential – the supernatural – working of the Almighty.

Since you mention it, would you mind showing me where Jesus quoted the Septuagint (as though the Jewish Messiah would speak in Greek to His rabbinic and Pharisaic enemies)?

According to the Presbyterian confession, is not the “high court of appeal” the Scripture in the original languages? From the WCF 1:8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them....

The Greek New Testament spoken of was the Textus Receptus of the Reformers. While what you say to Thomas concerning “confessional denominations” (and I would speak concerning the Reformed ones) is so, and there is a lack of unanimity as to what the genuine word of God is, the trickle-down effect of this is devastating the house of God.

What you say to Thomas re Catholicism, that “technically” they should be included among the “orthodox”: On what technicality can murderers of Christians – centuries worth of murders! – and heretics depriving vast multitudes of the true Gospel of Christ, be called “orthodox”? I know this last question is off topic, but you piqued my curiosity.

As I said, I am still looking into this.

And I can save you two lots of time and huge amounts writing on threads like this by pointing out, again, that Christ quoted both the Septuagint and Hebrew Scripture, which vary 100 times more than the TR does from some other texts used by modern translations. And that totally destroys the basic foundations of your argument. And without reams of writing. If you say God obligated Himself to preserve a text "minutely preserved" then Christ would have quoted from it and from no other.

Since you mention it, would you mind showing me where Jesus quoted the Septuagint (as though the Jewish Messiah would speak in Greek to His rabbinic and Pharisaic enemies)?

Friend, if you substitute Aramaic for Hebrew then that statement would indeed be both silly and ignorant. Do you honestly think that Christ only spoke in Hebrew? Christ speaking Aramaic is page one chapter one when you start learning these things, and what does that have to do with a "Jewish Messiah" anymore than speaking Greek?

But let's start this way. Do you doubt that Christ took quotes from the Septuagint text at times (into whatever language He translated it into) rather than the Hebrew?

And do you know why many churches, like many Eastern Orthodox, use the Septuagint in their Bibles, and even to translate Scripture into different languages, rather than the Hebrew text? Have you found something some of the greatest thinkers in history have missed?

Tim,

What I was looking into was Romans 7:6.

It was a simple request, "would you mind showing me where Jesus quoted the Septuagint"?

No doubt the Lord Jesus spoke Greek, and Aramaic was the language of the Jewish people at that time, while the language of the Temple and the synagogue was Hebrew (albeit the latter targumed into Aramaic).

But I wasn't talking about Aramaic; I was talking about Him using Greek (or a Greek version translated for that matter) to the Hebrew-speaking and reading scribes, Pharisees and priests.

You say, "But let's start this way. Do you doubt that Christ took quotes from the Septuagint text at times (into whatever language He translated it into) rather than the Hebrew?" Yes, I do doubt it. Please show me where.

Actually, it is mostly the Greek Orthodox who use the Septuagint as their OT, and I do know why they use it: they consider it superior to the Hebrew, even as they consider their language, church, and philosophy superior to all others. The Russian Orthodox use the Hebrew to translate their OT from, as it is the original language it was written in (for the most part).

Unless you can give me some examples of Jesus using the LXX, you are only begging the question, that is, assuming what you have yet to prove.

I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way, Tim. I have been trying to conduct this conversation in a scholarly yet friendly way.