As I was listening to Dr. White's texual critiscism(I'm behind on the series) I heard him talk about the TR. Before I knew better, I was seeing about attending a Bible college(which by they way is very hostile toward calvinism) and they use the TR. So, here's a good article on the history of the translations of the TR and KJv, but mostly KJV.

http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm

__________________
Andrew Cunningham
From:Reno, NV Currently: San Deigo, Camp pendleton
Attending:seeking a church in San Diego area
"by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
"Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2

I always find it very odd that some use a good translation of the TR like the AV and are anti-Calvinist. It is a matter of history that a good number of the Anglican translators had Calvinist sympathies. You know I read Riplingers book New Age Bible Versions (yes, I admit it, my wife and I were on a trip it was raining we went into a B&N!) anyway Gail in reference to 5 point Calvinist refers to them as the FIVE POINTS OF A PENTAGRAM! OK. First her book was pro AV yet she seems blissfully unaware of the number of Calvinist who had a hand in its making. Dr. Robert L. Thomas (not a TR or AV man) in his wonderful little book "How to Choose a Bible Version" has a chapter on theological bias in translations, Dr. Thomas comments on the number of Calvinist renderins in the AV in that chapter. Wonder if Riplinger ever read that, or if she only reads her own stuff? A Riplinger Onlyist?!?!?!?

__________________
et

Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Lol, they should make the CV bible. Calvinist verison bible.

I have been back and forth on either ESV or NASB. I really like the ESV, but it's honestly not the version for me. So, I went back to my old NASB.

And which are the non-Calvinist versions of Scripture? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering.

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

My first port of call is to see how they render Gen. 4:7.

And which haven't passed mustard?

From memory, most of them suggest that there is a natural ability in man to master sin.

Now that's a problem.

I use the NKJV most of the time. I do like the KJV. I have used a number of different translation, but the NASB and the ESV basically round out the translations I have used to any great extent.

Do any of these transaltions, expect for the KJV, have the problem you stated above?

They all have the problem, the AV excepted.

Please excuse my misspelling. I'm on some pretty sassy cough syrup!

Still, the AV has some problems, does it not?

I like the AV because that is what I used for some 20 years of my life. It is the version that is memorized in my brain. The beauty of the text is unsurpassed.

The problem that is sometimes faced in a congregational worship service is that there are so many translations out among the congregants.

In my church the primary translation is the NKJV. I think I have one lady that has the NASB. Several of us like the ESV. However, I use the NKJV because all but one is using it.

I read a Psalm every Sunday to begin worship. Perhaps I'll use the AV for that.

The apostle Paul, in his presbyterial address at Miletus, warns the overseers of the church to watch against grievous wolves entering in and not sparing the flock. This applies as much to Bible translations as to verbal communications. The inherent grievance of doctrinal errors in a Bible translation consists in the fact that they are encapsulated in a volume which purports to be the living and abiding Word of God. Blessings!

Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake. But if you're trying to get at something else, please plainly say it, since i'm a man of a simple mind.

I see what you're saying about Gen. 4:7. I read it in several other versions and see the difference. I noticed the Geneva bible reads the same as the KJV.

__________________
Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
Members of Redeemer Church ARP, Blacksburg Va.
http://www.redeemerblacksburg.org/

Andrew, you say, "Brother, so are you stating that the KJV is superior to the rest of the translations? If this is the case, then you mistake."

Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "God was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?

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)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

I think there are some threads that deal with this issue.

That is it in a nutshell!

Was there any doubt?!

No!

I would say a Calvinist who undermines his own theology with a weak translation. Look at the Living Bible (yes, I know it is a paraphrase), the thing is horrible on many levels not the least of which would have been Ken Taylors "Arweenian" leanings he twists almost every verse so much I call it the FREE-WILLY version. Just look at it sometimes.

Forgive me for sounding stupid, but how does the translation of Gen. 4:7 reflect on a translation's worthiness?

__________________
Dan Martin
Pastor
Calvary Bible Church
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

"You are required to believe, to preach, and to teach what the Bible says is true, not what you want the Bible to say is true." R. C. Sproul

I think it shows that the translation is not made by "men of our profession," to borrow a phrase from the preface to the AV.

Call me stupid, too. I don't 'get it'.

FWIW, though, I find this thread fascinating. I'm thoroughly enjoying it and hope to see it develop more....

__________________
Chris Latch
Corinth MS
Crossroads church - SBC
Evangelism leader

I know this issue is sensitive and do not intend to step on any toes, but...

I really believe that the fact that we have to chose between multiple 'versions' of scripture today is detrimental to the church and to christians.

It is said that the differences between the faithful versions are small and are primarily a matter of wording as opposed to meaning, but if every word of God is pure, wouldn't we want to be able to hang on his every word, including the grammer and phrasing, instead of having to chose between several versions of his word that might sort of mean the same thing, but have sometimes completely different words.

Isn't it interesting that no one in the New Testament, when referring back to the Old, ever found the need to correct translation or copying errors in the versions of scripture their hearers were using? Why do we need to do so today then?

__________________
Mark
Independent baptist
Singapore

Let me ask a few questions of those more informed about the TR. I want to get past the dross on this issue because I'm trying to understand your position a bit better.

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authorative manuscript that translators should refer to.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scribner based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?

Is all of that immaterial against the idea that the Reformed Church ruled combined with the idea that God's hand of Providence ensured that the possibility for any human error by the AV translators in their manuscript choices was overcome?

Also, why would God wait until the 17th Century to determine the corpus of His perfect manuscript choices based on the decisions of English translators? The Textus Receptus as an authoratative "these are the critical texts" didn't exist prior to that by Church decree. Why an English translation?

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

The TR is not a ms, nor even a group of mss. It is a belief in the canonical principle. We do not approach mss with neutral minds. We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence. Textual critics are working with the evidence, and insofar as they adhere to their side of the fence then we are content to let them do their work. But especially since the 19th century they have encroached upon the work of the ministry, deeming it fit to pronounce what is and what is not the word of God. We must look again at the title deeds, map out the lay of the land, determine what is the province of the ministry and what the province of the critic, and kindly ask them to return to their own backyard. The word of God cannot be ascertained by counting and dating mss.

Rev. Winzer,

Do you have a Greek Text or not? If you do then what is the history behind how it was formed? That is what I'm asking.

Sir, if you are referring to the Recieved Text(which the KJV is derived from), then yes, I will stand on my charge that the KJV is not the superior version.

I understand what you are asking, Rich; but I reject the implication that the basis of my faith is dependent upon man's wisdom, art or industry, simply because there has been a process of rediscovery since the renaissance. You are urging me to start with the physical text, which obviously has a history, and can be quantified. Whereas I must start with the nature of the text as the living and abiding word of God.

This issue has nothing to do with mss. We possess mss. of non-canonical books. It is the nature of the writing, not its physical attributes which determines canonicity. Every argument used to support the canonicity of Mark likewise supports the inclusion of its last twelve verses. Blessings!

Sir, are you aware that you are a KJV only advocate. You state:

Is this ignorance? Now, please correct me if i'm wrong, but "ms" means manuscript right? If so, to say that God's Word exists independent of ms. evidence is to cover your eyes and plug your ears.

Yes, I do believe God has preserved His Word through the ages, but at the same time He used us, as vessels, to pass down His Word from generation to generation. Now is the time, if ever, to be critical about texts we have. We have so many manuscripts; and with lots of prayer, I believe God has improved the English translations through the older manuscripts that we have now today then they did in the 17th century.

OK, will someone who is willing to answer my question without the conviction that they are betraying God by doing so, answer the question: what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?

Andrew,

Let's not get bogged down here. Rev Winzer knows he is only an advocate of the AV. The rest of us know that too.

No. Are you aware of the difference between KJV only and KJV preferred? I believe it is faith to be able to identify the Word of God, and faithfulness to adhere to it. You may as well tell me that I can live with a faulty confession as a faulty Bible.

On the basis of this theory we have no supreme standard of faith. If the standard is determined by men, it has no means of correcting men.

Rich, are you willing to go back a few steps further. Why do you believe John 3:16. Had you even heard of the idea of traditional and critical texts before you believed it?

Brother, you would have to do research on such things as "The majority text" and the "alexandrian text."

Here's a good site that talks about many translations and greek texts:

http://www.bible-researcher.com

Brother, that's not the issue here. God's sovreignty and textual criticism are to seperate areas. First and foremost, God will save people through the message of the gospel. Secondly, once saved, we have the liberty to choose a translation. Knowing the source of the translation is something, I believe, is a must for every believer and criticising texts, used by certain translations is hard, I will admit I know little compared to others, but the time and research spent into this has been a blessing to me; knowing that the translation I picked is accurate, rather then "thoughtful". (I'm saying that literal translations are a must and though-for-thought translations, or "equivalent dynamics", need to be done away with.)

Andrew,

I think Rich is well informed on textual issues...I think that he is merely drawing out why men such as Rev. Winzer and myself and brother Rafalsky hold to the TR...which both of these men are more qualified, and tend to have more time than I do to discuss. Otherwise, I might jump into this rehash of 100,000 previous threads.

__________________
soli Deo gloria!
~Nicholas~ Ordained Pastor
Member, Fulton PCA; GPTS Student
Christians are like snow covered dung; it is the purity of the covering which the Father sees. -Luther-
There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.
-Francis Schaeffer-

This is precisely the issue; and God's sovereignty is as much regulative of the text of Scripture as any other area of life. I do not buy into this Thomistic idea that scholarship moves on neutral ground, which is neither here nor there to faith.

You count and date mss. today which leads you to accept a certain text of Scripture. Those mss. probably only account for about 1/1000th of the total mss. that have been created over the centuries. What would you do in a years time if a mass of scholars told you they had discovered another 2/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is precisely 9/10ths of what you had accepted as Scripture. Then in two years time they discover another 5/1000th of mss. evidence, and it indicates that the NT is merely 8/10ths, and so on and so forth. And what if it so happens that of the newly edited NT, it turned out there was no ms. evidence for the doctrine of the Deity of Christ? Would you be somewhat suspicious of the so-called "assured results" of scholarship then?

Brother, the reality of it is that we do have mss. God has preserved His word. There are no "what ifs" but rather there is reality. Therefore, we, as human beings, and guidance from God, can only conclude what mss are more accurate by comparing them to other mss. Alot of the mss are consistent with one another in what they say, but there are some out there that we must disregard because of the nonsense that is on them. For example, some of the mss contain Gnostic writings. Would you want Gnostic writings in your bible? That's why we must be critical about certain manuscripts.

I have two issues with the above:

1. The hypothetical that paints the doomsday scenario. In the four centuries since the AV1611 came out we have far, far less than 10% of the text that has been challenged as being original. Your argument produces the "shock and awe" that it is intended to produce: Every 2 years the text changes by 10%?! Run for the hills!

2. You are perfectly willing to talk about how modern scholarship is messing up the process of how the selected texts but you be-knight the process that people used in the 17th Century and place it beyond discussion and above reproach. You won't even discuss the issue of whether a parallel corruption might have occured and whether Erasmus might have erred in a few choices he made.

You see, I'm willing to grant that I don't buy all the scientific arguments that say that "we know this to be true because 9 times out of 10 this error occurs". I don't want to turn the process over to scientists either.

I just find a bit of unwillingness for the TR folk to look in their back yard and see if the "scientific" method that translators made way back when were dubious or not. They act as if this generation is the first to make mistakes.