Thread: History of KJV and TR

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Rich, it is not a matter of percentage per annum, but of whether the money should be put into that unsafe bank at all. Andrew, please let me know when the scholars have tracked down the ms. which we can all put our trust in. Blessings, gentlemen!

Honestly, I think you're engaging in sophistry here.

I guess I've always thought of the refining process as being under the governance of God's Providential hand. I believe, in history, He rescued His Church from years of darkness under a false Gospel. A Jesuit might fold his arms at me and state: "Do let me know when you discover a doctrine of Justification that you can settle on. We had one that was just fine for 1000 years."

If God can refine His Church and rescue her from a false understanding of Justification then He can certainly perfect His Word by exposing obvious errors to us that occured during the process of "settling" the text in the 17th Century.

Thus, do let me know when I can stop counting on God to be working all things together for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

If God can refine His Church and rescue her from a false understanding of Justification then He can certainly perfect His Word by exposing obvious errors to us that occured during the process of "settling" the text in the 17th Century.

I assert the Word of God IS perfect. Our Confession speaks of "the entire perfection thereof." I can't remember reading any reformed divine which thought of this as a process.

Rev. Winzer,

I don't want to argue with you on the perfection of Scripture. I believe God's Word is inspired and perfect.

I just have a hard time understanding how the Word of God existed for people who only had Mss. that were "imperfect" until the AV translators pulled them all together to produce it.

Were the Monks who read Sinaticus all those years able to trust that what they were reading was the Word of God?

I apologize for letting this degenerate on my part. I do hold you in high esteem and consider you to be a man of great integrity.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Were the Monks who read Sinaticus all those years able to trust that what they were reading was the Word of God?

They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket.

Blessings, Rich. You are a good brother.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket.

I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.

DTK

Originally Posted by DTK

I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.

Perhaps you haven't had to listen to some of the ignorant remarks I have been privy to. If so, you would understand my natural inclination to see your evaluation as classic over-exaggeration. Since the leisureliness of my statement appears offensive to you, I will retract it and replace it with a quotation -- quotations from authorities usually meet with academic approval.

I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked up by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 12]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Perhaps you haven't had to listen to some of the ignorant remarks I have been privy to. If so, you would understand my natural inclination to see your evaluation as classic over-exaggeration. Since the leisureliness of my statement appears offensive to you, I will retract it and replace it with a quotation -- quotations from authorities usually meet with academic approval.

I'm not interested in some of the ignorant remarks to which you've listened. It is excusable for a laymen to make such mistakes, but not for one who should know better, but is unwilling to investigate that claim beyond Burgon. Following the incident that Tischendorf observed of the burning of mss., Sinaiticus was discovered on his revisit to the monastery.

Bruce M. Metzger: In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catharine, hoping to acquire other portions of the same manuscript. The excitement which he had displayed on the occasion of his discovery during his first visit had made the monks cautious, and he could learn nothing further about the manuscript. In 1859 his travels took him back once more to Mount Sinai, this time under the patronage of the Czar of Russia, Alexander II. The day before he was scheduled to leave he presented to the steward of the monastery a copy of the edition of the Septuagint which he had recently published in Leipzig. Thereupon the steward remarked that he too had a copy of the Septuagint, and produced from a closet in his cell a manuscript (i.e., codex Sinaiticus) wrapped in a red cloth. There before the astonished scholar’s eyes lay the treasure which he had been longing to see. Concealing his feelings, Tischendorf casually asked permission to look at it further that evening. Permission was granted, and upon retiring to his room Tischendorf stayed up all night in the joy of studying the manuscript—for, as he declared in his diary (which as a scholar he kept in Latin), quipped dormire nefas videbatur (‘it really seemed a sacrilege to sleep’)! He soon found that the document contained much more than he had even hoped; for not only was most of the Old Testament there, but also the New Testament was intact and in excellent condition, with the addition of two early Christian works of the second century, the Epistle of Barnabas (previously known only through a very poor Latin translation) and a large portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, hitherto known only by title.
The next morning Tischendorf tried to buy the manuscript, but without success. Then he asked to be allowed to take it to Cairo to study; but the monk in charge of the altar plate objected, and so he had to leave without it. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 43-44.

You have tried to reduce Rich's honest questions directed to you as if they lead to doubt and confusion over both the text and canon, instead of engaging them in a meaningful way. I guess jokingly dismissing his inquiries is a sign of piety to you, but it has yet to offer him anything but you own bias for a particular text. Burgon was a very godly man, but his critical remarks for Tischendorf's discovery doesn't make for the best reporting of history. Sinaiticus was not recovered from a waste-paper basket, and yes I have his books on my shelf, but it doesn't mean that he got his "facts" right. And you would serve yourself well to look beyond Erasmus and Burgon, instead of trying to argue that Rich's faith in the text and canon of Holy Scripture lies in the hands of men.

You can do better than this.

DTK

DTK, Well either it is the most ignorant statement you have heard or it is not. The person making the statement should not influence the decision. The fact that the legend has a scholarly background should at least give you pause before making the outlandish claim. And even if it is mere legend, the rescue at the eleventh hour seemed to serve the purposes of the codex's advocates at the time, only for it to be discredited when it was turned against them.

This is a discussion board, DTK. Light remarks are part and parcel of discussion. I added the smiley to indicate it was a light remark. You will just have to accept it as such.

As for my approach to Rich, I have done the best I can in the limited time and scope of this forum. If you can do better, please be my guest to address the issue from the perspective of the reformed faith. I have never been inclined to listen to back seat drivers, they are a distraction; please be my guest and take the wheel.

This is a discussion board, DTK. Light remarks are part and parcel of discussion. I added the smiley to indicate it was a light remark. You will just have to accept it as such.

Yes, it is a discussion board that trafficks in holy things, and indeed there is often a place for light remarks. But in the context of rebuking a man as though his faith in Holy Scripture rests in the hands of men with nothing but his own personal bias, and then offer an ignorant remark about the discovery of Sinaiticus is incongruent.

As for my approach to Rich, I have done the best I can in the limited time and scope of this forum. If you can do better, please be my guest to address the issue from the perspective of the reformed faith. I have never been inclined to listen to back seat drivers, they are a distraction; please be my guest and take the wheel.

I did take the wheel and corrected your repetition of Burgon's error. I've never been inclined to listen to front seat drivers, especially when they don't know where they're going, or in this case, where they've been.

Cheers,
DTK

I would definitely agree with DTK here.

Personally, the best translation I have come across is the Geneva Bible (my personal preference), which was copied by the AV "translators" for almost 80% of the text without the Genevan notes (that and the Bishop's Bible of the day were used). 20% of the AV is translated, and definitely where we find some of the best translations of the Hebrew and Greek MSS to date.

I love the AV version, but love the GB more, aside from the original Hebrew or Greek texts.

However...

Rich is trying to have you answer the question as to "where you find" the Word of God you stand on.

You said, "I assert the Word of God IS perfect."

So does Rich.

You asked Rich, "Why do you believe John 3:16."

He is asking "Where do you find John 3:16?"

You said, "whether the money should be put into that unsafe bank at all."

Rich is asking where you get the information for "your bank."

You said, "If the standard is determined by men, it has no means of correcting men."

Rich knows that God determines the standards, but wants to know where to find it.

You said, "It is the nature of the writing, not its physical attributes which determines canonicity."

Rich wants to know how the nature of the writing is determined wihout physcial attributes of the writing itself.

You said, "We believe that the Lord gave the Word, and that exists in its own right independent of ms. evidence."

Rich is curious as to how this squares with: "and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

Rich is wondering where that "writing" is, the graphe?

The WCF states very clearly - "Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:" and then names them -

Rich is wondering where they looked to find them.

The WCF states, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Rich wants to know how they knew the difference between the Apocrypha and the writings of Scripture.

The WCF states, "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

Rich wants to know, since it does not rest on men, but on God, where God told him it was the word of God, and what he should recieve AS the word of God.

I enjoy the WCF here as well: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

Rich is curious as to what these divines could be talking about, or what they used (i.e. what MSS) to determined such excellencies, and perfections. The divines said that it is clearly EVIDENCED. What evidendce might they be talking about?

One might say "THE AV!"

Rich will ask where they got that.

One might say "GOD!"

One might ask, we know that but how did God give it to us, and where did they find it, and who found it, and how did they compile it.

Hopefully, at that point, one will not say "GOD!" again or "THE AV!" again.

Originally Posted by DTK

Yes, it is a discussion board that trafficks in holy things, and indeed there is often a place for light remarks. But in the context of rebuking a man as though his faith in Holy Scripture rests in the hands of men with nothing but his own personal bias, and then offer an ignorant remark about the discovery of Sinaiticus is incongruent.

That certainly wasn't my intention.

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Rich is trying to have you answer the question as to "where you find" the Word of God you stand on.

I omit the rest of your post as it makes no attempt to record the discussion either in order or in context. To answer this simple question, look up at the subject line. If that is all Rich were asking, I would have suggested he look up at the subject line too.

One thing I know -- both you and DTK have as little hope of proving that the Bible is the Word of God from crumbly old mss. as I do. That is why I insist that it should not even be attempted. I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!

I had to take care of a few things. I appreciate Revs. King and McMahon taking time here. I just want to say that, at no time did I feel Rev. Winzer was rebuking me. I consider him a friend. I do not share his conviction wrt to the AV but share his love and zeal for Christ.

Matt: That was an excellent summation of the issue.

I won't rehash by saying you are avoiding the question, so I'll ask -

"Which Bible tells you so?"

Originally Posted by armourbearer

One thing I know -- both you and DTK have as little hope of proving that the Bible is the Word of God from crumbly old mss. as I do. That is why I insist that it should not even be attempted. I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!

I don’t think any man can prove that the Bible is the Word of God. I think that the Bible is, as the Reformers and the Post-Reformation Reformed insisted, true in and of itself (autaletheia) trustworthy in and of itself (autopistis), because it is the word of the true and living God. And because it is the word of God, it is axiopistos (worthy of faith). This was not novel because it simply echoed the patristic consensus, who likewise recognized and submitted to the witness of God in Holy Scripture. If Scripture is trustworthy in and of itself, it stands in no need of any external authority, be it church or tradition, as witness to approve, endorse, validate, substantiate, or sanction its divine origin.

Here’s the difference, I suspect, between you and I. You look at all the manuscripts (we have some 5,000 or more today) and the subsequent variants, and you regard these as a threat to what you perceive to be the pure texts behind the AV. Your presupposition is based on a desire for no variation in any texts, without which you think we can have no certainty regarding the Bible. On the other hand, I do not believe that textual variations equal textual corruption. It is well known by students of the Bible that textual variations between the Hebrew text, the Septuagint (LXX), and copies of both existed in the days of our Lord. Yet, Jesus and the New Testament writers quote repeatedly from contemporary copies of both the extant Hebrew texts and translations of the Septuagint, never once calling into question the certainty, integrity, and adequacy of these copies to communicate infallibly the word of the true and living God. To suggest otherwise is to call into question the integrity of the New Testament witnesses themselves. Moreover, the preservation of the New Testament text (from the first century to our own day) has been shown many times over to possess the highest degree of accuracy in comparison to other ancient texts. Commenting on the phrase ‘as it is written,’ Roger Beckwith has pointed out:

The quotations are treated as having finality, and it is the contemporary text of the quotations which is treated in this way. Philo quotes from the Septuagint translation, as the New Testament often does and the Fathers regularly do, but when the Hebrew is quoted or reflected (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls and sometimes in the New Testament), there is nothing to suggest that anything other than contemporary manuscripts of the Hebrew is being used. Paraphrase, where paraphrase is employed, is evidently designed to draw out the most relevant implications of the passage quoted, and not to restore a more primitive form of the text. In all this, the practice of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament is like that of their Jewish contemporaries.
What this implies is that God’s ‘singular care and providence’ was understood to extend not just to the traditional form (or forms) of the original text, but even to standard and accepted translations of the text, such as the Septuagint. See Beckwith’s ‘Toward a Theology of the Biblical Text’ in Donald Lewis and Alister McGrath, eds., Doing Theology for the People of God: Studies in Honor of J.I. Packer (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), p 48.

Likewise, Roger Nicole has observed, “When the New Testament authors appealed to Scripture as the Word of God, it is not claimed that they viewed anything but the original communication as vested in full with divine inerrancy. Yet their willingness to make use of the LXX, in spite of its occasional defects, teaches the important lesson that the basic message which God purposed to deliver can be conveyed even through a translation, and that appeal can be made to a version insofar as it agrees with the original" (p. 143). See his ‘New Testament Use of the Old Testament,’ in Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 143. Bruce Metzger (who was the leading authority in the field of textual criticism) has pointed out that:

…the overwhelming majority of such variant readings involve inconsequential details, such as alternative spellings, order of words, and interchange of synonyms. In these cases, as well as in the relatively few instances involving the substance of the record, scholars apply the techniques of textual criticism in order to determine with more or less probability what the original wording was. In any event, no doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain. Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 2nd ed., enlarged (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), p. 281.

Your point is basically there can be no certainty apart from everyone using the AV as the standard text, and anything otherwise is laying one’s head down in a mess. Well, then, pray tell what is the standard German text, or the standard French text, or the standard Korean text? The language of the world isn’t restricted to English. Your point, as I’ve tried to argue, is not only ahistorical in contrast to the witness of the NT writers themselves, but ignores the richness of the great certainty to which the overall manuscript tradition testifies! As F. F. Bruce observed:

By the ‘singular care and providence’ of God, the text of Scripture has come down to us in such substantial purity that even the most uncritical edition of the Hebrew and Greek, or the most incompetent (or even the most tendentious) translation of such an edition, cannot effectively obscure its essential message or neutralize its saving power. F.F. Bruce’s remarks in the forward to Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973). See also the comments of Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), p. 185.

Your response to Rich is that, “I refuse to lay my head down in a mess,” which I paraphrase as “I refuse to deal with it.” It’s not helpful, and it certainly isn’t going to give someone like a Korean believer anywhere to pillow his faith against the critics of Holy Scripture.

Apparently, according to your view, God has only preserved his word pure for the English-speaking peoples of the world. Now, you certainly do not argue this, but it leaves no place, for example, for the Korean believer as noted above.

My preferred text for reading and study and from which I preach is the NKJV. But to use it does not require that I bury my head in the sand and ignore the richness of the vast evidence for the certainty of the NT text of Holy Scripture. In other words, I don't simply say, "I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!" as if, obliviously, my non-English speaking brethren can fend for themselves because I'm standing alone on the Word of God. No, one need not agree with you to know whence they came and where they're going.

I would suggest that, in the end, your argument is similar to that of the Romanist, because he likewise argues for a uniformity of agreement, and that otherwise there can be certainty.

Cheers,
DTK

Andrew,

Okay, we differ as to the first part of my statement, but what about the second:

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?

Ivan is right when he says there are threads here devoted to these questions, and which cover them quite thoroughly.

Is it solely Dr. White's testimony on which you are basing your certitude?

Steve

They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket.

I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.

Perhaps facts will throw a little light upon this. This subject was recently discussed on this board, and here are the two posts that I believe will settle the matter:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...39&postcount=3

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...54&postcount=4

On the first of these posts you will find a link to Tischendorf’s published account of the finding of Aleph.

Steve

---------

P.S. Rich, I will shortly endeavor to answer some of the questions you have posed.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Perhaps facts will throw a little light upon this. This subject was recently discussed on this board, and here are the two posts that I believe will settle the matter:

No, your interpretation of Tischendorf's testimony doesn't make it clear for me. You're welcome to your attempt to reconstruct what you think happened, but I don't buy it.

DTK

I recently did a lecture in which I critiqued some of the key arguements for the Traditional Text. For those interested, you can hear it at...

http://www.hpcministry.org/audio/traditionaltext2.mp3

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Andrew,

Okay, we differ as to the first part of my statement, but what about the second:

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?

Ivan is right when he says there are threads here devoted to these questions, and which cover them quite thoroughly.

Is it solely Dr. White's testimony on which you are basing your certitude?

Steve

To answer your questions: No Dr. White's testimony isn't the only one i listen to, there are others like Dr. John MacArthur. Here's what he says about the last verses Mark:

Originally Posted by John MacArthur

The external evidence stronly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark's gospel. While the majority of Greek manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not. A shorter ending also existed, but it is not included in the text. Further, some that include the passage note that it was missing from older greek manuscripts, while others have scribal marks indicating the passage was considered spurious. The fourth-century fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9-20.

David,

I won’t be dismissed so easily. It pays to look closely at the texts we are discussing.

Your quote of Metzger says what I have also said: “In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catharine, hoping to acquire other portions of the same manuscript.”

It was in fact part of a, the MSS Tischendorf first rescued from the flames, and he went back for the remainder (the value of which the monks now discerned), eventually with success.

What have I said (or Burgon, for that matter) that is at odds with Metzger’s own account?

Another thing: in post #56 you opined, “Jesus and the New Testament writers quote repeatedly from contemporary copies of both the extant Hebrew texts and translations of the Septuagint…” Would you kindly show me, David, where the Lord Jesus quotes from the Greek Old Testament (the LXX), thus speaking the Greek language in His discussions with either His opponents or His disciples? Unless you are saying He quoted the LXX but translated it back into Hebrew or Aramaic, the which I would also be interested in seeing an example of.

Steve

Rich,

I want to answer some of the things you have raised good questions about. I am only previewing it here in this post, as I have also to prepare two sermons for this weekend, plus help my wife do some yard-work. These are the areas I will set myself to answer, as briefly but cogently as I can:

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

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener 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?"

--------

“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?”

--------

“I just have a hard time understanding how the Word of God existed for people who only had Mss. that were "imperfect" until the AV translators pulled them all together to produce it.

Were the Monks who read Sinaticus all those years able to trust that what they were reading was the Word of God?”

These are all good questions, and as I have a different approach to defending the AV/1894 TR than Rev. Winzer, I will address them.

In Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform, they posit an important axiom:

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)

It is this orientation I always seek to operate in, and thus it is important (to my way of thinking) to give a clear understanding of textual history, knowing, of course, that a good part of it will be conjecture, as there are periods where we do not have sufficient data to arrive at conclusions based on facts, and thus we interpret the data we have. In the end (and beginning, truth be told) it is our presuppositions that guide how we interpret the data, some according to the dogma of a “neutral science,” and others according to the dogma of a providential preservation.

If you will be patient, I will seek to give good answers to your questions.

Steve

Originally Posted by armourbearer

They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket.

Blessings, Rich. You are a good brother.

One thing I know -- both you and DTK have as little hope of proving that the Bible is the Word of God from crumbly old mss. as I do. That is why I insist that it should not even be attempted. I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!

Amen! Amen! Amen!

Originally Posted by DTK
I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.


Yes, it is a discussion board that trafficks in holy things, and indeed there is often a place for light remarks. But in the context of rebuking a man as though his faith in Holy Scripture rests in the hands of men with nothing but his own personal bias, and then offer an ignorant remark about the discovery of Sinaiticus is incongruent.


I've never been inclined to listen to front seat drivers, especially when they don't know where they're going, or in this case, where they've been.

And your remarks are also some of the most ignorant and classless remarks I've read on here in a long time. Just because you don't agree with Rev. Winzer's stance gives you no right to jump in the thread and start making false claims about him. Rev. Winzer has just stated his position and answered questions. Don't blame him because you can't handle the answers!

I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.

Rich you said,

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

Yes, this is so.

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

Yes, that is accurate.

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?

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.

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 chose 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: http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p5.htm. 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 very strong case could be made for that position also.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), 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 existent 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 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.

I know I have wandered from the strict path of discussing the TR, Rich, but these thoughts are related.

To be continued.

Steve

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

"Which Bible tells you so?"

The AV, of course.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The AV, of course.

Originally Posted by DTK

Likewise, Roger Nicole has observed, “When the New Testament authors appealed to Scripture as the Word of God, it is not claimed that they viewed anything but the original communication as vested in full with divine inerrancy. Yet their willingness to make use of the LXX, in spite of its occasional defects, teaches the important lesson that the basic message which God purposed to deliver can be conveyed even through a translation, and that appeal can be made to a version insofar as it agrees with the original" (p. 143). See his ‘New Testament Use of the Old Testament,’ in Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 143. Bruce Metzger (who was the leading authority in the field of textual criticism) has pointed out that:

I think if one is going to concede to the "professional monopoly" of modern scholarship then they should be aware that modern scholarship barely believes there was any such thing as the LXX. Why are we at liberty to discard what they say about the Greek mss. of the OT, while we are bound hand and foot to their judgements on the Greek mss. of the NT?

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I believe it! Glad you dig the train o' thought.

Originally Posted by DTK

Apparently, according to your view, God has only preserved his word pure for the English-speaking peoples of the world. Now, you certainly do not argue this, but it leaves no place, for example, for the Korean believer as noted above.

DTK, You were far more competent driving the car from the back seat. Now that you have taken the wheel, you have crashed and burned. If you knew whence you came and whither you were going you would know the argument for the AV only pertains to English speaking peoples and that AV preferred advocates insist that the BIble is to be translated into the vulgar tongue of each nation.

The German, Dutch, French, Italian, and other languages all have their standard reformation Bibles. The Trinitarian Bible Society is doing tremendous work in providing the equivalent of the AV in other languages that have not been blessed with quality translations.

Originally Posted by DTK

I would suggest that, in the end, your argument is similar to that of the Romanist, because he likewise argues for a uniformity of agreement, and that otherwise there can be certainty.

Besides the fact that this statement is posted under the wrong thread, I can only respond that, in the end, your argument severs your theology from the "christendom" in which the reformers' theology was forged. The alomost anything goes approach, under a wide and open providence, was not their worldview.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Besides the fact that this statement is posted under the wrong thread, I can only respond that, in the end, your argument severs your theology from the "christendom" in which the reformers' theology was forged. The alomost anything goes approach, under a wide and open providence, was not their worldview.

Rich,

Your next 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?”

God preserved the true reading of the NT in the majority of mss. Great defenses of this position are made by the Majority Text people; I list three, Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont (their valuable Introduction has a link in one of my above posts); Wilbur N. Pickering, and his, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, and Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament:

http://web.archive.org/web/200304282...m/VanBrug.html.

One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings. Westcott and Hort tried to invalidate this clear numerical superiority by a theory of an official church edition in the 4th century which resulted in this 90% agreement of mss, and for a while the “church intelligencia” bought into their theory, but increasingly it was proven to be groundless speculation, and today is entirely debunked, save for those who are “not up to speed” in text critical matters.

So the priority of the Majority (or Byzantine) text remains, at least for some.

But the AV adherents go a step farther than the MT folks: they see God’s preservation of the Greek text not only in the Byzantine mss, but in the confluence of those and other sources which contained readings lost in the Byzantine, such as disappeared during the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, and the struggle against the Sabellians, in the 4th century, namely those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ.*

The AV folks hold that God, even though He had adequately (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. It was a matter of adequate preservation compared to preservation in the minutiae.

I refer to another post which discusses this in further detail: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...6&postcount=39

* see Frederick Nolan’s classic, AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEK VULGATE OR RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/cl.../inquiry0.html.

I am trying to be concise, and so I may not answer all your questions, and would be glad to if you state them further. This also is why I give links to resources, and to other posts.

To be continued.

Steve

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

I've never heard of a non Calvinist version of scripture. I suppose if there is a version out there that omits Romans 9, Ephesians 1 & 2, 1 Peter 1 etc. then you it could be called a non Calvinist version of Scripture. But if that were the case I wouldn't call it scripture at all.

Let me see...yep...my NASB has all those chapters.

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

I've never heard of a non Calvinist version of scripture. I suppose if there is a version out there that omits Romans 9, Ephesians 1 & 2, 1 Peter 1 etc. then you it could be called a non Calvinist version of Scripture. But if that were the case I wouldn't call it scripture at all.

Let me see...yep...my NASB has all those chapters.

Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.

Scott, that is right on target. How about this for a scenario? What if I told everyone I was looking for a new confession of faith, something more modern which speaks to the people of this generation in their own language. What's more, I would be happy if this confession of faith drew from the scholarship of all denominations -- liberal and conservative. How would everyone respond? Why should the response be so stern in relation to the confession of faith, the subordinate standard, buit not in relation to the translation of holy Scripture, the supreme standard. Blessings!