Why do KJ Only adherents say the new translations "leave out" many words and subsequently the doctrines? Why is it said to be the TR is reliable and not Westcott and Hort? What is the beef with W&H?

And, from a scholarly point of view, why are all translations now based on W&H? Is it superior to the TR?

When you hear some of these arguments it gets you thinking. For example why is "Lord Jesus" removed in modern translations (thief on the cross and in other places), and only "Jesus" is left?

Is it because the W&H manuscripts are older and believed to be more reliable? Does W&H not have "Lord" in their manuscripts? If they do, why is it left out in translation?

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

The NKJV is not based on the Critical Text (which strictly speaking is not exactly the same as W-H, but similar) but on the Textus Receptus. The KJVO hardliners have problems with the NKJV because it notes the Critical Text renderings in the margin. The NASB, while based on the CT has actually moved toward TR renderings in some cases over the years since it first appeared.

KJVO and TR only advocates accuse the CT of gnostic influence, but I've never seen any evidence offered for this, only assertions.

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

The majority of KJV only people believe that the Wescott and Hort exts are erroneous because they read a pamphlet from the pamphlet rack at church that said that it was.

They feel comfortable with the fact that the TR is derived from from manuscroipts derived from the stream of texts that comprise the Majority Text. Wescott and Hort felt that the older manuscripts would best reflect the original manuscripts and were very critical of the TR because it was derived from only a handful of manuscripts. (Erasmus used what was availiable to him.)

Two very old manuscripts were discovered toward the end of the 19th century. They were the oldest manuscripts discovered to date and Wescott and Hort used them as the basis for their Greek NT. They differed from one another considerably and differed from the majority even more.

Advocates of the TR question this late finding, wondering why, considering God has promised to preserve His Word, he would wait 1800 years after its writing before allowing us to discover the most accurate translations. Many translations have been derived from Erasmus' Greek NT and it is obvious that the church flourished under versions such as the KJV or the Geneva etc.

In regard to the words Lord Jesus, one of the debates of textual criticism is whether or not to prefer the longer or shorter reading. Some prefer the longer reading, believing that over time it would be more likely that words would be ommitted rather than added. Others prefer the shorter reading, adding that scribes may have been tempted to add words of clarification as a means of combatting heresy.

For example, the TR contains the passage that is translated: " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." The words conveying the naming of the Persons of the Trinity occur only in a very few very late manuscripts. All but a very few TR textual crictics believe the words are most likely spurious, added by a scribe as a combat against heresy. The KJV and the NKJV contain the phrase, but most newer translation do not.

There are other arguments cited as well.

Bob

__________________
Bob Leverton
Elder, Faith Baptist Church
Family Blog: http://levertonfamily.blogspot.com/

I don't think the statement about reading pamphlets is within the spirit of Christian discussion. Fideism is involved on all sides of this issue. The very idea of counting texts, or trusting to older texts, contains assumptions which require to be tested.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

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

The assumption is always that scribes added to the texts. Assuming they are honest, wouldn't it be more likely they accidently missed something then accidently put something in. Or if they are frauds, shouldn't Christians assume that orthodox Christians would be pious enough not to lie and to corrupt God's word and that heretics would be the ones to corrupt the texts. Especially since most of the sources of the CT came from the East, esp Alexandria where Christological errors flourished most notably Arianism.

__________________
*Peter Gray* Elkins Park RPCNA

"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. " Mk 9:24
"The greatest thing we can desire, next to the glory of God, is our own salvation; and the sweetest thing we can desire is the assurance of our salvation. In this life we cannot get higher than to be assured of that which in the next life is to be enjoyed. All saints shall enjoy a heaven when they leave this earth; some saints enjoy a heaven while they are here on earth." Joseph Caryl

Peter, good questions. I would answer in the affirmative. Which is why I hold to the so-called conflated traditional text.

I don't know if this will help, but there's been some argument out there that Westcott and Hort were involved with a spiritist/theosophist name Madame Blavatsky. There was a book put out by Chick that makes this accusation. I'm not sure to trust this, considering that Jack Chick has a habit of going way over the top on his charges against whom he disagrees with.

BTW, I hope that by me providing this information, we don't take this off on a wild and wacky tangent.

__________________
No one needs to really know who I am or where I go to church or what I believe in now. None of this is relevant because I am no longer affiliated with this messaging board.

If I offended anyone by my remark: "The majority of KJV only people believe that the Wescott and Hort texts are erroneous because they read a pamphlet from the pamphlet rack at church that said that it was.", I apolgize. It was not my intent to slight anybody by it.

I grew up within the context of a KJV only church and I have learned that many of the people that I have discussed these things have no knowledge of the issues except for the various KJV only publications they have been given by their pastors. In many cases, such selective training has been the only training that their pastors have received on the issue. Perhaps I should not have identified such a class as simply "the majority", but rather prefaced this majority as describing those within my limited experience.

When I am asked to either defend my view of why I use other versions in addition to the KJV or am asked my opinion on the subject, the first thing I try to do is to determine if I speaking with someone who is interested in discussing the points of textual criticism or whether I am speaking with one whom Doug Wilson described as a "glassy eyed King James defender" who are convinced that any translation besides the KJV is a "perversion."

I appreciate the rebuke and acknowledge that our speech should always be with grace. I am always grateful for those who are willing to judge the tenor of a response and to issue a word of rebuke. In this case, I think you may have misjudged my intent. But I do apologize if I offended you. It was not my desire to.

In Christ,

Bob

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by bob]

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by bob]

It's consistent to view modern translations that use the eclectic (meaning: selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources) text and the eclectic text method as invalid along with dynamic (meaning: continuous change, activity, or progress) equivalence (meaning: the state or condition of being equivalent; equality) which offer a 'meaning' as opposed to a translation.

The word itself is miss leading, dynamic means always moving/shifting and equivalence means the same. How can something be both?

For enjoyment only!

Quote:

Picture this:

Elder Dim Whit, "œWelcome everybody to the Truth of Truth Ministry´s weekly Bible study. Thanks for being here. I´m stoked. Our passage to study tonight is John 11:35 Jesus wept. Let´s see what we can learn from this passage. Who wants to go first?"�

Bob, "œWell, my New English Common Vernacular version doesn´t read Jesus wept but that "œJesus groaned."�

Mary, "œInteresting, you know the Greek word there for wept is "˜awahuu´ "“ I got this from Nestle."�

Bill, "œWow, profound!"�

Bob, "œBut my version, The "œNewest English Super Common Version"� says grunt."�

Jack, "œYou mean Jesus grunted?!?!"�

Mike: "œMy new "œAuthentic Expository Rendition"� matches Vaticanus! And didn´t they find this great manuscript in trash can in the Vatican library?

AVBunyan: "œYes, they did "“ maybe they should have left it there."�

Harry, "œI have a Greek lexicon from the 4th century Syrian that says the word for wept is really, "˜awahooie´ which makes a major difference in the phrasing! Wow, I get so excited when I use the Greek "“ makes me feel, well, just enlightened like an angel of light!"�

Elder Dim Whit, "œI can see this is going to be a very uplifting night. Nothing like some real dynamic equivalent renderings using the aros tense of the subjective superlative!"�

Bill, "œHarry, where did you learn Greek?"�

Harry, "œI don´t really know Greek I just read it in Zodiates book, "œHow to Master Greek in 30 Days."�

Martha, "œWell, I have a Greek lexicon from the 14th Century revision of the Lollard #3 and the word wept can also be translated moaned."�

Martha, "œYou have to understand the trials and tribulations for the times for without this information you can´t enter into the emotional congatative condiveness of the sureality."�

AV, "œWhat am I missing here "“ we are only talking about two words."�

Harry, "œHush, AV, you´ve got a bad attitude! What about all those poor people before 1611?"�

Elder Dim Whit, "œHush, AV you are not exhibiting the sweet spirit of the Christ here. Also, what about all those people in other countries who can´t even speak English?
Now let´s get back to our Bible study. Who has some more nuggets on, Jesus wept?"�

Mr. Brilliant, "œMy new updated "˜Antioch Gratulative Retention Bible´ speaks of the word wept being in the past tense conjegative thus meaning that Jesus was weeping before he ever got there. This really touched my heart."�

Mary, "œOh, I feel my life is now completely changed based upon that nugget "“ thanks Mr. Brilliant."�

Mr. Brilliant, "œBy the way my new version is special for the translators of this great work translated it so there are no words with less than 9 letters long so as to bring out the most demonstrative and subjectivelatuative meaning of the words thus enabling me to get all that can be gotten from the most complicated renderings thus making me even more brilliant in the eyes of unenlightened believers."�

Harry, "œI still think we need to examine the different 3rd century renditions of the Greek word "˜awahooe´ so we can see how other Greek writers used the word so we can determine the most reliable and effective use of the word for the most authentic rendering of the verse thus pulling from it all the vast riches of this profound word "˜awahooe´.

AV, "œBut how do you decide who is right?"�

Mike, "œAV, you are so narrow-minded! How can you read a Bible with Easter in it anyway?"�

Nancy, "œHow do we even know John 11:35 was really in the originals?"�

Neal, "œI found a scholar who read of a professor who talked with his gardener who knew an archeologists who was able to gaze upon the famous fragment P734075439.479 1/2 from the collection over in Dead Sea Visitor´s Center, oh I mean the "˜Dead Sea Museum of Ancient Artifacts´ and he says it is there."�

Nancy, "œWow, could the archeologists read Greek?"�

Neal, "œNo, but the janitor could and he told him that P734075439.479 1/2 contained the verse as it stands in many of the modern versions."�

Elder Dim Whit, "œWell, that is great "“ I think we can call this Bible study a great success. Let´s meet next week so we can have some time to digest these great truths. Then we will be prepared to really dig into John 11:35 verse using all the modern tools and resources available."�

Mary, "œYou are not coming next week are you AV?"�

AV, "œNo, I think I´ll just stay home and watch some Captain Kangaroo reruns, thank you for asking and for being so thoughtful."�

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Hard Knox]

_______________________

Here's an interesting link: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Hard Knox]

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

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

"The King James Bible is ALWAYS right."

"...the apostates Westcott and Hort..."

No thanks. There are compelling defenses of the Byzantine text, TR, Ecclesiastical Text, etc. out there but this ain't one of them.

Why do the newer translations in Isaiah 14 call Lucifer the morning star or day star? That is blasphamous.

__________________
Steve W
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia (Attending)
"All that the Father gives me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out." John 6:37

Steve,

The King James and New King Jame translate the phrase "son of the morning". The phrase refers to the morning star that goes before the sun. It is most likely a reference to Venus.

Interestingly, some commentators, often surmised that the reference was a metaphor used to described a Babylonian king, either Nebuchadnezzar or Belteshazzar, not referring to Satan at all.

The word Lucifer actually was a Latin word that means "Morning Star". It was often used to referred to kings and dignarities. Jerome, when compiling the Scriptures into what was named the Vulgate, took the Hebrew term and translated the word as Lucifer.

I don't believe there is any sinister design in the modern translation's usage of the phrase.

Bob

It is noteworthy how few people are familiar with the works which examine the alleged “most reliable and early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses” that the Critical Text (CT) is based upon, which latter derives in the main from the Westcott and Hort (W&H) Greek text of 1881.

The quote above is from the margin note found in the NIV, and meant to indicate the spuriousness of Mark 16:9-20. The margin notes in the NASB and ESV are similar and to the same effect, the CT being the Greek they are also based upon.

The primary, and almost exclusive “ancient witnesses” that omit these 12 verses are codices Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (a) or aleph, after the first Hebrew letter, both of Alexandrian origin. Without looking at their origins in detail at this time, they were very likely Egyptian manuscripts modified by Origen, or at least accepted by him, and made into the official NT text by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339) when Constantine requested 50 Bibles of him, due to the scarcity of Scripture after the destruction of churches, Bibles, and believers in the reign of Diocletian and his 10 years of horrific persecution (302-312). The fierce conflict in the days of Eusebius between the orthodox Christians and the Arians and Sabellians led to the manuscripts being tampered with for doctrinal reasons, as has been documented.

More to the point for the purposes of this thread is how these two manuscripts were resurrected from obscurity into places of prominence in the 19th century, and what the characters of each are.

Herman C. Hoskier was a textual scholar of the Greek New Testament who minutely examined and then opposed Westcott and Hort’s principal texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in a two-volume study. The first is titled, Codex B And Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment; the second volume, which we will quote from here, is titled, Codex B And Its Allies, Part II: Chiefly concerning a, but covering three thousand differences between and a and B in the Four Gospels, with the evidence supporting each side, including the new manuscript evidence collected by VON SODEN, and the collateral readings of other important authorities.(1) Hoskier states,

In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in the future that either a or B represents any form of “Neutral” text…

Our little study [after the examination of B in Volume I] would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of a. This is best shown by exhibiting the principal places where a and B differ, which, in number, far exceed what anyone might suppose who does not go deeply into the comparative study of the two documents. As a matter of fact the “shorter” text of the two is found in a …

I have tabulated the major part of these differences between a and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities on each side. They amount to—

Matt. . . . 656+
Mark . . . 567+
Luke . . . 791+
John . . . 1022+
Total . . . 3036+ (2)

Hoskier’s study continues on for 381 pages of documentation (412 including a Scriptural index), if anyone is interested in pursuing a comparative examination of a and B, the foundation of W&H’s critical text.
----------
(1) Codex B And Its Allies, by Herman C. Hoskier (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914).
(2) Ibid., Vol. II, page 1.
-----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such unreliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority. Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

a was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. Vaticanus has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many people that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: Vaticanus. But it well suited W&H, who loved Rome, and despised the “evangelicals” of their own day, and the Traditional Text they used to preach with power.

As concerns Mark 16:9-20, it is odd that it is almost exclusively these two MSS. that omit the verses, which almost all other uncials, miniscules, and lectionaries retain. What gives these two MSS. such weight over all others? W&H developed a theory to support their prized MSS., but it has been demonstrated to be devoid of any historical attestation whatsoever. It is mere conjecture, which I am asked to assent to, and to ignore voluminous evidences – both historical and textual – to the contrary.

Nor would I allow either of these two men, Westcott or Hort, despite their ecclesiastical “attainments,” to preach or teach in the church I serve, seeing as they were heretics and reprobates, both in belief and in conduct, which assertions are documented. I find there is much secular attestation, beside the testimony of their sons in their respective unabridged biographies of their fathers, to their spiritualism.

In a book, a former president of The Society For Psychical Research acknowledged its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” formed by Westcott and Hort:

Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society. ([i]The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History[i], by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.)

I could go on with documentation of their unbelief in the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis (and affirming solidarity with Charles Darwin and his theory), and other evidences of their unregenerate state. (To deny the historicity of Genesis, is to deny the Fall, the sinful condition of the human race, the need for an atoning sacrifice, etc etc.) That they fiercely demanded the presence of a notorious Unitarian on their revision committee , Dr. Vance Smith (who later published, gloatingly, of the textual damage done regarding the deity of Jesus Christ in the revision), indicating they considered him a brother Christian nonetheless, says something about their hearts.

Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.

I know I have not stuck strictly to the question at hand, but what has happened to the Biblical text is a phenomenon of many dimensions, and I wanted to cover more than one area, even if only with broad strokes.

I am working on a paper, perhaps 60 pages long, rendering these things in detail, thoroughly researched and documented. It is available in its present rough draft in pdf format (so as to keep the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek fonts, which not all Word documents will, I have learned), if anyone is interested. In return, I would appreciate any comments and criticisms you might have. I do affirm the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, sort of as the final fruition of all the preceding historical and textual detective-work.

For sort of an overview of these matters (and I am in accord with him on much of his historical views and research) I recommend David Cloud’s Examining “The King James Only Controversy” (by James White), which entire book of Cloud’s is available online, and quite well done. Perhaps needless to say, I am a vigorous and relentless opponent of Cloud’s anti-Calvinist views, but that is a different battle, and I deem it secondary to the defense of Scripture, although it must indeed be fought!

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)

Because that is the literal translation of the passage, and it is even the margin in the KJV. The term lucifer comes from the Vulgate. See here and here. The NKJV margin says "Lit. Day Star".

The note here at the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible says that "The longstanding interpretation that this passage refers to the fall of Satan is incorrect. The context clearly indicates that Isaiah was speaking of the king of Assyria. Compare the similar description of the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28."

But I guess if it says Lucifer in the KJV it HAS to be correct, right? Correct the Hebrew with the English?

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Pilgrim]

Thinking out loud: I wonder if the rerelease of an updated Geneva Bible will affect KJVOism within the Reformed camp.

Probably just affect GenevaBibleOnlyism.

Was the Geneva a translation from the TR family?

Yes.

Plus, there is the Modern King James Version and the 21st Century King James Version.

[Edited on 7-2-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"On land, at sea, at home, abroad, / I smoke my pipe and worship God." -- J.S. Bach