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

Originally posted by Pilgrim
From what I recall, they sort of gave it a mixed review. Didn't say it was terrible, but they had some concerns.

Am I correct in thinking that the TBS still mainly recommends the AV but doesn't think that it couldn't be updated and/or improved upon?

Yep, that is a good summary, as I recall (I don't have the tract I referred to earlier handy but I am looking at The Holy Bible New King James Version, TBS article no. 71 currently). They don't object, for example, to the principle of revising the KJV as was done in 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769, and they are not opposed to the NKJV's replacement of archaic words. But they object to a number of renderings which they think go beyond such a revision and affect theological and textual precision.

It is helpful to distinguish the ecclesiastical or traditional text which underlies the AV from the majority text which underlies the NKJV.

Originally posted by armourbearer
It is helpful to distinguish the ecclesiastical or traditional text which underlies the AV from the majority text which underlies the NKJV.

While the NKJV is usually the version of choice for Majority Text (MT) advocates, the NKJV New Testament it is actually based on the Textus Receptus (traditional text), not the MT. However some TR/KJV advocates question some specific renderings and I think that was a major part of the TBS criticism, that the revision of the AV at times went too far. Perhaps the most common objection from traditional text advocates is the NKJV's textual footnotes that make note of Critical text and Majority text variants.

There is no major translation that is based on the Majority Text of either Farstad-Hodges or Pierpont-Robinson. The Holman Christian Standard Bible was originally under the oversight of Dr. Farstad, but shortly before his death he sold the rights to Holman, who subsequently changed the textual basis to the CT.

From the NKJV Preface:

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.

On the textual notes:

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in "The New Testament Text." They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies´ third edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text."

2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in "The New Testament Text." It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

I wouldn't take their word for it.

1. It is not a fifth revision of the AV so far as translation is concerned.

2. I have found multiple places where the Majority Text is chosen over the Textus Receptus in the body of the work itself. One recent example I came across is 2 Pet. 1:1, which I will provide as an example as it is still fresh in memory.

NIV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
NKJV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
AV: of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

This is not merely a translation option, although the choice to go with the NIV over the AV in many cases demonstrates it is not a revision of the AV. This is a choice to translate a different Greek text.

Originally posted by armourbearer
I wouldn't take their word for it.

1. It is not a fifth revision of the AV so far as translation is concerned.

2. I have found multiple places where the Majority Text is chosen over the Textus Receptus in the body of the work itself. One recent example I came across is 2 Pet. 1:1, which I will provide as an example as it is still fresh in memory.

NIV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
NKJV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
AV: of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

This is not merely a translation option, although the choice to go with the NIV over the AV in many cases demonstrates it is not a revision of the AV. This is a choice to translate a different Greek text.

Many if not most people on both sides would probably agree that the NKJV really isn't a "fifth revision" as is claimed.

But 2 Pet. 1:1 does not seem to be a textual variant. The question is, why did the AV translators render it the way they did since other traditional text versions render it the way the NKJV and (horror of horrors!) the NIV do:

1611 KJV:

Simon Peter, a seruant & an Apostle of Iesus Christ, to them that haue obtained like precious Faith with vs, through the righteousnes of God, and our Sauiour Iesus Christ

The 1769 AV that I have has this as a marginal note at 2 Pet. 1:1

Gk. of our God and Saviour

Geneva Bible (1567):

Simon Peter a seruant and an Apostle of Iesus Christ, to you which haue obteined like precious faith with vs by the righteousnesse of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ:

Bishop's Bible (1568)

Simon Peter, a seruaunt and an Apostle of Iesus Christe, to them which haue obteined lyke precious faith with vs, thorowe the ryghteousnes of our god and sauiour Iesus Christe:

Coverdale (1535)

Symon Peter a seruaut and an Apostle of Iesus Christ.Vnto the which haue optayned like faith with vs in the righteousnes that commeth of oure God, and Sauioure Iesus Christ.

Tyndale 1526

Simon Peter a seruaunt and an Apostle of Iesus Christ to them which have obtayned lyke precious fayth with vs in the rightewesnes that commeth of oure God and savioure Iesus Christ.

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

Matthew,
Perhaps you can share some of your labors with that verse.
The NIV and NKJV renderings are the marginal AV: Gr. "of our God and Saviour". I could be misreading this, but for some reason (and perhaps not strictly textual) the AV seems to have gone for "the righteousness of God," as a single phrase, instead of following, say, Granville-Sharpe. How do you read this and the later choices? Improvement or not?

Not having consulted the other reformation versions I am happy to concede that the NKJV rendering is not a textual variant in this instance.

I should point out that I personally have no difficulties with variants, holding closer to Dabney's view. My difficulty is solely with the claim made by the NKJV.

Also, personally, I don't mind either rendering, although AV is more properly king's English. If the whole phrase is to be taken together "our" should stand with the second noun not the first.

At any rate, don't trust the claim of the NKJV preface.

Does Sharp rule still rule? I would have thought the stylistic variationists would have won the day by now?

As far as can be seen, the texts are identical:

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆ�ος Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ

[Edited on 7/4/2006 by fredtgreco]

Don't ask me the whys or wherefores, but my TBS Greek Testament prints hemon after theou and soteros. However, just having looked it up in the online Bible it apprently isn't in the Byz or TR. My leaning would be towards the TBS, but can't explain why there is a variation here.

I find the same thing as armourbearer in Scrivener's TR (which is what TBS uses).

Which reminds me that i still don't know which TR the NKJV uses in their translation.

No mention is made in the NKJV preface of what TR they used, but according to a few things I've been able to turn up on the internet it seems they used Scrivener's 1894 TR.

After realising that Online Bible's TR and BYZ differed from my TBS, I can see that my earlier comment about the NKJV using a different text can now be reduced to the fact that there are different Texti Recepti.

So I retract my earlier statement.

Originally posted by larryjf
I find the same thing as armourbearer in Scrivener's TR (which is what TBS uses).

Which reminds me that i still don't know which TR the NKJV uses in their translation.

Here is the Scriviner's:

τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆ�ος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ

I went to the Online Bible download page, and it claims that its TR is Scrivener's 1894. So I am assuming that the TR itself is pure, but the digital version is incorrect. In which case, there is a genuine discrepancy between the TR (true) and Byz Majority Text at 2 Pet. 1:1.

The AV is undoubtedly using TR, which only has hemon qualifying soteros (presuming they opted to only qualify the second noun in translation because that identifies the two nouns as one). All other versions (including some reformation versions) appear to be following the Majority reading, which only has hemon qualifying theou.

Thoughts?

I noticed the differences in English versions of 2 Peter 1:1 a couple of weeks ago when I preached on the passage, and my interest was piqued as I followed this discussion. Although I am away from my library, I was briefly in my home city yesterday and picked up some books. Here is what I have discovered:

The Englishman's Greek New Testament, which uses the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, omits ἡμῶν as a qualifier of σωτῆρος, while noting in the apparatus that Elzevir's Greek Text of 1624 has it.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition containing F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902) contains the full τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In the Preface this TBS edition says,

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation--"Textum ergo habes,, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].

In Scrivener’s book, The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), in “Appendix E. The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament, Section II. Passages wherein the text of the Authorized Version agrees with Beza 1589 and 1598) against Stephen (1550),” as regards 2 Peter 1:1, he notes, “Beza 1565—98 adds ἡμῶν after σωτῆρος.”

Thus it is evident that the Greek text adopted by the 1611 translators in this instance was that of Beza’s, which the Elzevir edition of 1624 conforms to. In England (so says the Introduction of The Englishman's Greek New Testament) “the Greek Text of Stephens 1550…is the common text in this country…”, even though the final text of the 1611 was a text refined by Beza (at points) and accepted as true by the translators.

There are many interesting studies regarding just these sorts of issues reprinted by the Fundamentalist Baptists, and available from Dr. D.A. Waite’s The Bible for Today ministries.

---------


On another matter I saw in this thread, regarding Isaiah 14:12 and the Lucifer/morning star/son of the morning controversy, I found none of my commentators affirming Lucifer in the translation from the Hebrew, although I came across this interesting remark from Herman Hoeksema in His commentary on Revelation, Behold He Cometh (I give the online book here, as I don’t have the hardcopy with me: http://spindleworks.com/library/hoeksma/intro.htm), when he deals with Revelation 12:

What may be meant by his drawing of the stars of heaven with his tail?

This seems to be plain in itself. The stars in this connection must, of course, not be taken in the literal sense, no more than the entire portion. In this connection the inference is plain that they indicate the fellow angels of the devil. In Job the angels are called the morning-stars. And indeed this application is very appropriate for these spiritual inhabitants of the sphere of eternal light. And the devil himself has been such a morning-star, - perhaps, as we have said before, the greatest and most glorious among them all. And although the passage in Isaiah 14:12 cannot literally be applied to Satan, yet the language in which this metaphor against the king of Babylon is used, is such that the latter is evidently a type of the devil. And therefore also the devil may fittingly be called Lucifer, the day or morning-star. This morning-star, as we know, rebelled against God. Almighty. But he was not alone. He instigated a general rebellion in the heaven of heavens. He seduced others of his fellow angels to rise with him and exalt themselves against the Most High. And it is this feature that is pictured of the devil most probably in the fourth verse of this chapter. He dragged the third part, that is, in this sense, a great many, yet not a majority, of his fellow angels with him in his fall from heaven. And they together with him were cast down from their exalted place.

Hoeksema, as well as the PRC today, adheres to the King James Bible, and they have a number of writings on it. If anyone wants to dispute using HH (and the PRC) due to his and their stand on “common grace” and the “well-meant offer,” well that’s a different issue, and I’m not familiar with the theology boards here to know if that’s been discussed (how could it not be?).

----------

One last thing for the moment. In a March 12 post of Dr. White’s on his own site (responding to people here at PB) he said, regarding earlier defenders of the Comma, “the consistent application of their arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy [KJOC], there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR.” As I don’t have a copy of his KJOC in this foreign land, would someone please tell me in brief what he is referring to here? Thanks.

Steve

Steve,
To answer your last question (very briefly, and I am no text expert either):

J. White is basically saying that it appears to him that in the matter of the Comma, the TR defenders that he has interacted with seem to "want to have it both ways." They want to use one methodology to defend the retention of the Comma, but not consistently apply the same methodology when it comes to various other places where the text of the NT could be "similarly expanded" using the same standard of textual support used to defend the Comma.



On another issue:

I want to suggest that one of the reasons why there are these differences in the "TR"---whether that be TBS', or Scrivner's, etc., is that these are "reverse texts". The AV comes out of the work of scholars who used such texts as they had access to--Erasmus' critical editions, Beza's work, various manuscripts (older or newer) to which they had access. They themselves had sometimes to make textual decisions based on variants they encountered. What we have in these "TR" texts is the reverse-engineered text, in Greek, of what later editors thought the "choices" of the translators were.

Now take a passage like 2 Pet. 1:1. You can translate the whole back into Greek. But you can do that at least a couple different ways, legitimately (doubled hamon, Granville-Sharpe rule, etc.). Then, you can compare the final to extant Greek manuscripts, or to mss/editions that the AV authors had access to (that we know of). Now, you may find one or more Greek witnesses that compare to one or more of the possibilities you came up with. It is a matter of careful, measured, cautious, but still partial conjecture as to what the choice of the original translator was, and why it was chosen.

And then, there is the possibility that given the option chosen, the same Greek text could have been translated (again, legitimately) a couple different ways into English. This, in turn, might affect how that reverse-translation comes out. The easiest way to demonstrate this inexactitude problem is to use a computer translating program. Take a complex English sentence. Run it through the program and it spits out, say, Chinese. Reverse it, and see what you end up with. Probably not exactly the same. Why not? Because of the variables. Now multiply that by the complexity of the NT text, and the underlying variants (even the comparatively few from the MT/Byz tradition).

The bottom line is: "the text underlying the AV" will itself ever be a matter of debate, however limited, because there was no such thing as the Schrivner, or the TBS version, etc. before the AV came into existence. Only various critical editions and compilations, along with a manuscript "library" (scattered over Europe's scholar's desks--in universities, monasteries, and pastor's studies).

I saw someone ask what is the difference between the TR and the Majority Text (MT).

The only thorough book on this I know of is Jack Moorman's, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version, available from Bible For Today. Moorman interacts with the work of Hermann von Soden, and his influence on the formation of the modern MT editions. (An excerpt from this book on David Cloud's site: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jackmoorman.htm):

We would make mention of one more of Jack Moorman’s books: When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version. Consider some excerpts from this extremely important book:

Until recently the defense of the King James Version was a one-on-one debate with the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland, UBS, etc.). Much has been written. In recent days new arguments for and against have been raised. But the issue is still the same— the vast majority of MSS on the KJV side versus a few old ones for the critical texts and modern versions.

Now a new element has been introduced (though certain aspects of it have long been recognized), with the publication of ‘The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text’ (1982), published by Thomas Nelson, under the editorship of Zane Hodges and A.L. Farstad.

The Majority Text Edition concludes that the Greek text of our Authorised Version is represented by minority MS support in over 1800 readings and therefore is defective in these places. Thus our opponents (Critical Text, Modern Versions) say the AV New Testament is wrong in 5,300 places, and now our friends say it’s off in 1,800.

Zane Hodges has been a good ally. Several of the consulting editors, Harry Sturz, Jakob Van Bruggen, Alfred Martin, and Wilbur Pickering have contributed strongly to the defense of the Traditional Text. But, with this production they have left us with a ‘tentative’ Bible.

This is plainly stated on the jacket (second edition): ‘Scholarly discipline permeates the editor’s logic and conclusions; yet Hodges and Farstad make no claim that this text in all its particulars is the exact form of the originals.’ On page x we are told: ‘The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals ... It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work ... is both preliminary and provisional.

WE ARE BOUND TO ASK, IF THIS ISN’T [THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD], IF THE AV-RECEIVED TEXT ISN’T, IF THE CRITICAL TEXT ISN’T; WHERE MUST WE GO TO GET A BIBLE TODAY? IF AFTER THESE CENTURIES WE STILL HAVE ONLY A PROVISIONAL, PRELIMINARY, TENTATIVE BIBLE, WHAT ARE WE TO DO?

Three major errors of judgment have led to this ‘provisional’ edition:

1. The editors do not want to be seen relying upon God’s preservation of the text. 2. They have resorted to a source which cites only a minority of the evidence. 3. They have followed the wrong stream of MSS in the Book of Revelation.

Scrivener and Hoskier in an earlier generation, and Hodges, Pickering with others in our day have made an immeasurable contribution in defending the Received Text against the Hortian theories. They have provided us with a great store of factual material ... But sadly in Hoskier, Scrivener, and the editors of the Majority Text Edition, little or no reference is made to God’s promises of preserving Scripture. In fact, Hodges and Farstad make absolutely no mention of it. Thus, the foundation for textual research has been taken away.

Wilbur Pickering is listed as one of the consulting editors. His book The Identity of the New Testament Text has done a great deal to clarify and cause a rethink concerning Westcott and Hort. He is careful to state that he believes in preservation, yet in the presentation of his material he says: ‘I have deliberately avoided introducing any arguments based upon inspiration and preservation in the preceding discussion in the hope that I may not be misrepresented by critics in the same way that Burgon has been’ (p. 153).

But if the critics misrepresent us because we present Biblical truth, and if they become uncomfortable with this, what does it matter? Who are we trying to please, God or man? Must we participate in their neutrality and unbelief in order to gain a hearing from them? Must we yield to peer pressure? Must we put our good friends ahead of our good Bible?

WHEN AN INQUIRER INTO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE (EVEN A DEFENDER OF THE RECEIVED TEXT) TAKES THIS NEUTRAL APPROACH IN ACCESSING THE EVIDENCE, IT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD DOWN THIS DEAD-END STREET OF HAVING ONLY A TENTATIVE BIBLE.

Notice the disturbing kind of statement Pickering is prepared to make: ‘We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text’ (The Identity of the New Testament Text p. 153). ‘When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places’ (pp. 232,33). ‘Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills do call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do not. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text (‘Queen Anne ... and All That’: A Response, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 165).

Also listed as a consulting editor to the Majority Text Edition is Harry A. Sturz. ... Sturz presents a number of other not-so-well-known areas of evidence for the Byzantine text. We owe him a great debt for his research. However, when he seeks to deny the theological/supernatural arguments for the preservation of the text he becomes unmoored.

You may be forgiven if you have difficulty understanding the following statement, or think it to be contradictory: ‘It should be pointed out that providential preservation is not a necessary consequence of inspiration. Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger of making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God, having given the perfect revelation by verbal inspiration, was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it’ (emphasis added) (The Byzantine Text, p. 38).

Coming now to Zane Hodges: In seeking to deny the charge that he might be leaning a little toward a theological/supernatural stance in textual matters, he gives the following lame reply when questioned about his contribution to the excellent book Which Bible?. ‘Finally, Fee ... seems to wish to continue to tag me with a theological slant that I have explicitly disavowed. The fact that I allowed an article of mine to be reprinted in a volume all of whose perspectives I did not share should not be used against me’ (‘Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text: A Surrejoinder,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 163).

What a refreshing contrast it is to see the following appraisal of Edward Hills’ position: ‘He integrated the theological perspective with the discipline of New Testament text criticism. This is a taboo that recent Majority Text advocates have attempted not to transgress, preferring to work from within a purely scientific framework’ (King James Version Defended, p. vi).

So in order to gain a little respectability (the leading and liberal textual critic George Kilpatrick writes a commendation on the jacket), Hodges, Farstad and friends find themselves firmly in a textual half-way house (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version).

In this large work (153 pages, 8.5X11-inch format) Jack Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Soden apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. "These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text." (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, "nevertheless [have] quite substantial support." Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which has supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support and is inspired Scripture. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.

--------

Steve

Steve,

Thankyou for your posts. Very helpful.

Are you with MERF?

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for your encouragement. This moment I am at the John Calvin Centre in Larnaca, which is where MERF (Middle East Reformed Fellowship) has its headquarters, under the leadership of Pastor Victor Atallah and others on the Board of Directors.

Technically, I am not "with MERF," although I am at their disposal, and in accord with their aims. You may be familiar with them, but let me say they do a tremendous amount of good in supporting the Reformed witness in the Arabic-speaking world and in Africa. "On the ground" that includes supporting churches and personnel under heavy fire. I have to be discrete in what I say publicly here.

The facilites here at JCC include lodging where up to 50 may sleep and eat, while seminars and workshops are held for the teaching of Biblical/Reformed doctrine and practice, from Sunday School training, to youth leaders, to advanced training for pastors and other Christian leaders. Often the teachers come here from pulpits and schools world-wide. And the attendees from different language groups, including Farsi.

In Africa, two five-month training sessions a year are held for building up the church there in their Reformed witness and life, at a MERF compound in Kenya (most of the pastors, elders, teachers, evangelists, etc. are from the Sudan, though some are from Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, etc.) For me, meeting some of the men we trained there, was a remarkable experience. The church in Southern Sudan has known much suffering.

Needless to say, the views I present re Scripture are my own, and not to be attributed to MERF or its personnel, though some may be in agreement with me.

Steve

We keep MERF in prayer and contribute as we are able. I met Victor Attalah once in the mid 90s while he was visiting down under. They are doing a tremendous work. May God bless you and make you fruitful in that corner of His vineyard!

Thanks Matthew.

Some of you have asked for a copy of the piece I am in the process of finishing up on these textual matters. I attach it here.

There is a list of recommended books and websites at the end, before the endnotes. I may likely add to these.

Please note that I will be adding some more material, but not much, to what is written. I would like to interact a little with what James White has written on 1 John 5:7, as I indicated a couple of posts back. I need info from his book on the KJO Conroversy. Perhaps I can find a copy in the JCC library here!

Please don't anyone be disturbed (I ask) that I view the fundamentalist Baptists -- who are staunch opponents as regards the Doctrines of Grace -- with such favor and respect. Granted, some of them are "tough guys," such as Dr. William Grady, in this fray for the integrity of Scripture, but then so was Anglican John Burgon of the 19th century, for what was/is at issue is the molestation of the Word of their God, and they would not have it. Grady might be tough, but he is not mean. The war he wages (and I with him) is for the highest stakes. I will be honored to walk the streets of the Kingdom with him and his fellow FBs.

If the Lord grant we will contend over those issues where we differ, for the sake of the integrity of the Gospel, but, as I said, that is another battle.

Steve,

You might want to look at your previous post a couple of posts back. I have put in codes that show the unicode Greek much better. You may want to use them for ease of reading in later posts.

Bruce,

Somehow I missed your post on 7/6. Thank you for responding.

You answered my query re JW´s remark on 1 Jn 5:7 thus:

<blockquote>J. White is basically saying that it appears to him that in the matter of the Comma , the TR defenders that he has interacted with seem to "want to have it both ways." They want to use one methodology to defend the retention of the Comma, but not consistently apply the same methodology when it comes to various other places where the text of the NT could be "similarly expanded" using the same standard of textual support used to defend the Comma.</blockquote>

I appreciate that. Now what I would specifically like to know is if he gave any examples of how this "œmethodology"� could be used in "œvarious other places"� and thus "œoverthrow the"¦TR"�.

This is what Dr. White stated:

<blockquote>"œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."�</blockquote>

My questions are, 1) did he say precisely what the "œmethodology"� was, and 2) did he give specific examples of other "œreadings with similar manuscript support"�? And 3), did he give an idea of what this "œlogical necessity"�entailed? I may end up having to write and ask him myself, but since he´s already written of it, I´d prefer to learn from that.

I am wondering if the methodology he is thinking of is other than my own, as per my approach in To Break A Sword (TBAS)? I will be happy to interact with him, and that irenically, as I hold him in high esteem. But note, I am not a professional debater; I do my debating in print, after studying to answer.

One of a few things I want to do as far as revising TBAS is deal with the 1 John 5:7 section a little more thoroughly, after studying the various materials I have accumulated. I would like it to be impervious to assault, if that is at all possible, or at least be so persuasive and reasonable that many people will be able to trust the reading.

----------

Regarding the text underlying the TR, and our discussion of it specifically as pertains to 2 Peter 1:1, you said,

<blockquote>The bottom line is: "the text underlying the AV" will itself ever be a matter of debate, however limited, because there was no such thing as the Scrivener, or the TBS version, etc. before the AV came into existence. Only various critical editions and compilations, along with a manuscript "library" (scattered over Europe's scholar's desks--in universities, monasteries, and pastor's studies).</blockquote>

I believe you are correct in this. The 1611 translators used a number of Greek (and no doubt Latin) manuscripts, choosing from the best of them, and the best readings according to their combined judgment, to render the New Testament in English. An interesting study on the spiritual and academic qualifications of the translators is, Translators Revived: Biographical Notes Of The KJV Bible Translators, by Alexander McClure (available at BFT). These were extraordinary men, and I do not believe we have their equal today.

I do not believe a second work of inspiration was given by God in the production of the AV 1611 (as some erroneously do), though I do believe He was working providentially in making available the right MSS. for them to use, and in the quality of the men doing the work, and He guided them (did they not have His Spirit?), though certainly not on a par with the writing of the Scriptures. I trust that He kept His promise to keep His Word intact.

What we have in the TBS´s Textus Receptus, being a reprint of Scrivener´s Greek text, was a reconstruction of the text in retrospect (I think this is what you mean when you say "œbackward engineered"�) using the English AV as the guide. And yes, we can now look upon the various MSS´s readings to try to discern which they used where.

Steve

Fred,

Thanks for "œupgrading"� my Greek font. Actually, I had used your earlier posting to copy them from, as my Hebrew font did not carry over into a post and I thought my Greek might not as well, and I was in a hurry. I´m using an iBook G4 running Tiger 10.4.7, and I think I´m using Unicode. Are you saying that in the BB Code there is now a code for rending the Greek better?

On a different matter, in TBAS, on page 54, there is a list of recommended books (& websites) for the study of the textual business. I maintain that one does not need to be fluent in the original languages (I am not, though I have the lexical tools to do thorough research of words and phrases) to be conversant in these matters. As there are Greek experts who differ in these things, clearly that knowledge is not the deciding factor, though it may be helpful in discerning the gravity of the violence done to the grammar and sense of 1 John 5:7, 8, as well as in other places where excisions have been perpetrated. What is crucial is to get a grasp of the history both of the manuscripts and the people involved with them, and times in which they were written or passed through. There are many "œfingerprints"� that editors and transcribers have left on the documents, and which tell us important things. The various early versions, lectionaries, and writings of the early fathers are also of great importance.

If there is someone here that knows MS Word better than I do, and can tell me how to change over from endnotes to footnotes (on each page), I would be grateful, as that would make reading the pdf file easier.

Steve

Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade
Fred,

Thanks for "œupgrading"� my Greek font. Actually, I had used your earlier posting to copy them from, as my Hebrew font did not carry over into a post and I thought my Greek might not as well, and I was in a hurry. I´m using an iBook G4 running Tiger 10.4.7, and I think I´m using Unicode. Are you saying that in the BB Code there is now a code for rending the Greek better?

Yes. Unicode works better in certain fonts. I put in BBCode tags for one of the better Greek unicode fonts (GentiumAlt) and tags to increase the size of the Greek text. After experimenting for some time previously, I found this to be the best combination.

You may or may not be using Unicode. You need to see if you have a Greek keyboard selector (perhaps in language settings). You could also use the Logos Greek and/or Hebrew keyboards. That is what I use. You can go here and find out all you need to about it:

http://logos.com/support/lbs/fonts

All I knowe is I gotte the new reprint of the olde King Jimmy 1611 compleat with eccentric spellinges today.

Hello everyone. My first 'meaningful' post as the original one was a welcome to the board and who I am.

I hope not to overgeneralize - so I apologize in advance. The question in the original post is this: "Why do KJV Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?"

Before one can answer this question, however, one must decide what exactly constitues KJV Only. White did a decent job in "KJVO Controversy" of listing five different levels of 'KJVO,' but I assume we are only preoccupied with a couple of those:

1) Those who hold to Ruckmanism (correct the Greek with the English)
and
2) KJV is the inspired Word of God (and to a lesser extent)
3) The TR is the superior textual basis.

Most laymen do not really have the first inkling of how we got the Bible - at least from my own observations. Some seem to think it fell in one piece from Heaven. And it is this ignorance upon which I believe the KJV Only movement thrives. That and the following twin truth: most Protestants ESPECIALLY THOSE BORN BEFORE the 1970s used the KJV first.

This makes it easy to list a comparison graph that shows where the NIV or NASV (or whatever version) 'deletes' certain verses. It is an easy sell because if the KJV is 'older' and the newer versions are 'missing verses,' it seems to be an open and shut case.

Those who have a little more knowledge in my view START with the KJV - and then build their case going back from there. Keep in mind that I am NOT talking about Majority Text advocates such as Wilbur Pickering, Maurice Robinson, or Arthur Farstad and Zane Hodges. There IS a subtle but distinct difference in the MT and the TR - counted at over 1,800 differences. Make no mistake, this is NOT a problem if one does not hold the KJV as the 'be all and end all' of Bible translations. But back to the KJV Only defenders - and I'm thinking primarily of people like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, and David Otis Fuller (they claim Burgon, who hardly qualifies as he made 150 changes in the first 14 chapters of Matthew - dismissed as 'Burgon thought the TR needed a little modification' by the Waite-Cloud-Fuller types).

In essence, THIS is a summary of what I call the pastoral KJV Only position (not to be confused with what I call the scholarly KJV Only position such as Letis):

1) The TR is the best Greek text because it underlies the KJV.
2) If the TR and KJV come into conflict (and they do btw), the KJV is the 'final authority'
3) Those old manuscripts are 'bad' - and the only reason we have them now is because they were not used but were set aside.
4) The 'majority' of manuscripts underlie the KJv (incidentally, this argument is not even true; the TR is a stream within the larger river of the TR - sort of like the Sargasso Sea is a small portion of the Atlantic Ocean) - Erasmus used somewhere between five and eleven manuscripts (I found one source that listed eleven total - but I forget it off the top of my head).
5) THIS ONE IS CRITICAL: the reason there are no 'early manuscripts' underlying the KJV is because they were all used and wore out from constant use by Christians.
6) Westcott and Hort were 'heretics' who denied verbal inspiration - and God would not use heretics to 'restore' His Word.

Note: the scholarly position of people like Letis, Robinson, and Pickering would not place as much emphasis on points three and six as the KJV Only popular defenders do.

So why do they believe the manuscripts are bad? Those reasons can be summarized as followed (again applying this argument only to the Cloud-Waite-Fuller crowd)

1. Westcot and Hort were heretics and God would not use heretics to preserve or restore His Word (funnily enough, they drape Desiderius Erasmus in fundamentalist Baptist garb and try to minimize his allegiance to Rome - and didn't Caiaphas the high priest prophesy correctly about Jesus while Peter denied Him?)
2. Not only must a Bible be PRESERVED - it must ALSO be PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE since a preserved non-accessible Bible is meaningless. Although they write books arguing a doctrine of preservation, it would be better to call their doctrine the doctrine of mandated public accessibility - since even THEY admit the Bible was 'restored' (see Hills, "KJV Defended" online at the following link: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm )


Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

One is inclined to wonder why it was okay for the Bible to have what by Hills' own words are MISTAKES in it - and in the same breath claim that we have always had a 'preserved Bible.'

3. It is a psychological insecurity that desperately needs CERTAINTY. Therefore - since the human mind cannot comprehend it - those manuscripts that do NOT underly the KJV? They're bad. Period. End of discussion.

Regarding Burgon's allegation of recension of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, I find it interesting that in the same breath he argues they're doctored repeatedly. Recensions tend to be proven by SAME READINGS NOT different ones.

And one final point: There are something like ten correctors that have had their hands on Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus). How can anyone possibly argue rationally that the codex wasn't used when at least ten different hands have worked on it to bring it in line with other manuscripts? It sounds to me a lot like trying to have one's cake and eat it, too.

I'm sorry for my verbosity. I enjoy discussing this issue. Incidentally, my own textual position? I do not have one yet!!! But I've done a lot of reading and am open to God's leading.

God bless those of you who take time to read this and respond.

Maestroh Bill

Originally posted by street preacher
Why do the newer translations in Isaiah 14 call Lucifer the morning star or day star? That is blasphamous.

Sir,

It is NOT blasphemous if it is the correct rendering.

I think this type of argument is poor. It implies that Satan is the same 'morning star' as Jesus Christ. I agree with you that such would be blasphemous, but the reading of Isaiah 14 must be taken BASED ON WHAT IT SAYS - not on what our theological understanding of the passage must be.

Consider the following teaching from the KJV:

Revelation 5:5

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

This, of course, refers to Jesus.

I Peter 5:8

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Note that in the first, it refers to Jesus; in the second the devil. Is it not blasphemous of the KJV to do this?

Of course not. They are rendering it as accurately as they know how to do.

Maestroh

Brother Steve,

Here is an article addressing what you mentioned:


http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_...on_lucifer.htm


Just a brief word:

In Isaiah 14:12, the word translated "œO Lucifer"� in the KJV (but with the notable variant translation in the margin of the original 1611 KJV of "œO day-star"�, an English word which Webster´s Third New International Dictionary says means, first of all, "œmorning star"�) is the Hebrew word, unique in the Hebrew Bible, heylel, written with the consonants HYLL (he-yod-lamed-lamed) and pronounced so as to rhyme with the English "œpay scale"� [limits of a technical kind prevent us from presenting the precise pronunciation of this word in the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet)].

God bless,

Maestroh

Originally posted by Maestroh
Most laymen do not really have the first inkling of how we got the Bible - at least from my own observations. Some seem to think it fell in one piece from Heaven. And it is this ignorance upon which I believe the KJV Only movement thrives. That and the following twin truth: most Protestants ESPECIALLY THOSE BORN BEFORE the 1970s used the KJV first.

An interesting observation. Here are two important questions. As these majority of laymen have nothing other than their AV to direct them how to glorify and enjoy God, who am I to unsettle their faith in it? Since faith settles itself on the divine authority of the Scriptures, is it erroneous to suppose that the Bible dropped out of heaven?

Thankyou for putting the debate about texts and translations in proper perspective. It is academic. Now it is true that academia has overrun the church as a result of society giving first place to education as the means of salvation, but I fail to see any authority given to academia in the Bible -- not in my AV, nor any other translation, nor in the TR, nor any other textual tradition. Which begs the question: from whose authority do ministers derive the right to unsettle people's faith in the Word of God by raising questions of academic interest?

FWIW, I have been trained in a theological college and was not raised with the AV. I believe the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Hence I believe the church should hold in its hand one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Bible. How can we expect to arrive at unity of the faith, and all speak the same things, when we do not share the same supreme standard of truth? There is something to be said about that quaint nineteenth century phrase, "the common English Bible."

From the Trinitarian Bible Society website:

How many editions of the Textus Receptus are there?

There were approximately thirty distinct editions of the Textus Receptus made over the years. Each differs slightly from the others. There have been over 500 printings.

Are the variations between the editions of the Textus Receptus significant?

No. These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences. As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense".

Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?

In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.

How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?

F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Pilgrim]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by Maestroh
Most laymen do not really have the first inkling of how we got the Bible - at least from my own observations. Some seem to think it fell in one piece from Heaven. And it is this ignorance upon which I believe the KJV Only movement thrives. That and the following twin truth: most Protestants ESPECIALLY THOSE BORN BEFORE the 1970s used the KJV first.

An interesting observation. Here are two important questions. As these majority of laymen have nothing other than their AV to direct them how to glorify and enjoy God, who am I to unsettle their faith in it? Since faith settles itself on the divine authority of the Scriptures, is it erroneous to suppose that the Bible dropped out of heaven?

Thankyou for putting the debate about texts and translations in proper perspective. It is academic. Now it is true that academia has overrun the church as a result of society giving first place to education as the means of salvation, but I fail to see any authority given to academia in the Bible -- not in my AV, nor any other translation, nor in the TR, nor any other textual tradition. Which begs the question: from whose authority do ministers derive the right to unsettle people's faith in the Word of God by raising questions of academic interest?

FWIW, I have been trained in a theological college and was not raised with the AV. I believe the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Hence I believe the church should hold in its hand one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Bible. How can we expect to arrive at unity of the faith, and all speak the same things, when we do not share the same supreme standard of truth? There is something to be said about that quaint nineteenth century phrase, "the common English Bible."

You make valid points.

But is not the opposite also true?

Is it not wrong for those who hold to AV superiority to displace people's faith in THEIR Bible translations as well? Particularly in light of the fact that the AV IS NOT the original text itself.

I concur with your assessment; it is an ACADEMIC issue NOT a DOCTRINAL issue. Yet I do not find it to necessarily be so that 'academia' somehow has a say in one's salvation.

I do not get on anyone's case for using the KJV; I expect the same respect in return in regards to my NASB. Yet you said something else that did catch my eye:

You wrote, "Since faith settles itself on the divine authority of the Scriptures, is it erroneous to suppose that the Bible dropped out of heaven?"

I'm assuming this question to be hypothetical as opposed as a real attempt at argumentation. Faith is fine and good AS LONG AS FAITH IS IN SOMETHING GOD REVEALED FOR US TO HAVE FAITH IN. It is one thing to say, "I have faith God has saved me."

It is another to say, "I have faith that God will let me walk on water because He let Peter do so." One is promised; the other is a conjecture.

FAITH MUST BE BASED AND GROUNDED ON EVIDENCE!!!

We have faith in the resurrected Lord; but that faith is based on EVIDENCE: a) eyewitness testimony of people who were willing to die for their beliefs; and b) the lack of a dead body to disprove the Resurrection.

Faith can only be in what God promised; and nowhere did God promise to preserve His word among a group of manuscripts, or one particular translation, or on one continent regardless of which side of the issue people are on. He told us He WOULD; all attempts at HOW are human rationale.

Hence, how does one explain to a Mormon that their translation is not true since they hold the same position 'by faith?'

Thank you for your kindness, and I hope my reply was diplomatic.

Maestroh

Originally posted by Maestroh
Is it not wrong for those who hold to AV superiority to displace people's faith in THEIR Bible translations as well? Particularly in light of the fact that the AV IS NOT the original text itself.

I wouldn't displace people's faith in other versions except where I think it has led them into error. But as soon as you mention THEIR Bible, individualism has emerged, which is as contrary to the Bible as the devil to God. The AV has served as the common English Bible for centuries. I am not averse to other versions per se, as I agree in principle with Augustine's remark about the benefits of multiplicity. I disagree with the push to rid our world of a common English Bible. Let there be an advance in biblical translation, but unless the translation is commonly received by all, there is only regression not progression.

I concur with your assessment; it is an ACADEMIC issue NOT a DOCTRINAL issue. Yet I do not find it to necessarily be so that 'academia' somehow has a say in one's salvation.

Look at the churches. See that the ministers are always the ones advancing new ideas. Where do they learn them? Academic institutions. Where did they learn them? Well, if Francis Schaefer was right, the academies are simply coming in on the back end of a cultural/philosophical change. But by the time the change has been introduced into the churches the culture is already moving in a new direction. Why play catch up? The biblical principle is to be patient, preach the Word in season and out of season, then when the culture has gone full circle (which it will), we will be there waiting to catch them in the traditional gospel net.

I'm assuming this question to be hypothetical as opposed as a real attempt at argumentation. Faith is fine and good AS LONG AS FAITH IS IN SOMETHING GOD REVEALED FOR US TO HAVE FAITH IN. It is one thing to say, "I have faith God has saved me."

And therein lies the problem raised by academia. Their reliance upon empirical evidence is UNSURE. They might amass more evidence tomorrow and reverse the findings of today. Being unsure, faith cannot be placed in their findings. The Word of the Lord abides for ever. It is settled in the heavens.

Even if there were some readings in the traditional text which aren't genuine (notice the contrary to fact condition), they could still be received because believers have historically judged that there is nothing in them that is against the analogy of faith.

FAITH MUST BE BASED AND GROUNDED ON EVIDENCE!!!

No, faith IS THE EVIDENCE, Heb. 11:1 Sight depends upon evidence.

We have faith in the resurrected Lord; but that faith is based on EVIDENCE: a) eyewitness testimony of people who were willing to die for their beliefs; and b) the lack of a dead body to disprove the Resurrection.

That testimony is only as good as the witnesses. Where is the witness? In Scripture. Where is the persuasion that rests in the witness? It is by the Spirit in the heart of a man. Larger Catechism, answer 4.

Hence, how does one explain to a Mormon that their translation is not true since they hold the same position 'by faith?'

And here we come to the biblical model of evidence: what does their faith in translation produce so far as fruits of righteousness are concerned?

I hope my response is equally respectful.

I almost hate to interject off the specific topic, but I have to reply to the statements concerning the nature of faith.

Maestroh,
How exactly are you defining "evidence"? Because, in a very real sense, faith or belief (syn.), in biblical parlance, is decidedly apart from what ordinarily passes for evidence.

As for the resurrection, we must believe in it (regardless of how we evaluate the "eyewitness testimony") because it is a fundamental component of the gospel--which alone is of any saving value. Thus it is included in the gospel synopsis of I Cor. 15:3-4. It is to be believed (credited) on account of the fact that it was foretold in the Scriptures.

That he appeared (vv. 5-8) to over 500 witnesses post-resurrection--including Paul long after he had left this world--is useful information, but only one of them in this place bears his witness. Rather, I believe the same testimony that promised his coming, and now witnesses to his having come (and promises a second coming)--the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.

I'm not saying ours isn't a reasonable faith, for it certainly is. And there is plenty of "evidence" out there for the sifting if one goes looking for it and knows what they are looking for. However, if we start insisting that faith be "grounded on evidence" (and it sounds to me as if the evidence to which you refer may be significantly beyond Scripture), then we are establishing criteria equal to or more fundamental than the Word of God. Our faith, in that case, is really in the evidence that we've decided is sufficient to stand in. True faith must be grounded in God himself, and in his Word.

What do you do when God says: "Just believe me. I'm not going to give you any more "reason" to trust me than that. I said so. Now you are obligated to believe me. On my 'say-so'. Because I am God" ?

Bill, my husband (streetpreacher) was not makine an arguement...he was asking a basic and honest question.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I almost hate to interject off the specific topic, but I have to reply to the statements concerning the nature of faith.

Maestroh,
How exactly are you defining "evidence"? Because, in a very real sense, faith or belief (syn.), in biblical parlance, is decidedly apart from what ordinarily passes for evidence.

As for the resurrection, we must believe in it (regardless of how we evaluate the "eyewitness testimony") because it is a fundamental component of the gospel--which alone is of any saving value. Thus it is included in the gospel synopsis of I Cor. 15:3-4. It is to be believed (credited) on account of the fact that it was foretold in the Scriptures.

That he appeared (vv. 5-8) to over 500 witnesses post-resurrection--including Paul long after he had left this world--is useful information, but only one of them in this place bears his witness. Rather, I believe the same testimony that promised his coming, and now witnesses to his having come (and promises a second coming)--the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.

I'm not saying ours isn't a reasonable faith, for it certainly is. And there is plenty of "evidence" out there for the sifting if one goes looking for it and knows what they are looking for. However, if we start insisting that faith be "grounded on evidence" (and it sounds to me as if the evidence to which you refer may be significantly beyond Scripture), then we are establishing criteria equal to or more fundamental than the Word of God. Our faith, in that case, is really in the evidence that we've decided is sufficient to stand in. True faith must be grounded in God himself, and in his Word.

What do you do when God says: "Just believe me. I'm not going to give you any more "reason" to trust me than that. I said so. Now you are obligated to believe me. On my 'say-so'. Because I am God" ?

Brother Bruce,

I understand what you are saying so let me elaborate on what I mean.

Our faith is not a 'blind faith' in the sense that we just believe any old thing we're told is true. Such, in fact, is the opening for belief in false ideas and teachings.

God DOES give us a CERTAIN AMOUNT of evidence that points towards Him. It certainly does not meet MAN'S standards of what passes for evidence, but there is a certain rationality to it (although I concede things like the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection themselves FROM THE HUMAN STANDPOINT are hardly rational). The rationale is divine not human.

We have faith in God because He commands it; we DO have SOME sight, but we do not have COMPLETE sight for if we did, faith would be completely unnecessary. Jesus didn't just come to earth and say, "Believe me." He ALSO did miracles of nature, of forgiveness, and healing of disease POINTING THE WAY to salvation. In essence, He said, "I am HE," and then PROVED who He was by His works and ultimately by the Resurrection.

SHIFTING GEARS HERE...

Furthermore, even those who argue in favor of the AV ultimately - if cornered - will argue on the basis of the evidence. The last 12 verses of Mark are considered 'genuine' because they're in so many manuscripts. In other words, they argue EVIDENCE. And within the KJV tradition are those who favor the Comma Johanneum (Maynard, Moorman, Cloud, Waite) and those who oppose it (Robinson, Letis, Pickering, Burgon, Scrivener) - and those who 'aren't sure but accept it by faith as genuine (Hills).

The 'faith' argument is fine but let's turn it out around: I have faith God preserved His Word in the (just to use an example) NIV (btw, I do not personally care for the NIV; I use the NKJV at home and the NASB at school). Why can it not be let go at that?

That's when arguments against Westcott and Hort as heretics or the supposed removing of Aleph from a trash bin come to the fore. (This incidentally is what I referred to earlier by talking about a difference in the KJV positions).

Please undersand this: I AM NOT AGAINS THE KJV BIBLE!!!

I have never entered a church and attempted to displace whatever version they were using regardless of what it is/was. I enjoy this particular discussion - and I thank God and the members here for the kindness and diplomacy and grace shown towards me, and I hope to emulate it constantly in return towards all.

I just want our particular discussion to be FACT ORIENTED - and not based on emotion. Regarding the argument that the AV has been used so long...was not the Vulgate used more than twice as long? Was not the Septuagint used for quite awhile?

The same arguments used to keep the KJV now are the same ones that were used to oppose the KJV back in 1611. Personally, I like the old story about the pastor who said, "I don't know which Bible is the best, but I know which one is the worst: the UNREAD one."

Let me finish with this and hopefully make this much clear: we have NOTHING to fear from the truth. As Warfield said in his Shorter Writings - and I'm paraphrasing here - we, as Christians, need to be open to the truths of science, philosophy, psychology, etc - we have NOTHING TO FEAR from honest investigation and ultimately the truth.


God bless you all,

Maestroh

Bruce wrote:


What do you do when God says: "Just believe me. I'm not going to give you any more "reason" to trust me than that. I said so. Now you are obligated to believe me. On my 'say-so'. Because I am God" ?

Maestroh:

You believe Him.

The problem, however, is that never did He do so in regards to what textual basis one is to use. It seems to me that ANY argument - whether it is the majority of the manuscripts on one side or the older manuscripts on the other - is based on human assumption of how God 'must' have done something.

Fact is that while we would follow what you're talking about in instances where God said it, never did God do so in regards to Bible versions. And this only moves the question back one step:

On what basis is it the KJV? Because it's older?

If that's the reason, the Greek manuscripts underlying the newer versions are older than those under the KJV. So should we not use them?

By the same token, on what basis is it the NIV?

Or any other version for that matter?

Sure there are instances when God said 'believe me,' the most immediate coming to mind being in the Garden of Eden. But while this is a good theological argument, it is not a very good textual argument.

I hold the position that the KJV is the Word of God. I also hold the position that ANY version is the word of God insomuch as it reflects the original writing. That, of course, is where faith comes in since we do not have the originals extant - so perhaps this is what you're talking about.

Thank you for your kind question, Bruce.

Maestroh

Hello Bill,

Welcome to the discussion! You said in your first post here,

<blockquote>But back to the KJV Only defenders - and I'm thinking primarily of people like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, and David Otis Fuller (they claim Burgon, who hardly qualifies as he made 150 changes in the first 14 chapters of Matthew - dismissed as 'Burgon thought the TR needed a little modification' by the Waite-Cloud-Fuller types). [emphasis mine "“SMR]</blockquote>

What you say about Burgon and his 150 changes in Matthew of the TR, would you please provide some documentation for that?

Bill, when you use phrases like "œWaite-Cloud-Fuller types"� or "œ"¦crowd"� it tends to stereotype godly, scholarly individuals who are well known for their research and integrity, and sets a disparaging tone which does not facilitate respectful discussion between brothers and sisters within the royal family who might differ. Please do not think that by dismissive remarks as these such scholars "“ and others of their camp, like myself "“ can be marginalized and relegated to the ranks of the not-too-bright. I do realize that there have been those in the KJO camp who might have given you this impression, though I am glad you have stated you are not yet set in a position and are open, and I hope to show you an approach you may respect, if not adhere to. Thanks for your openness!

In the same post you said,

<blockquote>In essence, THIS is a summary of what I call the pastoral KJV Only position (not to be confused with what I call the scholarly KJV Only position such as Letis):

3) Those old manuscripts are 'bad' - and the only reason we have them now is because they were not used but were set aside.
5) THIS ONE IS CRITICAL: the reason there are no 'early manuscripts' underlying the KJV is because they were all used and wore out from constant use by Christians.
6) Westcott and Hort were 'heretics' who denied verbal inspiration - and God would not use heretics to 'restore' His Word.

Note: the scholarly position of people like Letis, Robinson, and Pickering would not place as much emphasis on points three and six as the KJV Only popular defenders do.

So why do they believe the manuscripts are bad? Those reasons can be summarized as followed (again applying this argument only to the Cloud-Waite-Fuller crowd)

1. Westcott and Hort were heretics and God would not use heretics to preserve or restore His Word (funnily enough, they drape Desiderius Erasmus in fundamentalist Baptist garb and try to minimize his allegiance to Rome - and didn't Caiaphas the high priest prophesy correctly about Jesus while Peter denied Him?)
2. Not only must a Bible be PRESERVED - it must ALSO be PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE since a preserved non-accessible Bible is meaningless. Although they write books arguing a doctrine of preservation, it would be better to call their doctrine the doctrine of mandated public accessibility - since even THEY admit the Bible was 'restored' (see Hills, "KJV Defended" online at the following link: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm)

Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.</blockquote>

Regarding your point 3) above: The quality of the old MSS [I think primarily of Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph)] is not per se related to their age; one reason B and Aleph lasted so long is because they were written on vellum, which is far superior to the papyrus of most Greek MSS. One cannot say per se they lasted so long because they were set aside, but it may be an additional factor. Point 5) is just the other side of the coin: it does not mean those worn out quickest were the best; we know the material they were written on was not made to last; one cannot say they were the best because they disappeared quickly from much use, but it may be a factor.

As I said, Bill, perhaps people you have heard have spoken in clichés (I have heard them myself!), but we are trying not to do so here.

Re your 6) concerning Westcott and Hort (W&H): They are in a different category of textual scribes than Erasmus. There has been some research into the latter, and although he was on the wrong side of the disputes with Luther, particularly on Freedom of the Will (and all that that entails), he had friendships and affinities with evangelical believers, and sometimes worshipped with them, while powerfully resisting and refuting Rome, so it is not fitting to paint him a diehard Roman Catholic. As you brought Dr. Edward F. Hills, a textual scholar of the highest caliber, with a Th.D. in New Testament Textual Criticism from Harvard, into the discussion, please allow me to quote a little from him concerning Erasmus and the principles of providential preservation, and that from a scholarly prespective:


<blockquote>"œ... the Bible is God´s infallibly inspired Word which has been preserved by God´s special providence down through the ages. ... And the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing. For why would God watch over the New Testament text at one time and not at another time, before the invention of printing but not afterward? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided. THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, THEREFORE, IS A TRUSTWORTHY REPRODUCTION OF THE INFALLIBLY INSPIRED ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND IS AUTHORITATIVE. AND SO IS THE KING JAMES VERSION AND ALL OTHER FAITHFUL TRANSLATIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS" (Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 87).

"It was this common faith which guided Erasmus providentially in his task of editing the first printed Greek New Testament (1516). Although he was not himself outstanding as a man of faith, yet in his editing of the New Testament text he was guided by the faith of others. He was desirous of publishing an edition of the New Testament which would be well received and offend no one. Hence in his labors on the New Testament text Erasmus was probably expressing not so much his own views as the views of his contemporaries, views with which he would have become very well acquainted through his correspondence and his travels. In short, as editor of the first printed Greek New Testament, ERASMUS WAS PROVIDENTIALLY CONTROLLED BY THE COMMON FAITH IN THE PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Luther, Melanchton, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, and the other scholars of the Reformation Period who labored on the New Testament text were similarly guided by God´s special providence. These scholars had received humanistic training in their youth, and in their notes and comments they sometimes reveal traces of this early education. But in their actual dealings with the biblical text these humanistic tendencies were restrained by the common faith in the providential preservation of Scripture, a faith which they themselves professed along with their followers. Hence in the Reformation Period the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of any other book. The humanistic methods used on other books were not applied to the New Testament. In their editions of the New Testament Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided by the common faith to adopt the current text, primarily the current Greek text and secondarily the current Latin text. ... THUS THE LOGIC OF FAITH LED TRUE BELIEVERS OF THAT DAY, JUST AS IT LEADS TRUE BELIEVERS TODAY, TO THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AS THE GOD-GUIDED NEW TESTAMENT TEXT" (Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 63).

"It is customary for naturalistic critics to make the most of human imperfections in the Textus Receptus and to sneer at it as a mean and almost sordid thing. ... BUT THOSE WHO CONCENTRATE IN THIS WAY ON THE HUMAN FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ARE UTTERLY UNMINDFUL OF THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. For in the very next year, in the plan of God, the Reformation was to break out in Wittenberg, and it was important that the Greek New Testament should be published first in one of the future strongholds of Protestantism by a book seller who was eager to place it in the hands of the people and not in Spain, the land of the Inquisition, by the Roman Church, which was intent on keeping the Bible from the people" (Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 203).</blockquote>

Westcott and Hort, on the other hand, had "“ as documentation shows "“ an agenda which was not guided by scholarly concerns, but by unfortunately more "œcarnal"� motives proceeding from characters such as would probably keep them from being admitted into your own Vista Ridge Bible Church, nor allow them to even speak to a Sunday School class! And such men as these, forbidden entry into the precincts of our holy fellowships by virtue of their conduct and their doctrines, we allow to have whatever liberty they will with the sacred deposit of Scripture, even to allowing a Unitarian notorious in the London of their day to bring his Christ-denying views to bear upon what will and what will not be allowed in the New Testament pertaining to the deity of our Savior? Such men as these, their biographies and the attestations of their contemporaries and of later historians tell us, are of a class quite removed from Erasmus. I wonder if you have read the previous posts in this thread (I realized it is tediously long!), and, if I may refer you to a more detailed study, to my post above (the 1st on p. 3, if you have 50 posts to a page) and the attached study in pdf, To Break A Sword (TBAS), where I discuss these things in detail and documentation.

I am sorry for the shallow presentation that often accompanies the KJV/TR defense, and I hope to at least not encumber you with more of the same, but, as I do perceive you appreciate a more scholarly approach, to meet with you on ground we both respect and prefer.

Before signing off, I´d like answer a couple more of your points. You said of Dr. Hills,

<blockquote>Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

One is inclined to wonder why it was okay for the Bible to have what by Hills' own words are MISTAKES in it - and in the same breath claim that we have always had a 'preserved Bible.'</blockquote>

I have addressed such phenomena in TBAS, but to briefly say here: remember when wicked queen Athaliah destroyed all the seed royal in Jerusalem, save only the infant Joash who was secretly rescued by his aunt Jehosheba and hidden away in the house of the LORD six years while the evil queen ruled supreme in Judah during that rather long period of time? Or during the reign of Emperor Diocletian, when his notorious informers, the traditores, apostates who came from the ranks of the church and went about sniffing out most copies of the Scriptures and their owners, so that they became exceeding scarce?

Such has been the case with a few portions of Scripture, the devil having hated some in particular and moved men to seek to destroy their testimony, but the Lord overruling him kept them safe in other quarters and later restored them to their rightful places of honor and witness.

It is quite a study, what happened to the various streams of textual transmission "“ from the missionaries of Syrian Antioch and elsewhere, to the mountainous regions of Italy and France, to Africa, Rome, the Byzantine Empire, etc. The state of the various churches, the great Trinitarian and Christological battles, the various editors and scribes through whose hands the manuscripts passed.

You said,

<blockquote>It is a psychological insecurity that desperately needs CERTAINTY. Therefore - since the human mind cannot comprehend it - those manuscripts that do NOT underlie the KJV? They're bad. Period. End of discussion.</blockquote>

This is an interesting thought. Given the distinctives of Reformed doctrine, that I am justified by the faith graciously given me upon regeneration, by which I am enabled to cleave to my Savior and His word, trusting in the cleansing of His blood, with His perfect righteousness imputed to me, and on top of these, the Father has actually elected me to adoption in His Son, so that I am perfectly accepted in the Beloved, and Jesus has assured me that by the command of the Father I shall never perish, but He shall raise me up at the last day, to reign in glory with Him forever. This is not the sort of stuff that begets "œpsychological insecurity"�!

Rather it pertains to epistemology. How do we know what we know? Do we know anything with certainty? We know that God has spoken by His prophets, and by His Son. Some of us carefully study this phenomenon, and the transmission of His words through history, His own words and promises aiding us in this endeavor.

Perhaps you will have a different view of TR/KJV defenders as we proceed in this discussion. My views are a bit more nuanced, perhaps, than those you are used to, or so I hope!

Steve

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Steve,

It is well known that Burgon thought there were many places that needed correcting in the TR. His position was really closer to that of Majority Text advocates, but the TR/KJV Only folks often aren't honest enough to admit it. He attacked W & H but was not KJV Only by any stretch.

I am glad though to see that you do express some misgivings about Gail Riplinger's work.

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Pilgrim]

Hello Chris,

I have heard that often alleged, though I have not seen it with my own eyes. I have five of his books, and if you can direct me to a particular quote I would look it up. Actually, I have recently read views of his to the contrary; I realize they pertain to what he called the Traditional Text, and not the TR strictly. I believe his was a broad-based defense of the text underlying the common English version as opposed to B, Aleph, and D.

--------

Bill,

I gather you have a copy of James White's The King James Only Controversy at hand. May I ask you for some information from that book, as I can't locate a copy in this country? Thanks!

Steve