Is There A Consensus on Reformed View Regarding translation and Sources?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand your concerns, and do try to learn all that can be gleaned, but their presumptions are so skewed in one way that they refuse to accept any information that might undermine their position, they refuse to practice what you told me to do with their own information.
And this is relevant to your own learning and discernment exactly how? Why is another's hypocrisy, real or imagined, a reason to ignore what they have written for one's own edification?

As you have claimed, I, too, read the works of others that I often vehemently disagree with seeking to tease out some worthwhile information, perspective, etc. Sometimes my own views are modified or event quit-claimed afterwards. For that matter, how else would I show myself ready to defend my own views if I cannot accurately represent the views of my imagined interlocutor?

You seem to be focused upon the sample links I provided that were posted in another thread that put forth some views on the NKJV translation (there are more in the thread in question, too). Is all the content in those few examples really entirely useless? Are there no actual facts in the items? Interact with them privately, or, if you are inclined, publicly in another thread.
 
And this is relevant to your own learning and discernment exactly how? Why is another's hypocrisy, real or imagined, a reason to ignore what they have written for one's own edification?

As you have claimed, I, too, read the works of others that I often vehemently disagree with seeking to tease out some worthwhile information, perspective, etc. Sometimes my own views are modified or event quit-claimed afterwards. For that matter, how else would I show myself ready to defend my own views if I cannot accurately represent the views of my imagined interlocutor?

You seem to be focused upon the sample links I provided that were posted in another thread that put forth some views on the NKJV translation (there are more in the thread in question, too). Is all the content in those few examples really entirely useless? Are there no actual facts in the items? Interact with them privately, or, if you are inclined, publicly in another thread.
There are some valid points made in those links, but it is hard for me to accept them knowing what those who hold to the KJVO think in regards to other English translations.
 
There are some valid points made in those links, but it is hard for me to accept them knowing what those who hold to the KJVO think in regards to other English translations.
I am not following you here. If some valid points have been made what is standing in the way of taking them into consideration, other than your disdain for those actually making these valid points?
 
their presumptions are so skewed in one way...
In a sense, this issue reminds me of old earth/young earth debates, calvinism/arminianism debates, etc. One brings their own presuppositions into it and decides based on one's presuppositions. I don't think the side one lands on can be decided by arguments over the texts, but must be decided by theology. For me, I discovered that the key issue was a matter of what would God do to preserve the unity of his church; would he give us a Bible for 2,000 years that contains passages later found to be questionable or doubtful. Not when he has promised that not one jot or tittle could be changed or lost. It's easy to rest in the promise of a preserved (and received) text when one considers the weightiness of every word of God and his commitment to it and to his people. Just as easy as believing in a young earth against all the onslaught of "evidence" constantly brought against it.
 
In a sense, this issue reminds me of old earth/young earth debates, calvinism/arminianism debates, etc. One brings their own presuppositions into it and decides based on one's presuppositions. I don't think the side one lands on can be decided by arguments over the texts, but must be decided by theology. For me, I discovered that the key issue was a matter of what would God do to preserve the unity of his church; would he give us a Bible for 2,000 years that contains passages later found to be questionable or doubtful. Not when he has promised that not one jot or tittle could be changed or lost. It's easy to rest in the promise of a preserved (and received) text when one considers the weightiness of every word of God and his commitment to it and to his people. Just as easy as believing in a young earth against all the onslaught of "evidence" constantly brought against it.
My present understanding would be that there is actually no 100 % accurate to the originals Greek text/English translation available, but that the Greek texts used, regardless CT/MT/TR would all be very close to them , and none of them would cause any distortion on any essential doctrines of the faith if used. More important to me than the textual apparatus used would be whether the translators used a formal or more of Dynamic equivalence process of translation.
 
I am not following you here. If some valid points have been made what is standing in the way of taking them into consideration other than your disdain for those actually making these valid points?
I have read and respect those views of someone like a Dean Burgeon, even though would disagree with him that the TR is superior to either the MT/CT for use, but do not hold much regard to those such as a Peter ruckman, gail riplinger, or a Edward Hillis, as none of them were really textual experts.
 
Last edited:
Is There A Consensus on Reformed View Regarding translation and Sources?

The strongest argument I have heard supporting the MT being 'official' among the Reformed is the answer to WSC Q 107. "The conclusion of the Lord's prayer (which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen)..."
 
or a Edward Hillis, as none of them were really textual experts.

If I’m not mistaken, Hills (to whom I believe you are referring) held a Th.D in NT Textual Criticism from Harvard. Not to (further) derail the thread, but thought it prudent.
 
If I’m not mistaken, Hills (to whom I believe you are referring) held a Th.D in NT Textual Criticism from Harvard. Not to (further) derail the thread, but thought it prudent.
Thanks, did not know that, but still would not regard those who advocate the KJVO position as being as sound in textual criticisms area as those such as a Dr Maurice Robinson, Dr Dan Wallace, or a Dean Burgeon. Few of those scholars who are viewed as being really experts in this field would be KJVO themselves.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, did not know that

Then how do you make the claim "as none of them were really textual experts" in Post #36? How much of Hills have you read? Have you critically interacted with his arguments? I, for one, tire of the textual arguments for this reason: everyone has an opinion but very few have taken the time to examine original sources and interact critically (no pun intended) with arguments that affirm a particular view. Rather, sweeping generalizations are made.

Lastly, and in love, I would strongly recommend re-reading your posts before posting them. Post #39 is non-sensical.
 
Then how do you make the claim "as none of them were really textual experts" in Post #36? How much of Hills have you read? Have you critically interacted with his arguments? I, for one, tire of the textual arguments for this reason: everyone has an opinion but very few have taken the time to examine original sources and interact critically (no pun intended) with arguments that affirm a particular view. Rather, sweeping generalizations are made.

Lastly, and in love, I would strongly recommend re-reading your posts before posting them. Post #39 is non-sensical.
Re edited # 39 for better clarity.
 
Thanks, did not know that, but still would not regard those who advocate the KJVO position as being as sound in textual criticisms area...
David,

As has been noted, you need to actually read and interact with those, like Hills, that you claim as not being "sound" in textual criticism. I have attached a copy of one such work for your reading.

You should also examine what you think textual criticism means.

At the time of the writing of the Confessions, textual criticism took place within the presupposition of textual transmission and tradition on the firm belief that God had preserved His word in the church. There simply was no thinking that Scripture had to be reconstructed from scratch (per the CT mission), as if Scripture was an ordinary piece of human writing subject to all the usual historical processes of corruption.

The received text proponent views textual criticism efforts from the presupposition of a preserved text, not from a corrupt text presupposition. Accordingly, I remain firm that WCF 1.8 is against the purpose, goals and methods of the Critical Text (CT) mission.
 

Attachments

  • KJV Defended - Hills.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 7
David,

As has been noted, you need to actually read and interact with those, like Hills, that you claim as not being "sound" in textual criticism. I have attached a copy of one such work for your reading.

You should also examine what you think textual criticism means.

At the time of the writing of the Confessions, textual criticism took place within the presupposition of textual transmission and tradition on the firm belief that God had preserved His word in the church. There simply was no thinking that Scripture had to be reconstructed from scratch (per the CT mission), as if Scripture was an ordinary piece of human writing subject to all the usual historical processes of corruption.

The received text proponent views textual criticism efforts from the presupposition of a preserved text, not from a corrupt text presupposition. Accordingly, I remain firm that WCF 1.8 is against the purpose, goals and methods of the Critical Text (CT) mission.

I see there being a distinct difference between those who advocate for the Majority/Bzt text though from those who advocate for the KJVO TR position.
Would you not see then the Critical Greek text as being the word of the lord to us, and if not, them no modern translations based upon it would be valid either?
 
I see there being a distinct difference between those who advocate for the Majority/Bzt text though from those who advocate for the KJVO TR position.
Would you not see then the Critical Greek text as being the word of the lord to us, and if not, them no modern translations based upon it would be valid either?
You are not actually addressing what I have posted and you have quoted, David.

If you want to move the goal posts each time I respond to you, it is not going to move the discussion forward.
 
You are not actually addressing what I have posted and you have quoted, David.

If you want to move the goal posts each time I respond to you, it is not going to move the discussion forward.
Do you see any differences between the majority text and the TR then?
 
I wrote an article about the confessional question here...

https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/reformed-confessions-of-faith-and-the-traditional-text/

Also, the two books linked at the bottom of the post are MUST READS! if someone is trying to honestly get at what the framers of our confessions meant. The vast majority of Reformed people are reading the confessions anachronistically in regards to the textual question.
Would not the majority text proponents though have a valid point though, as they would hold that their greek text would be based upon the whole of the best testified varients within the early Church itself, more so than the TR does?
 
Would not the majority text proponents though have a valid point though, as they would hold that their greek text would be based upon the whole of the best testified varients within the early Church itself, more so than the TR does?

I think it is a legitimate conversation. The main objection I have with the Majority Text is that it, like all forms of contemporary textual criticism, it cannot arrive at a final text. All forms of contemporary textual criticism can only provide a text that is provisional. A text of that nature is far short of what we see confessed in the great confessions of the Reformation and especially as we see in many key Protestant writings from that period.
 
I think it is a legitimate conversation. The main objection I have with the Majority Text is that it, like all forms of contemporary textual criticism, it cannot arrive at a final text. All forms of contemporary textual criticism can only provide a text that is provisional. A text of that nature is far short of what we see confessed in the great confessions of the Reformation and especially as we see in many key Protestant writings from that period.
The person who advocates for the superority of the TR would still have to be assuming that it really is the best tp the Originals though, and more importantly, which TR text? As Eramus Himself seemed to be using 5 copies at different times, using the Vulgate for some renderings, and sometimes renderings not even documented source wise?
 
The person who advocates for the superority of the TR would still have to be assuming that it really is the best tp the Originals though, and more importantly, which TR text? As Eramus Himself seemed to be using 5 copies at different times, using the Vulgate for some renderings, and sometimes renderings not even documented source wise?

"Which TR?" Most TR advocates would say that all editions of the TR are superior to the NA/UBS text, but wouldn't necessarily single out one specific edition. There are very slight variations between them, but they are not substantially different. We believe that “the Old Testament in Hebrew..., and the New Testament in Greek..., being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...” (WCF 1:8); although these preserved manuscripts need to be collated to remove scribal errors, we do not believe whole chunks have become corrupt like the NA/UBS texts assume; we receive these pure texts, we do not have to reconstruct them.

"Erasmus...using the Vulgate for some renderings..." This is a widespread story regarding Rev. 22, but it is inaccurate. Back translating from Latin is not what happened at all with the ending of Revelation. Erasmus sent a back translation of a few lines to the printer so he could begin to typeset the text. He told his associates to use the Greek Aldine edition that was also being prepared for publication to correct those specific lines.

This is why we find that both Stephanus and Beza’s edition are practically identical to Erasmus in Rev. 22, even though they both had access to manuscripts with the ending of Revelation.

Erasmus himself stated:

“At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek) was lacking one or two lines. I added them, following the Latin codices. They were of the kind that could be restored out of the preceding text. Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basel, I wrote to my friends to restore the place out of the Aldine edition; for I had not yet bought that work. They did as I instructed them. What, I ask you, do I owe to Lee in this case? Did he himself restore what was missing? But he had no text except mine. Ah, but he warned me! As if I had not stated in the annotations of the first edition what I had done and what was missing.” [Source: Apolog. resp. inuect. Ed. Lei (Apologia qua respondet duabis inuectiuis Eduardi Lei), ASD IX-4, pp.54-55 ll. 894-914. Translation Erika Rummel in CWE 72, p. 44].
http://confessionalbibliology.com/category/erasmus/erasmus-myths/

This info is so clear it’s almost as if scholars who purvey the myth that those verses in the TR are back translated are being intentionally deceptive.

In truth the TR has not been added to, it’s the collated text that is materially the same as the text used by the universal church of all ages that was infallibly preserved by God from the autographs. It doesn’t need to be reconstructed with liberal critical techniques.
https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/01/05/the-providence-of-god-in-preserving-scripture/
 
Why wouldn't God though preserve for and to us the source materials in order to actually reconstruct pretty much in full the originals, as the TR itself is not an exact copy of them either? And the Majority text proponents do advocate for using the manuscripts attested too and used byt he majority of all Christians, so would that not be even better than the TR itself?
 
Why wouldn't God though preserve for and to us the source materials in order to actually reconstruct pretty much in full the originals, as the TR itself is not an exact copy of them either?
Maybe it's for the same reason as many other things we accept by faith, not having been eyewitnesses to events nor processes. There's a theological basis for holding to the idea of a received text. Can you accurately articulate that theological basis?
 
Moderator Note:

Steve @Jerusalem Blade

You are assigning a motive to Dachaser's post that has not been made evident in all our dealings with him. Let's avoid this type of generalization and sarcasm, brother. It is a ninth commandment violation.

David @Dachaser

Please examine yourself. Your enthusiasm for that which we hold dear must be tempered with prudence. The frustration in evidence herein (and elsewhere) is understandable. Your tendency to login and then commence with several, rapid-fire posts, containing very little content that moves the discussion forward, or, ignoring what has been discussed previously, is actually causing others to stumble. Brother, I doubt you wish your witness to be seen in this light. It is actually an easily repairable sin, David. We have discussed this often, most recently here. If this behavior continues the mods will be forced to remove you from threads in question. If that fails to correct you, there are other more drastic options available to the staff. Slow down. Review carefully what has already been discussed. Take care in formatting your posts properly (grammar, spelling, etc.). Above all, seek to edify others in your posted content.

End Moderator Note
 
Erasmus himself stated:

“At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek) was lacking one or two lines. I added them, following the Latin codices. They were of the kind that could be restored out of the preceding text. Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basel, I wrote to my friends to restore the place out of the Aldine edition; for I had not yet bought that work. They did as I instructed them. What, I ask you, do I owe to Lee in this case? Did he himself restore what was missing? But he had no text except mine. Ah, but he warned me! As if I had not stated in the annotations of the first edition what I had done and what was missing.” [Source: Apolog. resp. inuect. Ed. Lei (Apologia qua respondet duabis inuectiuis Eduardi Lei), ASD IX-4, pp.54-55 ll. 894-914. Translation Erika Rummel in CWE 72, p. 44].
http://confessionalbibliology.com/category/erasmus/erasmus-myths/

This info is so clear it’s almost as if scholars who purvey the myth that those verses in the TR are back translated are being intentionally deceptive.

I am still not sure where I stand on these matters, but this clarification about the end of Revelation 22 is something I do not believe I have ever heard or read. Thanks for posting this. This is helpful.
 
Would you be saying then that the English translations based off the TR would be viable ones for use then? So that would basically maker it just the KJV/NKJV, and eliminate any that would use the majority/Critical Greek texts, version such as the Web/Nas/esv etc?
 
Moderator Note:

Steve @Jerusalem Blade

You are assigning a motive to Dachaser's post that has not been made evident in all our dealings with him. Let's avoid this type of generalization and sarcasm, brother. It is a ninth commandment violation.

David @Dachaser

Please examine yourself. Your enthusiasm for that which we hold dear must be tempered with prudence. The frustration in evidence herein (and elsewhere) is understandable. Your tendency to login and then commence with several, rapid-fire posts, containing very little content that moves the discussion forward, or, ignoring what has been discussed previously, is actually causing others to stumble. Brother, I doubt you wish your witness to be seen in this light. It is actually an easily repairable sin, David. We have discussed this often, most recently here. If this behavior continues the mods will be forced to remove you from threads in question. If that fails to correct you, there are other more drastic options available to the staff. Slow down. Review carefully what has already been discussed. Take care in formatting your posts properly (grammar, spelling, etc.). Above all, seek to edify others in your posted content.

End Moderator Note
I just do not see the Scriptures for viable translations in English to be in just the ones that utilized the TR source text,as would also see those such as the Nas/Esv and 1984 Niv as good translations to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top