NKJV/KJV Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The NKJV has been marketed as "The King James Bible, only better." But it is not: The NKJV Examined.

The NKJV largely adopts the same CT "variants" as the NASB and the NIV. Much of it has other bases, among them the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), and not that of the KJV:

...Because of modern textual criticism, the certainty and dogmatism of a settled biblical text has been replaced with the uncertainty of conflicting texts.

This is true for the New Testament. Westcott and Hort’s principles that gave us the critical Greek text in 1881 have undergone continual modification throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, and the Greek Testament based on those theories has also continually shifted, with a subsequent change in the translations based on it. The 3rd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament differed from the 2nd edition three years earlier in more than 500 places, and the same five textual critics made those changes.
The same is true for the Old Testament. With the introduction of textual theories whereby the Hebrew Masoretic text was dethroned, the Old Testament has undergone continual revision on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Targums, the Symmachus and Theodotion Greek translations of the Old Testament, and other sources. These are the sources listed in the Preface to the 1978 New International Version as the basis for the NIV O.T. translation (pp. viii, xi). Dr. Donald Waite observes: “The NIV editors have very honestly and very boldly altered the foundations of our Old Testament text in the above fifteen DIFFERENT WAYS, whenever it suited their fancy! You don't know at what point they’ve used one document to contradict the Masoretic Hebrew text, and at what point they used another document” (Waite, Defending the King James Bible). According to Dr. Waite’s calculations, the 1937 Hebrew text by Rudolph Kittel (Biblia Hebraica) and the 1977 Stuttgart edition of the Hebrew Old Testament (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) contain footnotes listing some 20,000 to 30,000 textual changes. Even the New King James Bible, which professes to follow the same textual foundation as the King James Bible, follows instead an eclectic Old Testament, modifying the Hebrew Masoretic with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, “a variety of ancient versions,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New King James Bible, Preface). As with the New Testament, those who are doing the revision of the Old Testament do not agree in their principles or their conclusions. Consider one area of O.T. textual evidence, that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first of these was discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea in 1947, with subsequent finds in nearby caves. The first finds supported the Masoretic text but subsequent finds unearthed some O.T. manuscripts that differ from the Masoretic. Textual scholars do not agree on many important points touching these manuscripts, not even their date. G.R. Driver (1965) disagreed with Burrows, Albright, and Cross, claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first two centuries A.D., rather than B.C. This is brought out in the book Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1956) by F.F. Bruce. The very title of the book exposes the fact that the textual scholars disagree and that their conclusions are in flux.

...The contemporary doctrine of eclecticism has elevated the Bible student as the master of the text and has resulted in a massive decline in the authority of the Scriptures in this generation.

The concept of dogmatic interpretation and preaching has faded greatly because of this damnable principle. In a typical Bible study in a church that has bought into eclecticism, every individual is an authority unto his or herself as to what Greek manuscript or Greek text or English translation to follow in any given instance. There is no dogmatic authority for any statement, because someone can always come up with an alternative reading. This same principle has greatly weakened the authority of Bible preaching. I recall a visit in August 2003 to Saddleback Church in southern California, where Rick Warren of “Purpose Driven Church” fame is senior pastor. I observed on the way into the auditorium that only a few people carried Bibles, and the reason became clear when I saw the bewildering multiplicity of versions that were used in the preaching. An outline of the sermon was handed out with the bulletin, and six or seven versions were quoted, most of them loose paraphrases or dynamic equivalencies such as the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, The Message, Today’s English Version, and the Contemporary English Version. It would be impossible to follow along in one’s Bible. The result is that the people do not bring their own Bibles and do not therefore carefully test the preaching. How could they, when any biblical statement they would attempt to examine has dozens of variations?

...The uncertainty produced by modern textual criticism has given ammunition to the enemies of the Bible.

They recognize, even if the evangelicals and fundamentalists who have adopted textual criticism don’t, that an array of conflicting texts and versions undermines the doctrine of divine inspiration and preservation.

...Modern textual criticism has led many into theological modernism.

(Emphasis is mine; this is copied from www.wayoflife.org.)

Very sorry for the earlier, off-topic posts. I deleted them.

Margaret
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
And about Alexandria being the "heresy bastion" - if Arians corrupted the manuscripts against Christ's deity, they did a very sloppy job, as no major conservative modern translation omits John 1.1, 8.58, 20.28, Philippians 2.5-6, or Colossians 2.9.
No, that's perfectly consistent with Arianism. Arius did not deny that Jesus was God, he weakened it. He was subordinationist, meaning he believed that Jesus was God, but less than the Father. Thus we would expect an Arian New Testament to keep some passages that support his deity, but remove others. And that is exactly what we find with the Alexandrian texts.

Plus, saying how many heretics were in Alexandria is a straw man. Didn't St. Cyril, St. Alexander, and St. Athanasius all come from Alexandria? Weren't they staunchly orthodox and trinitarian?
Athanasius actually fought the Arians. The theological issue with Sinaiticus and its cousin manuscripts is certainly not just where they came from, but the fact that they show a pattern of weakening of Christ's equality with the Father, and were written in Alexandria -- when -- Arianism was at its height.

But the main reason to reject these manuscripts is that they differ from 94% of all NT manuscripts -- including the very oldest papyri!

And Sinaticus was clearly never used by Christians for 1400 years.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
I find that issues of Arian influence are quite interesting. Many of these kinds of issues are based on certain presuppositions.

One could say that Arians edited the text to support their heresy more, or one could say that the Orthodox edited the text to fight against such heresy.

A key question for me falls more along the lines of which text the Church has accepted. Then the we must decide what time frame we are referring to. Over the entire span of Church history the Byzantine text has been widely accepted. In the modern Church the Critical Text is widely accepted.

Perhaps we can learn from Scripture itself. Jesus and His contemporaries seem to have used a text that was common to their generation yet different from previous generations. At the same time they did not diminish the sacredness of the Scripture, but in fact proclaimed it.

Perhaps in our modern culture, where direct quotes and verbatim responses are par for the day, we misjudge the context that the Scriptures were written in.

:worms:
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
I find that issues of Arian influence are quite interesting. Many of these kinds of issues are based on certain presuppositions.

One could say that Arians edited the text to support their heresy more, or one could say that the Orthodox edited the text to fight against such heresy.

A key question for me falls more along the lines of which text the Church has accepted.
No. The orthodox far outnumbered the heretics and the NT manuscripts all agree with each other 94% of the time. The Alexandrian manuscripts used in the CT do not agree very well with each other (which is why the text-critical, eclectic text exists), another fact that is consistent with alteration. To introduce the hypothesis that everyone got it wrong but the Arians has three problems:

(1) That orthodox Christians are so dishonest, we would alter our own Scriptures to support our views;
(2) That the vast majority of Christians inside and outside the empire conspired in a vast conspiracy lasting thousands of years;
(3) Here is corroborative evidence suggesting that Arians may have altered manuscripts (owing to motive consistent with doctrinal themes and by opportunity of time and place), but there is no such corroboration that orthodox believers did likewise.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
(1) That orthodox Christians are so dishonest, we would alter our own Scriptures to support our views;
(2) That the vast majority of Christians inside and outside the empire conspired in a vast conspiracy lasting thousands of years;
(3) Here is corroborative evidence suggesting that Arians may have altered manuscripts (owing to motive consistent with doctrinal themes and by opportunity of time and place), but there is no such corroboration that orthodox believers did likewise.

Exactly. Conspiracy theories and bad sources don't make a good hypothesis.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
No. The orthodox far outnumbered the heretics and the NT manuscripts all agree with each other 94% of the time. The Alexandrian manuscripts used in the CT do not agree very well with each other (which is why the text-critical, eclectic text exists), another fact that is consistent with alteration.
I presume you are speaking of the 2 manuscripts - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - when you say that the Alexandrian manuscripts don't agree with each other very well. First, those are not the only 2 witnesses for the Alexandrian text. Second, the fact that there are differences does not prove a purposeful editing of the text.

The Koran is very uniform in its existing texts. Not because it's so close to the original, but because the text was purposefully edited to make one "official" text. To suggest that there is no way that the Orthodox would do such a thing to the Christian Scriptures is to presume too much.

The Diocletian persecution focused more intently on the Byzantine area than on others. They destroyed Scripture manuscripts to a very large degree. It wasn't until after this persecution that the Byzantines could have progressed in any way regarding the production of texts since they would have just been destroyed. Therefore, it is possible that after the Diocletian persecution the Byzantines created an "official" version of the Scriptures that would have smoothed out the text quite substantially. Since the manuscripts that were created after that would have been copied from the "official" version they would be very similar and agree with each other a great deal.


To introduce the hypothesis that everyone got it wrong but the Arians has three problems:

(1) That orthodox Christians are so dishonest, we would alter our own Scriptures to support our views;
(2) That the vast majority of Christians inside and outside the empire conspired in a vast conspiracy lasting thousands of years;
(3) Here is corroborative evidence suggesting that Arians may have altered manuscripts (owing to motive consistent with doctrinal themes and by opportunity of time and place), but there is no such corroboration that orthodox believers did likewise.
You would first have to prove that the Arians are responsible for the Alexandrian texts, and not just the 2 texts mentioned above, but also the P75 and such.

1 - I do not put orthodox Christians beyond the reach of sin, so yes they can be dishonest.

2 - You wouldn't need a huge conspiracy, you would need a very small one right after the persecution. The generations after that would have simply been faithfully copying what they had received. I don't even think "conspiracy" is the right word as they were simply trying to get their text back that was destroyed.

3 - The orthodox would have the same motive of doctrinal themes. They would also have a need to create a text after the persecution.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
Why use only the 'Critical Text' (CT) which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father when 94% of all NT manuscripts agree with each other and disagree with the CT?

To say that Christians who believed in the inspiration of holy Scripture deliberately changed it wholesale (in 94% of the manuscripts), is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, no evidence has been given.

The poor agreement among all Alexandrian manuscripts (the source of the CT) is consistent with their deliberate falsification, not that of all the other manuscripts. It is more difficult to get a falsification straight among many hands than it is simply to copy the truth. Put more simply, police look for variations in a story as evidence of a lie. Consistency is evidence of truth.

Assuming manuscripts of the Koran are more consistent than the Alexandrian family, then the Alexandrian copyists were less conscientious than Muslims. Something to think about.

Diocletian ruled the one empire, East and West. His persecution was systematic in both East and West. Further, the theory of a "Western textual family" has been debunked. Essentially, this leaves one family used by the Great Church, and one by a very tiny minority associated with Alexandria at the height of Arianism.

But regarding the rest of Christians, to say they "created" a new text means that most all Scripture was lost and forgotten. To claim that almost nothing survived Diocletian's persecution would require extraordinary proof. But where is the evidence that most all Christian owners of manuscripts were traditori?

Almost everyone would have been disciplined and excommunicated, which somehow escaped notice. Remember that during the Donatist controversy, bishop Felix of Aptunga was impeached (and cleared) for allegations that he was one such traditor; if everyone else did the same thing, why does history record him as exceptional?

Nonetheless, even assuming that only a few manuscripts survived the persecution, then there is yet the authentic basis for more copies of original, inspired Scripture.

Once again, it is an extraordinary claim to say that a new Biblical text was created. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But no evidence corroborates this.

The actual evidence says the opposite. Predating both Diocletian's persecution and the Alexandrian family are papyri belonging to the supposedly lately "created" texts. Time travel?

And then, how did millions of Christian inside the Roman Empire and outside (did Diocletian's persecution reach that far?) keep quiet about this hypothetical new text?

So again, why use only the 'Critical Text' which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father?


I presume...
 
Last edited:

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
I find that issues of Arian influence are quite interesting. Many of these kinds of issues are based on certain presuppositions.

Some underlying presuppositions of modern textual criticism:
1) The Bible can be treated like any other book (contrary to scripture and therefore false Hebrews 4:12; WCF 1)
2) There was a Lucian recension (completely discredited; no historical support)
3) The true text of scripture has been lost and autonomous man must recover it (contrary to scripture and therefore false WCF 1.8; Is 59:21; Acts 2:38; Jn 17:17; et. al.)

The presuppositions of modern textual criticism do not comport with reality.

If the text type used throughout the majority of the history of Christendom was one type, and the modern critical text is another type based on a text type abandoned for the most part by Christendom for over 1500 yrs, the final determining factor would not be our reasoning, but would instead be scripture.

Isaiah 59:21 - As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

As the critical text and its underlying text type do not have the greatest geographical and chronological distribution they do not meet the qualifications of this verse.

:2cents:
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
Why use only the 'Critical Text' (CT) which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father when 94% of all NT manuscripts agree with each other and disagree with the CT?
This goes back to what's already been discussed regarding the presumption that it was changed to be more heterodox rather than more orthodox.


To say that Christians who believed in the inspiration of holy Scripture deliberately changed it wholesale (in 94% of the manuscripts), is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, no evidence has been given.
Again, going back to what's already been discussed, it's not that 94% of the manuscripts were deliberately changed, but that one or a few were created after the Diocletian persecution. The rest of the 94% simply faithfully copied those few that were created.

The poor agreement among all Alexandrian manuscripts (the source of the CT) is consistent with their deliberate falsification, not that of all the other manuscripts. It is more difficult to get a falsification straight among many hands than it is simply to copy the truth. Put more simply, police look for variations in a story as evidence of a lie. Consistency is evidence of truth.
Dealing with texts is a very different enterprise then dealing with police matters. I will again point to the Koran to make that point. Clearly a religious text can be edited in order to remove variation.
If you could prove that "all" Alexandrian manuscripts are in poor agreement i would like to see that. Particularly between the P75 and Vaticanus.


Diocletian ruled the one empire, East and West. His persecution was systematic in both East and West. Further, the theory of a "Western textual family" has been debunked. Essentially, this leaves one family used by the Great Church, and one by a very tiny minority associated with Alexandria at the height of Arianism.
Theodore Letis points out in his dissertation that the persecution was probably more severe in the East. He uses this information to show that the Byzantine text is more accurate pointing out that they would have hidden their most precious manuscripts, and then when the persecution was over they would have made copies from these "good" manuscripts.

This just shows that it's a matter of one's interpretation of the events, which was my point.


But regarding the rest of Christians, to say they "created" a new text means that most all Scripture was lost and forgotten. To claim that almost nothing survived Diocletian's persecution would require extraordinary proof. But where is the evidence that most all Christian owners of manuscripts were traditori?
It is just one possibility of what may have historically happened. I don't support that theory, but we must understand that much of our interpretation of the history of the text at this early stage is presumption.

Almost everyone would have been disciplined and excommunicated, which somehow escaped notice. Remember that during the Donatist controversy, bishop Felix of Aptunga was impeached (and cleared) for allegations that he was one such traditor; if everyone else did the same thing, why does history record him as exceptional?
I wouldn't think that every "owner" of a manuscript would be considered as worthy to fill the history books as a bishop would be. Certainly there were many who were traitors, not just Felix of Aptunga.
Since the persecutors wouldn't have needed permission to burn the manuscripts this would go back to the other presumptions spoken of...especially regarding manuscripts that may have been hidden.


Nonetheless, even assuming that only a few manuscripts survived the persecution, then there is yet the authentic basis for more copies of original, inspired Scripture.
Again, this depends on how you interpret the data.

Once again, it is an extraordinary claim to say that a new Biblical text was created. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But no evidence corroborates this.
It's just one possibility...and it's not actually the creation of a new text, but the reconstruction of a text that was lost.
There is no proof, just as there is no proof of Arian involvement...that's my point, it's a matter of interpretation of the events.

The actual evidence says the opposite. Predating both Diocletian's persecution and the Alexandrian family are papyri belonging to the supposedly lately "created" texts. Time travel?
There are readings within the papryi, but are there Byzantine-type papyri? If so please name them for me so that i can look into that.


And then, how did millions of Christian inside the Roman Empire and outside (did Diocletian's persecution reach that far?) keep quiet about this hypothetical new text?
Did they keep as quiet as they did with the Arians creating a text-type?


So again, why use only the 'Critical Text' which shows hundreds of examples of subordinating Christ's deity to the Father?
Or the Byzantine shows examples of inserting passage to make the orthodox belief more prevalent in the text...again, a matter of interpretation.

I am a supporter of the KJV and the texts that it is based off of. I just don't think that many of the arguments are worthy to be pursued to the extent that they have been because it is a matter of interpretation.

For me it is enough that the Church bears her testimony that She has accepted a particular text. To go in search of the originals, find out exactly where textual families come from, etc., etc., is of little consequence. We have the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) that we can rely on.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
This goes back to what's already been discussed regarding the presumption that it was changed to be more heterodox rather than more orthodox... It's just one possibility... copied those few that were created... There is no proof...
You are of course right. Regarding that 94% of all manuscripts of the New Testament are wrong and that fewer than 2% are right: Where's the evidence?! What "would have" been is not evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's not up to anyone to disprove a claim. The claimant must provide the extraordinary proof.

Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece falls far short.

----

To read about the unequivocality of the evidence in favor of 94% of the manuscripts, including ancient papyri, go here: http://walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering3b.htm
 
Last edited:

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Since this post seems to have strayed rather far from topic, I thought I would try to bring it back.

Rev. 16:16 -- First, I don't think the translators would say they were "weakening God's sovereignty," but rather they were accurately giving the sense of the passage. Yes, the verb in Greek in singular. However, it is quite common for collective plural nouns to take a singular verb form. Thus, the translators are simply trying to remain faithful to verse 14 before it. Contextually, it seems it should be they, as, interestingly, even an old "dud" like John Gill says is probable.

Heb. 3:16 -- I think that if we try to make the passage somehow include the exception of Joshua and Caleb, we wrest the natural meaning of the text. Again, in this passage, I would have to agree with how the NKJV and most others, and most commentators, and all my Greek sense translates it, taking the "tines" as interrogative--"For who where they who heard and rebelled?", not, "For some, when they heard did rebel." The Caleb/Joshua problem I don't think is really a problem--we find such statements all over scripture in both testaments. For instance--was Nebudchenezzer in Daniel really ruler of all the earth, with all creatures subject to him? Or, as we confess that all who are under the law are sinners, do we therefore say that Christ is as well as he was made "under the law?" Scripture, I believe, can use the word all freely when it is assumed we know of the exceptions.

Gal. 5:4 -- I don't think, larryjf that the response you gave regarding this verse is necessarily strong. I do agree that estranged is perhaps not the best word to translate it; but the idea behind it is not so horrible. If you combine the two ideas of King Jimmy and New King Jimmy, I think you do get an accurate picture. As Fritzsche said, to katargeisthai someone is "to come to nothing in regard to the relation hitherto subsisting with anyone, so that we are parted from him." This very accurately captures the meaning of the word, in my opinion. I think, in this case, neither of the translations quite hits the nail on the head.

Lastly, Matthew 15:32 -- I don't think there is any difference here at all. I agree, it is not the best word choice by the NKJV. I would simply translate the passage, "send them away not eating (or without food)." But I think you may be over interpreting a passage based upon cognates of the ENGLISH word.

It is interesting to me that all of these questions are not based upon questions of textual criticism; are not based upon anything confessional, etc. And yet the general mood here is that King Jimmy is best, and shouldn't be questioned too much, as though it somehow is more confessional. However, the best translation of scripture, as the faithful have always confessed, is not the one that best proves certain doctrines, but rather that which is most faithful to the text. We should not disparage the continued efforts of the faithful to improve our translations for the church, as the preface to the KJV itself testifies.

All in all, as a thoroughly confessional man, I think for the most part you have picked verses which do show an improvement in translational ability--particularly the Hebrews example.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Bottom line:

I think that, even though confessional people would generally with words deny KJV-onlyism, it seems to be living implicitly in this discussion:

This is what the KJV says, and these things say differently; and we know that the KJV is right, therefore these translations must be made in no fear toward God and are trying to change doctrines and ideas.

As we confess, the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New in Greek are authoritative and the judge of controversies. Let's not even flirt with the idea of making the KJV the authoritative scripture for english speaking people.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
Bottom line:

I think that, even though confessional people would generally with words deny KJV-onlyism, it seems to be living implicitly in this discussion:

This is what the KJV says, and these things say differently; and we know that the KJV is right, therefore these translations must be made in no fear toward God and are trying to change doctrines and ideas.

As we confess, the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New in Greek are authoritative and the judge of controversies. Let's not even flirt with the idea of making the KJV the authoritative scripture for english speaking people.
This is good!

There is a problem with using English, rather than the Greek, to support an argument. I don't have time to check just now (maybe later), but since you are already referring to the Greek base, are you using Nestle-Aland or TR or one of the Majority Text versions (there are now three of the latter)? You see, there may be two different readings for the examples you thoughtfully gave.

(By the way, now in a conservative Presb. seminary, I contentedly use Nestle-Aland without complaint as a matter of humility, obedience, and love of the program I am in.)
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Thanks for your reply.

Actually, there are no significant variants anywhere for any of the examples he provided.

I'm glad your seminary experience is going well. Soli Deo Gloria!
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
I am sorry that i have been part of the problem with taking this thread off topic. It was never meant to be a thread about manuscripts, but rather about translation choices between two versions that translate from the same text.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am sorry that i have been part of the problem with taking this thread off topic. It was never meant to be a thread about manuscripts, but rather about translation choices between two versions that translate from the same text.

You are a good man, brother!
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Peter,

Sorry I didn't really have time to respond earlier. What seminary are you attending? I'm glad that you love it.

My normal, everyday NT is the latest edition of the Nestle-Aland text, but I am by no means a slave to it.

Also, in clarification of my previous quick answer: for the Revelation 16:16 example Larry provided, Codex Sinaiticus is the only variant anywhere of the verb sunagw, and in that case, the verb is made plural. No variants anywhere on Galatians 5:4 or Matthew 15, with respect to the words he selected. Hebrews, of course, is not an issue of variants, but an issue of where interpreters place the accent on tives. So from a textual critical point of view, there is nothing of interest here. It all comes down to how we translate these universally attested passages.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
This is what the KJV says, and these things say differently; and we know that the KJV is right, therefore these translations must be made in no fear toward God and are trying to change doctrines and ideas.

This is simply a bad characterisation and one that shrugs off the responsibility to weigh the rationale provided for an AV preferred position.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Rev. Winzer, please forgive me. I did not mean to present a bad caricature of a position, or to shrug of that responsibility. That is not a responsibility I should ever shrug off, and if you cared to have that discussion, I will gladly do it on another thread. I was being overly-brief for the purposes of remaining on track.

The one thing which I would say on this thread, however, and which I hope you will agree, is that we cannot risk elevating such issues to confessional status. These are not our boundary lines; the confessions are. The confessional position is that we appeal to the autographs in Greek.

Finally, as most of the issues regarding an "AV preferred position," as you term it (I like that, by the way--I've never heard that), deal with the greek texts upon which translations are based (unless of course you have entirely different reasons), I would point again that within the context of this thread, all of the examples of translational difference which Larry provided at the start of this thread are the exact same wording in Greek whether you are reading the textus receptus, any major critical text, or what have you. Keeping with Larry's original post, these things become irrelevant and are not a factor.

Again, please forgive me if you feel I was attempting to hastily push something aside.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Rev. Winzer, please forgive me. I did not mean to present a bad caricature of a position, or to shrug of that responsibility. That is not a responsibility I should ever shrug off, and if you cared to have that discussion, I will gladly do it on another thread. I was being overly-brief for the purposes of remaining on track.

The one thing which I would say on this thread, however, and which I hope you will agree, is that we cannot risk elevating such issues to confessional status. These are not our boundary lines; the confessions are. The confessional position is that we appeal to the autographs in Greek.

Finally, as most of the issues regarding an "AV preferred position," as you term it (I like that, by the way--I've never heard that), deal with the greek texts upon which translations are based (unless of course you have entirely different reasons), I would point again that within the context of this thread, all of the examples of translational difference which Larry provided at the start of this thread are the exact same wording in Greek whether you are reading the textus receptus, any major critical text, or what have you. Keeping with Larry's original post, these things become irrelevant and are not a factor.

Again, please forgive me if you feel I was attempting to hastily push something aside.

Dear brother, Dr. Warfield's position only leaves an appeal to autographs; if WCF 1:8 is read carefully it will be seen that the apographs are our source of appeal, and these are regarded as entirely preserving what God immediately inspired.

The issues raised by brother Larry actually pertain to translation, not textual criticism. The translation criticisms are not irrelevant if they are understood as speaking to the issue of translation. The AV preferred position does not hold that any old translation will do as long as it "comes close to the original." We hold with the Confession that the purpose of translation is that every one might be able to read "the very Word of God" with a high and reverent esteem.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Rev. Winzer, I think you misread me. I said exactly that: the issue raised by Larry is entirely about translation, and has nothing to do with textual criticism. As such, I'm not sure I can tell exactly what you mean by your post.

Also, I said exactly what you said about the confessions. I said, according to the confessions, we appeal to the autographs.

Your response was almost an exact copy of what you were responding to.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Rev. Winzer, I think you misread me. I said exactly that: the issue raised by Larry is entirely about translation, and has nothing to do with textual criticism. As such, I'm not sure I can tell exactly what you mean by your post.

Also, I said exactly what you said about the confessions. I said, according to the confessions, we appeal to the autographs.

I apologise if I am misunderstanding, but it seems you are saying something different. If we agree the thread is about translations, why bring in the issue of textual criticism? Also, I noted that we do not appeal to the autographs, but to the apographs; the Confession teaches the apographs, being providentially preserved, are to be appealed to.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Rev. Winzer --

The textual criticism part was responding to a direct question someone asked me. All along, I had been trying to point out that this question had nothing to do with textual criticism, as all sources agreed on the texts in question. I had been trying to emphasize that all the prior discussion on this had been irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Also, you're absolutely right: sorry, I misread that you wrote apograph instead of autographa. I use the terms interchangeably at times (perhaps erroneously), following men such as Warfield, and Turretin and Owen, etc., in believing that in our apographs, the autographs are present.

We agree: we appeal to the Greek text. As we have it. Turretin provides, I feel, a fine representation of the reformed understanding of this topic. Variants do not mean corruption. We do not need to appeal to some reconstructed original text to say we are appealing to the authoritative scriptures. This also doesn't mean there's no place in the church for textual criticism, as it seems at least Erasmus agreed a few hundred years ago. But again, this has nothing to do with Larry's post. Sorry for the confusion.

Grace and peace, brother.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The textual criticism part was responding to a direct question someone asked me. All along, I had been trying to point out that this question had nothing to do with textual criticism, as all sources agreed on the texts in question. I had been trying to emphasize that all the prior discussion on this had been irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I can see the misunderstanding is my fault, and apologise for the confusion.

I am thankful we can agree on the confessional principles of preservation and translation; differences pertaining to the AV preferred position must be arising from an application of these principles. I can assure you that my advocacy of this position is not an a priori assumption on my part; I was not brought up with the AV, but chose it as my preferred Bible after many years of studying the Bible and comparing translations. Blessings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top