Only Perfect Translation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was just checking on the KJV translation of שי in Isaiah 18:7 as well. The Ugaritic term ty appears to be a cognate and, in fact, the vocabulary is almost identical to what is found in the Ugaritic letters we did in Ugaritic class. The KJV translation is *way* off here:

In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled,

The actual rendering of the passage should be that a people scattered and peeled *will bring* a tribute offering, not that they will be the offering. In fact, *all* other translations have this. The KJV is simply in error here, again, mostly because the didn't know the significance of this vocabulary [שי with יבל] in Northwest Semitic.

God Bless,
Adam

Adam,

Respectfully, I cannot agree with your analysis here. You are translating יובל incorrectly as an active voice - as a hiphil - instead of as a hophal, a passive.

The Hebrew does not say "a people shall bring a tribute" - to the contrary, it says "a tribute shall be brought."

Ugaritic has nothing to do with this passage. The same words occur in Psalm 68.20:

WTT Psalm 68:30 מֵֽ֭הֵיכָלֶךָ עַל־יְרוּשָׁלִָ֑ם לְךָ֤ יוֹבִ֖ילוּ מְלָכִ֣ים שָֽׁי׃

I realise that the points here are a bit askew - this is cut-and-pasted from BibleWorks - but do notice that here, the hiphil, the active voice is used:

יובילו מלכים שי

Kings shall bring a tribute.

The same words are used here in Psalm 68.20 as are used in Isaiah 18.7. This is straight Hebrew. The only difference is that the hophal is used in Isaiah 18.17, where the active or the hiphil is used in Psalm 68.20. Ugaritic has nothing to do with the situation here.

The literal rendering of this verse is as follows:

בָּעֵת֩ הַהִ֙יא יֽוּבַל־שַׁ֜י לַיהוָ֣ה צְבָא֗וֹת עַ֚ם מְמֻשָּׁ֣ךְ וּמוֹרָ֔ט וּמֵעַ֥ם נוֹרָ֖א מִן־ה֣וּא וָהָ֑לְאָה גּ֣וֹי׀ קַו־קָ֣ו וּמְבוּסָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֙ר בָּזְא֤וּ נְהָרִים֙ אַרְצ֔וֹ אֶל־מְק֛וֹם שֵׁם־יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת הַר־צִיּֽוֹן׃
(Isa 18:7 WTT)

"And in that time shall be brought a tribute [or a gift] to the LORD of Hosts, a people drawn forth and peeled, even from a terrible people from the beginning and onwards, a nation measured [or lined out] and trodden down, whose land is cut through by rivers, to the place of the Name of the LORD of Hosts, even Mount Zion."

Moreover, the famed rabbinical commentator, David Kimchi, whom the Authorised Version translators consulted, correctly comments on the verse as follows:

ז) בעת ההיא יובל שי - אומות העולם יובילו שי עם ישראל לה' מנחה, כמו שאמר והביאו את כל אחיכם מכל הגוים מנחה לה'

My rough translation:

"In that time shall be brought tribute" - The peoples of the earth shall bring tribute, namely, the people of Israel, to HaShem for an offering, even as he says "and they shall bring your brethren from all the names for an offering to HaShem". (Kimchi is citing Isaiah 60 here.)

You should get the Judaica Response CD of all the Jewish works from Bar Ilan University.
 
Last edited:
Nice!! Always good and interesting info Albert. Could you expand on this?

Interestingly, Kutscher also believed the Byzantine Text of the Greek to be the better and more reliable text of both the Greek Septuagint

Does that mean that Byzantine era editions of the Septuagint are better than those Septuagint fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? I've read that while DSS Hebrew fragments show about a 5 percent variation, mostly idioms, the difference between DSS Septuagint fragments are quite higher.
 
As seen with the current thread on the Reina-Valera, some think the AV is not only the perfect English translation, but the standard by which all translations of any language must be judged, even those that are based on the Received Text.
 
Nice!! Always good and interesting info Albert. Could you expand on this?

Interestingly, Kutscher also believed the Byzantine Text of the Greek to be the better and more reliable text of both the Greek Septuagint

Does that mean that Byzantine era editions of the Septuagint are better than those Septuagint fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? I've read that while DSS Hebrew fragments show about a 5 percent variation, mostly idioms, the difference between DSS Septuagint fragments are quite higher.

Tim,

Interestingly, the Greek Orthodox Church prefers the Alexandrian manuscripts of the Septuagint, which actually makes sense. The LXX is indeed an Alexandrian work! That's where it originated.

The Hebrew text that underlies the LXX, however, leaves a lot to be desired. It is rife with omissions. The LXX, for example, only has about 80% of the Hebrew text of Jeremiah, and several of the chapters are inverted.

The LXX is good to consult in difficult passages, and it is very interesting also to see how they rendered the Messianic passages, since they were Jews who translated it in about the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. That said, however, the LXX must always be viewed as secondary to the Masoretic Text.

Al

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

As seen with the current thread on the Reina-Valera, some think the AV is not only the perfect English translation, but the standard by which all translations of any language must be judged, even those that are based on the Received Text.

Unfortunately, there are some who want to make the Spanish follow the AV, and not the original language texts. The TBS translators have very firmly held the line against that in our current revision. It's the original language text that must have the pre-eminence, in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith. "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." "All controversies of religion" include "how to translate the original language text."

Also: it is important to note that while the various editions of the Textus Receptus are overwhelmingly in agreement, more so than any other editions, nonetheless, there are occasional variants. And we at TBS honour the edition of the Textus Receptus which the original Reformation translation followed. So: for example, where the Reina/Valera does not include the words "as though he heard them not" in its translation of John 8.6, we hold fast to that in any updates we do to that translation. We might add a footnote, but we do not alter the translation itself to make it follow another edition of the TR.

Al Hembd
Jerusalem
 
alhembd,

Martin Snyder on this thread has pointed me to some of your comments. I work for the Trinitarian Bible Society. I am also a student at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I have now been here in Jerusalem for two years.

I am aware of the Trinitarian Bible Society. However, as Dr. James White said, if you argue that the Textus Receptus or the Masoretic Text cannot be corrected, what is the functional difference between your position and the KJV only position? Rather than grabbing and English translation, you have simply grabbed one text and said, "this is the text." I see no functional difference between that and KJV Onlyism.

Respectfully, I cannot agree with your analysis here. You are translating יובל incorrectly as an active voice - as a hiphil - instead of as a hophal, a passive.

That is fine, and you are right that this is a hophal [I was translating the text in haste], but that is not the issue I was addressing anyways. I was addressing whether the KJV properly recognized that the gifts of tribute came *from* those nations, not that these nations *are* the tribute. In such a context, when you have nations following, how can you escape the fact the mentioning of nations in the context of tribute means that the nations are giving tribute, not that the nations are the tribute? That is why pretty much all modern translations recognize that the tributes are coming from these nations, not that the tribute is these nations, largely due to the fact that we know from Ugaritic that this is the common construction for the bringing of a tribute.

As for the other place in the KJV, you are correct that the KJV renders that passage correctly, but it wouldn't make sense to render it any other way. Try rendering it, "Because of thy temple in Jerusalem shall presents bring kings unto thee." It doesn't make any sense. It is where you have the passive voice used, and then the min preposition that you need to know that this combination speaks, specifically, of the bringing of tribute *from* someone.

Moreover, the famed rabbinical commentator, David Kimchi, whom the Authorised Version translators consulted, correctly comments on the verse as follows:

ז) בעת ההיא יובל שי - אומות העולם יובילו שי עם ישראל לה' מנחה, כמו שאמר והביאו את כל אחיכם מכל הגוים מנחה לה'

My rough translation:

"In that time shall be brought tribute" - The peoples of the earth shall bring tribute, namely, the people of Israel, to HaShem for an offering, even as he says "and they shall bring your brethren from all the names for an offering to HaShem". (Kimchi is citing Isaiah 60 here.)

Why should I accept a rabbinic interpretation as the final authority in interpretation? Is this how we do exegesis? As Dr. Michael Brown has pointed out, the rabbis had some downright idiotic interpretations of scripture. Also, again, this doesn't recognize the current state of affairs in the discovery of Ugaritic. The rabbis simply did not have this information to work with.

Again, this is the reason why I said that this is functionally the same as KJV Onlyism. You can only go back to a certain point [that of the rabbis], but no further, because this text that we have chosen out of thin air is the standard. That is the essence of KJV onlyism: the love of a tradition rather than the love of truth.

Also, I should add that you are taking me out of context when you say that I am saying that older is necessarily better. We were talking, in context, about how a person who is already dead would react if they know of modern findings. I pointed out that there are times when we can be fairly certain such as when he makes presuppositions such as "older is better" well known, as the conclusions he comes to will be consistent with his presuppositions. In fact, I even denied that "older is better" is necessarily true. If you have a clear instance of homoiteluton in an older manuscript, it is wrong. In fact, in the Kittef Hinnom scrolls, you have just such a possibility.

On a personal note, it is interesting that you are studying over in Israel, as I have several friends who decided otherwise after Anson Rainey came and lectured at Trinity, and one imparticular I have been praying for a lot recently. I don't how long he said he was going to be studying over there, but I will keep you guys in prayer so that nothing happens to you while you are over there as the threat of terrorism is very real.

God Bless,
Adam
 
Tim C, you said,

The words providential preservation actually start a rabbit trail by ignoring a key point. For God did not only preserve a particular text type. What He has in fact "providentially preserved" is every single NT MSS that we have. The question we face is how to determine which of the many MSS families or individual MS are closest to the autographs. And when manuscripts are discovered that are a) older than the earliest examples of the then best known MSS family, and b) significantly different from it, crying providential preservation in favour of any text family is simply a begging of the real question.

The issue for me in this – what I consider the “key point” – pertains to the variant readings which almost always omit key sections of Scripture, such as parts of the Lord’s prayer (in Matt 6 and Luke 11), the last 12 verses of Mark’s gospel, the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), “God” in “God was manifest in the flesh” removed in 1 Tim 3:16. Although in the ESV’s Matt 1:7, 10 the correct reading is changed from Asa to Asaph and Amon to Amos in Christ’s genealogy, removing His royal forebears in lieu of a psalmist and a prophet. And this primarily on the basis of codices Aleph ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]) and Vaticanus (B). Metzger stood by the reading and said that Matthew just made a mistake.

The problem with claiming the long ending of Mark as canonical is that while it includes details taught elsewhere in Scripture it also includes a detail that formally contradicts another place in Scripture. I refer to Jesus' appearance "in another form" in v. 12 which formally contradicts Lk. 24:16 where the "eyes" of the disciples "were kept from recognizing him."

I don't hold that the Alexandrian text is above the necessary work of textual criticism and I don't agree with Metzger's claim.

These two “earliest” manuscripts, [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, although they are the among the oldest, and are considered the foundation of the modern critical Greek texts, differ between themselves in 3,036 places in the gospels alone! In a court these contradictory witnesses would impugn each other’s testimony.

Okay, God preserved all the extant mss, but as with plants, we are to use our discriminatory powers when selecting those to eat, and likewise among the manuscripts – that we do not ingest poison. The question is, did God preserve a text – a Bible – that accurately reflects the originals?

And my answer to that is yes, whatever family of text type we look at. For we can derive every doctrine of the historical Protestant faith from every one of them.

The scholars – the text-critical Greek experts – who labor using the supposedly most reliable mss, excluding as you term it “what may be the 2nd least accurate family of MSS” (I assume you are referring to the Byz), themselves express grave doubts and skepticism about ever finding out the original text of the NT.

I do not know whether all of the men you cite in your thread have are evangelicals. But what they seem to be referring to is a quest for deriving a perfect autograph of the NT. Since the variances that exist even across MSS families do not invalidate any doctrine of the faith, I can be equally as confident in the essentials of my bible even as I recognize that the present situation means that there is some uncertainty about the original phrasing of particular less relevant details.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

What He has in fact "providentially preserved" is every single NT MSS that we have.

The Confession makes a distinction between general providence and that special providence by which God cares for His church. WCF 5.7, "As the providence of God doth in general reach to all creatures, so after a most special manner it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof." The preservation of the holy Scripture, so that it is kept pure and entire in all ages, is ascribed to "the singular care and providence of God," WCF 1.8. It is a categorical mistake to regard the preservation of the Scripture as a part of the general providence of God only.

You seem to have overlooked the second sentence of the following paragraph in my quoted post which addresses your concern. Since we cannot demonstrate the loss of any historic Protestant doctrine by relying solely on non-Byzantine texts, we must conclude that in fact God has kept Holy Scripture pure and entire in all ages, even though there are some differences in non-essential points both within and without the Byzantine family, of which it is the duty of textual critics to work towards resolution.

I should also mention that this is another point where the WCF could well be updated. For the only Scriptural support the Divines provide for the claim that Scripture will be "kept pure in all ages" is Matt. 5:18, a text which says nothing about the NT but refers to the OT law. In addition, the text says nothing about preservation but rather asserts the continuing validity of the law's least details until a later event, either Christ's crucifixion or the end of the age. Unless one can show by GNC reasoning that this Scripture, which at first sight is addressing other topics, also necessarily leads to the Divines' conclusion, it appears that other Scriptural support for the Divines' claim will need to be found.
 
You seem to have overlooked the second sentence of the following paragraph in my quoted post which addresses your concern. Since we cannot demonstrate the loss of any historic Protestant doctrine by relying solely on non-Byzantine texts, we must conclude that in fact God has kept Holy Scripture pure and entire in all ages, even though there are some differences in non-essential points, both within and without the Byzantine family of which it is the duty and discipline of textual criticism to work towards their resolution.

All you have put forth is the preservation of "doctrine." WCF 1.8 teaches the preservation of the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. The reference is to the writings, not to the doctrines contained in the writings.

Thomas Ford, in Logos Autopistos, provides an example of the kind of thinking behind the Confession:

"We know the Original Old Testament by the consent of our Bibles, and those which the Jews preserve to this day (as we think) by a speciall providence. What better evidence can there be in such a case than this? They had the honour to have the lively Oracles committed to them, and we never heard they could be justly blamed for being false to their trust thus far. And these Infidels still retain the Old Testament, as it was, though the Christians make use of it to justifie the Christian faith against them. And if they had attempted any alteration, they could never have effected it, as was showed before. Now while their Copies and ours agree so well together, as we have no difference with them about this, have we not good reason to persuade our selves, that our Original Bibles are as at first?"

I should also mention that this is another point where the WCF could well be updated. For the only Scriptural support the Divines provide for the claim that Scripture will be "kept pure in all ages" is Matt. 5:18, a text which says nothing about the NT but refers to the OT law, and says nothing about the law's preservation but rather the continuing validity of the law's least details until a later event, either Christ's crucifixion or the end of the age. Unless one can show by GNC reasoning that this Scripture necessarily leads to the Divines' conclusion, other Scriptural support for the claim will need to be found.

The desire for "other Scriptural support" presupposes the very thing for which you are requiring support -- the preservation of the Scriptures.
 
You seem to have overlooked the second sentence of the following paragraph in my quoted post which addresses your concern. Since we cannot demonstrate the loss of any historic Protestant doctrine by relying solely on non-Byzantine texts, we must conclude that in fact God has kept Holy Scripture pure and entire in all ages, even though there are some differences in non-essential points, both within and without the Byzantine family of which it is the duty and discipline of textual criticism to work towards their resolution.

All you have put forth is the preservation of "doctrine." WCF 1.8 teaches the preservation of the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. The reference is to the writings, not to the doctrines contained in the writings.

If that is so, how then do we say that any MSS (Byzantine or not) contains the pure Scripture without doing the work of textual emendation among differing texts? And why is it legitimate to restrict our field of text only to Byzantine family?

Thomas Ford, in Logos Autopistos, provides an example of the kind of thinking behind the Confession:

"We know the Original Old Testament by the consent of our Bibles, and those which the Jews preserve to this day (as we think) by a speciall providence. What better evidence can there be in such a case than this? They had the honour to have the lively Oracles committed to them, and we never heard they could be justly blamed for being false to their trust thus far. And these Infidels still retain the Old Testament, as it was, though the Christians make use of it to justifie the Christian faith against them. And if they had attempted any alteration, they could never have effected it, as was showed before. Now while their Copies and ours agree so well together, as we have no difference with them about this, have we not good reason to persuade our selves, that our Original Bibles are as at first?"
[/QUOTE]

Thanks to the way events have played out since Ford's day, the two cases are no longer parallel: we presently deal with a wider discrepancy in our texts than the Jews did. We have entire text families that were effectively unknown to the Westminster Divines and their contemporaries (the full extent of Vaticanus' differences from the Byzantine being effectively unknown till the 19th century). And we have to biblically justify how we deal with that wider discrepancy to those we disagree with.

I should also mention that this is another point where the WCF could well be updated. For the only Scriptural support the Divines provide for the claim that Scripture will be "kept pure in all ages" is Matt. 5:18, a text which says nothing about the NT but refers to the OT law, and says nothing about the law's preservation but rather the continuing validity of the law's least details until a later event, either Christ's crucifixion or the end of the age. Unless one can show by GNC reasoning that this Scripture necessarily leads to the Divines' conclusion, other Scriptural support for the claim will need to be found.

The desire for "other Scriptural support" presupposes the very thing for which you are requiring support -- the preservation of the Scriptures.

Not exactly. I'm merely pointing out that the deficiency in the supporting text means that those who want to advocate the relevant clause of WCF 1:8 to close the debate on text families must either find additional Scriptural support that validates the confessional claim or else demonstrate that it is possible to support the claim by demonstrating that it is a GNC of Mt. 5:18.
 
If that is so, how then do we say that any MSS (Byzantine or not) contains the pure Scripture without doing the work of textual emendation among differing texts? And why is it legitimate to restrict our field of text only to Byzantine family?

It is not, "If that is so;" it is so. It means we start from the presupposition that we have the word of God, not that we must find the word of God; further, that we have the word of God in its entirety, not that we can only hope for an approximation to the word of God. This presupposition will direct the work of textual criticism.

Thanks to the way events have played out since Ford's day, the two cases are no longer parallel: we presently deal with a wider discrepancy in our texts than the Jews did. We have entire text families that were effectively unknown to the Westminster Divines and their contemporaries (the full extent of Vaticanus' differences from the Byzantine being effectively unknown till the 19th century). And we have to biblically justify how we deal with that wider discrepancy to those we disagree with.

"Biblical justification" can only be given on the basis of the underlying presupposition which the divines have taught in WCF 1.8. Where that presupposition of criticism is abandoned there is no "Bible" from which to draw justification for anything. And you are mistaken on the state of critical knowledge at the time of the Assembly. The distinctive readings of these recently discovered mss. were known and rejected by the Puritans before the discovery of these particular mss.

Not exactly. I'm merely pointing out that the deficiency in the supporting text means that those who want to advocate the relevant clause of WCF 1:8 to close the debate on text families must either find additional Scriptural support that validates the confessional claim or else demonstrate that it is possible to support the claim by demonstrating that it is a GNC of Mt. 5:18.

Again, "additional Scriptural support" presupposes the Scriptures have been preserved in order to provide this support. As for the text itself, the law of Moses is as old as any part of Scripture; if that has been preserved pure and entire there is no reason to believe that what follows it is any different. The appeal of Christ and the apostles to the Old Testament does not merely substantiate the verbal and plenary inspiration and authority of the Old Testament; it also presupposes its preservation.
 
Tim C, I think Gill’s take on this is sufficient to answer you on Mark 16:12:

he appeared in another form: it seems to have been the form, or habit of a gardener that he appeared in to Mary; since she thought him to be one, and to be the gardener that belonged to the garden, in which the sepulchre was: but now it was in another form, or habit, that he appeared; very likely in the habit of a Scribe, or doctor; since he took upon him to expound the Scriptures to the persons he appeared to . . . . This is not to be understood of any change in the shape of his body, or the features of his face; for as soon as their eyes were opened, which had been before held, they knew him perfectly well: whereas, if there had been such an alteration made in him, that he could not have been known for the same, there would have been no need of holding their eyes, that they should not know him, Luke 24:16.

Tim, you say, “I can be . . . confident in the essentials of my bible”, and that is as it should be. It seems, though, you would fault me for wanting more than that, and for not considering the exclusion of significant passages “less relevant details”.

My belief is that when Jesus said, quoting from Deuteronomy, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4), and the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Peter said that by “His divine power [He] has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3), it follows that He will keep intact that which we need to live, that being His “every word”. I could quote many other Scriptures to this end, though I will let just two more suffice for the moment – to show that I am taking God at His word, and that He did indeed promise to give us that which I claim to have. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35). When 12 verses at the end of Mark are missing from some Bibles it does seem like they passed away from them!

And in Isaiah 59:21, the LORD through the prophet says,

“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.”



Tim, I have had occasion to teach believers – in Africa, the Middle East, America – the truths and reality of the Faith of Christ, and I have seen the confusion engendered in them when they read the margin notes of the NIV, ESV, NASB and are left with the disturbing sense that the certainty once held by the Reformation churches in ages past that we have the settled Word of God given to us has now been shattered, and that Rome was right after all, we do need the Roman Church to authoritatively affirm the teachings of the Gospel, and without her we have no assurance of faith. It is troubling indeed to hear the arguments of Rome concerning the Scriptures restated in this day from members within the Reformed communions, except now we need the new priestly caste – the textual experts. The Bible is no more sufficient for the simple man? But Isaiah said,

“And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The Way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein” (35:8).


 
Steve you know Gill didn't believe the TR was the Word of God in the way that Baptist Fundy KJVOnlies do. He thought, for instance, in the following case:

Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan,.... This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Gen_11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in 1Ch_1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza's most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke's Gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say "early", because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected,

so it seems a bit ironic that you would use Gill, who like the overwhelming majority of Reformers, Puritans etc... simply didn't hold to, or probably never could have imagined, the current Fundamental Baptist school of the KJVOnly theory of textual criticism.
 
Hello TimV,

Because someone doesn’t hold to a view in an area that I do, does this mean I should not avail myself of the great value of their other views? Methinks thou art becoming a bit messed up with all these KJVOnly toughs you cease not to rail against. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” (Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146)

For example, one of my very favorite NT commentators is William Hendricksen, and he is pretty much a thorough CT guy, but I love his concise, simple, profound, and very informative exegesis and commentary. If I don’t agree with all his textual choices, I just don’t agree – no big deal. Do you have anything else going on in terms of edifying, encouraging, and building up the saints? No sense in wasting the gifts the Lord has given you merely negating a view you don’t hold.

I did respond to the Cainan issue once before, and also in two posts later, in # 82 of that thread.

And I think you are aware of the nuances I hold with regard to my view.
 
Thanks to the way events have played out since Ford's day, the two cases are no longer parallel: we presently deal with a wider discrepancy in our texts than the Jews did. We have entire text families that were effectively unknown to the Westminster Divines and their contemporaries (the full extent of Vaticanus' differences from the Byzantine being effectively unknown till the 19th century). And we have to biblically justify how we deal with that wider discrepancy to those we disagree with.

"Biblical justification" can only be given on the basis of the underlying presupposition which the divines have taught in WCF 1.8. Where that presupposition of criticism is abandoned there is no "Bible" from which to draw justification for anything. And you are mistaken on the state of critical knowledge at the time of the Assembly. The distinctive readings of these recently discovered mss. were known and rejected by the Puritans before the discovery of these particular mss.

Reverend Winzer is most correct here as to the Assembly's being fully aware of the Vaticanus manuscript. I am preparing a book right now, answering James White's book The King James Only Controversy. White makes the silly claim that, had Erasmus known of the Vaticanus manuscript, he would have used its readings.

I prove that entirely wrong. Erasmus references the Vaticanus manuscript in the Preface to his 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus, and he condemns it. 350 readings from it were made available to him, and he rejected it on the ground that it did not follow the Scripture citations of the orthodox fathers like Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. I cite Erasmus' own remarks in my book. I might add that John Owen cites the Vaticanus manuscript as well, in his book defending the integrity of Ecclesiastical manuscripts of the Hebrew and the Greek: namely, the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text. With respect to the Greek text: Erasmus strongly favoured the text that was supported by the Cappadocian Fathers. But he also amended it to follow minority readings in the Textus Receptus stream, where the overwhelming majority of Latin manuscripts favoured that reading - as is the case with Acts 8.37.

Al Hembd
Trinitarian Bible Society
Jerusalem, Israel
 
Last edited:
http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/187-1.pdf#page=27:

Excerpt:

"Revelation 16.5 is called by the Critical Text proponents a ‘conjectural emendation’— essentially an ‘educated guess’ made when none of the variants is thought likely to represent what the reading should be. They ignore their own conjectural emendation in Acts 16.12 and other verses, as well as the large number of baseless changes made throughout the Old Testament of many of the modern English versions.7 Beza indeed admits that this is an emendation,8 but it is based upon almost identical readings in other passages such as Revelation 1.4, 8 and 11.17. Many of the readings supported by Critical Text proponents are based on little more than wishful thinking."
 
"Revelation 16.5 is called by the Critical Text proponents a ‘conjectural emendation’— essentially an ‘educated guess’ made when none of the variants is thought likely to represent what the reading should be. They ignore their own conjectural emendation in Acts 16.12 and other verses, as well as the large number of baseless changes made throughout the Old Testament of many of the modern English versions.7 Beza indeed admits that this is an emendation,8 but it
is based upon almost identical readings in other passages such as Revelation 1.4, 8 and 11.17. Many of the readings supported by Critical Text proponents are based on little more than wishful thinking."

Gil no one is talking about the Critical Texts or conjectural emendations or any such thing. I'll put it simply. We have several hundred Greek manuscripts of that verse, and in every single one of them the word Holy One is found where the TR uses Lord. There is literally zero Byzantine witness for the TR in this case. The Greek Antoniades NT from 1904 uses Holy One since every single Greek manuscript we have says Holy One. I looked it up the other day.

The KJVOnlies of the Fundamental Baptist variety claim that God preserved his word through the Byzantine family of texts, but plainly they don't really believe that at all. Otherwise they'd use a Byzantine reading instead of an old Southern Latin tradition.

You should ask yourself why you reject every single one of the Greek manuscripts God has preserved for his church.
 
I would encourage you to consider some of the following resources in your study:

Trinitarian Bible Society Articles

Trinitarian Bible Society Audio (I would start by listening to some of the audio here for a good introduction to the Traditional Text position)

Traditional Text Pamphlets

"The King James Version Defended" by Dr. E.F. Hills (various formats, e-Sword module)

JerusalemBlade's Textual Posts


Please note that these men are not KJV-only IFB's, but rather attempt to approach the issues from an explicitly Reformed viewpoint.

:ditto:

Please also note, however, that there is no such thing as a perfect translation.

And that includes the King James. (I know you don't disagree. I'm "just sayin'").
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top