Why side with the KJV

[Logan]

Maybe but to believe that scriptures have been preserved and then accept an eclectic text is a contradiction and a logical fallacy.

So you say. I've mentioned Dr Greg Bahnsen as one who accepted an eclectic text and believed in preservation, yet didn't consider that a contradiction and a logical fallacy. Even Erasmus' product was something of an eclectic text, was it not? Likewise all those Reformers who believed the text had been preserved, but still compared the various manuscripts, or Owen who said that any error could be corrected because the entirety of Scripture was found in the whole?

Since I don't approach this issues via the empiricist mindset (which I don't believe any believer should) maximum certainty is fine with me.

Then you end up with the assumption that "what I have is the perfectly preserved word of God." Which is fine, but then you have to work backward and say, like Hills, that when Erasmus used Latin readings, it must have been providential to preserve the true reading (regardless of the Greek evidence). Or, in other words, that evidence really does not matter at all in the end, you accept by faith that by the mere fact of it being commonly used, it must mean that it can never be improved or corrected. You then end up with an argument that sounds suspiciously similar to that of Rome, which said that the Vulgate was the providentially preserved Word of God, because it had been in use for so long that God must have intended it to be the rule. Regardless as to whether that argument is over the original languages or not, the Reformers rejected this logic (the same logic the "analogy of faith" approach relies on) and instead, based both on faith and empiricism, claimed that the Greek Scriptures had not been corrupted, but even if there were errors, they could be studiously compared and the result retained as authoritative.

Actually, Hills criticized both Erasmus and Calvin for this approach:

In short, there appears in Calvin as well as in Erasmus a humanistic tendency to treat the New Testament text like the text of any other book. This tendency, however, was checked and restrained by the common faith in the current New Testament text, a faith in which Calvin shared to a much greater degree than did Erasmus.

At the same time, oddly (in my view at least) Hills takes the view that Erasmus left in some "blemishes", but providentially retained some others that were from the Latin. How does Hills know which are blemishes and which were "providentially intended"?

but he overlooked some of it, and this still remains in the Textus Receptus. These readings, however, do not materially affect the sense of the passages in which they occur. They are only minor blemishes which can easily be removed or corrected in marginal notes. The only exception is book for tree in Rev. 22:19, a variant which Erasmus could not have failed to notice but must have retained purposely. Critics blame him for this but here he may have been guided providentially by the common faith to follow the Latin Vulgate.

I am just very leery of the idea that just because something has been commonly used for a while, that this means God intended for all scholarship to cease. Here's an example: Luther used Erasmus' original Greek NT which did not contain 1 Jo 5:7. Would it have been okay for the Germans, who presumably used this as their "TR" for quite some time, to say that obviously 1 Jo 5:7 does not belong because why would God have allowed them to be without it? Or does this "faith" only work in the English language? That is why I believe a broader "faith" is required in God's preservation, otherwise it becomes too exclusive and makes it as though God has left a huge host of his people without the same preserved Scriptures as the English-speaking world enjoyed.

 

[JimmyH]

I find it interesting that there are 5,079 members of PB, with 571 classified as active members. Out of that group perhaps a dozen, give or take a few, continually participate in the ongoing debate on the TR versus the CT. Doing a forum search with the keyword 'KJVO' there are 166 results, doing the same for Textus, there are 326, and Erasmus yields 329 results. I wonder if all of this has changed the viewpoint of anyone who entered therein ?

 

[Logan]

Probably not Jimmy!

I want to be absolutely clear, as I've said before, that I certainly do have a soft spot for the TR. I understand the reasons behind wanting it to be the sole text, I completely sympathize with a desire for continuity. I even read from the KJV as my primary personal Bible.

That being said (going back to the OP), I don't think any believer is at a disadvantage in using either the ESV (critical) or KJV (TR), and when it all gets down to it, the differences are so minor as to not be noticeable. I have used the ESV for years in a congregation that uses the NKJV and my wife grew up using the KJV in a congregation that did the opposite and neither of us felt ourselves to be at a disadvantage one way or the other (oddly, she's using the ESV primarily now while I still switch back and forth between KJV and ESV). I am glad to have many brothers and sisters in Christ who are well-fed on both.

 

[JimmyH]

That being said (going back to the OP), I don't think any believer is at a disadvantage in using either the ESV (critical) or KJV (TR), and when it all gets down to it, the differences are so minor as to not be noticeable.

I agree that the differences are minor. Where 'modern' translations, such as the ESV, or NIV, bracket, footnote, or even delete certain verses/words, these either do not effect doctrine, or in the case that they do, the doctrine is realized in other verses, within those CT based translations that are not bracketed, footnoted, or deleted. Reading the ESV, NIV (1984), along with the NKJV and NASB, as well as the AV, is an advantageous practice In my humble opinion.

Perhaps I'm being simplistic but ...... verses such as 1 Corinthians 10:25 are difficult for 21st century folks to understand because of archaisms that are all through the AV.

AV ; Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1984 NIV ; "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,"

I wonder how many people pass over archaic words such as "shambles" without bothering to look up the meaning ? Reading modern translations, along with the AV, is as I have said before, the best of both worlds.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

So you say. I've mentioned Dr Greg Bahnsen as one who accepted an eclectic text and believed in preservation, yet didn't consider that a contradiction and a logical fallacy. Even Erasmus' product was something of an eclectic text, was it not? Likewise all those Reformers who believed the text had been preserved, but still compared the various manuscripts, or Owen who said that any error could be corrected because the entirety of Scripture was found in the whole?

Erasmus' text might have started as somewhat eclectic but the text quickly stabilized after a few revisions (not to mentioned the variant reading between these editions were nowhere close to what the CT brought upon us). The CT on the other hand rejected this stable foundation and adopted a philosophy that basically says the text will be perpetually eclectic since the adopted text can be overthrown at anytime by any newly discovered manuscript.

Then you end up with the assumption that "what I have is the perfectly preserved word of God." Which is fine, but then you have to work backward and say, like Hills, that when Erasmus used Latin readings, it must have been providential to preserve the true reading (regardless of the Greek evidence). Or, in other words, that evidence really does not matter at all in the end, you accept by faith that by the mere fact of it being commonly used, it must mean that it can never be improved or corrected. You then end up with an argument that sounds suspiciously similar to that of Rome,

What about early version in other languages or quotations that predate any Greek MSS, what do you make of those, you accuse me of adopting Romish stance regarding the TR while you do the same with Greek MSS. Where is the rule that says that only Greek MSS can be considered for determining the validity of a verse?

I am just very leery of the idea that just because something has been commonly used for a while, that this means God intended for all scholarship to cease.

I have never advocated that all scholarship should cease but if there's no reason to update the text why should we waste money just for the sake of giving some scholars a job. Again without going into endless debate about specific verses, can you honestly tell me that you believe the CT has better evidence and has produced a superior product than the TR (as a whole not the 1 or 2 reading you might disagree with)? Technically I'm not saying that the TR can never be improved on but the fact and the matter is every scholar keep trying to improve the CT since that where the money is. If some faithful orthodox scholars believe their would be genuine reason to update the TR (using the same philosophy as the original compilers) and this would an initiative of orthodox Reformed Churches and not the pet project of a few individual I would not necessarily object, but this has nothing to do with modern textual criticism and the new translation movement.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

the differences are so minor as to not be noticeable

I notice differences pretty much every time a portion of the New Testament is read from a new version while I follow in my AV.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I find it interesting that there are 5,079 members of PB, with 571 classified as active members. Out of that group perhaps a dozen, give or take a few, continually participate in the ongoing debate on the TR versus the CT.

The almost identical comment has been answered in the following thread at post 76

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-vs-NKJV-81000/index2.html

 

[Logan]

Etienne, I'm not looking to get into a debate but I will try to answer a couple of your questions.

Erasmus' text might have started as somewhat eclectic but the text quickly stabilized after a few revisions (not to mentioned the variant reading between these editions were nowhere close to what the CT brought upon us)

I find arguments like this to be a bit baffling, because anything could "stabilize" over time. If that were a valid argument then I could say the Westcott-Hort 1881 text is superior because it stablized entirely without any revisions (by definition) and there were no variations between editions at all. Likewise, any variation for the TR would make it no longer the TR, and by definition the TR must be stable. Look into the CT more and you will find that almost nothing changes between editions except adding more manuscript evidence. It's been quite stable for a while, if stability is a criteria.

Where is the rule that says that only Greek MSS can be considered for determining the validity of a verse?

Well, that was definitely a Reformation belief, but how about WCF 1.8?

With respect to your last point, I've talked to you before about passages such as 1Jo 5:7 and you demonstrated that you thought there was sufficient evidence for it. If that is the case, then you're really not going to be swayed one way or the other so it's not very fruitful for me to go over it again. The fact is, nearly all "faithful orthodox scholars" do believe there is a genuine reason to update the TR, which is why they don't use it any more (unless you'd define that as being "unfaithful"). That's not a good reason for or against it though. The biggest bonus of the modern CT editions is that it presents the evidence, not just the final judgment. So when it is translated into modern translation there is a lot of comparison and weighing of that evidence by godly individuals. Even Reformed individuals. It's a red herring to make a sweeping statement that the CT is used in modern translations (as if it were without thought) when the evidence is carefully weighed by believing scholars in the translation, and there are numerous places where they disagree with the judgment of the CT.

Here's another rather odd (in my opinion) comment from Hills regarding 1Jo 5:7.

Thus on the basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability as we consider the internal evidence.
...
Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church.

This is strange because Hills pleads for the TR based upon its being providentially preserved, and we know it is providentially preserved because it's been in use for so long and God wouldn't have allowed it unless this were his pure word. However, what about the poor Greek churches here that apparently lost the Johannine Comma for over 1000 years? Would they not have just as much right to claim that since God did not preserve it in their commonly used texts, that it therefore must have not been part of the canon? It is a position of claimed "faith" in God's providence, but why faith in the complete preservation for the English-speaking world (or Reformation-era, perhaps) and only "mostly" for the Greek?

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I find arguments like this to be a bit baffling, because anything could "stabilize" over time. If that were a valid argument then I could say the Westcott-Hort 1881 text is superior because it stablized entirely without any revisions (by definition) and there were no variations between editions at all.

Not sure I follow your argument, Westcott-Hort text didn't have any revision? Nestle-Aland is at the 28th edition. The TR was the accepted ecclesiastical text (at least for protestant churches) from 1633 to 1881.

Likewise, any variation for the TR would make it no longer the TR, and by definition the TR must be stable

Who said this? if it could be demonstrated that errors were made by the editors of the TR and that those errors could be consistently demonstrated through all of the material available to us today using criteria based on sound scriptural principles (unlike the criteria used by the editors of the CT which give more weight to a handful of contradicting MSS) then why not.

Well, that was definitely a Reformation belief, but how about WCF 1.8?

What I'm saying is that if a reading is found in a late Greek MS and not found in the estimated oldest Greek MS, but is found early version and quotations predating this supposed oldest Greek MS then it does add weight to it's validity and should not be discarded. (John Burgon gives many example where this happened in the revised text in "The Revision Revised").

With respect to your last point, I've talked to you before about passages such as 1Jo 5:7 and you demonstrated that you thought there was sufficient evidence for it

What I did demonstrate in the previous thread was a quotation from Hoskier which disproved the faulty allegation that it only exited in the latin vulgate. I did agree with you that the evidence is not as overwhelming as most of the other variant reading at odds between the CT an TR.

The fact is, nearly all "faithful orthodox scholars" do believe there is a genuine reason to update the TR, which is why they don't use it any more (unless you'd define that as being "unfaithful").

As you said yourself this is not a good reason since majority opinions certainly does not determine truth. I would say that most of these scholars have been deceived into accepting a faulty view of scripture since it has crept into most seminaries.

It's a red herring to make a sweeping statement that the CT is used in modern translations (as if it were without thought) when the evidence is carefully weighed by believing scholars in the translation, and there are numerous places where they disagree with the judgment of the CT.

What are the criterias for this careful weighing? What are the considerations to anoint a MS as "Best" as so many footnotes assert.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Logan,

I personally don’t have a problem with accepting that some readings were excised from the text during the doctrinal wars after the accession of Constantine to the throne of the empire. That a very few readings were altered in the Byz does not militate against God’s providential preservation, which He determined to fully realize later. When God makes a promise must it come true according to our timetable? If He provides His word for the Greeks, and for the Egyptians, and for the Gauls, in respective texts adequately preserved such that they can save souls and sustain churches through the centuries, why do we now in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] cavil against the idea that He fully brought His promise to pass at the time of modern printing, the great missionary movements, and the hunger of the Protestants for a precise and sure text to withstand the onslaught of Rome?

You may find this old post on Frederick Nolan and 1 John 5:7 interesting: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/johannine-comma-37481/#post465749

 

[Logan]

Etienne, I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at and I don't want this discussion to become unfruitful. Perhaps I'm referring to things you're unfamiliar with but it doesn't appear like you miss my meaning a few times, if I'm being unclear then I apologize.

I will say that my mention of the Westcott-Hort 1881 text as by definition "stable" was to make a point about using something as part of the definition. If the TR were to be revised in any way, it would no longer be the TR. Therefore the TR is by definition "stable" and to make a case for it use based on its stability seems kind of self-defeating to me. Also, once again, look into what the various CT editions actually are. Do you know how much difference there is between say, NA28 and NA20? One of the main purposes of the new editions is to list newly catalogued manuscripts, not new variants (of which one rarely pops up and even more rarely is considered as having any weight). There is far more "stability" than you may realize and I don't think there have been any significant alterations in the last 100 years or so. Nevertheless, I don't think that speaks well or ill of it, it just is.

What I'm saying is that if a reading is found in a late Greek MS and not found in the estimated oldest Greek MS, but is found early version and quotations predating this supposed oldest Greek MS then it does add weight to it's validity and should not be discarded. (John Burgon gives many example where this happened in the revised text in "The Revision Revised").

I think that is where many Reformed folk would differ with Burgon, who, being a high-church Anglican, placed weight on the text being passed down through bishops (actually Hills differed with Burgon on this). It can add weight but should not be considered as evidence against the Greek, likewise with ancient translations.

And once again, I am surprised at this view because its proponents usually criticize the CT for "discovering lost readings", yet according to this view, the Greek church apparent lost readings that were later recovered from the Latin?

 

[Logan]

Hi Nolan,

I personally don’t have a problem with accepting that some readings were excised from the text during the doctrinal wars after the accession of Constantine to the throne of the empire. That a very few readings were altered in the Byz does not militate against God’s providential preservation, which He determined to fully realize later. When God makes a promise must it come true according to our timetable? If He provides His word for the Greeks, and for the Egyptians, and for the Gauls, in respective texts adequately preserved such that they can save souls and sustain churches through the centuries, why do we now in the 21st cavil that He brought His promise to pass at the time of modern printing, the great missionary movements, and the hunger of the Protestants for a precise and sure text to withstand the onslaught of Rome?

I take it that this is directed at me?

I wonder though, Steve, if someone couldn't then say they believe that God brought his promise to pass in the 20th century with the rise of the CT and an even greater effort at translation into various languages?

 

[Free Christian]

I notice differences pretty much every time a portion of the New Testament is read from a new version while I follow in my AV.

Me too. In fact a while ago I was doing some verse comparisons on a site that allows you to check the verses between Bibles. Some from the KJV that I put in the search to compare came up with nothing. Either the others were not listed as having it or the ones that had that verse as a footnote did not show them to compare. I wonder at times, and I don't know, but does the Koran have the same problems? One versions saying this was said and another saying perhaps it was not? Maybe Mohamed said this but earlier ms don't have it? Some with Mohamed's words in full and others with portions left out? Like we have in so many different versions? Do the Bibles the Jews read from have the same problems or is it just with those that Speak of Jesus?

 

[JimmyH]

I notice differences pretty much every time a portion of the New Testament is read from a new version while I follow in my AV.

Me too. In fact a while ago I was doing some verse comparisons on a site that allows you to check the verses between Bibles. Some from the KJV that I put in the search to compare came up with nothing. Either the others were not listed as having it or the ones that had that verse as a footnote did not show them to compare. I wonder at times, and I don't know, but does the Koran have the same problems? One versions saying this was said and another saying perhaps it was not? Maybe Mohamed said this but earlier ms don't have it? Some with Mohamed's words in full and others with portions left out? Like we have in so many different versions? Do the Bibles the Jews read from have the same problems or is it just with those that Speak of Jesus?

I had heard a report that most, if not all, of the textual variants of the Koran were deliberately destroyed to preserve one theological view. Apparently that is not quite correct. Here is a website google yielded with more info for anyone interested ; Textual Variants of the Qur'an.

In our English Bible translations when we find verses bracketed, footnoted, or even omitted from our modern translations, such as the NIV, ESV, it is my understanding that those verses are not supported by the earliest manuscripts. The aim of textual criticism to be as precise as possible in finding the original manuscripts through investigating the extant copies. I've read that the Hebrew Scriptures were much more carefully copied than those of the Greek NT, so there is not the same amount of controversy over the OT as we find in the NT.

In reading the NT, and comparing back and forth between the AV, NIV, ESV ..... I do not find a great deal of difference, other than the plain English of the modern translations. Just IME.

 

[Free Christian]

Thanks Jimmy. Had often wondered at times about those things. There are quite a few variations that I have seen in the Old Testament in regards to our Christian Bibles though like, and I cannot recall exactly the scripture, where one version says 3 cattle and another says 1 was brought to somewhere.
Here's an example with the NKJ and the KJV in the Old Testament.
Genesis 2 v 18 NKJ ......I will make him a helper comparable to him. KJV ....I will make him a helpmeet for him.
Proverbs 16 v 10 NKJ ..Divination is on the lips of a king. KJV.. A divine sentence is in the lips of the king.
Proverbs 18 v 8 NKJ .. The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles. KJV .. The words of a talebearer are as wounds.
Proverbs 25 v 23 NKJ .. The north wind brings forth rain... KJV .. The north wind driveth away rain.
2 kings 23 v 29 NKJ ... Necho king of Egypt went to the aid of the king of Assyria. KJV ..Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria.
Do the Jewish Bible versions have such outrageous variations as those, or the Koran?
Really though, just saying not aiming this comment at you, these are far from just little differences and are far from even being similar!
I am often dumbfounded when I hear people say, again no one here just in general, that there are really no differences in Bible translations!

 

[Logan]

Brett, are any of those textual differences, or translational differences? Hebrew can be tricky.

What difference (in meaning, not words) do you see in the first two examples you give? I admit I see none.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I will say that my mention of the Westcott-Hort 1881 text as by definition "stable" was to make a point about using something as part of the definition. If the TR were to be revised in any way, it would no longer be the TR. Therefore the TR is by definition "stable" and to make a case for it use based on its stability seems kind of self-defeating to me.

Well to clarify my position, when I speak of the TR I speak of all it editions (the latest being most complete of course). We went over this in the past a few times already. Likewise when I talk of the CT I'm usually referring to all editions as well which include the original Wescott-Hort and the following Nestle-Aland/UBS editions since they accept and adopt the original philosophy of Westcott and Hort. I do not believe that to say the TR cannot be updated is accurate, but it certainly is not prone to drastically change with the discovery of a few new MSS. This is what I'm getting at and I'm pretty sure you understand this as well. The original Revision was fueled by the discovery of Sinaiticus, most of the other Alexandrian MSS were known to exist already, but this one manuscript was enough in the eyes of these men to completely re-edit the Greek text of the New Testament because of it's supposed age. If we follow their philosophy if a new "older" manuscript would be discovered and scholars deem it to be older and more accurate then all the ones we know about, what would stop them from completely rebuilding the text once again. Remember that the Alexandrian MSS do not agree on most of the alterations, therefore if a new MS deemed older and "better" appears and would agree with some of the reading of Vaticanus and some of the readings of Sinaiticus but not in the same places, according to this philosophy we're back to square one. This is what I mean when I say this philosophy essentially created a perpetually eclectic text since the witness of a very few MSS can overthrow the vast consensus of all other MSS as long as paleographers and scholars come up with some reason to believe theses MSS are "better".

And once again, I am surprised at this view because its proponents usually criticize the CT for "discovering lost readings", yet according to this view, the Greek church apparent lost readings that were later recovered from the Latin?

Again what I'm getting at is that if the "vast majority" of Greek MSS agree on one reading, and then a very few supposedly older Greek MSS differ, then going to even older sources like quotations and versions can certainly be beneficial and should not be ignored because of the fact that it is not a Greek MS.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Yes, Logan, sorry, I had Nolan on my mind initially, but quickly corrected it!

The problem, as I see it, with asserting that God brought His promise to pass in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century (the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] really) with the rise of the CT, is that upon examination the CT mss – particularly Aleph and B, the primary exemplars – with claims to be neutral, and the oldest and most reliable, are notoriously corrupt and witness against each other. When we have in Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10, in the exemplar B, Asaph and Amos instead of Asa and Amon as Christ’s ancestors, with Metzger and co. claiming the errors were made by Matthew in the apostolic original and the correct readings in other mss were made by scribes doing damage control, it is beyond credible to me.

This brief history of the early text and its transmission by Wilbur Pickering from his The Identity of the New Testament Text is far more convincing in my eyes (Pickering is of the Majority Text school).

 

[Logan]

The original Revision was fueled by the discovery of Sinaiticus, most of the other Alexandrian MSS were known to exist already, but this one manuscript was enough in the eyes of these men to completely re-edit the Greek text of the New Testament because of it's supposed age.

Walton's Polyglot was published in 1657, containing many (if not all) the variants that had been collected up to that point. John Mill published 30,000 variants he had collected in 1707. Bengel, 1725 published a text which had been compared with various readings, Wettstein 1731, Griesbach built off of these two with his apparatus in 1771. There was desire then to begin using these to verify and/or correct the TR, as all of these use the TR as their base. Lachmann broke with the TR by starting with older manuscripts (instead of just adding variants to the TR). So there were a number of attempts throughout the years, but none of them became widely used and none were considered the "TR". Tischendorf labored on such a project even before Sinaiticus I believe, but it was admittedly a catalyst because it was so ancient and so complete, but it's not like it started with Sinaiticus at all.

To some extent, the efforts of Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf were welcomed by the Christian world because many recognized (or thought they did) that the TR did not always have the most well-attested reading, regardless of Sinaticus or any of the Alexandrian texts. Very few who had studied the issue thought that the TR could not be improved upon.

Now again, I'm not arguing whether that is right or wrong, but it's far more nuanced than just saying that Sinaiticus caused men to jump ship and abandon the TR.

 

[Logan]

Thanks Steve. Yes, I cannot conceive a Christian believing in "orthodox corruption" or that the originals were with error. It's something that is intuitively known by all Christians as being based on the nature of God.

At the same time, I don't really see the disconnect between a "providential" view for the TR vs the CT.

For the TR, Hills could say that providentially, "true readings" had been inserted from the Latin where they had been lost in the Greek, yet without introducing new corruptions.
For the CT, someone could say that providentially, "true readings" had been inserted even from a seemingly "corrupt" manuscript where they had been lost in the Greek, yet without introducing new corruptions.

Both views seem equally valid to me, if we are going to use Hills' analogy of faith.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

The original Revision was fueled by the discovery of Sinaiticus, most of the other Alexandrian MSS were known to exist already, but this one manuscript was enough in the eyes of these men to completely re-edit the Greek text of the New Testament because of it's supposed age.

Walton's Polyglot was published in 1657, containing many (if not all) the variants that had been collected up to that point. John Mill published 30,000 variants he had collected in 1707. Bengel, 1725 published a text which had been compared with various readings, Wettstein 1731, Griesbach built off of these two with his apparatus in 1771. There was desire then to begin using these to verify and/or correct the TR, as all of these use the TR as their base. Lachmann broke with the TR by starting with older manuscripts (instead of just adding variants to the TR). So there were a number of attempts throughout the years, but none of them became widely used and none were considered the "TR". Tischendorf labored on such a project even before Sinaiticus I believe, but it was admittedly a catalyst because it was so ancient and so complete, but it's not like it started with Sinaiticus at all.

To some extent, the efforts of Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf were welcomed by the Christian world because many recognized (or thought they did) that the TR did not always have the most well-attested reading, regardless of Sinaticus or any of the Alexandrian texts. Very few who had studied the issue thought that the TR could not be improved upon.

Now again, I'm not arguing whether that is right or wrong, but it's far more nuanced than just saying that Sinaiticus caused men to jump ship and abandon the TR.

Would these men be considered Orthodox Reformed Scholars? Most Reformed believers reject Higher Criticism, even many of the advocates of the critical text reject higher criticism as heretical. What weight does that bring into the issue. I'm sure you can also find a list of Jesuits or Catholic Scholars that would assert similar things. It doesn't validate the faulty approach to Scriptural Criticism. Why did the Reformed Scholars reject these editions up to 1881. (and I would say later than that, the revised versions were not a success a first, it took a while to bring people to accept these revised texts and versions). But the propaganda around Sinaiticus helped to get these views more broadly accepted.

 

[Logan]

Etienne, you're jumping from what I'm saying into something else. My entire point is to say that textual criticism did not revolve around Sinaiticus, there's a whole history leading up to it.

Even Scrivener, who most associate with collating the TR many use today (from the KJV), had many things to say about readings he thought should be corrected. I posted lots of quotations from him here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/highlights-scriveners-introduction-criticism-new-testament-81739/

You keep saying things like "would these men be considered Orthodox Reformed Scholars?" If that is important to you then why do you not care that nearly all "Orthodox Reformed Scholars" today do not use the TR? Why dismiss it with "they are just misled"? In which case, I can't see anything that would change your mind. If "Orthodox Reformed Scholars" accept the TR, you point to that and say that attests to the TR. If they don't, they are misled. It seems you are ready to explain away anything that doesn't coincide with your view. I ask yourself to humbly look at what you've written and tell me if anything, any evidence at all, would change your mind. If so, what is it? If you're not going to listen or say "that's interesting" or "good point" (though it's quite possible I haven't made any good points!) but just have a rebuttal, if you've already made up your mind, or would like to take such things primarily on faith, that's fine with me, I won't dissuade you from it. But in that case I'm quite sure it's not going to be fruitful to continue the discussion.

As I said, I'm not trying to debate, but it seems like you want to.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Etienne, you're jumping from what I'm saying into something else. My entire point is to say that textual criticism did not revolve around Sinaiticus, there's a whole history leading up to it.

Even Scrivener, who most associate with collating the TR many use today (from the KJV), had many things to say about readings he thought should be corrected. I posted lots of quotations from him here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/highlights-scriveners-introduction-criticism-new-testament-81739/

You keep saying things like "would these men be considered Orthodox Reformed Scholars?" If that is important to you then why do you not care that nearly all "Orthodox Reformed Scholars" today do not use the TR? Why dismiss it with "they are just misled"? In which case, I can't see anything that would change your mind. If "Orthodox Reformed Scholars" accept the TR, you point to that and say that attests to the TR. If they don't, they are misled. It seems you are ready to explain away anything that doesn't coincide with your view. I ask yourself to humbly look at what you've written and tell me if anything, any evidence at all, would change your mind. If so, what is it? If you're not going to listen or say "that's interesting" or "good point" (though it's quite possible I haven't made any good points!) but just have a rebuttal, if you've already made up your mind, or would like to take such things primarily on faith, that's fine with me, I won't dissuade you from it. But in that case I'm quite sure it's not going to be fruitful to continue the discussion.

As I said, I'm not trying to debate, but it seems like you want to.

This goes both ways, you keep avoiding my question regarding the philosophy behind the modern critical view. You yourself said that the scriptures should not be determined by unbelievers because as reformed believers we understand that an unbeliever will naturally be at enmity against God. There's no such thing as a neutral approach to scriptures. You keep coming back to a list of variants to cast doubt on the Received Text, yet I doubt that the CT fixed all these doubts, Am I not correct. You seem to be unable to see that your view will never accept any text of scriptures as infallible (without redefining the term infallible). I could return the question to you, is there anything that would make "you" change you view, or at least admit that it's rooted in skepticism.

 

[Logan]

I'm done.

 

[JimmyH]

I was listening to a sermon by D.A. Carson in which he gave an example of a pastor who receives a phone call at night. It is from an 80 some year old women, one of his parishioners, who is on her death bed.

"Pastor, I am dieing, will I go to heaven ?"she asks ......... "Well," he replies,"Which is your confession of faith, and which Bible translation do you read ?"

 

[Free Christian]

What difference (in meaning, not words) do you see in the first two examples you give? I admit I see none.

Hello Logan how are you. Now whilst ill admit the first two are close and call them what you may, translational or textual, what about the last 3?
See any there? How would one preach on those or explain to someone with a KJV if that preacher was using the NKJ?
Hebrew must really be tricky if it leaves one with the impression that aiding is the same as going up against another or that a wound is like a tasty trifle?
Does the wind bring forth the rain or drive it away? Tricky indeed.

 

[Logan]

I looked into it for you and confirmed (as far as I know) that these are not textual differences, but the way in which the word was translated.

For Prov 18:8, the word the KJV translates as "wounds", Strongs says means "to gulp greedily". JFB says of the word in the KJV, "not sustained by the Hebrew; better, as 'sweet morsels,' which men gladly swallow." Note that this word only appears here and Prov 26:22, and in both cases it is talking about "going into the belly".

For Prov 25:23, the word the KJV translates as "driveth away", it also translates 4 times as "bring forth", 4 times as "travail", 6 times as "pain" 2 times as "calve" etc. So it's apparently not a stretch even for the KJV to translate that word as "brings forth". Strongs gives many meanings, including "to dance".

For the last, 2Ki 23:29, the Hebrew (as near as I can tell it) is something like "went up king". This is the most confusing to me and I don't really have an answer. The NASB and ESV both say "went up to the king of Assyria", without saying whether it was for or against. Older translations say "against" while newer say "aid" or "help". This doesn't appear to be a textual issue either though I see why translators picked one or the other.

So yes, it can be a very tricky job, especially with a language like Hebrew. I've heard that Proverbs are especially difficult.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Logan. I understand where you are coming from. But not every person out there is highly educated nor has access to information with which to see what is meant. They may simply have a Bible to read, I would imagine in the millions world wide. It helps to have a faithful translation. I wonder why the same Bible later chooses to say in 2 Chronicles 35 v 20 on the same subject "fight against".
First it was to aid, then fight against.
I look at it like this, a person, your average person like myself, should be able to know they have a faithful translation without having to get all different various ones available, Bible aids, know Hebrew and Greek or be a Biblical scholar so as to cross check one with another, read this, and study that to know what the verses are actually saying.
Sure the odd word, not everyone knows what all words mean so a dictionary is helpful, but to need to check all out in such a way through languages, various versions and so on doesn't seem right to me. Nor do I imagine myself that this is how the Lord intended it to be. I often think of 1 Corinthians 1 v 26 when I see that there appears at times a need for all that.

 

[Logan]

Do you believe it is possible that the KJV could have mistranslated a word?

I believe it is a faithful translation. I also believe the ESV is a faithful translation. But neither is perfect.

 

[jandrusk]

Watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wep1KFb3wns