Favoring The TR

'scuse me for saying it, but the listed verses are very few when you consider that entire size of the NT.

I could make an argument that one bad DNA chain out of thousands could cause cancer, but I don't think that would be the case here.

I have even heard fundamentalist preachers stating that the KJV has more "Christology" than the new translations. So, you have a book that says Jesus is the Son of God in various ways 20 times and another that says it 23 times. Kind of off the track, but just making a point that most of the decent translations are all quite conservative and still get the gospel of Christ as the only way for salvation.

I literally heard a Fundamental pastor who said just last weekend that a person cannot get "saved by someone witnessing to them with a 'N'on 'I'nspired 'V'ersion; which he quotes at least three times in every sermon and says aren't we thankful we have the true and perfect Word of God with zero mistakes. The KJV1611!!!!!!!!! Since KJV1611 is wrapped around the cross in the church's logo I would assume he is pro TR. :thumbsup:

 

You are right about why I attend, but it has been getting to me emotionally and either I am going to wind up having a real argument with my daughter or find a local SBC that I like. You can only take so much of screaming lectures about how everybody is wrong except their little country church. Thankfully, it is a very small church and it seems the only new people are sometimes a soldier coming to our Army Base to take Ammunition School and they just happen to live in the Tennessee/Arkansas areas where the Fundamentals are REALLY Fundamental.

I have always considered myself quite conservative, but this preacher would consider me far left. He is working on a door to door ministry and training my son-in-law and his brother on scriptures to use (Pulled out of context of course) and they don't seem to have many visitors and if they do they usually don't show up more than once after he starts his KJVO rant.

My nephew is a SBC pastor and he uses a NKJV, but its not his favorite. He has a motive that I think I have mentioned and that is his church contains a lot of old people who bring their KJV's just out of habit and they can follow right along while at the kids can at least understand his quotes.

I have heard that 99% of the text is pretty much considered to be both matching and accurate to the originals by scholars who work as translators. These are good Christian people who have no reason to distort the Word of God.

Last night I read almost all of Paul's letters (after going to church and getting my lecture) from the NIV, the ESV and the KJV and it was amazing how they matched, but the KJV was not as easy to understand until I went back to the new Bibles. I catch this preacher reading the KJV and saying "That word means such and such" and the "such and such" is usually exactly what the NIV says. I know this because I've kept notes of these scriptures.

 

The variant pair in Matthew 11:15 is between including or not including the Greek verb ἀκούειν ('to hear') in the verse. The KJV/TR has the word coming after "he that hath ears" and before "let him hear" (ἀκουέτω is the same verb in a different form).

Like the NASB and NLT, the ESV does seem to translate the TR variant (with a footnote) --

Interestingly, the same Greek constructions are at issue in Matthew 13:9 & 43 where the ESV and the NASB choose to not include the words "to hear".

 

What would be the reason to NOT translate in same fashion though?

 

I can only speculate at this point in time, but it seems that in the opinion of those translators there was just enough manuscript or internal evidence to support including "to hear" at Matthew 11:15, while not quite enough for 13:9 & 43. I say that because the ERV (1885), Darby (1890) and the ASV (1901) all did the same: they include "to hear" in Matthew 11 and leave it out in Chapter 13. I am assuming these mostly formal translations are closely following their primary Greek text, although translators may pick and choose what text they prefer at any given verse; that is what this thread is all about. Whiston's Primitive New Testament (1745) translation actually has the resulting renderings reversed! Why? (I don't know)

Again, closely split evidence may partially explain the diversity among the English translations. Of course the 16th century English translations (Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, etc) followed the TR by including "to hear" in all three of these verses in Matthew. It seems that about the 20th century mark that many translations began to omit "to hear" (Sawyer 1858, Noyes 1869, Rotherham 1902, Weymouth 1904, etc) although some still were including it (Campbell 1835, Murdock 1851, Godbey 1902, etc). Most versions now omit "to hear" (Goodspeed 1923, Wuest 1961, NIV 1973, etc) but any version strictly following the TR (Young 1863, NKJV 1982, KJ3 2006, etc) will retain it.

 

I do not understand why people find mystery in the obvious. Matthew 11:15 should read the same as Matthew 13:9 if the goal of concordance was more than meaningless boilerplate.
I like the NET ending, "had better listen" to capture the imperative. So for me, the answer is that the NASB made a mistake, as did the NLT and the ESV which footnotes the correct text but puts the added words in the body. Backwards.

The more you study the modern translations, the more you find a lack of concordance due not to scholarship, but to a lack of computer assisted editing for the purpose of concordance.

 

With Matthew 15:6 we have the NASB including "or mother" in the main body when it should be footnoted, so yet another failure to translate consistently. What we seem to have is not a preference for the TR rendering but simply a herd mentality to follow the choices of past translations in a somewhat hit or miss fashion.

 

As far as Matthew 17:21, Comfort is wrong, both the NASB and HCSB bracket the verse and provide footnotes mentioning that the verse is not found in early manuscripts. Ditto for Matthew 18:11 and 23:14.

 

The NASB puts "on their garments" in italics, (Matthew 23:5) indicating an addition for clarity. Thus, while mirroring the TR, it really is not a valid example of using the TR over the CT.

 

I could not discern where the NASB seemed to pull off the CT in Matthew 25:9. So this one seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

 

Matthew 11:15 should read the same as Matthew 13:9 in English if the translators accept that the underlying Greek is the same at both verses. But what we seem to be observing is that the NASB translators (and some others) apparently did NOT accept the Greek authenticity of "to hear" at Matthew 13:9. Therefore, concordance of English words is not at issue here.

 

Hi Fraklinmonroe, do we not find the very same Greek construction in the CT at both locations. And are there not several other locations, i.e. Matthew 13:43, Rev. 2:7, etc. which again have the same construction, all not containing the extraneous "to hear." It is simply a mistake! Look at the CT version of Mark 4:9. "To hear" is in the text in every version, because it is in the CT. Some scribe corrupted the text and added to hear at Matthew 11:15 to make it read like Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8, and Luke 14:35. And then adding to that error the NASB who knew better repeated the error.

And yes "concordance with English words" is an issue because the same Greek construction should be translated in the same way. If I write in Greek the Word was God, is it ok to translate it in one place the Word was God and in another the Word was a god? Of course not.