How many Reputable Scholars have the TR As best greek text?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Based yupon those who are seen and recogized as reputable textual criticism experts, how many see the TR the Kjv based upon as the best greek text available to us to translate off from?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Who determines which scholars are reputable and which are not?
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who are the ones who truly instigate trouble over the King James only issue?

    How many threads like this has Yeshua1 and several others started like this in the last week?

    So who are the real troublemakers that keep bringing this issue up?

    Yeah right, it's those King James folks who start all the trouble. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    their peers within the textual community!
    Those who have earned degrees in linguistics/language/textual criticism etc!
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    IF the TR is not considered to be the best text to based a translation upon, how can one based upon it be the best one?
     
  6. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,166
    Likes Received:
    368
    I believe John of Japan here on BB feels the TR is the best. I might be mistaken but I think he's translating a Japanese Bible from these texts.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sadly. An inferior conflated text, copies of copies of copies with compiling errors, will lead to a translation of God's Word that is inaccurate and not reflective of the originals.

    We have 5500 sources, many of which centuries older than the oldest Eastern Orthodox copies. I know of no reputable scholar that would reject some sort of eclectic text based on all resources.

    Or you can just make up Greek texts like Erasmus and pretend you have God's Word. ;)
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    other than the KJVO, I know of few that would say that the TR is the best, or that we cannot translate off either the TR/MT/BZT/CT, and still end up with the word of God into English!
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Many former KJVonly have recognized the position as untenable and moved to support the TR (or what they think is the underlying blend of Greek texts of the KJV). Sneaky way to be "only" and not seem quite so ignorant!

    But ask them if a translation using that "sort of" text (as best we can piece together what text blend underlies the AV) is then "good". They will, of course, say NO - only the AV and whichever KJV revision they think is perfect.

    The New King James, proven again and again to use the same text (even tho "onlies" scream the lie that it is a different text so unreliable) is NOT to be used. Nor others . . . ONLY the AV. Hence, they betray their own position as part of the Adventist-based "KJVonly" sect.

    Actually the Byzantine/Eastern Catholic "family" of texts (no two documents agree) has LOTS of copies - the Eastern Church used Greek and many still use Greek as their text so obviously they made lots of copies and preserved in monasteries, etc lots of copies.

    The problem is the copies themselves. They show progressive error, conflated texts and a hundred other signs that occurred naturally in copies of copies of copies prior to Xerox!
     
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Again their basic problem is which TR is legit, as Eramus think used like 5 different copies/revisions, and without the originals available to compare with, how can they be sure the TR is the best/only text to use?

    you are right, it is a more "scholary" way to get right back to the KJVO position!
     
  11. makahiya117

    makahiya117
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Hills, Harvard, Defended the TR of the KJV Bible.

    Dr. Philips, Yale, Defended the KJV Holy Bible.

    Dr. Ruckman, The most prolific KJV scholar of all time.

    Dr. Riplinger, The most comprehensive KJV computational linguistics.

    Dr. Larkin, The greatest book of dispensational truth.

    Dr. Scofield, The most published reference bible of all time.


    KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved Bibles of all time.

    KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved Book of all time.
     
  12. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,166
    Likes Received:
    368
    If you think "Dr. Riplinger" is a scholar, you have completely diminished my view of your choices here. Even calling her "doctor" is false.
     
  13. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Hills is a legitimate scholar...from last century. He died in 1981 and did have a ThD from Harvard. Most his his points have been refuted.

    Not a Doctor, well he didn't have an earned doctorate. He died in 1984 and, while an important cerlgyman, isn't a scholar.

    Has his doctorate from Bob Jones, held such extreme views that Bob Jones forced him to leave. Most of his points have been refuted.

    Not a scholar, no doctorate, nothing good to say.

    No earned doctorate, died in 1924. Hardly a qualified KJV defender.

    No doctorate, died in 1931. Might have had a good study Bible at one time, but even its been updated.

    All pejorative and red herrings.

    Do you KJVO folks have any good arguments?
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    I think that the Critical Text has the most and best schar support intextual criticism circles, but also think that there have been some good work done by some decent scholars to try to support the majority text viewpoint, but don't know any good support for the TR as a primary textual base!
     
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    His doctorate was in education, he doesn't know the Greek, he doesn't know the Hebrew. As a scholar on the Bible, textual criticism, preservation, inspiration or anything similar, he's a total washout. I couldn't even begin to list his mistakes.
    As a linguist, she would make a good baby sitter. Her knowledge of linguistics is nil--nada--zero--in the negative in fact. Her linguistic errors are so egregious that the list would take several pages here on the BB just to get started. And her degree (not doctorate) was in home economics.

    Anyone who loves the KJV and defends it and the texts behind it should be embarrassed just at the bare mention of these two names.
     
  16. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,166
    Likes Received:
    368
    That confirms my understanding as well. Thanks.
     
  17. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,166
    Likes Received:
    368
    John - Are there any true scholars who fit into this category that you know of?
     
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Edward F. Hills, mentioned by makahiya117, was a genuine textual critic who did work in the Caesarean text family. However, he was a TR advocate and did not believe in an inerrant KJV. I do know some scholars who are on the TR side, but who are not scholars in textual criticism. There are many Greek teachers in fundamental schools who are TR advocates, but who are not necessarily scholars in the sense that they are recognized for their publications.

    D. A. Waite, founder of the Dean Burgon Society, has top drawer Th.D. and Ph.D. degrees. But unfortunately the DBS has gone downhill so that some of their leaders (Jack Moorman for one) quote Riplinger and Ruckman as scholars. (Waite himself does not do so.)

    There are many genuine scholars in textual criticism who take a Byzantine/Majority position who would not necessarily be advocates of the TR per se. Having said that, the TR is a lot closer to the Byz/Maj than the UBS/Nestles Greek text is.
     

Share This Page

Loading...