TR accuracy and history vs. other manuscripts

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    NOTICE: This is NOT a KJVO debate, so KJVO arguments are not legimate answers.

    This is to discuss the thoughts and ideas regarding the TR vs. other manuscripts.

    TR preferred is okay as is another manuscript preferred.

    This can also cover the history, dates, number of manuscripts vs. other manuscripts, etc.

    The hoped end result would be to determine if the TR or other manuscripts would be closest to the originals.

    If this turns into KJVO, moderators be my guest to shut it down without warning.
     
  2. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    How can TR even be an issue when at best the TR editions reflect a random sampling of MSS that happened to be available at the time of their composition, and at times only a single MS (e.g. in Revelation)? This is nothing better than declaring a single MS or single translation as authoritative over all other evidence.
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right, of course, Ziggy. I thought maybe we might get some interesting debate on why people would stand behind the TR, vs the other manuscripts, but obviously, they would rather fuss about the KJV.
     
  4. gopchad

    gopchad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am not necessarily new to the board, but read more than I post. So I am familiar with the tremendous amount of venom some use to spew their particular belief.

    It seems that the same arguments are constantly rehashed over and over, but the reasons I am TR preferred are as follows.

    1. I believe that God has preserved His word from generation to generation. Psalm 12:6-7

    This precludes me from being KJVO or MVO. We can debate the textual issue but to be MVO, to completely reject the TR, to be KJVO, or to say that we did not have an accurate copy before the Accepted Text of W-H et al in my mind undermines Psalm 12:6-7

    2. From a logic standpoint, my preference of the TR prevents me from being KJVO or MVO. I prefer the KJB because I have always used it. I have memorized from it, I know it. I do not regularly use other TR translations. If another TR translation came I would not switch because of this; however, if it were accurate to the TR, it would be the Word of God.

    3. I disdain W-H. This is my opinion. I do not shove it on anyone unless asked. I do not believe that those who use MV's are heretics on their way to hell, but my gut prevents me from accepting the accepted text because of the W-H influence. Yes, yes I know that the KJV translators were not perfect either. Like I said its a gut feeling. You may freely disagree, and I will not be offended.

    4. The accepted text(MV)definitely contains the word of God. I am just hesitant to say the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

    5. Older (codex vaticanus for example) is not necessarily better. I am not saying it isn't better, just that logic does not force it to be accepted as better. for it to be better, one must accept(by faith) that it is accurate to begin with.

    6. The finality of the issue comes down to preference and faith. I accept by faith that my KJV is the Word of God... Not just a book that contains the word of God. If I used the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, or any other version as my version of choice I would say with confidence the same thing.

    7. I think it is imperative to believe we have the complete Word of God regardless of our textual view. Inerrant, infallible, and inspired through the miraculous preservation of God.

    I think the big problem is the level of hateful rhetoric on both sides of this issue. It is this type of rhetoric in which I refuse to involve myself. It is definitely not of God. The KJVO crowd who think that the English corrects the Greek are fooling themselves, and are messed up on their doctrine of preservation. I also believe those who feel that MV's trump the TR are messed up in their belief concerning preservation.

    In Christ,

    Have a Great Day!!!
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi gopchad, I can appreciate the arguments you put forth. In all humbleness I do wish to ask you a question because I am not sure that I understand what you are saying or why?

    First, let me say that I have never had a problem with TR preferred.

    Why are you saying that an MV that trumps the TR is wrong? And why do you say that the TR has to be accurate because God promised to preserve His Word. Other manuscripts were available to the KJV translators besides the TR and out of many manuscripts, they chose the few that eventually became called the TR. So, why would the TR be the only preserved with other manuscripts available? Just curious, and thank you for your response. [​IMG]
     
  6. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gopchad wrote some interesting things regarding TR preference. That doesn’t worry me much, although I would have some concern as to why trust the TR (any version) over what can clearly be established by examining far more manuscripts spanning many centuries as opposed to a printed Greek text created from seven or eight late manuscripts and in part created by back-translation from the Latin Vulgate when no Greek manuscript was available. Preferable to the TR in my estimation would be either a good critical Greek NT text with extensive apparatus such as the Nestle-Aland, or the various “majority text” or Byzantine text editions.

    There is also a problem in some quarters with a TRO view that is just as insidious as the KJVO position, and usually applies some of the same gymnastics to defend its position (I speak, for example, of D.A.Waite and his “Dean Burgon Society” claims regarding the TRO position, but defining the TR to be used as *solely* the TR underlying the KJV as created in 1894 by Scrivener and published by the KJVO Trinitarian Bible Society). This type of TRO position is really a pseudo-scholarly smokescreen for a KJVO position, which can be demonstrated by asking Waite or other TROs what they do when their “authentic” and “original” TR differs from the KJV rendering (which, as Scrivener pointed out, it does in about 160 places) -- the answer is simple, and it is spelled “KJV rulz”.

    Gopchad: “If another TR translation came I would not switch because of this; however, if it were accurate to the TR, it would be the Word of God.”

    Do I assume from this that you would accept the NKJV as the word of God? If so, you move far beyond the TRO’s position.

    Gopchad: “I disdain W-H.”

    Regardless of the (mostly false) claims regarding the thinking and theology of W-H: nearly an identical Greek text was established by the work of Tregelles -- 10 years before Westcott and Hort’s text was even published! -- and Tregelles’ Christian orthodoxy is beyond question, he being a conservative Plymouth Brethren. Likewise, Tischendorf (who most everyone agrees relied too heavily on Sinaiticus, having been its discoverer and editor) was a strongly conservative and evangelical German Lutheran. The issue with non-TR or non-Byzantine/”majority” texts is not based on the theology of the editors, but on the issue of which manuscripts would be followed, and why.

    Gopchad: “Older (codex vaticanus for example) is not necessarily better. I am not saying it isn't better, just that logic does not force it to be accepted as better.”

    I fully agree, and it indeed is a leading principle of textual criticism that the age of a manuscript does not necessarily reflect a better text, and that “older” texts indeed can appear in more recent manuscripts. In the Greek classics, for example, the “best” manuscripts of Homer are actually those of the 13th and 14th centuries. In this you are correct. However, you then state,

    Gopchad: “for it to be better, one must accept(by faith) that it is accurate to begin with.”

    I would not suggest that the establishment of the “best” text is merely a matter of faith, particularly blind faith. The text selected as “best” should be tested by data and hard facts, and examined carefully to see whether it fits into a theoretical scenario that would allow it to be considered “best”. I am certain that the various eclectic scholars who favor the Alexandrian type of text have reasons for their decision that go beyond a simple faith assertion that B and Aleph are “best”; likewise, the “majority” or Byzantine people certainly don’t hold their positions merely as a matter of “faith”. The “faith” decision seems to be primarily the bailiwick of KJVO or TRO, and nothing more substantial than that.

    Gopchad: “The finality of the issue comes down to preference and faith. I accept by faith that my KJV is the Word of God... Not just a book that contains the word of God. If I used the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, or any other version as my version of choice I would say with confidence the same thing.”

    But the real question is whether you can affirm as the KJV translators themselves did, that not merely their own translation is the word of God, but that all other responsible translations equally “do not merely *contain* the word of God, but are in truth the word of God” in and of themselves. Refusal to make this acknowledgment seems to separate the KJVO or TRO from the KJV translators as well as most of the rest of us who have no problems in affirming *all* responsible translations to be the word of God.

    Gopchad: “I think the big problem is the level of hateful rhetoric on both sides of this issue.”

    I agree completely. Too much nonsense and wasted typing to prove nothing.
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you VERY MUCH, Ziggy, this is the type of input I am looking for, including the historical data, which is all too often ignored. Very good!

    This is the type of data that helps people like me to learn. [​IMG]
     
  8. gopchad

    gopchad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree completely. My opinion of W-H is just that. It is however based on some questionable activities of the two men. But no one is required to agree with me (obviously).

    Because I have a hard time believing that God would choose to hide His word away in a monastery for hundreds of years. I truly believe He was instrumental in the development of the KJV... do not read that statement as KJV correcting Greek or any Ruckman type belief, "'cause Ruckmanite I ain't". Also, that is not to say He could never be or has not been instrumental in the work of another translation.
    I choose the TR because I find no reason to change from it. If the TR is not the Word of God, then millions of English speaking people were duped by the KJV for three centuries.

    I am KJV preferred because I can see that, historically speaking, God's people have been blessed to have it.

    Two questions:

    1. In your opinion, is the TR the preserved Word of God?

    2. Do we have the word of God available in English, i.e. is any version infallible, inerrant, and inspired?

    Enjoying the dialogue!

    In Christ

    Chad Fletcher
     
  9. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Because I have a hard time believing that God would choose to hide His word away in a monastery for hundreds of years."
    "
    Prior to the invention of the printing press that was the way God's Word was preserved and copied.

    "1. In your opinion, is the TR the preserved Word of God?"
    "
    Yes.

    "2. Do we have the word of God available in English,"
    "
    Yes

    " i.e. is any version infallible, inerrant, and inspired?"
    "
    Ofcourse not.
     
  10. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TR was begun at the apostolic period. The TR (a Greek text of the New Testament) has been handed down from generation to generation. That is how we get the KJB.
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said "The TR was begun at the apostolic period. The TR (a Greek text of the New Testament) has been handed down from generation to generation. That is how we get the KJB."

    Then why did Erasmus waste his time compiling and producing it, if it already existed?
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    W&H have been dead for years. I never knew and still don't know much about W&H and realy don't care. There have been tremendous developments since those men died. Equating W&H with the people of today is much like equating the Anglican Church with the KJVO's.

    The majority text method makes about as much sense as listening to pagans. There are more pagans than Christians. Therefore they must be right. After all there are more of them.
     
  13. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    There's a *big* difference between the "majority text method" and anything that elevates the TR (any edition) to be the *only* "preserved" text in a manner similar to claims made for the KJV.

    Basically, the "pro-Byzantine" or "majority text" theories are legitimate viewpoints and function within proper spheres of Greek NT textual criticism, regardless of how many or how few might tend to agree with or disagree with those theories (same principle stated by gb, except in relation to counting advocates of a position and then declaring the majority as necessarily correct).
     
  14. gopchad

    gopchad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here is the crux of the issue. You evidently hold that infallibility/inerrancy/inspiration were only for the original writings.

    If God's word is not any of the above today then Christianity is in a crisis. I recognize that the originals are the only copies directly inspired, but if you believe that God preserves His Word as I do, then you have no problem stating that the copy you have is also inspired (theopneustos). God is required to give us a perfect copy of His word. Regardless of whether you think that it is in a Greek copy or an accurate translation of that copy you have to believe that to be true.

    If I got up in the pulpit and held my Bible high and told the folks there, "This is mostly the word of God as far as the most highly trained scholars can tell us... until further notice of the discovery of older MSS." I'd lose my congregation.

    Even Jesus acknowledged the preservation of at least the O.T.

    Lk 16.29 - "They have Moses and the prophets..."
    Referring to the Pentateuch and the Prophetic Books.

    Jn. 5.39 - Jesus told the people to "search the scriptures"

    Even in 2 Tim 3 if you look at v.15 it tells us that Timothy knew the scriptures and then proceeds to tell us that all scripture is God-breathed. This was long after the disappearance of the originals.

    Please do not take this as personal criticism; but I fear for our future if we do not get back to the point, versions and textual issues aside, that we say emphatically that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God preserved from generation to generation. You feel free to pick your version/text, but take a stand and get behind your choice as the Word of God without error.

    In Christ

    Chad
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gopchad: "God is required to give us a perfect copy of His word."

    Who is bigger than God that they can require anything of God?


    "2. Do we have the word of God available in English,"

    Yes

    " i.e. is any version infallible, inerrant, and inspired?"

    Yes, nearly all of them (The NWT = New World Translation,
    seems to NOT be the three "i"s, bible-light, the
    Reader's Digest Bible doesn't fit all three of the "i"s either.) However, not all are
    written in today's English.

    My current favorite English Bible is the one written
    for the 21st century (2001-2100) English user:
    HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible.
     
  16. gopchad

    gopchad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am not requiring this of God... he requires it of Himself. Is God not required to fulfill his promises?

    Lk 21.23 Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.

    Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    There are many things that God is required to do, not because I say so, but because he says so.
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, Chad, didn't get to answer yesterday, just got back, rough night, long story. (Take a look at what I do for a living.) :D

    Anyway, question one: Yes, I believe the TR is the inspired Word of God. It is doctrinally and historically accurate in all respects. But so are many other manuscripts.

    The TR was a "compiled" group of documents, much the same as the Nestle, etc. Do I believe those are the inspired Word of God? Yes, inspired and inerrant.

    How can this be? Two differing sets of manuscripts, inspired and inerrant?

    (Don't get me wrong the manuscripts themselves are not inspired, but the originals that they were derived from were.)

    When a translation is made there will be typos, transpositions all sorts of problems that have to be contended with and the translators job is to determine what is right. The KJV was translated, not from scratch, but by taking a Bishop's Bible (which had branced off to a Geneva Bible) and using its sentence structure while comparing it to documents. It is said, that thirteen differing manuscripts were chosen from to come up with the book of Revelation. The translators simply picked one. (Did God have a hand in it? Possibly.) But, if they had picked another that did not change doctrine, then I see no problem.

    Summary: In reality, there are wording differences a few verses here and there either missing or added. Nothing from any of the major accepted manuscripts (including the TR) that changes doctrine. So, yes, God is preserving His Word. Since the "Words" aren't the same as Greek and Hebrew anyway, and there is no direct word for word relationship between most Greek and English words----his "Words" are not preserved as in, word for word, letter for letter.

    Even the massorettes (SP?) added all of the vowels to the Hebrew. So, many, we are not exactly sure of anyway. Does God has His hand in translations, yes, I think he does, in many of the mainstream accepted translations.

    QUESTION 2. Do we have the word of God available in English, i.e. is any version infallible, inerrant, and inspired?

    I answered a lot in question one. Yes, I honestly feel that we have infallible, inerrant translations in many translations including the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, NIV and many others. I also believe there are bad translations, which will go by the wayside. Inerrant does and cannot refer to single-words like a lot of people think.

    If you and I were given a page of Greek to translate (assuming we were both experts), then we would have two, differently WORDED translations. Does this make the translation inerrant? No, just different.

    The few changes (which the KJVO will say there are 4000 and they count changing Lord to He and things like this) do not change doctrine. In my opinion, even the end of Mark does not change doctrine because if it was supposed to be there it is referring to first century disciples who were made promises of miracles. (Paul was bit by a snake, didn't hurt him.) If people today attempt this, they are accepting a promise that was not made to them. You have to look at WHO is talking and who they are talking to to understand the Bible. This is called "context" (as you very well know).

    Remark about KJV and TR. It is not correct to say that the KJV was translated from what we now call the TR. The TR (actually several) were made from compilations of manuscripts after the KJV. They do tend to track the KJV. But, in reality, the KJV was an updated Bishop's Bible (if you don't believe me compare how many verses were taken right from the Bishop's--this shows they were not translated from scratch, because, as I said translators would use different words and sentence structure.) They used and compared old manuscripts, picking a few out, ignoring a majority and then when they couldn't fill in the blanks, they resorted to the Latin Vulgate, the official RCC Bible.

    On the other hand, the NKJV is TRULY a TR translation. THIS is the reason many KJVO do not accept places where it does not match, because the KJV does not always match the TR, they think the NKJV varies from the TR, NOT TRUE.

    I have one copy of the TR (can't remember the exact name right now) along with various other WH and Nestles, etc. Yes, there are some differences, but I don't think anybody has been duped. WHY?

    The Word of God is complete in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, etc. They are ALL good translations with positives AND negatives. BUT THEY ARE THE WORD OF GOD.
     
  18. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    his "Words" are not preserved as in, word for word, letter for letter.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Who are you to say this? God has said differently:

    [snipped]

    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle

    [ October 17, 2004, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  19. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    The few changes (which the KJVO will say there are 4000 and they count changing Lord to He and things like this) do not change doctrine. In my opinion, even the end of Mark does not change doctrine because if it was supposed to be there it is referring to first century disciples who were made promises of miracles. (Paul was bit by a snake, didn't hurt him.) If people today attempt this, they are accepting a promise that was not made to them. You have to look at WHO is talking and who they are talking to to understand the Bible. This is called "context" (as you very well know).
    --------------------------------------------------


    This in no way JUSTIFIES the OMITTION of it, or verses of preserved scripture - the words of the Lord, as God has given plain warning about doing such a thing. These modern scholars and translators are not IGNORANT of this scripture, and they will stand before Almighty God someday to account for their choices and what they have done.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  20. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    When a translation is made there will be typos, transpositions all sorts of problems that have to be contended with and the translators job is to determine what is right. The KJV was translated, not from scratch, but by taking a Bishop's Bible (which had branced off to a Geneva Bible) and using its sentence structure while comparing it to documents. It is said, that thirteen differing manuscripts were chosen from to come up with the book of Revelation. The translators simply picked one. (Did God have a hand in it? Possibly.) But, if they had picked another that did not change doctrine, then I see no problem.
    --------------------------------------------------


    God is not doing a NEW thing in these last days. His words of truth the churches have ALWAYS HAD, and will CONTINUE to have. Quite honestly, verses of scripture that God has preserved until even this day, and yes, forever, have been ONLY ACCEPTED that they are ADDITIONS in recent history, by modern scholars, to which has worked it's way down to the belief now of the common man, which are ALIEN thoughts and beliefs of the christian believer. These texts that underline the mv's were WELL KNOWN by the scholars and translators and were REJECTED by them, and for good reasons.


    If you believe God is involved in and concerned with and has His guiding hand in the preservation of His words of truth even in translations, then you should Know that God does not contradict Himself, nor cause DOUBT AND CONFUSION. This is what has happened with the advent of the mv's.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     

Share This Page

Loading...