A question for TR people

Since I do not actually hate the Textus Receptus nor the KJV, the bogus accusation that I supposedly do is clearly false and wrong.

Pointing out accurate information about the varying editions of the Textus Receptus and about the varying editions of the KJV does not indicate any hatred for them.

I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages, and they are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations.

The scriptural teachings concerning preservation do not suggest that preservation concerns the translation decisions of any one exclusive group of scholars.

 

:jesus:

 

It should be easy to understand that disagreeing with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory does not indicate any ill will towards the KJV itself.

If taking the claims, arguments, or assertions of a KJV-only theory and testing them by applying them consistently including to the KJV supposedly harms the KJV, that would actually be the fault and responsibility of those who advocated the KJV-only claims.

Testing and examining KJV-only claims and arguments and presenting accurate, documented information and evidence does not indicate any opposition to truth and sound doctrine.

Inspector Javert, you failed to back up your bogus, false accusations against me that are likely intended to divert attention away from the truth and away from the KJV-only burden of proof. No KJV-only advocates have presented any consistent, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory.

The KJV is a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are. The KJV is one of the English translations that I recommend along with the Geneva Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, and the NKJV.

When the editors of the various Textus Receptus editions attempted to correct the actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts on which their text was based [along with some added readings from the Latin Vulgate], were they supposedly showing hatred towards the very manuscripts on which they relied according to a consistent application of typical KJV-only accusations?

It is clear that KJV-only advocates in effect are using unrighteous divers measures in their throwing out of inconsistent, unproven accusations against believers in the Scriptures.

 

It has not been demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that any translations made after the end of the giving of Scripture by inspiration with the completion of the New Testament can be properly considered inerrant or inspired.

Inerrancy and inspiration directly relate to the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles, not the translating decisions of scholars who are not given their renderings by any miracle of inspiration.

Slightly different renderings in two different translations can mean the same thing and both be equally accurate.

In some cases, one can be more accurate or better than the rendering in another if it presents the meaning of the original language text more accurately and clearly than the other.

 

Both.

But then, I'm not KJVO or even entirely TR preferred, so not sure I'm qualified to answer.

 

Not the inspired Word of God.

For the sake of tradition. Not a good reason but...

Well,as I just said, I don't believe they are a genuine part of the Word of God. But I don't believe in discarding the entire manuscript where they are included. That would be terribly unwise.

The former.

In short -- yes. But the "infestations" as you put it were not motivated by pure evil. Scribes down through the centuries tried to correct what they thought were mistakes,they tried to harmonize passages,they put in explanatory fillers etc.

Textual criticism.

 

1. No expert, but I happen to believe so and did a little bit of reading up on it.
2. Better safe than sorry?
3. Each manuscript would have something to offer. Just because one part is or isn't there doesn't and shouldn't automatically rule it out.
4. I believe He preserved what He knows we need to hear.
5. Hard to say. I don't know, not a Bible scholar.
6. Not a Bible scholar, so don't know enough to answer.

 

Nice to see you back, brother!

 

He made his sole contribution to this thread almost three years and three months ago.

 

Oops. Didn't realize this was a resurrected thread. My bad.

 

I'm known (and sometimes villified) for resurrecting older threads. I love the archives. And it's not even dusty there!