What makes 1535 Coverdale's a "great Bible?"

EdSutton · Feb 18, 2009

franklinmonroe said:

Matthew Verschuur (a strong Cambridge edition KJV advocate) in an article entitled GOODLY WORDS: BETTER ANSWERS TO KING JAMES BIBLE QUESTIONS which can be found on his website includes his answer to the question: IS THE TRADITIONAL OR MAJORITY TEXT ULTIMATELY DEFENDABLE? (my bold) --
Among King James Bible people there has been a confusion of terms. Firstly, a vast body of substantially agreeing witnesses to the New Testament text can be found. This family of manuscripts and other evidence can be called the Antioch, Byzantine, Traditional or Majority Text family.

However, at the Reformation, the makers of single representative texts, which may be called Textus Receptus Editions, did not rely totally on the Traditional Text family. They also considered the Western (Vulgate) readings and the readings from the Alexandrian or Minority Text family. Now the Roman Catholics were concerned with producing standard editions of the Western Text family, and years later, modernists created critical editions based on the Minority Text family. The Textus Receptus Editions portrayed a “gathered text” (i.e. gathered from the truthful witnesses in history) that emphasised or favoured the Traditional Text family. Minor differences could be found in the various editions of the Textus Receptus, but the gathered group of these editions has also been generally called “The Textus Receptus”. In fact, that is what is the usual meaning of Textus Receptus, Received Text or TR.

To be “TR Only” with respect to the Greek text is illogical, since there is no final representative of the Greek Received Text. The correct view is that the English Bible is an independent form of the Textus Receptus, and further, that it is the final form of the Received Text.

There have been attempts by King James Bible users to create a new edition of the Textus Receptus that is based entirely on detailed and limited study of the Traditional Text, which have been designed to “correct” the King James Bible. However, carrying this out would be contrary to the King James Bible doctrine because the King James Bible is the final gathered text and thus deviates from the Textus Receptus and the Traditional Text Family in those places where they are in error. As a consequence, the critical edition, known as the Majority Text, and other such works are really peripheral to the King James Bible only movement, and would tend to reject aspects of the doctrine, as well as remove certain verses such as 1 John 5:7.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I suggest that the 'illogical' logic (plus redefinitions proffered, and misrepresentations of other's positions implied) of Mr. Matthew Verschuur, in just this little snippet, would find a warm welcome from some I've recently seen posting on this board.

And they all seem to claim to believe the Bible.

I don't know about theirs, obviously (maybe someone got there with scissors, I guess), but my Bible has something to say about bearing false witness, that I saw at least 7 times. :tear:

Ed

franklinmonroe · Feb 18, 2009

stilllearning said:

... In other words, the copies, were as inspired as the originals. ...
Click to expand...

For sake of discussion, let's presume that the "copies" ARE inspired --

How does that help us when the manuscript copies ALL do indeed display differences, additions, and subtractions as compared to one another? What do we do with all of these inspired documents, since there seems to be no need to collate them?

Are the obvious scribal errors "inspired", too?

Consequently, isn't one inspired copy just as good as another to translate from? Or are some copies more inspired than others?

Just trying to understand your position.

EdSutton · Feb 18, 2009

franklinmonroe said:

stilllearning said:

... In other words, the copies, were as inspired as the originals. ...
Click to expand...

Just trying to understand your position.
Click to expand...

The exact quote of another poster (complete with the incorrect spacing), to a question on another thread, that incidentally was asked by you, seems quite an appropriate response as to the position, here.

Duh,King James Onlyism! (My 'bolding'- Ed)
Click to expand...

Ed

franklinmonroe · Feb 19, 2009

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. ...
Click to expand...

H. D. Williams, M.D., Ph.D. in his article THE MIRACLE OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION (which can be found on the Dean Burgon Society website) states his loyalty to the KJV in this way --

... Similarly, the author of this work who defends the King James Bible (KJB), believes that the KJB is without translational errors. It does not contain any errors or contradictions as a result of translating. ...

... This author believes that the Words that underlie the King James Bible English translation are the original perfect Words “given by inspiration of God” to “holy men of God” to record. God has providentially superintended the accurate, faithful, verbal, plenary, formal, equivalent translation of the Preserved original-languages into the receptor-languages of the world so that some translations can be said to be without translational errors. ... (his bold, my underline)
I wanted to show that Dr. Williams is no 'KJV-hater'; but here is how he defines the term "inspiration" --

9) Inspiration = means “God-breathed” from the Greek word theopneustos (2 Tim. 3:16). It is a very technical Biblical term indicating a miraculous process and product. The Words of God originally given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to special men selected by God to record were “God-breathed.” In this work, this is the process of inspiration. The product of inspiration in this work is the recorded inspired Words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the sixty-sixty books of the canon of Scripture for man that are infallible and inerrant. “Inspiration” is a miracle. This means that God is the author of the original Words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, which is the Bible. The men who recorded them are not coauthors, although God used their vocabulary. ...

... In summary, “Inspiration is (1) the miracle whereby the Words of Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were (2) God-breathed and “once delivered” using “holy men of God” and their vocabulary, (3) who recorded them “once” perfectly as they were “moved along” by the Holy Spirit (4) in such a way that “all” the Words written are infallible and inerrant in the sixty-six books of the canon of Scripture.” A succinct way of stating the same thing is: “The perfect author of the perfect Bible is God.” (his bold & underlines)
Later, in the same article, he essentially repeats --

(1) In this work, “inspiration” means “God-breathed” from the Greek word theopneustos (2 Tim. 3:16). It was a miraculous process that resulted in a miraculous product that has not been duplicated since the Scriptures were completed with the recording of the Words of the book of Revelation. The Words originally given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to selected, special “holy men of God” to record were “God-breathed.” They are perfect as defined in this work (q.v.). (my underline)
I believe that Dr.Williams has successfully more fully articulated the phrase "being immediately inspired" as found in the WCF I.8; that is, the inspiration of God is only of the original language autographs and cannot properly extended to manuscript copies or translations directly.

What makes 1535 Coverdale's a "great Bible?"

EdSutton New Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

EdSutton New Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

Useful Searches

What makes 1535 Coverdale's a "great Bible?"

EdSutton New Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

EdSutton New Member

franklinmonroe Active Member