This is being started in response to the long thread "Where was ... before 1611?" At several points there and other places, the supremacy of the TR as well as its origin were questioned. I would like to have a discussion that centers on the validity of this group of texts commonly called the TR (Textus Receptus) or the RT (Received Text). This group of texts was brought together during the time period leading up to the reformation and during the reformation, being edited and compiled by several different men. It forms the basis for the New Testament portion of the KJB today. In contrast, Greek manuscripts that differ from the TR group in some places (the count varies depending on conditions) have been discovered and are primarily the foundation for many modern English versions.

FIRST, there have been several times on this board where the comparative accuracy of the TR has been challenged, with the NA/UBS Greek texts being claimed to be more accurate. My first question is specifically to GreekTim, since he is most outspoken on this, but others who do not support the TR may want to answer as well.

Question:
What evidence do you have that the group of Greek Texts often known as the TR (aka Traditional texts, Byzantine texts, Antioch texts) is not as accurate as the group of texts, often known as the critical or Alexandrian texts, generally used for the RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, etc?

It is noted that new groupings are taking place currently which merge the two with recent additions of newly discovered manuscripts, but for the question at hand, I would like to stick with the presupposition that there are two primary and distinct groups:

One, the traditional texts that have been in common use throughout the reformation period, and as evidence suggests, existed in general use throughout church history.

The second, the critical texts that began to surface with the Westcott-Hort work in the late 1800's, and were not in public use until the 20th century.

If you, GreekTim, want to argue that the UBS or NA are not any longer based on the W-H or Alexandrian texts, then keep your answer more toward the evidence that the TR is LESS accurate than other text groups in general.

Is the question answerable?

Are the words & verses missing from the MVs actually added to the TR texts? We understand that 1 John 5:7 was added by Erasmus under duress from the RC authorities, it not being in any of the known Gk texts.

We understand also that the end of Revelation was back translated from the Vulgate, his Gk source being confused by commentary.

The ending of Mark is at variance from Luke's Emmaus road episode. Is it therefore unlikely to be authentic?

How significant are the LXX variants from the Hebrew used in the NT quotations?

Are any significant doctrines affected by the textual variations? Not isolated references that are covered elsewhere, but serious & consistent changes.

Does anyone use an MV to establish doctrine, as distinct from using an MV for teaching purposes?

Ebenezer you need some lessons.

http://www.bevros.org/dbs_index.htm

http://www.deanburgonsociey.org

This post was last modified: Sun Jun 08, 2008 04:05 PM by james516.

[quote=james516]
Ebenezer you need some lessons.

Amen Brother! I do not understand why these guys want to hang around here and profess their knowledge of things that are better than the real Bible. Quite frankly, if I had administrative abilities here rather than being a "super moderator" I would have banned some people by now. Why do we even bother to answer such things here? The Bible tells us that we are to mark those who try to cause divisions and offenses and avoid them. That I will do from this point forward.

In Christ,
George

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We listen to others to take on deeper research of our own stand, & somtimes are suprised in what we learn and find out from other points of view and said research. I put GT onto this site to do that very thing...I wanted his deepest research to strengthen or loosen his grip on his NASB - KJV knowledge as well as ours at this site. I have been amazed at what both sides have researched and come up with!! What I have gleaned most is that we are all brothers & sisters in Christ, saved by the precious Blood of the Lamb despite this textual argueing. My conclusion is to welcome the chance to take your(our) educated stance and let others do the same to see if error is in either camp.

This post was last modified: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:52 AM by ChuckieTrout.

Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.

Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.

I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.

Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).

Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

Will Kinney

That is all well and good brother Trout. However addressing the second sentence of your post Greektim did not come here with the spirit of what you have stated. He came here with the spirit of trying to impress on us that he was right, his "versions" of the Bible were right and each time something was posted supporting our beloved King James Bible he refuted it.

As to your last sentence, I don't believe you yet understand this is a King James Bible-believing, King James Bible-teaching site. We do not believe there is any error in that Bible nor do we believe there is any error in our support of the One True Word of God.

In Christ,
George

CT, I would like to also comment on your last sentence or two.

It is important for all of us to recognize that the true church can have disagreement within itself and still be family. There are serious issues that can divide us to the point of loss of fellowship while at the same time they will not separate us as brethren. The fundamentals of the Faith are the foundation upon which we must stand. The problem here is that there is a greater and greater distortion of the truth from the endless production of modern texts. There comes a point that the Book which provides for us the Final Authority for the Truth is poisoned so much that the truth is lost.

I am not afraid of nor shy away from a discussion(debate) with those who would come here trying to prove that the KJB is somehow in error. It is not, and therefore their attempts will fall flat. Our knowledge or presentation of that knowledge as individuals will be varied and may contain weakness or error, but as the issue is discussed, the ultimate truth will always be that the KJB is absolute Truth, and that every other English version, no matter how sincere the effort, will have flaws contained within it, thus disqualifying it as Scripture. They may contain the Words of God, but they cannot BE the Word of God. If someone comes among us to educate us about our error and illumine us with his or her wisdom, that person will find that the conversation will be decidedly fierce. We will contend for The Faith. Finesse and tactfulness may not be the forte of some, but do not mistake that for a weakness in the Truth or our confidence in God's promises and our commitment to stand on those promises.