A question for TR people

[Logos1560]

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

:jesus:

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

Nah...you've just spent the better half of probably a decade pointing out every conceivable place where something like

"The Potter's wheel" is probably best translated as: "The Potter's bench"
or
"The green grass" is better translated as "The fields of green"
or
"Digged down a wall" is better translated as: "digged a trench for sappers to undermine"
or
"Hills of dirt" actually means: "Mounds of sand"

All because of your passionate love of the KJV....
Whatever...
You can't spend half your life pointing out (Theologically insignifigant) perceived errors in a translation you Love and pretend that you have no ill-will towards it...Your actions will ALWAYS speak louder than your words...and you've made a TRADE out of trashing every real or imagined error you think exists in the KJV.......
No, you don't "hate it"......
gimme a break.

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.

No...it's a way to avoid answering the question I posed to non-KJVO's which might inform Dale of the differences between say, a T.R. Only and you....
The difference, so far, is...

A T.R. only will clearly answer his questions as well and as positively as he can, and a non-TRO will obfuscate and list the errors in the T.R. (which he claims to have no ill-will towards).

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.

Then answer the questions I posed.......
Is Mark 16:9-20 "preserved Scripture" or NOT?

I can, and would answer EVERY question I posed....I bet Money you won't.

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

No they don't! GOOD FOR YOU, YOU GET A COOKIE!!!!! You said something RIGHT!!!!

But, I'm not stupid enough to argue the "translation decisions".......I actually headed that side-show of a side-show off at the pass with my FIRST response to Dale's question.........I simply answered his questions about the T.R.O. position.

Here's the history...he asked "what Translation?" That was the O.P. remember?

I answered with ONE WORD............NEITHER!
Argue with Gail Riplinger and Jack Moormon on another thread...about perfect "translations"...I'm not stupid enough to bite on your straw-men.

 

[Logos1560]

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Here is my question:

Two different translation committees gather and each produces their own translation.
THey both use the exact same mss basis for their translation.

they both use the same literal approach to the task.
They both come up with very similar translations but they do differ slightly in places.

Which one is the inerrant Word of God?

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.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Many of you are King James only people based on the TR and the Masoretic text.

That is certainly the most respectable of all of the KJVO positions in my opinion even though I do not agree.

Here is my question:

Two different translation committees gather and each produces their own translation.
THey both use the exact same mss basis for their translation.

they both use the same literal approach to the task.
They both come up with very similar translations but they do differ slightly in places.

Which one is the inerrant Word of God?

Both.

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

 

[Rippon]

Let's ask a few questions of non-TRO's for clarity....to non-TRO:

1.) Is Mark 16:9-20 the inspired inerrant preserved Words of God or not?

Not the inspired Word of God.

2.) If they AREN'T, why do Modern Versions include them?

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

3.) If they ARE...than why utilize or have faith in manuscripts which exclude them?

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.

4.) Did God preserve all of his words ON EARTH for us to read? or only the general Theological THRUST of doctrine?

The former.

5.) Were the verses which the CT omits infestations of some sort which worked their way INTO the extant manuscripts?

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.

6.) What system do you use to ferret out the un-inspired infestations of Scripture to preserve the correct words?

Textual criticism.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Let's ask a few questions of non-TRO's for clarity....to non-TRO:

1.) Is Mark 16:9-20 the inspired inerrant preserved Words of God or not?
2.) If they AREN'T, why do Modern Versions include them?
3.) If they ARE...than why utilize or have faith in manuscripts which exclude them?
4.) Did God preserve all of his words ON EARTH for us to read? or only the general Theological THRUST of doctrine?
5.) Were the verses which the CT omits infestations of some sort which worked their way INTO the extant manuscripts?
6.) What system do you use to ferret out the un-inspired infestations of Scripture to preserve the correct words?

Maybe hearing an answer to those questions will help you see how TRO's view it Dale.
Whatever answers you'll get from that...........that's why there are TRO's and everyone else.

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Or, what is the accepted version for a person of another language? Are they to deal with the Middle English or should they emulate the rationale of the translators of 1611 and give each people a translation in their own tongue?

Nice to see you back, brother!

 

[Rippon]

Nice to see you back, brother!

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

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

 

[Rippon]

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!