The Traditional Greek and Hebrew texts

[rlvaughn]

Below written by Robert Truelove (with the first being a quote of Francis Turretin), who says in another place, "This is not to say that I believe that Christians should ONLY read the KJV. It is unfortunate that King James Onlyism has so polarized this translation as to make it an all or nothing proposition."

"When we place the writings of the 17th century Reformed (and even Lutheran) Scholastics alongside the wording found in the confessions, it is difficult (if not impossible) to escape the conclusion that these confessions place the locus of authority in the Traditional Greek and Hebrew texts.

"By ‘original texts’ we do not mean the very autographs from the hands of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, which are known to be nonexistent. We mean copies (apographa), which have come in their name, because they record for us that word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

"In addition to this, we see the Scriptural footnotes in the confessions that time and again identify with readings now rejected by modern, critical scholarship.

"What we are seeing among our Protestant forbears is a different mindset in their approach to the difficulties inherent in textual variants among the manuscripts than that of the popular, contemporary approach to textual criticism. We see this in their sermons, writings, commentaries and confessions."

Read the entire article here: Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text

Thoughts?

 

[rlvaughn]

To clarify what I wrote above, this is what is a quote of Francis Turretin:

By ‘original texts’ we do not mean the very autographs from the hands of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, which are known to be nonexistent. We mean copies (apographa), which have come in their name, because they record for us that word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Logos1560]

In his 1583 book that advocated and defended the Reformation view or Protestant view of Bible translation, Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) stated: "We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the New Testament" (A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, p. 44).

Neil Rhodes maintained that William Fulke “had become the official voice of English Protestantism” (English Renaissance Translation Theory, p. 22). David Norton stated that William Fulke “became a pillar of the Church of England” (History of the English Bible, p. 50).

In the preface of another book, William Fulke noted: "The dissension of interpreters [translators] must be decided by the original Greek" (Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, p. 26). William Fulke maintained: “The Greek text of the New Testament needeth no patronage of men, as that which is the very word and truth of God” (p. 32).

William Fulke observed: "We acknowledge the text of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now printed with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament, adjoining here with the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context, from that which by errors of the writers or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new" (A Defence, p. 78).

In another place, William Fulke pointed out: "We acknowledge the Hebrew "as the fountain and spring, from whence we must receive the infallible truth of God's Word of the Old Testament" (Ibid., p. 147). Fulke also wrote: "It becometh us best in translation to follow the original text, and, as near as we can, the true meaning of the Holy Ghost" (Ibid., p. 214).

 

[Yeshua1]

To clarify what I wrote above, this is what is a quote of Francis Turretin:

Seems that they realized that inspiration was derived and found in just the Originals, and that we have the word of the Lord in our Hebrew and Greek texts today!

 

[kathleenmariekg]

I do not use copyrighted scripture as my primary text. That narrows down what I can choose from.

I skimmed the old and recently resurrected thread on sermon plagarism. Imagine if Paul had copyrighted his letters, and they could have only been read in the churches that could afford to pay him and had the ability to transfer money in a form that he could accept money. Yes things have changed. Scripture has become a product for sale, and the intent is to exclude people instead of convert them.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not use copyrighted scripture as my primary text. That narrows down what I can choose from.

I skimmed the old and recently resurrected thread on sermon plagarism. Imagine if Paul had copyrighted his letters, and they could have only been read in the churches that could afford to pay him and had the ability to transfer money in a form that he could accept money. Yes things have changed. Scripture has become a product for sale, and the intent is to exclude people instead of convert them.

What translations are left for you then to use?

 

[Logos1560]

Daniel Featley (1582-1645), who was a chaplain of KJV translator George Abbot, who was appointed to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and who may have been a KJV translator according to the British Museum list of translators, asserted what could be soundly regarded as the typical Church of England and Protestant view of that day.

In 1624, Daniel Featley wrote: “We believe the Originals of the two Testaments, in Hebrew and Greek, to be authentical, and of undoubted authority“ (The Roman Fisher, p. 98). Daniel Featley wrote: “No translation can equal the authority of the original, much less be preferred before it” (Appendix to the Fishers Net, pp. 69-70). In a later book published in 1646, Daniel Featley wrote: “For no translation is simply authentical, or the undoubted word of God. In the undoubted word of God there can be no error. But in translations there may be, and are errors. The Bible translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God, but so far only as it agreeth with the original” (Dippers Dipt, p. 1). Concerning translations, Daniel Featley asserted: “For there is none in which there are not some mistakes, more or less” (p. 74). Daniel Featley added: “Other slips must be born with in translations, or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given by divine inspiration, as the originals are” (Ibid.).

 

[Logos1560]

James Ussher (1582-1656) maintained “that all translations are to be judged, examined, and reformed according to the text of the ancient Hebrew and original Chaldee, in which the Old Testament was penned, and the Greek text, in which the New Testament was written” (Body of Divinity, p. 20). James Ussher observed: “In them [the original languages] only the Scriptures are, for the letter, to be held authentical. And as the water is most pure in the fountain or spring thereof: so the right understanding of the Holy Scriptures is most certain in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, in which they were first written and delivered to the church, out of which languages they must be truly translated for the understanding of them that have not the knowledge of those tongues” (Ibid.).

 

[Yeshua1]

James Ussher (1582-1656) maintained “that all translations are to be judged, examined, and reformed according to the text of the ancient Hebrew and original Chaldee, in which the Old Testament was penned, and the Greek text, in which the New Testament was written” (Body of Divinity, p. 20). James Ussher observed: “In them [the original languages] only the Scriptures are, for the letter, to be held authentical. And as the water is most pure in the fountain or spring thereof: so the right understanding of the Holy Scriptures is most certain in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, in which they were first written and delivered to the church, out of which languages they must be truly translated for the understanding of them that have not the knowledge of those tongues” (Ibid.).

Inspiration lied in the Originals, not in any translation!

 

[rlvaughn]

Inspiration lied in the Originals, not in any translation!

Inspiration never lied.

 

[rlvaughn]

It seems clear to me that Fulke and Ussher (and probably Featley) mean the Masoretic text when referring to the Hebrew text, but not as clear about what they mean by the Greek text. To what Greek text do they refer?

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems clear to me that Fulke and Ussher (and probably Featley) mean the Masoretic text when referring to the Hebrew text, but not as clear about what they mean by the Greek text. To what Greek text do they refer?

The text that they had to use was the TR. correct?

 

[George Antonios]

Inspiration never lied.

I think he meant "layed" or "laid".

 

[Yeshua1]

Inspiration never lied.

Meant was in only the originals!