Secondary Inspiration

[Gorship]

Sort of but not really. This is perhaps a topic for another discussion, but the KJV is better described as a "formal equivalence" translation that tries to stay as close to the number and literalness of each word while making it understandable in English. For example, a literal word-for-word translation of John 3:16 out of the TR would read:

 

"thus for loved the God the world so-that the son of him the only-begotten he-gave that every the one-believing no should-be-perished but may-be-having life eternal"

 

That doesn't make a lot of sense in English so we have in the KJV - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

sorry I understand the idea of formal equivalency, mistyped my prevoius post.

Still not sure on how the KJV could correct an already perfect word in the TR though.

[beameup]

Mormons say that they have "a warm feeling in their bosom" that the Book of Mormon is the inspired Word of God.

My standards are much higher.

[John81]

The KJB doesn't "correct" the TR, it simply puts what's in the TR in English formatting, as well as wording, so it's more understandable in the English language.

[Steve Schwenke]

Sorry for the delay in responding...its been a long day, but fruitful.

 

Again, sorry, my computer does not allow "cut and paste" or "quote" on this website, so I will have to simple address individuals here.

 

The Sword:

I think we are saying very much the same thing.  From the accepted theological standpoint propagated by the "scholars," the act of "preservation" is in fact more man-oriented than God-oriented.  We (myself included) believe that the Holy Spirit MUST be present in the work of preservation just as He was in the work of "inspiration."

 

So far as your distinction between inspiration and preservation, I fully understand what you are saying, and agree with your position to a very large degree.  I think the confusion comes when we limit the definition of "inspiration" to being applicable ONLY to the "originals."  We have a tendency to view inspiration as a one-time event, whereas I believe the Scriptural position is that inspiration-preservation-translation are all ONE PROCESS.  I don't know how to explain it as yet, and it gets rather murky, so maybe in the end, we are only quibbling over semantics.

 

Regarding the other questions concerning the TR.

First, allow me to apologize for any confusion caused....I chalk it up to trying to write at 6am before I left for work!  Please forgive me!

Second, let me go back and restate my position.  Perhaps I used a bad example with I John 5:7, because, yes in fact, it is in the TR.  There is a fine distinction between the TR and the MT (Majority Text.)  The Majority Text is simply what it means - the majority of readings for any given passage.  Generally speaking, the MT and the TR are the same, but there are some places where they differ.  Erasmus included I John 5:7 in his Greek NT, which eventually became known as the TR, the underlying Greek NT for the KJV.  However, I John 5:7 is not in the MT because the evidence for it is admittedly scant.  This lack of evidence has caused even many otherwise sound and conservative "scholars" to reject the reading (including Scofield).  So who is right?  The MT or the KJV?  Well, the KJV is, despite the lack of overwhelming evidence. 

I was also thinking about the last six verses of Revelation which Erasmus took from the corrupt Latin Vulgate, and not from any Greek NT available at the time.  Again, the MT is lacking on this point, but the providence of God led Erasmus and those who followed him to continue to retain the reading, and it has found its way (correctly!) into the KJV.  The MT is wrong here, the TR is correct, and the KJV is correct.

 

There are a handful of places where the KJV will side with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus AGAINST the TR....granted, not many, just a few, but the facts are the facts.  Unfortunately I do not have a ready made list at hand, so I will have to do some digging on this.  The one outstanding example that comes to mind at the moment is I John 2:23.  The entire last half of the verse is in italics, indicating that the KJV Translators supplied the entire half of the verse with no manuscript evidence at all.  However, the evidence was FOUND in the 1800's in (of all places!) the Sinaiticus manuscript. 

Thus, the TR does not have the supplied words, the KJV translators had no basis whatsoever to add those words, but supplied them anyway, and lo and behold, there is evidence that those words are correct. 

 

So yes, there are some very limited instances where the KJV does in fact "correct" the TR. 

[Steve Schwenke]

Gorship

Yes, I am saying that the KJV is the final authority over the TR. 

Explanation:

I have been teaching and preaching the Bible since 1991.  I have never had to refer to the TR for any reason in all those years of preaching and teaching.  The KJV is what I believe and what I preach.

This in no way negates the important role the TR has played and continues to play in the translational efforts of missionaries.  If I were a missionary on a foreign field, I would defer to the TR, using the KJV as a "check" - just as the KJV translators refered to the "former translations."   Facts are facts - we would not have a KJV without a TR.  But the world has moved away from the Biblical NT Greek as well as Latin.  The world now does business in English, hence an English Bible.

 

In essence, and for all practical purposes, the KJV is the TR in English (the few minor changes excepted, as noted above.)

 

The only time I refer to the Greek (whether it be the TR or CT) is when some blockhead in a commentary wants to make a big deal about the KJV is "wrong" in some passage.  I set out to prove them wrong, and demonstrate the superiority of the KJV. 

 

In Christ,

[Gorship]

I feel like I need to study this subject out more, I was under the impression the TR was complete, and the MT was corrupted. Now im hearing that the TR in like fashion is missing portions of writing (not necessarily corrupted to suit egyption deists), but still not complete. If you were in ancient Greece, would you have the TR and have an incomplete word? now im just confused.

[prophet1]

I feel like I need to study this subject out more, I was under the impression the TR was complete, and the MT was corrupted. Now im hearing that the TR in like fashion is missing portions of writing (not necessarily corrupted to suit egyption deists), but still not complete. If you were in ancient Greece, would you have the TR and have an incomplete word? now im just confused.

1. The KJV translators had mss from many other tongues, beside Hebrew and Greek.
2. The AV translators made copious notes.
3. The notes were lost in a fire, shortly after 1611, before the mss could be translated into another tongue, or a complete Greek NT could be established.
4. What we know, of the translation process now, is what testimony we have , from those men who wrote about the experience, back then.
5.For this reason, the 3 main Bible Societies, in the U.S. and Canada, who did translation and publishing for missions, unanimously agreed to only translate from the AV, and not from the original languages.
6. Late in the 19th century, after Darby's Dispensational, and Pretrib heresy , along with his "Translation" , poisoned the water, liberalism crept in to the Bible Societies.
Unrest had been created, doubt in the AV (or Common English Bible as it was called then), and Bible Society leaders, who doubled as leaders in Baptist Denominations, like Thomas Armitage, began clamouring for a new translation.
Satan , who stirred up this pot, to trigger the falling away mentioned in IIThes., had the Nestle-Aland waiting in the wing, with its whorish daughter, the RV.
The rest is MV history.
Scofield
Torrey
Rice
Hyles
All on the bandwagon...
Hyles later repented, having been made privy to Ruckman's research, and knowing the faith he had built, because of hearing the KJV vs the others, but it was too late for his movement. They had carried the KJV, and taught doctrine from the RV for so long, that they were blinded to what the Scriptures actually said.

Today we have a mixed up mess of beliefs, among IFB, because of this.

It was planned.

The Protestants were prepped to join us, in the pretend "fundamentalist movement", which asked only the Baptists to compromise.

We preached together, in National Conferences, like the Sword of the Lord. There the Baptists would get lambasted by Protestants like BOB Jones, and others, who were Arminian, Calvinist, Praeterist, Pre-Trib, Covenant, etc.
We were told to cooperate with these "great men of god", to reach more souls.

2Co 11:13-15
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


Anishinaabe

[Gorship]

1. The KJV translators had mss from many other tongues, beside Hebrew and Greek.

2. The AV translators made copious notes.
3. The notes were lost in a fire, shortly after 1611, before the mss could be translated into another tongue, or a complete Greek NT could be established.
4. What we know, of the translation process now, is what testimony we have , from those men who wrote about the experience, back then.
5.For this reason, the 3 main Bible Societies, in the U.S. and Canada, who did translation and publishing for missions, unanimously agreed to only translate from the AV, and not from the original languages.
 

Not sure how pre-trib has anything to do with my question so I removed all the filler.

my issue starts at number 1) so you saying that prior to the KJB there was no complete inspired word? because we will sit here and talk about the sinaticius and the vaticanus are corrupt all day long, and now the KJB guys are using it to put together our KJB, so whats happening here, someone needs to be clearer.

 

[prophet1]

Not sure how pre-trib has anything to do with my question so I removed all the filler.

my issue starts at number 1) so you saying that prior to the KJB there was no complete inspired word? because we will sit here and talk about the sinaticius and the vaticanus are corrupt all day long, and now the KJB guys are using it to put together our KJB, so whats happening here, someone needs to be clearer.

The translators did not have access to the complete Word of God " in a single language".

Hope this helps

Anishinaabe

[Steve Schwenke]

Prophet, you OBviously have an agenda against dispensationalism that is completely unwarranted and unreasonable.  For this reason, I am completely blocking your posts and ignoring your comments.  Its too bad you have to be that way because I think we have a lot in common and we could actually be friendly.  But to blame (at least in part) the plethora of New Versions on DARBY and Dispensationalism, and completely glossing over German higher criticism, Greisbach, Tischendorf, Alcott, Westcott, Hort, and all of their cronies, who completely rewrote the Greek New Testament under false pretenses, and at the same time rewrote all of the Greek Lexicons only shows how ignorant  you are of the subject. 

 

It is completely ridiculous. 

 

I was holding out hope for you to be more reasonable, but you are not.   You inject your anti-dispensational venom at every opportunity, even when it is unwarranted and unconnected to the topic. 

You don't truly know or understand dispensationalism. 

You don't know the history of the 1800's and the source of the Bible correctors (you blame it on Darby and Scofield)

 

So, adios to you, my brother in Christ.

May you win many souls to Christ, and be a shining light in your corner of the world!

[Steve Schwenke]

Gorship:

These are good questions you pose.

Abbreviations and their meaning:
TR - "Textus Receptus" - a Latin phrase that means "Received Text" - this refers to the "common man's Bible" throughout the Church Age.  This is the New Testament that was found all over the world and USED and BELIEVED by saints everywhere.

 

MT - "Majority Text" - the TR and the MT are almost identical.  There are a handful of places where they disagree - such as Acts 8:37 and I John 5:7 - both are in the TR, but the Majority of the Manuscripts do not include these verses.  There is AMPLE evidence that is sufficient to include them in our Bible, but not overwhelming evidence.

 

CT - "Critical Text" - this is the corrupt Alexandrian text the "scholars" use to correct your KJV.  This is essentially the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, although it has been "revised and updated."  Its current form is in the Nestle-Aland's Greek NT, 27th edition (NA27) and the United Bible Society's Greek NT, 4th edition (UBS4).  The actual text of the NA27 and the UBS4 is the exact same text, but the critical notes marking various readings in any given passage are much different.  The NA27 is much more thorough in that regard. 

 

The TR is the basis for your KJV, although there are a handful of places where the KJV deviates - not many, just a few.

 

Regarding your question as to where the word of God was before 1611, it was everywhere.  I think this is where good Bible schools, pastors, and teachers fail in their understanding of the process of inspiration and preservation.  It IS (present tense) God's words today, just as it WAS for them.  If we were living in the year 1387, whatever Bible we could OBtain that was related to what is now called the TR line or the MT line of manuscripts would have been the perfect Bible for us in that time, wherever it was that we lived. 

Those who have studied the history of the manuscripts and translations know that the correct line of Bibles was translated around the world, so those peoples in those times had the right Bibles. 

Just because the KJV differs ever so slightly from them TODAY makes them no less the perfect word of God for THEM way back THEN. 

 

That may be a difficult concept to swallow, but just consider it an "updating" into a more modern vernacular to express the correct thought.  Remember, it is the role of the Holy Spirit to give us the correct words the proper express the spirit and intent of the Author of Scripture, God Almighty.  Those expressions may need to be reworded, rephrased, or otherwise "updated" depending upon language, culture, society, etc.  However, once the Holy Spirit bears witness to the saints that the Bible we have is (present tense) the living words of the living God, then the Biblical injunction to not "add or subtract" is in place.  In the modern era, the AV1611 has that stamp - so we read it, believe it, memorize it, preach it, and live it.  The others can be discarded since they do not meet the Biblical criteria for being God's word.

 

Hopefully, that helps you a little bit.

 

If none of that makes sense, just forget it, and keep on believing your KJV.  The KJV is the TR in English.

 

In Christ,

[Calvary]

I would remind you all that the precise body of MSS that were translated into our AV ,only exists in a single language, in the English KJV. This is due to the loss of editor's notes and some rarer MSS in a fire shortly after 1611.
Yet, though the exact same MSS were not available to the translators of the Reina Valera (1909 is the last trustworthy update, the 1960, like anything else produced in
1960, is purposefully corrupted),
it may as well have been translated from the AV. It is God's Inspired Word in Español.

Hence, the LORD prepared for the 1/3 of the Earth's surface that speaks Spanish, to have His inspired Word as well.

The Reina Valera was translated prior to the AV.

Psa 12:6-7
6 Las palabras de Jehová, palabras limpias; Plata refinada en horno de tierra, Purificada siete veces. 7 Tú, Jehová, los guardarás; Guárdalos para siempre de aquesta generación.
(RV09)

Anishinaabe

 

 

[Steve Schwenke]

Places where the KJV deviates from the TR:

 

Acts 12:4

TR - "pascha" - properly translated "Passover"

KJV - Easter

This was mentioned earlier, but the fact is the Greek word in the TR is not Easter, it is Passover.  That's just the way it is.

Which is correct? 

 

Acts 19:37

TR - "temples"

KJV - "churches"

 

Gal. 2:20

TR - "I have been crucified..."

KJV - "I am crucified..."

 

II Cor. 5:17

TR - "creation"

KJV - "creature"

 

Acts 4:27, 30

TR - "holy servant"

KJV - "holy child"

 

II Timothy 2:15

TR - "Be diligent"

KJV - "study"

 

I Cor. 11:1

TR - "be imitators of me..."

KJV - "be followers of me..."

 

Now, I am not saying that there are "errors" in the TR, nor am I saying to throw the TR away. 

I am saying that the KJV deviates from the TR on occasion.

 

My position is clear: The KJV is the perfect, complete, entire, infallible word of God for us today.

 

In Christ,

[Calvary]

 

 

Yet, though the exact same MSS were not available to the translators of the Reina Valera (1909 is the last trustworthy update, the 1960, like anything else produced in1960, is purposefully corrupted),

 

Que interesante que tu crees la RV60 es corrupto y que el 1909 no. Hace unos años hice una comparasión entre el 1865 Pratt, RV 1909, RV1960 y el KJB con cada una abierto en mi mesa. Hice una conflación de los textos, comparando los libros de Gálatas, Efesios, Colosenses, Filipenses y 1 y 2 Tesalonicenses. Terminando mis estudios llegué a la conclusión que el 1960 estaba en acuerdo con el KJB en casí 59% del tiempo sOBre el 1865 (la cual hallé ser una traducción pesado y demasiado torpe para seguir) y que el 1960 estaba en acuerdo con el KJB sOBre el 1909 en casí 14% de las lecturas. Determiné a rechazar el 1865 que en aquel tiempo fue promovido por Dr. Ruckman y otros, pero mis conclusiones eran mis conclusiones. Por el faltar de una gramatica estable, el 1909 también tuve que dejar por un lado. Por 15 años he iniciado iglesias en el sur de México, ganado almas y por al gracia y misericordia de Dios entrenado 8 hombres que ahora están sirviendo en el minsiterio tiempo completo. He traducido libros por James Knox, Dr James Williams, Dr. Eldon Martens, y otros, nunca teniendo nungún prOBlema con el texto 1960. Dios ha utilzado este traduccion a pesar de los opiniones de muchos y sigue usando en el mundo Latino por Su gloria. He visto varios intentos para "mejorar" la Biblia por el "pOBre" Latino que aparentamente no puede entender el complejo asunto de las versiones y sus textos, que supuestamente solo el gringo pueda.

Te hallo estar en error, y personalmente por lo que cuenta mi opinion, tipico de un ignorante, no hablante ministro de confusión.

Su oración que cité por arriba demuestra mucha ignorancia por su parte porque los traductores de la Riena Valera tenían todos los mss disponibles a los de KJB. Una busqueda ligera de la historia de la traducción de la bendecida RV y sus revisiones (que son igualmente hecho por el KJB sOBre los siglos) confirmará que lo que acaba decir es la verdad.

 

Que Dios les bendiga

calvario

[Gorship]

Hey Steve,

First thank you for your loving posts. I have not felt any hostility from you and I appreciate your genuine will to help teach out these things and I really do appreciate it.

So, I (as I) understand that prior to the council of nicea, it was common knowledge what was proper text and what was false and trying to creep in. Enter the council to decide what was true canon.

building from there;

The building of the 1611 AV, used the two reliable and best texts available to them that were widely accepted and used throughout the ages, the TR and the MT

Is it fair to say the following when we see the deviations between the different texts: Looking over your list of "differences" I feel like it could be argued that those on the AV council were simply giving the strongest Formal Equivalent in the english language. Therefore its not that the TR/MT is wrong or the AV is wrong, but rather the AV is the preserved words themselves as they would be written in english.

Is this fair?

If so; then while I may not be able to stand out there with some of you and say "The KJB corrects the TR", I would say that perhaps we need to understand that we hold that through the TR/MT we see God preserving His word to the english people in the AV. One is not better than the other, as one could not have been brought forth without the other, and that which was brought forth, reaps in a whole new harvest of souls to see the beautiful preservation of Gods word. This is to say, if we feel that the Bible is wrong, it is prOBably fair to say that it is actually our pre-supposition to the argument at hand, or the argument itself that will prove to be flawed.

I understand we are talking about manuscripts from centries ago, so it may be hard to answer every question in depth.

My last bit of "hmm" is 1 John 2:23

(please note, I was a KJV defender, I am a KJV defender, Im just seeking to better understand myself)

 

 

taken from: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/answers.htm

(48) Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1 John 2:23?

The words "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" 1 John 2:23 were italicised because the King James translators initially did not find them in the Majority Text and in earlier editions of the Textus Receptus. The common faith however restrained them from omitting those words since they were found in the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible. Later research produced evidence that they should be part of inspired Scripture because of the testimony of a good number of Greek manuscripts including a and B. The italics should have been removed in the reprints of the KJV but unfortunately escaped the attention of the printers.

 so these words were taken because 3 corrupted texts agreed with themselves? were they later found in updated findings of the TR/MT?

All the best!
Jordan