Kjv Scripture for You Must Be Born Again
The Biblical Position on the Male monarch James Version Controversy
By John MacArthur
Recognizing that the Bible is the very Word of the Living God to homo, and agreement the priority of knowing and obeying its truths, the elders at Grace Customs Church are deeply committed to study and teach with diligence and authority.
Thus, the central ministry building of Grace Church is the continuous imparting of the Scripture to the people of God that they may know God and serve Him in worship and ministry.
Through their years of study, training and teaching, the elders accept come to convictions regarding the major theological truths of the Bible. This little booklet presents one of these truths which reflects the heart of the teaching hither at Grace.
John MacArthur, Jr.
Nosotros regularly receive letters from our Grace To You listeners who react to statements that, "The better and older texts say. . ." Our listeners conclude that the Greek manuscripts behind the KJV are non authentic. Often they transport literature defending the KJV.
Hither is a typical alphabetic character:
Dear Pastor MacArthur:
I regard y'all every bit one of the best ministers around and your interpretation as tops. We have many of your tapes, notes, etc. So you tin come across that in this household you are highly regarded.
All the same, at that place is 1 area where I, personally, am becoming extremely confused and frustrated. This is when you, likewise as a few other ministers, state that sure Scriptures (usually from KJV) are non accurate according to the best manuscripts. And, today, during the broadcast I thought I understood you to say that the KJV is not actually the nearly accurate translation. Yet, I accept heard and read from equally godly sources that the KJV is the most authentic, and they give source textile for this conclusion that sounds almost convincing.
And so, I would very much appreciate a clarification. When yous refer to a KJV Scripture as "not according to the all-time manuscripts" just exactly what do you mean and what exactly are the best manuscripts? If KJV is non the most authentic translation, then which translation is and why exercise you regard information technology and so?
I'm certain you will concur that in this day and time we all need to be able to point to God's Word and say to the ungodly, et. al., that it is authentic and why. It is most of import that we all know and be sure of what we are talking most, in order to be witnesses of the true Word of God.
Thank y'all very much for your response.
In His Name,
In response to these letters, we accept developed this statement:
Thank you for your contempo alphabetic character and encouragement apropos our tape ministry. The question you raised concerning various Bible versions is a very complex issue that cannot be adequately discussed in a letter of the alphabet. Oftentimes times it is filled with more than emotion and heat than it is noesis and light. Let me share with you my own conclusions later on studying these issues. Bible versions, such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, have been translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very all-time manuscript evidence that is available today. May I add, the manuscript show that is now available is far superior to that which was available to the King James Version'south translators in 1611. I would have no reservation in recommending these versions, still I myself choose to continue using the Scofield Reference Bible because it is the text with which I am most familiar.
Let me recommend a recent book which very advisedly discusses the issues. I recollect you might find it helpful. The author is Donald A. Carson, "The King James Version Debate," published by Baker Volume Firm. I have as well enclosed a well-written pamphlet past the president of i of America'due south leading seminaries, a Greek scholar in his own right, which presents a very balanced view of the King James Version.
Just a final word, continue in mind that the supporters of "God wrote merely one Bible" theology have mistakenly equated the 1611 King James Bible with the original manuscripts written in the first century. It is true that God wrote only one Bible, just it is as well true that it was not the King James translation.
These are detailed issues, peculiarly for those who are non trained in the field of the Greek language and New Testament textual studies. Merely I trust that these brief comments will prove helpful.
Yours In His service,
John MacArthur
Pastor-Teacher
The Background
Why do these people write? Where practise they become their information? At that place is a growing literature crusade which claims that "God wrote only one Bible." By ane Bible, they mean the Rex James Version Bible written in 1611. They conclude that the King James Version is the only English version which faithfully preserves the original writings. It is oftentimes supported with claims illustrated by the title of this article, "My Stand up on the Inerrancy of the Male monarch James Version."
They build their example upon such doctrines as the preservation of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture and one's connected delivery to God.I have ane letter in my file whose letterhead reads, "Adept News Baptist Church building, Home of 'King James Bible Schools.'" The letter was written to promote the "King James Bible Preachers Fellowship." This group of pastors is characterized as, "Men who are unashamed to proclaim the King James Bible, A.D. 1611, as God's holy, perfect discussion. God still has a few men who accept not bowed the knee to the Baal of scholarship."
The Circumstances
Some basic facts most the existing manuscripts of the New Testament will help us to understand the historical background of this consequence.
1. The Old and New Testaments were not originally written in the English language. They were first written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
two. We do non accept the originals of any of the books of the Bible.
3. God never promised the perfect preservation of the originals, but He did hope to preserve their content. They are preserved within the torso of currently existing manuscripts.
4. There are differences among the original linguistic communication manuscripts that have come downwardly to us in both the Former Testament and the New Attestation. This is the chief cause of the trouble.
v. These textual variations are almost ever incidental and do non significantly affect the sense of what Scripture is maxim. As a matter of fact, once the easily solved variants are removed, 99.9 pct of what is in our Bible can be confirmed without question.
6. It is commonly like shooting fish in a barrel to identify the cause behind a textual variant because the Greek New Testament has been preserved in far more existing manuscripts than any other piece of ancient literature. We are faced with, "an embarrassment of riches."
7. Many textual problems have already been resolved satisfactorily and are no longer in question.
viii. No doctrine in Orthodox Christianity is dependent on the solution to any one variant.
The Controversy
The middle of the result involves several questions, "Is one version inherently superior to another?" "Is one family unit of manuscripts superior to some other and if so, which one?" And so, "How practise nosotros know?"
There is a host of background materials which we really need at this point to discuss the issue adequately. Neither space nor time permits, but let me suggest several volumes which you will find informative reading if you lot wish to pursue the result.
J. Harold Greenlee. "Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism." Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.
Bruce M. Metzger. "The Text of the New Testament." 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Various Approaches
How exercise we choose between these textual variations? Several solutions accept been offered to determine which manuscripts are most accurate in deciding which variant was in the original manuscript. They include:
1. "Male monarch James only"
two. "Majority-Text simply"
three. "Thorough-going eclectic"
4. "Westcott-Hort"
five. "Balanced eclectic"
The "King James only" arroyo suggests that the English translation of 1611 is inspired of God. It equates the Word of God, in the very real sense of the autographs, with the King James Version Bible.
In the October, 1978 consequence of "Bible Believers Bulletin," Peter Ruckman makes this statement: ". . . the Holy Ghost, who honored the English text above any Greek or Hebrew text. . ." By this he meant that the KJV translators were guided more accurately in their translation past the Holy Spirit than were those men who copied the original manuscripts.
The Bible Truth Mission in Millersburg, Pennsylvania has made a $10,000 offering on Bible versions. Their challenge is this, "We have decided to have a standing offer of $10,000 for anyone who tin disprove, to our satisfaction, the authenticity and historicity of the facts surrounding the King James Bible as compared to other versions, paraphrases, translations, etc. We are making this offer to permanently silence the small group of biased news journalists, self-appointed scholars, Bible volume stores and publishing companies, who question why the vast majority of built-in again Christians apply the Male monarch James only."
A 2nd approach is the "Majority-Text only" school. This reasonable approach as well promotes the King James Bible. Zane Hodges, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, would be the most qualified supporter. The Dean Burgon Club was recently formed to promote this position. Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville issued the New King James Version under the academic leadership of Dr. Arthur Farstad with this position in heed.
The "Majority-Text simply" position advocates that God preserved His Word in the text which is plant the largest number of manuscripts. Because the largest number of manuscripts are found in the Byzantine family, this family unit should so be considered the primary and favored external witness.
Next is the "thorough-going eclectic" schoolhouse. Basically, these folks are liberals who pass up whatsoever consideration of external prove such every bit manuscript families, date of manuscript and and then on. They concentrate all of their energies on internal consideration for a literary analysis of the text. They hold niggling sway among conservatives.
Quaternary, the "Westcott-Hort" approach has long been publicized every bit the arroyo which modernistic conservatives concur. Westcott and Hort suggested that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are the oldest and thus preferred. They besides ended that external evidence, that is, manuscript families, outweighs internal evidence and that the Alexandrian variant, all other factors being equal, is the one preferred. Y'all can read their explanation in the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (pp. 1541-583).
In that location is a 5th approach, and it is really the ane that many conservatives currently espouse. This "counterbalanced" position holds that each text type is to be evaluated independently without premeditated bias. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. It basically suggests that each textual variant is to exist investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.
Support for KJV
Now, let's wait at the major arguments normally used past those who back up either the "King James merely" or the "Majority Text only." These six summaries accurately portray their frequently used arguments.
1. The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible necessitates not only that the original manuscripts were without error, but also that there must be extant copies without error to preserve its inerrancy. Otherwise, even liberals can believe in the inerrancy of the originals but deny the inerrancy of the Bible we have today if all extant copies have textual errors. In the Greek, the inerrant manuscripts are the "textus receptus" (TR) which underlies the Rex James Authorized Version of the Bible.
2. Although God has allowed textual errors to occur in all of the Greek copies of the original New Testament manuscripts, He has preserved the best text in the vast majority of these copies. The best text is institute by looking through all of the extant Greek manuscripts and choosing the wording of the majority of those manuscripts. With eighty-95 pct of the manuscripts of near identical readings for whatsoever given passage, it should exist obvious that the majority text is God's providentially preserved text.
3. The Greek manuscripts underlying all the modern versions of the New Testament come from Alexandria, Arab republic of egypt. They cannot be the best manuscripts considering they have been in the possession of heretics such as Origen or the Roman Catholic church. God would not use such people to transmit the best text since they would modify the text to adapt their ain teachings.
Furthermore, the Alexandrian text was not in general utilise from the 8th to the 19th centuries. God would non allow the true text to be hidden from public view for such a long time. Finally, God would non use liberals, such as Westcott and Hort, to rediscover and resurrect the true text.
4. The TR manuscripts are the all-time manuscripts because they properly exalt the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, while the Alexandrian manuscripts practise not. When the Alexandrian manuscripts are compared with the TR, many places are found where the words, "Lord" and "Christ" are missing in reference to Jesus. This shows that the people who copied the Alexandrian manuscripts did non want to believe Jesus every bit both "Lord" and "Christ."
v. The Alexandrian manuscripts could non be the true text because they teach doctrines dissimilar from those found in the TR. These errors include justification by works, Arianism and conventionalities that the Apocrypha is part of the text.
half dozen. The King James Version and the Greek TR text underlying information technology must be the best text because God has and so blessed its use since the time of the reformation. In every major modern revival men have preached from these texts. God has not used and volition not use the Alexandrian text to practice such great works among men.
An Example
Recently nosotros received a tape by a well-known pastor on this bailiwick. It is incommunicable to summarize the record in this limited paper, but the letter response which we wrote is included here.
Dear_____________:
Recently, one of my flock dropped off several of your tapes entitled, "The Foundation of the Discussion." Because I am deeply committed to the inerrancy of the Bible, I listened with interest to your presentation.
I was somewhat surprised equally you got into the subject area. Weekly we receive messages through our own tape ministry request the question, "Did God write only 1 Bible?" Past this, they mean the Authorized Version.
As I listened, I noted numerous factual errors and casuistic conclusions. I am taking time to write not to prove y'all wrong or me right, simply rather to ensure that any conclusions nosotros attain, they are reached with correct data and right thinking.
We would agree that Satan often misuses Scripture (Matthew 4:6) and delights in distorting or denying God's Word. We agree that any addition or deletion to God'south Word as given in the original writings is a serious matter and incurs strict judgment (Revelation 22:18-19). We agree that we tin can believe the Bible in its entirety and never go wrong. Nosotros concord that the Bible is the
final authority of faith and practice. It'south a delight to share that common footing.
Nosotros do, however, disagree when it comes to Bible versions. If I understood your tapes correctly, you were maxim that the King James Version is the only English translation which has faithfully transmitted the truth of God in its entirety from the original writings of the 1st Century. I still use the Scofield Reference Bible which is basically a Rex James Version, only I do not believe information technology's the only expert version.
This entire matter is the most complex discipline in all of Biblical studies because of the intricacy and volume of the data. I exercise not pretend to exist a polished textual critic, but I have idea through the data. Allow me suggest that whether the position I have or the position you have is the correct one, the substantiation that you provided on the tapes makes a very inadequate case for the conclusion that yous reached. I want to list these just for your help.
one. You lot say that Satan misquoted God past taking away a few words in Genesis iii:i. You quote Satan as having said, "Hath God said that you tin eat of all the trees that are in the garden?" You yourself have misquoted Scripture at that point for the question reads similar this, "Yea, hath God said, ye shall non eat of every tree of the garden?"
2. You asserted that the textual critics and the scholars who say that you cannot take all of the Rex James Version are the same scholars who say that yous can't accept the stories of the Bible as genuine. They are the ones, you say, that call Old Testament miracles Hebrew myths. And they are the ones who deny the virgin birth of our Lord, the resurrection of our Lord and His deity. Come now, that is guilt by association in its pure form. You tried to lead your audience to conclude, "Because they concur on one point, they concord on all points." That'south like saying that because the Mormons are for the family but deny the deity of Christ, then we ought to deny the family. I know y'all would non depict those conclusions there. It is simply not true that godly men take denied the very orthodox foundations of the Christian faith when they investigate all of the manuscript data. By the way, few people today, believers or unbelievers, cover all of the Westcott & Hort theory of textual criticism. Whatever the solution is to this issue, it volition not be solved by using the tactic of guilt by association.
3. Y'all say that two Peter 2:1-2 refers to these kinds of people. "Imitation prophets who deny the Lord that bought them." That is a highly inflammatory statement and much unlike your normal well-reasoned, well-presented teaching.
It is again simply untrue and logically unnecessary to conclude that those who look to a Bible version other than a King James are the same ones that Peter references in this second affiliate.
4. In your record you say in that location are two major textual families. The Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian family unit are those that y'all identify. That is a very unfactual statement. At that place are at least 4 manuscript families that are widely recognized. They include the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text and the Byzantine or the Majority Text. Note carefully that the TR, or the Textus Receptus, compromises merely a portion of the Byzantine Text and is non the entire family. Besides, Westcott & Hort did not develop the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. They merely attempted to recognize certain similarities within a group of manuscripts and account for their existence.
v. You lot said that Westcott & Hort worked on the Bible version of 1881. Let's be specific. Westcott & Hort worked on the English Revised Version of 1885.
6. You went to great lengths to propose that gnosticism prevailed in the 2nd Century and drew the conclusion that considering gnosticism prevailed, gnostics altered the older text; therefore, you reason the earliest manuscripts are not reliable. Those assertions volition not hold up under investigation. At that place take been apostates and heretics throughout all of church history. Quite frankly, there is no factual substantiation that Aleph, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus or whatsoever of the early papyrii which, past the way, yous never mentioned in your tape and are really the earliest Greek manuscripts we have, were of gnostic origins and doctored to conform to their heresies.
7. You utilize Marcion as an instance of a gnostic who mutilated the Bible text. Allow me tell you, Marcion did non limit himself to texts, but he published a canon of the New Testament which included only 11 books. He was anti-semitic in his thinking and included simply the gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul. He deleted Paul'due south pastoral epistles. You also criticize Irenaeus.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle. Church history has not recognized him as a heretic and neither should we.viii. You listed a number of men in early church history who were gnostic in groundwork and therefore to be disbelieved in any they did with the text. You suggested that anyone that came from Alexandria was immediately suspect. You focus on the Nicene debate where Arius was attempting to demonstrate that Christ was something less than identical in nature to God.
Practise you lot remember who opposed him? His proper noun was Athanasius. Do yous know what his title was? He was the Bishop of Alexandria. You also suggested in that portion that Constantine, so emperor of the Roman empire, hired Jerome to interpret the Latin Vulgate. That's simply not true. Pope Damascus hired Jerome to practice the Vulgate in A.D. 382.
ix. Y'all suggest that the New Testament manuscripts that came out of Antioch are known as the TR or Textus Receptus. That is simply untrue. The term "TR" as it applies to the text of the New Testament, originated in an expression used by the Elzevir brothers in the preface to their second edition of the Greek New Testament in 1633. That introduction reads in English, "Therefore, you at present accept the text received by all in which nosotros accept zero changed or corrupted." In the Latin, it reads, "Textum . . . receptum. . ." The King James Version was first published in 1611 and did non use, in its entirety, the manuscripts that were used to produce what the publishers called the TR. The TR is simply a subfamily of a much larger family called the Byzantine text or the majority text.
10. Y'all associate Augustine with the Church of England. That must take been a slip of the tongue considering at that place is absolutely no association. Augustine would exist associated with the Roman church.
11. You suggest that the church of Rome tried to wipe out the doctrine of the deity of Christ, merely that would exist rather silly since the Roman church does embrace the deity of Jesus Christ. Information technology's in other areas that they take astringent problems.
12. Y'all suggested that the Syriac Peshitta was translated in 165 A.D. and conformed in all parts to the King James Version. No, that's not truthful. The Syriac Peshitta is a fifth century translation and it does not agree at every signal with the King James Version. Let me illustrate from i of the texts that y'all'll list later in your tape. You lot suggested that in Matthew 25:13 the phrase, "in which the Son of Homo is coming" was deleted by the heretics to avoid mention of the second coming of Jesus Christ. The reading that deletes that phrase is supported and included in the Syriac Peshitta.
13. You make a bully bargain to exercise about the true fact that lxxx-xc percent of the extant manuscripts generally suit to what's called the Byzantine or Majority Text. While this family might be the best family, it is not because the majority of texts available today come up from it. Quite honestly, nosotros exercise not know how many manuscripts have been destroyed and what family they represented. The logic that "the most demands the best" is "not sequitor." If y'all will read near the bailiwick of textual criticism in literature other than the Bible where bear witness is abundantly bachelor, you volition discover that with the greater numbers of copies and the greater passage of time, the more errors at that place were in the afterward writings. Information technology is much like passing a message verbally and watching it become distorted as it passes through the greater number of people and over the longer menses of time.
14. It was at this point that y'all began to point to a number of examples where the King James Version differed from other Bibles. That'southward a truthful argument, simply let me brand these general observations, and so I want to deal with several of the texts.
a. There is no doctrine in all of orthodox historic Christianity, which y'all and I hold to dearly, that is removed from the Bible because of any of the textual variants.
b. You lot take assumed your case for the King James Version when you demand that a deletion to the King James or an addition to the Male monarch James is a perversion. Quite frankly, it is just every bit possible for the opposite to be true, that is, that the Rex James translators, or those who copied the manuscripts that they used, added to or deleted from the original text. You lot actually need to bear witness your point before you claim information technology.
c. Did you lot know that the King James translators translated and included the Apocrypha originally as function of the King James Version? That certainly does not speak to their orthodoxy.
d. Did you know that a portion of the manuscripts that they used to interpret the Book of Revelation came from Erasmus, himself a very humanistic Roman church scholar. He translated a portion of his Revelation manuscript from Latin back into Greek because his Greek manuscripts lacked those pieces.
e. At that place take been heretics who mutilated the Bible to conform with their errors. Jehovah'due south Witnesses is a classic mod example. In their New Globe Translation, they accept stripped the text of all direct mention of Christ's deity. But annotation advisedly, they did it consistently and completely; it was not a half-hearted random endeavour. We should expect this kind of thoroughness when any cult or heretic tries to denude God's precious Word of vital truth.
Well, let's look at several specific texts which bothered yous.
You pointed out how certain cardinal doctrines were removed from these texts by heretics. You point to Matthew vi:13 and the deletion of the phrase in the disciples' prayer, "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the celebrity forever." Answer me this, why did they leave it in 1 Chronicles 29:11 which is the Erstwhile Testament testament of this dandy truth?
You note the deletion in Matthew eighteen:11 of the phrase, "For the Son of Man has come to relieve that which was lost." Only why did they get out it in Luke nineteen:10?
With many of your examples, the fact that a text has apparently either been added to or subtracted from does not need that it was necessarily the original text.
You lot mention Marking 16. That text has evoked no cease of critical discussion. For many, they delete information technology because information technology merely solves some of their theological hangups. I know we differ on the charismatic issue and quite honestly, information technology would be easy for me to hide behind the cloak of textual criticism and conclude that because it'south not in some of the manuscripts, that therefore, verses 9 ff. are to exist deleted. The bear witness is non conclusive for either side, but a proficient case tin be made for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 and I myself believe that it should be included and and then rightly interpreted.
Side by side, you say that the term "father" is added to Luke 2:33 to discredit the virgin nascence of our Lord. Merely why, if they were trying to do that in Luke 2:33, did they exit in the exact quotation and substantiation from the Old Testament in Matthew 1:23?
In John 3:xv you annotation that the idea of perishing is not included in verse 15 of some manuscripts. Y'all conclude that they were trying to delete the thought of eternal penalty. Merely why, then, would they have allowed the aforementioned idea to remain in poetry sixteen?
You note that in Acts 2:30 the idea of Christ being raised up is deleted, and and then you conclude that those who deleted it were trying to deny the resurrection. But why did they exit the term "resurrection" in the very next poetry?
You note in Ephesians 3:nine that the proper name "Christ" has been deleted from the phrase that would give him credit for creation. But why did they leave this same idea in Colossians 1:16?
Perhaps the biggest error of fact that you lot report concerns 1 John 5:vii-8. Y'all merits that information technology was a function of the original manuscript and should, therefore, be included in any Bible. You and I both cling lovingly and tightly to the tri-unity of God. Information technology is taught in numerous places in both testaments. To say that the deletion of the phrase in verse 7, "For in that location are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are 1" is to deny the tri-unity of God is not true.
Have y'all really read the textual history of that item manuscript? Let me give yous a summary. The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except 4, and these four contain the passage of what appears to be a translation from a belatedly translation of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are dated very, very late. The passage is quoted past none of the Greek fathers, who, if they had known information technology, would certainly have used it in the trinitarian controversies of the early centuries. The passage is absent-minded from the manuscripts of all ancient versions. It is quoted showtime in time not in a Bible text but in a Latin treatise about the Bible in the fourth Century A.D.
Its inclusion in the TR seems to have come through the pen of Erasmus. When charged past Stunica, Erasmus replied that he had not constitute any Greek manuscript containing these words, merely that if a single Greek manuscript could be plant that independent it, he would include it in a futurity edition.
The i manuscript that was afterwards presented to Erasmus in substantiation of the inclusion of that verse has now been identified equally a Greek manuscript written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar who took the words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus then inserted the passage in his third edition of 1522 simply indicated in a lengthy footnote his own personal suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared in order to refute him. These are the facts.
15. Yous speak very highly of the New King James Version recently published by Thomas Nelson. Did you know that they footnote I John 5:7 and propose that it has very picayune manuscript bear witness? Past the way, I personally know several of the translators who worked on that project and while the original intent was to do new translations from the majority text, what ultimately happened in the midst of the commercial effort was to merely modify the English text by modernizing a number of archaic words which makes information technology little more than a Scofield without notes.
Well, I have continued on at some length. Let me assert again that my comments are not directed to you every bit a person. My pursuit is merely for truth. I deal with this result weekly when I receive letters from people from all over the country. The question appears in my own congregation. I felt information technology was necessary that I share these thoughts with you.
In that location is a man who has done some pregnant and very sane and scholarly investigation into these matters. He champions the Byzantine or Bulk Text as the family of manuscripts which about accurately represent the autographs. His name is Zane Hodges and he teaches New Testament and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. As y'all sincerely pursue this thing, let me advise that you contact him and let him transport you the materials that he has written. He's also in the process of preparing the Greek New Testament from the Byzantine text. I know you will want to utilize this in training for your messages.
Hopefully, you tin run into that I have not written to say that one family of manuscripts is better than another family of manuscripts, but rather to say we need to factually and logically substantiate our positions and not rush prematurely into conclusions which have broad ramifications.
Thank you for taking time to read through this material. There is no demand to answer. I pray that this has been a learning opportunity for both of us and that we will draw closer and dig deeper into the pure well of God'south Word which will provide refreshment get-go for u.s.a., and then for our flock.
Yours in His service,
John MacArthur
Pastor-Instructor
What Is The TR?
I groovy problem with this whole issue is that the term, "textus receptus" is oftentimes misunderstood and misused.
The Trinitarian Bible Society exists for the purpose of circulating uncorrupted versions of the Word of God (namely KJV). Terrence H. Brown, the TBS secretary, makes this honest access, "One trouble is that many people employ the term 'textus receptus' without defining it, and give the impression that this received text is available somewhere in a single manuscript or printed copy, but this is not the case. No re-create, written or printed, was called the 'textus receptus' until the Elzevirs used this description in the preface to their addition in 1633. It should therefore be understood that the King James Version translators, who published their piece of work in 1611, did non apply an improver of the Greek text really known by this proper noun."
Information technology is very interesting to note that there are about 290 differences betwixt the "textus receptus" and the King James Version. Let me illustrate.
1. Note in Romans 12:xi where the TR has "serving in flavour" merely KJV, forth with all mod versions, has "serving the Lord."
2. In I Thessalonians 2:xv, the TR has the pronoun "you" while the KJV, along with all other modern versions, has the pronoun "us."
3. The King James Version in Revelation 11:1 has the reading, "And the angels stood." The TR, along with all modernistic versions, does non include this phrase.
4. If you read 1 John 2:23 in the KJV, yous notation that the translators included in italics the phrase, "Only he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Male parent also." It is omitted in the TR but included every bit a part of the text in most modern versions.
5. Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; and i shall be taken, the other left" is included in the King James Version but it is omitted in the TR and all other modern versions.
6. Matthew 23:24 is a humorous instance of a press error, not a translation fault. The Rex James Version reads, "Ye bullheaded guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." It's obvious to everyone that the word "at" should be "out."
vii. The trouble of i John 5:7-8 was discussed in the lengthy letter earlier and then we won't discuss it here.
8. In Revelation 22:1 9, both the TR and the King James Version accept the phrase, "Book of Life." That phrase is not found in any Greek manuscript, rather "tree of life" is the only text. Erasmus translated the last half-dozen verses from the Latin Vulgate considering his Greek manuscript lacked these verses. Just a concluding note. Even the KJV translators did not merits for their work what modern promoters insist. The original translators at times were uncertain of the correct variant and made marginal notes to indicate other possibilities. In the preface to the original KJV, the editors acknowledged the turn a profit from other versions. Hither is what they wrote:
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: then diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe proficient, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded."
Evaluation of TR Arguments Confronting Westward-H TR advocates accept argued forcibly against Westcott-Hort. Let'southward look at some of the arguments used by TR supporters against their theory and our response from a "balanced" approach.
1. The oldest manuscripts all come from Arab republic of egypt, simply this does non prove that the same text type existed in the balance of the world. Response: True, only it doesn't prove the opposite either. And the Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest nosotros presently possess. We would expect that if at that place were other early families, they would take circulated to Egypt and thus would accept been preserved at that place also.
2. The age of a manuscript does non guarantee its value. Response: True. A tardily manuscript could exist a copy of a very aboriginal one, whereas an older manuscript might be a copy of ane not much removed from it in time. All things being equal, nonetheless, the oldest manuscripts are closer in fourth dimension to the autographs. The shorter fourth dimension interval means fewer copies and fewer chances of fault. This principle is used in all literary textual criticism, non just the Greek New Testament.
3. There is no bear witness that the TR resulted from a revision and is thus a secondary text type. This had been the supposition on the part of Westcott and Hort to account for the Byzantine text. Response: True. This revision is discounted by nearly today. It is the most obvious fault in the unabridged Westcott-Hort theory.
four. Manuscripts tend to multiply in more or less regular fashion. The text blazon with the near descendants must have existed the longest, hence, the TR must represent the oldest text blazon. Response: This is historically naive in that no evidence exists to demonstrate it. It assumes the uniformitarian approach to the transmission of manuscripts. This history of literature but does not support it.
5. God'southward providence has kept the TR equally the authoritative text. He would non have allowed the church to have the "wrong text" for then long. Response: God's providence has preserved all text types and the Christian message is preserved in all text types. The TR was non "the" text of the early on church in Egypt, Palestine or the West. God's providence has allowed the church to lose things of much more than importance than differences betwixt these competing text types such every bit the doctrine of justification by faith. Also, as we discovered before, the TR manuscripts differ even among themselves. If God had preserved His Give-and-take inerrantly in the TR manuscripts, then in that location should be no variation whatsoever in all of the various manuscripts.
6. Our oldest manuscripts survived but because they were faulty and hence were not used and did not wearable out. Response: Scribal corrections on these manuscripts disprove this claim. Logic demands that faulty manuscripts would take been destroyed rather than just shelved for hereafter utilize or discovery.
vii. TR readings are before than we once idea. Response: True, but this does non make them necessarily superior to other text types but would but allow for an even treatment. New papyrii discoveries from the 2nd and third centuries do evidence Byzantine text blazon variants. Information technology does demonstrate that they were available, only it does not recognize them as superior.
viii. The critical text or the Westcott-Hort text or whatsoever other text likewise the "textus receptus" deletes or plays down the deity of Christ. Response: Not true. It is interesting to note that of all the versions, just ane version, the New World Translation done by Jehovah's Witnesses, consistently deletes from the text any back up for the deity of Jesus Christ. We would expect that from JW's because it is not a role of their doctrine. Information technology is highly unlikely and totally unexpected that 1 would be so inconsistently selective as to leave so many obvious references to the deity of Christ in a manuscript if their purpose was to remove it.
9. Textual critics are all rationalists and therefore incapable of desiring God's truth or determining to preserve it. Response: Non all textual critics are rationalists nor are they unbelievers. At that place have been many godly men such as Westcott, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Robertson and Machen who worked years earlier. Earlier me is a listing of godly men who worked on the New International Version. They include such men as Laird Harris, Charles Ryrie, Gleason Archer, Kenneth Barker, John Davis, Southward. Lewis Johnson, Ken Kantzer, Homer Kent, Meredith Klein, Alfred Martin, Leon Morris, Barton Payne, Merrill Tenney and Leon Forest. It is simply not truthful that the issue of the Rex James versus modern translations is equated with the event of Fundamentalism versus Modernism.
Summing It Upwards
What approach should be used to determine the variant which accurately represents what God originally wrote? It is our opinion that the "counterbalanced approach" is best. It gives equal weight to both internal and external evidence. It gives unbiased consideration to the various manuscript families.
The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition, past appealing to the fact that nearly manuscripts in the Greek New Testament attest the Byzantine, is logically and historically weak. It is non a truism that a majority of manuscripts necessarily preserve the all-time text.
The argument that defends the Byzantine text past appealing to the providence of God is theologically false. The conclusion of the best variant in an private case is not a theological event alone, simply primarily a textual issue.
Textual arguments that depend on adopting the "textus receptus" and then comparing it to other text types are guilty of bias. To debate that considering a modernistic version does not include something that's included in the TR, or adds something which the TR does not add, is to argue that the modernistic versions and their translators are guilty of adding to or subtracting from the true text.
It could be as true that those who translated the TR were the ones who actually deleted or added. The charge that the not-Byzantine text types are theologically in error is incorrect. This was evidenced earlier in our lengthy letter of the alphabet.There is no necessary connection between the adoption of the Byzantine text/King James Version and the inspiration of Scripture. There are equally godly, scholarly men on both sides of this issue who all strongly embrace the celebrated, orthodox understanding of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures.
Adoption of the TR or King James Version should never be made a point of theological orthodoxy or ecclesiastical fellowship.
A laic should go along to apply an accurate English translation which is personally most readable and understandable such as KJV, NASB, or NIV.
A Terminal Annotation
As a capstone to our give-and-take, we quote from the helpful brochure published by Grace Theological Seminary and written by its president, Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr. "It needs to be remembered that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types are not nearly every bit great as might exist supposed. If 1 could remove the old English language style from the King James Version so that the comparison would be fairer, the differences between these text types tin be seen past noting the departure between the Rex James Version and the American Standard Version. The gospel is crystal articulate in either version. It is regrettable that an issue is being made over this thing in evangelical circles, especially when some extremists are making one's attitude toward the King James Version an article of religion, and unwarrantedly raising suspicions confronting those who do not. The issue is forcing many Christians to make a option where they lack the necessary cognition and skill to exercise so. How much better it would be to thank God that His Word has been preserved intact for centuries, and that the wealth of manuscripts assures u.s.a. that none of the words take been lost. In a few cases, nosotros may not be certain which of several variants is the original, merely our problem is an embarrassment of riches, not of loss."
Dorsum to John MacArthur index.
Source: http://articles.ochristian.com/article2148.shtml
0 Response to "Kjv Scripture for You Must Be Born Again"
Post a Comment