Textus Receptus

[halifaxchristian]

Super Jew...I cannot respond to your letter anytime soon. I made a few big mistakes in the last 2 days and I need to get right with the Lord again. I am not spiritually ready to take on these "meat" subjects and need to start from the "milk" of the Word again. I hope you understand and please keep me in prayer all of you.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

well, that is at least one good thing that will come of this.  television is evil at it's core these days and you'd do well to stay away from it anyway....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hear!! Hear!!

[Trust & Obey]

Super Jew...I cannot respond to your letter anytime soon.  I made a few big mistakes in the last 2 days and I need to get right with the Lord again.  I am not spiritually ready to take on these "meat" subjects and need to start from the "milk" of the Word again.  I hope you understand and please keep me in prayer all of you.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God bless you, halifax.

But, remember that your relationship with God is based upon the finished work of Christ on the cross and your trust in Him. It is not dependent upon your works, successes or failures.

If every sin we committed separated us from God we would all be on milk every day, practically.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Trust God when He says that He forgives you and cleanses from all unrighteousness and then move on with Him, not looking back.

It is impossible to experience the peace of God until one firsts experiences the grace of God. And, here is the grace of God:

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

[apothanein kerdos]

Super Jew...I cannot respond to your letter anytime soon.  I made a few big mistakes in the last 2 days and I need to get right with the Lord again.  I am not spiritually ready to take on these "meat" subjects and need to start from the "milk" of the Word again.  I hope you understand and please keep me in prayer all of you.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perfectly okay. You and I agree on how God deals with Christians that sin, and we both agree that we are forever His because of His love and grace. Wait upon Him and He will come to you.

[halifaxchristian]

Trust and obey & super jew...thankyou so much for your thoughtfulness, encouraging words, understanding, and prayers. I thankyou from the bottom of my heart!

God bless.

[halifaxchristian]

I gotta say, that's an interesting debate style Halifax

Since the quote thing bugs out after 6 quotes, what you said will be in bold, and my response in the normal colors.

You say that the Alexandrian manuscripts are more plentiful. This does not mean that these texts are more reliable than the Textus Receptus. Why would you presume such a conclusion? Just because the Apocrypha manuscripts may be more abundant than the epistle of Jude's manuscripts, this does not prove Jude lesser. I do not see your relativeness here.

What I asserted was that since the TR was completed we have found more manuscripts that date to an earlier date that clarify some of the misunderstandings the TR left. Secondly, the argument about the Apocrypha is non applicable seeing as how no one has ever considered them Holy Writ (with exception to the RCC). Yet in exploring God's true word, we have to examine which manuscripts work and which ones don't. If a manuscript used in the TR disagrees with ten other manuscripts that pre-date it and no other manuscripts can be found to match the accused one, then it's kind of hard to justify continual use of it. Yet this is what TR advocates continue to do.

As a side note, I find it ironic you would mention this, seeing as how the original King James had the apocrypha. 

Eramus collected these texts in quite a hurry...so what? God parted the red sea in quite a hurry too. I don't see how this is relative. I'd be in a hurry to choose the KJV over the modern versions anyday. This doesn't mean that the KJV is false. It means CONFIDENCE.

He had to come back and make two other editions because of the vast number of errors he made.

He made mistakes? Oh really? Just stating this so does not make it so. Would like to see some proof. Accusations are easy.

Again, the fact remains that he had to return to make two other editions. Which one is God's Word, the first edtiion, the second one, or the third one?

How eramus translated is beyond me. Professing themselves wise, they became fools. I am neither a scholar nor a wise man. I am, however, resting in the simplicity of Christ. He is able to preserve His word. Whichever way He chooses to do so, is up to Him. Latin, Greek...whatever. God preserved His Word...that is the argument here. Let's not get lost in the details. God is in charge of them.

This is what you are missing. He didn't have that many Greek manuscripts available to him. THat ones that were available to him were dated to the medevil times. Yet even these were few and far between. His work on the Textus Receptus was basically back-translating the Vulgate. In other words, the translation you condemn as "heretical" is what the Textus Receptus is based upon. I forget how much of the TR is based on the Vulgate, but I do remember it is a majority.

In other words, he saw what it said in Latin and then translated it into Greek. This is what the TR is, a translation from Latin (with a few exceptions of what were then "new" Greek manuscripts) into Greek. THe Alexandrian manuscripts, however, are just that. A collection of Greek manuscripts that were found in Alexandria after having not been used since the foundation of the Codex Byzantine. What is more ironic, is that the Vulgate would have used manuscripts similar to these and not the Byzantine manuscripts (as none of those are dated before 900AD and the Vulgate was written in the 5th Century). This means consequently that the TR had to rely on Alexandrian text, because from the Alexandrian text came the Vulgate, and from the Vulgate came the TR.

Again, you use age to validate preservation or non-preservation. I already told you why the TR manuscripts are newer. They were being copied more readily and used more often, thus, wear and tear, etc. Also, the Catholic Church hunted down the TR manuscripts and burned them whenever they could. Now you can see why there is more of the Alexandrian texts...no one was reading them, and the persecution was not present on the same level in regards to them.

The reason we see the Alexandrian manuscripts go into "hiding" is because the Byzantine manuscripts, authorized by the RCC, began to be used more frequently. Likewise, because of the Vulgate there was no longer a belief that translation needed to be made. Versio Vulgate does mean "The common version". It was written in every day Latin so that the people could understand what the scriptures talked about in their own language, it was a universal language. So manuscripts were lost, neglected, or ignored simply because there was a belief that no further translation was needed. Of course, languages evolved over time and subsequently the need for a new translation based on the Greek was needed. Yet because of the negelect of manuscripts, not that many were available.

I agree that the TR and the Alex. manuscripts are VERY, VERY SIMILAR. However, this does not mean that they are ALIKE. They are not. In some very important issues and doctrines, they DIFFER. One word can and does make a difference.

They don't differ on any systematic theology, this has been a proven fact for quite some time.

You assume that because the TR is newer, that there was more time for error to creep in. This is the same point that the heretics Westcott and Hort make. Let me ask you this...Is anything too hard for God??? He can preserve His Word in His own wisdom...however, His ways are foolishness unto those that perish and know not the truth of the simplicity of Christ.

The problem with this is that you haven't (and can't) prove that God's word is only preserved in the TR, which is nothing more than some tenth century manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate. You cannot assume this when debating, instead you have to prove it before using it. You can't fiat the argument and put it in place, it creates a strawman.

Now, what I am advocating is that the Alexandrian manuscripts go so far back to even the second century, close to the death of the apostles. This means from the time the originals were copied to the first manuscript we find, there is only about 140 year time frame of difference. Seems like a lot, but when compared to the TR where there is a 840 year difference, almost a thousand years, we see why newer can sometimes be better. The manuscripts used in the TR are almost 1,000 years removed from the originals, whereas the ones used in the Alexandrian are less than two hundred years removed. This is highly significant because it gives us a more accurate translation. What it shows even more is that even though there is a time frame between the TR and the AM, the fact they are so similar gives credit to the scribes that copied the scrpitures over the centuries.

I don't care how many texts and variants and codex's the Alexandrian versions used. This does not mean a thing. If anything, it means that there is a wider chance of error creeping in through these variety of texts, etc. God's way is the narrow way.

It shows that the early church relied on the Alexandrian texts. This means if these texts are wrong, heretical, or do not contain the word of God, the early church from 200AD-900AD was without the Word of God. Christians went to their death in the Roman arenas without knowing the true Word of God? That is what you are advocating. I have the easier position of saying that both the TR and the Alexandrian texts are the Word of God but merely differ on slight points. At this point, we have to discuss which one is better when differences occur, not which one is more inspired.

Let's use common sense...greek, this text/that text, and all complexity aside... How does God function and work? He tells us that He will preserve His Word. He did not say HOW He would do this, only that HE WOULD. Not only...He tells us that He would do this for ALL GENERATIONS.

His Word is truth, and even though every translation has errors the truth is preserved completely. The errors never touch the doctrinal issues of the church, they are merely grammatical or spell a name differently, but they never touch the doctrine. This shows how God has preserved His Word (truth).

Common sense/Biblical sense should tell us something here. If a certain group of manuscripts were NOT AVAILABLE to certain generations...would THESE MANUSCRIPTS pass God's litmus test for preservation as stated in Psalm 119, the Book of Isaiah and Luke, etc.??? Of course not.

This destroys your own argument because the Textus Receptus did not come about at best until the tenth century and at worse the sixteenth century.

If I could not read or hear the Alexandrian texts in 1324 AD, for whatever reasons (whether it be they were lost, hidden, etc.)

It was available via the Latin Vulgate (which would have used the Alexandrian text types in translation) and then transfered to the the TR. His truth remained the same even though the grammatics were messed with. Since the discovery of the Alexandrian, we can now skip the Vulgate and stop the back-translating and go directly to the primary source, the "grandfather" of the Vulgate and the TR.

Also, the Alexandrians texts differ from each other. Read the NIV, the NASB, etc., and what you will see is footnotes like this:

"Some versions may not contain..." "The most reliable manuscripts say..." "The oldest texts say...", etc., etc.

Every single manuscript you ever look at will differ in some way or the other. This is even true of the TR. The reason for the footnotes is to tell people that older manuscipts add something or dont' have something. Even when translating the TR and using manuscripts, differences would have occured and been run into, this is why we see him consulting the Vulgate.

This is Satan's weapon...casting DOUBT upon God's Words. Yea, hath God said? Remember those words spoken in the garden of eden?

Casting doubt would be using manuscripts that obviously do not agree with the majority and saying they are God's Word. Manuscripts that declare Jesus and Christ were seperate, and other heretical things. Simply saying, "using the older version is better because..." does not cast doubt. Jesus remains King, God remains soveriegn over all, and the systematic doctrines remain untouched no matter which translation or group of manuscripts you use.

The Textus Receptus manuscripts are the SAME. They do not differ, or leave out parts, or add in parts to God's Word.

You're wrong He used manuscripts from the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries, of which some differend from one another. Again, this is why he consulted with the Vulgate.

The modern versions themselves admit that they are not sure of God's EVERY WORD.

So does the King James    Or at least the original preface did. It stated that it wasn't the only source of God's Word but that it was established by the King for the purpose of creating a Bible in common English...not for the purpose of establishing God's Word.

On this I must ask you, if a modern translation based entirely off the Textus Receptus was created for our modern tongue, would you consider it the Word of God?

The KING JAMES VERSION and the TEXTUS RECEPTUS texts have been available throughout the ages, and do not conflict or differentiate from each other

The King James has only been available since 1611 and the TR, at least the version used by the King James, wasn't available until 1522, and it doesn't primarily use manuscripts. This means that from 200AD - 1522AD God's Word wasn't available...according to you. Thus, you are asserting that in the past 2,000 years of church history, only 500 of those years have contained the Word of God?

Furthermore, the King James at points inadequately translates the Greek, even in the Textus Receptus. A perfect example of this is Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Acts 9:7

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Acts 22:9

Now, this isn't a contradiction, but it does show how the King James is sometimes inadequate in its translation. Going to the Textus Receptus, I read how it should be translated. Acts 9:7 is used in the genetive case, meaning they heard a noise, but did not understand it. Acts 22:9 is used in the accusative case meaning they didn't understand what they heard, in essence, they did not hear.

This doesn't debunk the King James but merely shows that even it can have it's translation inadequacies and errors.

"...Great is the mystery of godliness, GOD was manifest in the flesh..."-KJV, 1 Timothy 3:16

"...Great is the mystery of godliness, HE who was manifest in the fless..."-NASB, same verse

Neither. What I was asserting is that the argument can be thrown back at those that follow the TR. Both manuscripts were written in areas under heavy influence from cults.

As for what this says, the "he" is assumed to be Jesus Christ in Timothy. It states that He was revealed in the flesh...this is something a gnostic would not dare say because the flesh was evil. Paul, in both translations, admits to the fleshly nature of Christ.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are ONE."-KJV, 1 John 5:7

"For there are three that testify."-NASB, same verse

You forget that the way the verses are constructed (as in 1:9 and 1:8) is different in the two translations. 5:7 in the NASB is found in verse 8.

"For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

This, once again, defeats any gnostic argument because it shows the nature of God. One of spirit, of physicality (water) and one of flesh (blood).

BTW, you may want to check the site you copied that off of. Verse seven says, "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth." The reason "heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one" is omitted is because it's found in later manuscripts, possibly added to defeat the gnostic heresies. Nothing wrong with it because it is truthful, but it simply is not found in earlier manuscripts, thus the omission.

Hope that helps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Super Jew, you cannot have it both ways. First, you admit that the TR and Alex. manuscripts are different (thus, our debate), and then you say that they have the same lineage. It is clear that they do not. The earliest church fathers knew so and this has been accepted theory/fact for hundreds of years. Secondly, you try to down-play the ommissions of the Alex. texts. Regardless of the "systematic theology" that the Alex. texts provide, they do not provide the clear-cut doctrine that the TR teaches. Systematic theology can be used in the New World Translation also, but does this make it a reliable and faithful copy of the Word? Absolutely not.

In continuation, you state that there has not been a TR until a particular point in time. I agree with you here, however, I thought that you understood my position better than you obviously do. In clarification, I maintain that the TR had a previous lineage...bynzatine...that originated in the autographs...and the alexandrian lineage does not.

Also, many of the verses that you say were "added" for doctrinal purposes (which would still be very, very WRONG) were quoted by and referred to previously to the year 300AD. This totally destroys the case that Alexandrian defendants bring up in opposition to the TR and friends.

The TR manuscripts are the only manuscripts of God's Word that are faithful to the ages and which are in virtual harmony with one another. The Alexandrian texts are hopelessly contradictory and insufficiently fulfill God's promises concerning His Word. Systematic theology does not answer this lineage's many shortcomings and pitfalls. Just because John's Gospel says that Jesus rose from the dead...does this mean that Mark's doesn't need to??? Just because Jesus is called Christ is one verse...need not He be called Christ in another???

The newer versions say "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in most of the old mss.". You argue that this does not cause unbelief or doubt in God's Word. As a child, I remember reading such commentaries in my Biblical studies and greatly wondered why God's Word was not sure. I just knew in my spirit that God was sure or unsure. I just knew in my spirit that there was a Bible out there that was 100% sure...and I found it...in the King James Version.

No if's, and's, or but's...but "thus saith the Lord"'s...

God bless.

[apothanein kerdos]

First, you admit that the TR and Alex. manuscripts are different (thus, our debate), and then you say that they have the same lineage. It is clear that they do not.

What I advocated was that the Codex Byzantine would have been based off the Alexandrian manuscripts or manuscripts similar to them. Again, the Alexandrian texts were compiled at the latest by 400AD whereas the Codex Byzantine was compiled from texts dating no earlier than 900AD.

The earliest church fathers knew so and this has been accepted theory/fact for hundreds of years.

How could the early church fathers rely on a codex that wouldn't be put together and copied for another 800 years?

Secondly, you try to down-play the ommissions of the Alex. texts. Regardless of the "systematic theology" that the Alex. texts provide, they do not provide the clear-cut doctrine that the TR teaches.

Being as how the Alexandrian manuscripts came first, are they omitting scripture or is the TR adding to scripture?

Systematic theology can be used in the New World Translation also, but does this make it a reliable and faithful copy of the Word? Absolutely not.

What is your definition of reliable? As proven earlier, which you ignored, the King James is unreliable at times too. In some parts it's inadequate, in other parts it's the best translation we have. That's how it is with almost any translation.

In continuation, you state that there has not been a TR until a particular point in time. I agree with you here, however, I thought that you understood my position better than you obviously do. In clarification, I maintain that the TR had a previous lineage...bynzatine...that originated in the autographs...and the alexandrian lineage does not.

The problem with what you're asserting is that the Codex Byzantine is not a complete codex. Erasmus' translation, again, relied on the Latin Vulgate for the most part, only turning to the few manuscripts he had when he actually had them. The Latin Vulgate is based upon the Alexandrian type texts. I think you ignored this fact in your response.

Also, many of the verses that you say were "added" for doctrinal purposes (which would still be very, very WRONG) were quoted by and referred to previously to the year 300AD. This totally destroys the case that Alexandrian defendants bring up in opposition to the TR and friends.

How could any of the Byzantine text be quoted to 300AD when the copies weren't made until 900AD?

The TR manuscripts are the only manuscripts of God's Word that are faithful to the ages and which are in virtual harmony with one another. The Alexandrian texts are hopelessly contradictory and insufficiently fulfill God's promises concerning His Word.

As shown, the Byzantine texts do the same thing, it is a matter of "which one is best to use".

Systematic theology does not answer this lineage's many shortcomings and pitfalls. Just because John's Gospel says that Jesus rose from the dead...does this mean that Mark's doesn't need to??? Just because Jesus is called Christ is one verse...need not He be called Christ in another???

Is it better to go with a translation that is closer to date and most likely closer to the originals, or to go with one that suits our idea of what the Bible should read?

The newer versions say "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in most of the old mss.". You argue that this does not cause unbelief or doubt in God's Word.

An educated person would understand why they are still added. Though most old manuscripts do not contain it, some do. Most does not mean all. Thus, we have some manuscripts that do contain it, and it's written in John's style of writing. On top of that, it fits with the harmony of scripture. This is why it is included. Though it is not in the majority of texts, it seems that it was in the original.

Halifax, just letting you know that you ignored a lot of imporatnt things. The main arguments are in the quote below:

1)

What I asserted was that since the TR was completed we have found more manuscripts that date to an earlier date that clarify some of the misunderstandings the TR left. Secondly, the argument about the Apocrypha is non applicable seeing as how no one has ever considered them Holy Writ (with exception to the RCC). Yet in exploring God's true word, we have to examine which manuscripts work and which ones don't. If a manuscript used in the TR disagrees with ten other manuscripts that pre-date it and no other manuscripts can be found to match the accused one, then it's kind of hard to justify continual use of it. Yet this is what TR advocates continue to do.

As a side note, I find it ironic you would mention this, seeing as how the original King James had the apocrypha.

2) He had to come back and make two other editions because of the vast number of errors he made

3) This is what you are missing. He didn't have that many Greek manuscripts available to him. THat ones that were available to him were dated to the medevil times. Yet even these were few and far between. His work on the Textus Receptus was basically back-translating the Vulgate. In other words, the translation you condemn as "heretical" is what the Textus Receptus is based upon. I forget how much of the TR is based on the Vulgate, but I do remember it is a majority.

In other words, he saw what it said in Latin and then translated it into Greek. This is what the TR is, a translation from Latin (with a few exceptions of what were then "new" Greek manuscripts) into Greek. THe Alexandrian manuscripts, however, are just that. A collection of Greek manuscripts that were found in Alexandria after having not been used since the foundation of the Codex Byzantine.

4) The reason we see the Alexandrian manuscripts go into "hiding" is because the Byzantine manuscripts, authorized by the RCC, began to be used more frequently. Likewise, because of the Vulgate there was no longer a belief that translation needed to be made. Versio Vulgate does mean "The common version". It was written in every day Latin so that the people could understand what the scriptures talked about in their own language, it was a universal language. So manuscripts were lost, neglected, or ignored simply because there was a belief that no further translation was needed.

5) Now, what I am advocating is that the Alexandrian manuscripts go so far back to even the second century, close to the death of the apostles. This means from the time the originals were copied to the first manuscript we find, there is only about 140 year time frame of difference. Seems like a lot, but when compared to the TR where there is a 840 year difference, almost a thousand years, we see why newer can sometimes be better. The manuscripts used in the TR are almost 1,000 years removed from the originals, whereas the ones used in the Alexandrian are less than two hundred years removed. This is highly significant because it gives us a more accurate translation.

6) His Word is truth, and even though every translation has errors the truth is preserved completely. The errors never touch the doctrinal issues of the church, they are merely grammatical or spell a name differently, but they never touch the doctrine. This shows how God has preserved His Word (truth).

7)  the Textus Receptus did not come about at best until the tenth century and at worse the sixteenth century (the 10th century is when the Codex Byzantine was formed)

8)He used manuscripts from the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries, of which some differend from one another. Again, this is why he consulted with the Vulgate.

9) So does the King James  rolleyes.gif  Or at least the original preface did. It stated that it wasn't the only source of God's Word but that it was established by the King for the purpose of creating a Bible in common English...not for the purpose of establishing God's Word.

10) On this I must ask you, if a modern translation based entirely off the Textus Receptus was created for our modern tongue, would you consider it the Word of God?

11)

Furthermore, the King James at points inadequately translates the Greek, even in the Textus Receptus. A perfect example of this is Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Acts 9:7

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Acts 22:9

Now, this isn't a contradiction, but it does show how the King James is sometimes inadequate in its translation. Going to the Textus Receptus, I read how it should be translated. Acts 9:7 is used in the genetive case, meaning they heard a noise, but did not understand it. Acts 22:9 is used in the accusative case meaning they didn't understand what they heard, in essence, they did not hear.

This doesn't debunk the King James but merely shows that even it can have it's translation inadequacies and errors.

Look forward to a reply on those 11 points plus what's been brough up before hand.

[RGR]

If the KJV was God's way of "preserving" His word for the generations ahead, why did it have to be retranslated from the original 1611 English, and English that would be very hard to read w/o some sort of scholary background? If this wasn't wrong, why is it so wrong to translate the manuscripts now?

Second thing, if this were as you call it, God "preserving" His word for the upcoming generations, why do we find archaic terminology in the KJV-not just the thees and thous, but in other situations? For instance, during the passage of Saul's conversion, Jesus told him it was hard for him to kick against the pricks. Frankly, I'm not even sure what that means! When I was in school, that word meant something other than what it meant in the KJV and you would have gotten detention for saying it! So why didn't God have the translators choose less archaic terms?

[Guest eponine]

If the KJV was God's way of "preserving" His word for the generations ahead, why did it have to be retranslated from the original 1611 English, and English that would be very hard to read w/o some sort of scholary background?  If this wasn't wrong, why is it so wrong to translate the manuscripts now?

Second thing, if this were as you call it, God "preserving" His word for the upcoming generations, why do we find archaic terminology in the KJV-not just the thees and thous, but in other situations?  For instance, during the passage of Saul's conversion, Jesus told him it was hard for him to kick against the pricks.  Frankly, I'm not even sure what that means!  When I was in school, that word meant something other than what it meant in the KJV and you would have gotten detention for saying it!     So why didn't God have the translators choose less archaic terms?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These are some good points. The 1611 KJV was great for the English-speaking people in 1611. Then, the language changed and the revision was necessary so the people could still read it. In both cases, that was how they talked/wrote. Today, our language has changed again, and so many KJV words and expressions are not familiar to us. No one writes a play in the 21st century using the language style of Shakespeare. In the same way, we should not insist that every person learn archaic words in order to read the KJV. The translators chose the write words for the era. In today's era, we need a Bible that does not require extra education to understand. Halifax, I still don't see why you would not be in favor of a new translation if it was done from the TR.

[halifaxchristian]

Super Jew, I will answer you in the points you brought up on wednesday. I do not have the time today or tommorrow as I have to work, apply for my student loan, etc. Eponine, I would be for a translation of the KJV into modern english...but only if it were to make minimal adjustments and changes. For the most part, the KJV is 100% readable for today. I stand by that. However, the reason most KJV-defendants are against such a translation into "modern" english is because the TR-based manuscripts are not solely used in such a venture. For example, the New King James Version does not used only the Textus Receptus.

Super Jew, looking forward to responding to your post.

God bless.