Home » Posts tagged 'textus receptus' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: textus receptus
The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” King James Onlyism Refuted?
In the James White / Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations” James R. White made the astonishing claim that the “Translators to the Reader” refutes King James Onlyism. I touched on the main points of Dr. White’s claim in previous review videos, and in my twelfth debate review video I examine James White’s final arguments to this end, both from our debate and his book The King James Only Controversy.
James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is against translating the Bible into other languages.
He quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Who denies this?
He points out that the preface supports “study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” Of course! The large majority of King James Only advocates would agree.
White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another.
White claims that the KJV translators were “looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” Who is denying one should look at commentaries?
White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources.
Dr. White makes other unsubstantiated and absurd claims. Learn more in the twelfth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
Is the King James Version Too Hard to Understand? (White 11)
The James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Version Only debate examined the topic:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
In our debate, James White claimed that the Authorized, King James Version was too hard to understand. He also made this claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Dr. James White’s argument has been employed by others as well, such as the Bob Jones University graduate Mark Ward. In my eleventh review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate, I examine the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and point out that Dr. White confuses the KJV preface’s claim that their version would be understood by the common man with White’s own claim that the Bible must be in the language of the common man. To my knowledge, James White never acknowledges this important distinction.
The King James Version is Modern English
I also point out that the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in Modern English, and that scholars of the English language have dated the rise of modern English from the translation of the KJV:
Old English or Anglo-Saxon -1100
Transition Old English, or “Semi-Saxon” 1100-1200
Early Middle English, or “Early English” 1200-1300
Late Middle English 1300-1400
Early Modern English, “Tudor English” 1485-1611
Modern English 1611-onward
The English Of the King James Version
Is Easier than the Hebrew and Greek of the Inspired Old and New Testament
I then deal with the crucial question-which I have not seen addressed elsewhere by opponents of perfect preservation and the Textus Receptus, and which I wish defenders of preservation would address more frequently and with more completeness–of the objective standard of what “too hard” is for a translation, namely, the level of difficulty of the original Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. Is the King James Version harder English than the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New Testament? This crucial question is answered “no!”
The crucial question: Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel? The answer: No! The New Testament contains challenging Greek (Hebrews, Luke, Acts) as well as simple Greek (John, 1-3 John). Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. The Holy Ghost did not just dictate very short Greek sentences like “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) but also very long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14. God did not believe such sentences were too hard to understand, and both God and the Apostle Paul were happy for inspired epistles with such complex syntax to be sent to churches like that at Ephesus–congregations that were filled, not with highbrow urban elites, but with slaves, with poorly educated day laborers, with farmers, and with simple peasants who had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Similarly, parts of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than are many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament also contains some very long sentences. The whole chapter, Proverbs 2, is one sentence in Hebrew, for example.
There are also more rare or hard-to-recall words in the original language texts than there are in the English of the KJV.
Thus, evaluated by the objective standard of the literary level of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture, the King James Version is NOT too hard to understand. If you encounter people who argue that the KJV is too hard to understand, I would encourage you to challenge them to consider whether their claim is true based on the linguistic level of the original language texts of the Old and New Testaments.
Learn more by watching debate review video #11 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
Please also check out the previous debate review blog posts here at What is Truth?
–TDR
Does the KJV Translate Hebrew and Greek Words Too Many Ways?
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only (KJV) debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Is this true? In part 10 of my review of the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of Scripture I point out the severe flaws in this argument by Dr. James R. White against the King James Version, and the KJVO position.
In our debate James White argued in the same way that he did in his book: “[T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word … the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times” (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289). The numbers White cites are inaccurate, and White fails to point out that in the examples he supplies where the Authorized Version (allegedly) translates words in too many different ways in English modern versions such as the ESV, ASV, NRSV, and NET actually have more, not fewer, different translations than does the KJV. James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly. Learn more by watching debate review video #10 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?
In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:
[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.
I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.
I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).
However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:
Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)
While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate. The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference. I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement. (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)
I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information. God is a God of truth. Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.
The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.
–TDR
KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
Sing John 3:16 in Koine / New Testament Greek: Ιωαννην 3:16!
Would you like to learn how to sing John 3:16 in Greek? You can sing these words in the very speech in which the Lord Jesus Christ originally spoke this blessed promise to Nicodemus!
You can learn to sing the infallible words of John 3:16, the most famous verse of the Bible in the video below from Rumble, or watch it on YouTube, or see it at Faithsaves.net.
John 3:16 Song: Koine Greek New Testament Language
Ιωαννην τρεις:εκκαιδεκα ωδή εν γλώσση Ελληνικη
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on Rumble
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on YouTube
–TDR
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Two)
Support for the KJV
We know the King James Version translators (KJVT) in 2 Timothy 3:16 italicized “is” in “is given” because no verb exists in the text of that verse. They gave the verse a smoother reading, but they were also telling the reader that verb did not exist. That’s why they used the italics. I have no problem with what they did, and I’m not correcting it.
I like the KJVT translation of 2 Timothy 3:16. Even though they used eight English words to translate three Greek ones and they supplied “is” twice, I support all that. I like it and support it more than most of my critics, who might say I’m correcting the KJV. In fact, they correct the KJV. They also mangle 2 Timothy 3:16 and read into it something not said by God in the verse.
Gnomic Present
The KJVT wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” They knew there were multiple usages of the present tense, one of them a “Gnomic Present.” Matthew 7:17 is an example of the Gnomic Present, which says, “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” The KJVT used the Gnomic Present in their translation of 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Gnomic Present expresses a general truth without reference to time. That perfectly communicates the three Greek words to begin 2 Timothy 3:16. That general truth is that all scripture, sacred scripture, is given by inspiration of God. That includes every word and all of them from Genesis to Revelation in the language in which they were written.
Here are some other general truths said in Gnomic fashion. No scripture is given in English. All scripture is given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Is Given By Inspiration of God
The canon of scripture closed with the last Greek word of the book of Revelation at the end of the first century AD. God stopped giving scripture. Jude characterizes scripture in Jude 1:3 as “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” “Once” means “once for all.” “Was delivered” is aorist tense, so completed action. “The faith” is the complete body of God’s truth, which Jesus says is sacred scripture (John 17:17). Once God completes delivering the faith, which He did with the book of Revelation, then it is over. That completed for all time all inspired writing delivered by God.
English wasn’t a language in the first century. God didn’t give any more sacred scripture after the first century. With the completion of sacred scripture, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were the only languages in which God gave sacred scripture.
Notice that the KJVT write, “given.” Their translation says sacred scripture is given by inspiration. It is not translated by inspiration. Do you believe in the translation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Many seem to take an entirely different doctrine of inspiration of scripture than the KJVT did.
Not Changing Sacred Scripture
I’m not advocating changing a word in the KJV. However, if someone changes a word in the KJV, he is not changing sacred scripture. No one should charge him for that. He is changing a translation of sacred scripture. It is why the KJVT called their work, a “version.” It is a version. I quote the definition of “version” from the fabulous Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
3. The act of translating; the rendering of thoughts or ideas expressed in one language, into words of like signification in another language. How long was Pope engaged in the version of Homer?
4. Translation; that which is rendered from another language. We have a good version of the Scriptures. There is a good version of Pentateuch in Samaritan.
The publishers of the Textus Receptus do not call it a “version.” It isn’t a translation. They call it Novum Testamentum, which is Latin for “New Testament.” Men translate from these Greek texts into the English and other languages.
Men changed the words of the King James Version in 1769. They didn’t change scripture. They changed the English translation of the same original language text. Scripture doesn’t change. Translations of scripture do change.
James White-Thomas Ross Debate Review 6: LXX & Latin Vulgate
It was a blessing to debate James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text. The debate when well. I have been continuing to add additional debate review videos. Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been completely against their own translation and in favor of modern versions based on the minority Greek text. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #6, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and what it claims about the LXX and the Latin Vulgate. What the KJV translators say is exactly what I argued for in the debate with Dr. White, and exactly the opposite of what James White argued. His claim about the KJV translators is invalid, and painfully so.
You can watch debate review video #6 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Recent Comments