I have recently posted a video that covers, in a summary way, the Biblical teaching on the inspiration and preservation of Scripture on my website here. It presents the Biblical case for verbal, plenary inspiration, verbal, plenary preservation, and the perfect providential preservation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus that underlie the Authorized or King James Version. I would encourage you to watch the video. If you like it, please share it with others and link to it. Also, please consider the comment section below a good place to share your thoughts on the content of the presentation.
Click here to view the video.
TDR
Brother Brandenburg,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the material on inspiration/preservation. I have a question for you.
I recently read an article on David Cloud's website about how he chooses which version of the TR he believes is right:
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/which_edition_of_received_text_should_we_use.html
Cloud quotes a Dr. Edward Hills to summarize Cloud's position:
"But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely, the greek text underlying the King James Version." Brother Cloud says he agrees with this position.
I am not a scholar or pastor, but I think this sounds like a kind of Ruckman-like way at arriving at the position; that is, the KJV determines the correct version/reading of the TR. Am I reading him wrong? Would you agree with this? How would you determine the correct reading when different TR editions disagree?
Thanks
Vic Crowne
Dear Vic,
DeleteThanks for the question. I do not believe that choosing the reading of the Textus Receptus that is in use the most is at all some sort of KJV as advanced revelation position. Where editions of the TR differ, true churches in very large numbers have received the Greek words underlying the Authorized Version of the Bible. Therefore, I would agree with Dr. Hills and Bro Cloud that those words are the right Greek words.
Thanks again for the question. By the way, I am the one who did the video, not Pastor Brandenburg, although I am close to 100% positive that he would agree with everything or at least 99% plus of what was stated in it.
Thomas Ross
I have a somewhat bizarre position on this issue. I don't believe that the papyri manuscripts are untrustworthy. I don't have a problem with newer versions based on the UBS4/NA28 at all. I often use some of these versions (especially the NASB) to check the accuracy of my own pitiful Greek translations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we use the KJV at our church and I have now switched my default Greek text. I do translation from Scrivener's 1894 TR now. We use NKJV for our children's Bible program literature.
While I admit that this isn't a very objective criteria (and I don't intend it to be), I simply feel better translating from the TR and using the KJV. My pitiful (2 yrs and still going) of Greek training has only convinced me more that the KJV is simply a beautiful translation that is extremely accurate and trsutworthy.
Dear Bro Robbins,
ReplyDeleteI rejoice that you are now studying and using the TR in your church--definitely a step in the right direction! Hallelujah!
Let me provoke you a bit to love and good works.
Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Rev 1:5, KJV)
To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood (Rev 1:5 NASV)
Does Rev 1:5 say Christ washes us from our sins in His blood (KJV, TR) or not (NASV, NA28, UBS)?
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:18-19)
Do you think God has a problem with corrupting "washed" into "released"?
If He does, shouldn't we also--and therefore shouldn't we have a problem with modern versions?
Bro. Ross:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments! I've gone round and round with you on this issue a few times already, so I won't repeat my objections here.
I decided to switch to the TR because it's the Greek text behind the English text I preach from (KJV). I start Hebrew in Fall of 2017, and look forward to being able to actually understand both languages!
I'm going to be taking a while to seriously study this matter. I'm going to be reading two entry-level books on textual criticism to get a basic grasp of the discipline for myself. I chose "Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism" (Stanley Potter & Andrew Pitts -http://goo.gl/Yuogrb) and "Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism" (Eldon Epp & Gordon Fee - http://goo.gl/IQ73dC).
I'm also going to be taking another very close look at Bro. Brandenburg's book. Would you recommend another good resource from your side? I was considering Edward Hills' book, but I wanted your opinion.
Dear Tyler,
ReplyDeleteHills is a good place to start. David Cloud and David Otis Fuller also have some worthwhile works. For a great critique of the W/H and NA28 textual theories that shows that they are foolish to reject 90%+ of the MSS, the Majority Text advocate William Pickering's book is very good.
I appreciate it, Bro. Ross. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBrother Ross,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your answer. I did not realize that you would answer and not Brother Brandenburg.
I would like to more fully relate my experience with the TR, and my question about it. Again, I am not a scholar, and have had only about 1 year of Greek.
I grew up in a TR church and went to a TR college, and still believe in the TR and go to a TR church. Before I went to college, my uncle gave me Scrivener's TR reprinted by the Dean Burgon Society. Based on what I was taught, I thought I carried the Word of God in my hand, the exact words, the exact letters of every word. At the college, one of the Greek teachers took a look at my edition and said something like, "That one is fine, but most of us are using this other one which is slightly different". I had not heard that there were different editions of the TR before. When I asked which edition was the Word exactly, I did not get an answer. The teacher was very kind, but seemed to think the question was more of an interesting bit of trivia than a serious doctrinal inquiry.
I wondered about the percentages doctrine I was taught. It went something like "The WH/NA texts are 7%, 10%, etc. different from the TR! That's the whole book of Revelation! The WH/NA advocates say it is only 1% different, which is wrong but would still be too much! We need ALL the words, 100%, or we can't live-Matthew 4:4."
They taught & preached that we have 100% of the words, but also admitted that there were some questions about .01% of the words. 99.99% is not 100%. Are we saying the questions about that .01% are to be resolved not by scripture itself, but by looking to history-the history of what "good" churches have decided? I don't really want to look to history. Should I want to resolve it this way?
Are you 100% certain that you know and have 100% of the words that you need to live-Matthew 4:4?
Maybe I am making too big a deal of this, and my teacher had the right answer after all, but it has bothered me (a little) for the last 15 years.
Thanks for your time,
Vic Crowne
Dear Vic,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. Yes, I am confident that I have the words I need to live by in the Scrivener TR. I do think that there is a difference between changing 7% of the text--the difference between the TR and a NA28--and what I might call the "in house" question of "Which TR?" No edition of the TR has the serious false doctrines contained in the NA28, including explicit errors that in effect require an abandonment of inerrancy (see, e. g.:
Is the modern Critical Text of the New Testament inerrant, like the Textus Receptus is Inerrant? With A Consideration of the Question of Which Edition of the Textus Receptus is Perfect
Texts Where the Deity of Christ is Attacked or Denied in Modern Bible Versions because of Corruptions in the Greek Critical Text, with a Brief Defense of the Textus Receptus in These Passages
at http://faithsaves.net/Bibliology/
I believe that all the preserved Words were always available and that believers could know what they were. Mass-produced copies that were exactly identical, however, were not possible until the era of the printing press. God in His providence has allowed us to have a printed copy in the TR that underlies the KJV that is the culmination of a refining process of TR editions and which has, led by the Holy Spirit, been received by vast numbers of true churches as the preserved Word of God, for it is indeed so. On the other hand, I cannot think of any church that believes the promises of God on preservation that says "No, the 4th edition of Erasmus, where it differs from the TR under the KJV, is correct." It fits the promises of Scripture to receive the TR because it has been received by the churches, and the specific edition of the TR that has been the most received for the same reason.
I hope that helps.
Dear Bro Tyler,
ReplyDeleteOne more thing--what region of the world are all the papyri in (because that region, unlike those where the autographs actually were composed and preserved, is very hot and dry)?
Should the fact that the papyri represent a local Egyptian text, not one used worldwide, lead us to not assume that it represents the extant text in, say, Asia Minor where many of the autographical copies were, and where, as soon as we have extant evidence, it is TR/Byzantine, tell us something? Furthermore, aren't there TR readings in the papyri, indicating that even this local Egyptian text (where scribes were known to be loose in their practices, something verified even in non-Biblical texts), show that the TR text typeexisted?