Is the TR Equal to the Autographs?

Ekklesian

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
3,880
Reaction score
918
Points
113
Location
Western Hemisphere
Do you believe in Biblical preservation of any kind and if so what’s your theory on how it works?
Of course I do. I don't think God focused on that one family of manuscripts above all others.

I don't think TR guys believe that the "Majority Text" is inspired and the "Critical Text" is not.
That's exactly what they think. From the "Beliefs and Core Values" statement of the Compass College and Seminary website, which started this discussion...

We believe...
in the preservation of God’s Word through the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the Authorized King James Version of the Bible was translated.
Here's a debate that gets down to the scholarship of textual criticism, and really to the heart of the issue with the TR/kjvo controversies. You can save half an hour skipping over the moderator's introductory statements. The back and forth is fun to watch, so the time goes by quickly. White basically cleans Van Kleeck's clock.

 
Thomas Strouse founded the Dean Burgon Society which elevated the 1894 TR by Scrivener as the text. He then further claimed that the 1769 KJV was the correct KJV to use.

You may not find these statements on the internet or his writings... it is what he taught while at Maranatha during the years I attended.

Thankfully, the president of the college, Arno Weniger, had Dean Lingel (not to be confused with Lengel) use the NA27 and understand the critical apparatus as well.

Strouse left Maranatha and followed Rob Bell into Virginia 1988. Maranatha has not been TR only since.
 
THE BIBLE VERSION WHICH YOU MUST USE IS NOT A MATTER FOR YOU TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO YOUR WHIMS AND PREJUDICES. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR YOU BY THE WORKINGS OF ̶G̶O̶D̶’̶S̶ ̶S̶P̶E̶C̶I̶A̶L̶ ̶P̶R̶O̶V̶I̶D̶E̶N̶C̶E̶ (Ruckman and Hills). ...Edward Hills

Even Jack Hyles was late to the KJVO game...
 
Do we have the inspired word of God today? Where can it be found?

Inspiration of scripture is without question. Without divine preservation, inspiration means nothing.

Therefore, has God preserved his word for us today? Where can it be found?

I believe it is has been preserved for us in the Textus Receptus and has been faithfully translated in the KJV and (yes) in the NKJV as well.

The statement you have cited from Compass College pretty much says this. Do you actually have a problem with this? Are you saying that since they do not have a statement affirming the Critical Text that they believe that God's word HAS NOT been preserved in this textual line?

I would say that preferring one textual line over the other DOES NOT automatically imply that they believe the other line of textual manuscripts are not God's preserved word.

If Ken Lengel is still lurking around, perhaps he could clarify the position of Compass College for us? I personally do not have a problem with it but perhaps you can tell us why you do?

Where do YOU believe God has preserved his word for us today?

Regarding the debate (and no, I have no interest in watching a 3 hour long video), it appears that Van Cleek prefers the Majority Text whereas James White takes the "Older is Better" position. It all comes down to two good men agreeing to disagree. Wring your hands over it to your heart's content! I have better things to do with my time.
 
Do we have the inspired word of God today?
Yes.

Where can it be found?
In almost any bookstore and hotel room in the U.S.

Inspiration of scripture is without question. Without divine preservation, inspiration means nothing.
We will have to define 'inspiration,' at some point. I believe we have differing views of exactly what that is, but I concede the point. All scripture is God-breathed.

But what do you mean by preserved? If by preservation you mean that the scriptures have to come down to us in an unbroken chain of copies free of copyist errors and alternate readings, that has never happened. Not even the Received Text(s) can boast of a pedigree like that.

I believe it is has been preserved for us in the Textus Receptus and has been faithfully translated in the KJV and (yes) in the NKJV as well.
Above all other families of manuscripts? Why exactly?

The statement you have cited from Compass College pretty much says this. Do you actually have a problem with this?
Yes, because it's an arbitrary presupposition.

Are you saying that since they do not have a statement affirming the Critical Text that they believe that God's word HAS NOT been preserved in this textual line?
Yes. They're saying all others are by varying degrees corrupted, and that this particular group has been kept free from corruption by a special act of God.

I would say that preferring one textual line over the other DOES NOT automatically imply that they believe the other line of textual manuscripts are not God's preserved word.
They don't say they prefer it. They say God has chosen that line to be the vessel to keep His texts uncorrupted. That's why it's in their statement of faith. It's basically Ruckmanism under the name of Erasmus.

If Ken Lengel is still lurking around, perhaps he could clarify the position of Compass College for us? I personally do not have a problem with it but perhaps you can tell us why you do?
Because it's an arbitrary presupposition. There is no evidence or truth to the claim.

Where do YOU believe God has preserved his word for us today?
In all genuine scholarly translations of the Old and New Testaments.

Regarding the debate (and no, I have no interest in watching a 3 hour long video), it appears that Van Cleek prefers the Majority Text whereas James White takes the "Older is Better" position. It all comes down to two good men agreeing to disagree. Wring your hands over it to your heart's content! I have better things to do with my time.
No it's not preference they're debating. You see, you keep redefining the issue to be an issue of preference, and not an issue of truth, and I think it's because you want to avoid the issue.

And it's too bad you can't find the time to take it in. You're missing out. There is a lot of good information offered in that debate. "Wring my hands?"
 
Thomas Strouse founded the Dean Burgon Society which elevated the 1894 TR by Scrivener as the text. He then further claimed that the 1769 KJV was the correct KJV to use.

You may not find these statements on the internet or his writings... it is what he taught while at Maranatha during the years I attended.

Thankfully, the president of the college, Arno Weniger, had Dean Lingel (not to be confused with Lengel) use the NA27 and understand the critical apparatus as well.

Strouse left Maranatha and followed Rob Bell into Virginia 1988. Maranatha has not been TR only since.
Truth. My Greek Prof there in 93-95 used the NA27. Some undergrads complained, saying MBBC was becoming liberal, and Weniger told them to take a flying leap, or something similar.
 
Do we have the inspired word of God today? Where can it be found?

Inspiration of scripture is without question. Without divine preservation, inspiration means nothing.

Therefore, has God preserved his word for us today? Where can it be found?

I believe it is has been preserved for us in the Textus Receptus and has been faithfully translated in the KJV and (yes) in the NKJV as well.

The statement you have cited from Compass College pretty much says this. Do you actually have a problem with this? Are you saying that since they do not have a statement affirming the Critical Text that they believe that God's word HAS NOT been preserved in this textual line?

I would say that preferring one textual line over the other DOES NOT automatically imply that they believe the other line of textual manuscripts are not God's preserved word.

If Ken Lengel is still lurking around, perhaps he could clarify the position of Compass College for us? I personally do not have a problem with it but perhaps you can tell us why you do?

Where do YOU believe God has preserved his word for us today?

Regarding the debate (and no, I have no interest in watching a 3 hour long video), it appears that Van Cleek prefers the Majority Text whereas James White takes the "Older is Better" position. It all comes down to two good men agreeing to disagree. Wring your hands over it to your heart's content! I have better things to do with my time.
I spent several years worrying that I had not gotten it right. I believe that we have it in the multitude of manuscripts, and that there is not one translation that is "preserved."


I have way too many more things that are much more important than re-hashing it. I know why I believe it, but the KJVO and Only KJV arguments are just weak.
 
I spent several years worrying that I had not gotten it right. I believe that we have it in the multitude of manuscripts, and that there is not one translation that is "preserved."


I have way too many more things that are much more important than re-hashing it. I know why I believe it, but the KJVO and Only KJV arguments are just weak.
I got worried when I compared one of my Cambridge Wide Margin Bibles with one that was printed and published by Thomas Nelson, Word, or some other printer. I often found differences in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation and quickly came to the realization that a "Every Jot and Tittle" position on the KJV just was not going to fly! Perhaps it is only a Cambridge KJV that is "Inspired" and all these other KJVs are "Perversions?" I believe there are likely some who do go to such an extreme but I was able to eschew such insanity but also came to understand that it was the only logical conclusion to such an extreme stand on the KJV!

Men like James White make much more sense and these days I tell all my old KJVO buddies that my understanding of inspiration and preservation go far beyond a single English translation of the Bible! If they do not like this, I guess I'll just have to borrow Weniger's statement on the matter!
 
I got worried when I compared one of my Cambridge Wide Margin Bibles with one that was printed and published by Thomas Nelson, Word, or some other printer. I often found differences in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation and quickly came to the realization that a "Every Jot and Tittle" position on the KJV just was not going to fly! Perhaps it is only a Cambridge KJV that is "Inspired" and all these other KJVs are "Perversions?" I believe there are likely some who do go to such an extreme but I was able to eschew such insanity but also came to understand that it was the only logical conclusion to such an extreme stand on the KJV!

Men like James White make much more sense and these days I tell all my old KJVO buddies that my understanding of inspiration and preservation go far beyond a single English translation of the Bible! If they do not like this, I guess I'll just have to borrow Weniger's statement on the matter!
There are far more differences than spelling, caps and punctuation. Rick Norris is an excellent resource on the comparisons of the KJV.

Also, there are differences among the TRs

An "only" position on any if these is at least problematic.
 
I often found differences in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation and quickly came to the realization that a "Every Jot and Tittle" position on the KJV just was not going to fly!

Good quick answer from a source that I personally trust...

I'm familiar with the KJVO interpretation of "jot and tittle" and how it's bent into application to the translation debate. It's a stretch of reasoning at best. It's clear that Jesus was talking about the fact that God's word will come to pass, not how it's going to be translated or interpreted.

I don't know how the original manuscript reads nor how directly jot and tittle translates to English, but could it be that Christ's use of the term is idiomatic much as it is today?
 
We will have to define 'inspiration,' at some point. I believe we have differing views of exactly what that is, but I concede the point. All scripture is God-breathed.

But what do you mean by preserved? If by preservation you mean that the scriptures have to come down to us in an unbroken chain of copies free of copyist errors and alternate readings, that has never happened. Not even the Received Text(s) can boast of a pedigree like that.
My position is "Verbal, Plenary Inspiration" of which I articulated on the other thread. It would make me quite nervous if you held any different sort of position but as I stated on the other thread, I do not believe that Paul's authority to write "Canonically" had anything to do with his apostleship. Not every apostle got to make a contribution towards "Writing the New Testament Scriptures" but I digress...

My understanding of preserved means that God's word is available to us today, pure and simple. Yes, there were scribal errors as copies were made of copies and so forth but nothing which impacts the core doctrinal tenants and beliefs. We are able to go through the mountains of manuscripts and compile a text that is pretty much faithful to the "Originals" but since we do not have the original autographs, we cannot say for certain but we are confident that we do have he word of God which has not been "Corrupted" as (for example) Muslim clerics try to assert.
Above all other families of manuscripts? Why exactly?


Yes, because it's an arbitrary presupposition.


Yes. They're saying all others are by varying degrees corrupted, and that this particular group has been kept free from corruption by a special act of God.


They don't say they prefer it. They say God has chosen that line to be the vessel to keep His texts uncorrupted. That's why it's in their statement of faith. It's basically Ruckmanism under the name of Erasmus.


Because it's an arbitrary presupposition. There is no evidence or truth to the claim.
I'm not going to try to guess their position. If Dr. Lengel is lurking about, perhaps he will feel so inclined to articulate his position and if so, perhaps I might be able to ask of him any questions I may have. Regardless of your preconceived notions, he does seem to be a relatively knowledgeable person and certainly a few rungs up from the "Hairy-Knuckled" Ruckmanites or HACkers right?
No it's not preference they're debating. You see, you keep redefining the issue to be an issue of preference, and not an issue of truth, and I think it's because you want to avoid the issue.

And it's too bad you can't find the time to take it in. You're missing out. There is a lot of good information offered in that debate. "Wring my hands?"
I actually did listen to it. James White was certainly the better debater and he was more effective in getting his point across. James White seemed to want to stick to the earlier Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated but I'm not sure this is even Van Cleek's position. There have been numerous revisions of the TR since the publishing of the KJV and both acknowledge this. I do not see Dr. Van Cleek as an "Onlyist" but if he is teaching at Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, FL, he is not only in "Onlyist" territory, but is also in an environment that is quite hostile to his "Reformed" faith!
 
Yes, there were scribal errors as copies were made of copies and so forth but nothing which impacts the core doctrinal tenants and beliefs. We are able to go through the mountains of manuscripts and compile a text that is pretty much faithful to the "Originals" but since we do not have the original autographs, we cannot say for certain but we are confident that we do have he word of God which has not been "Corrupted" as (for example) Muslim clerics try to assert.
How many folks do any of us know first hand that possess the education and access to ancient manuscripts who are authorities on the subject? I certainly don't. Most of us have to take the word of the word of these people. And then, when someone speaks or writes authoritatively on the subject, don't we investigate their personal theology and look for their personal spin on the matter?

IOW, it's ultimately a game of trust when someone says something. Therefore, the onus is ultimately on the layperson to see if what is being taught is indeed the Word. Personally, I believe all believers have a Teacher that far surpasses any theologian or doctor of letters. BTW, That's not to say everything is open to private interpretation. It's ultimately a matter of trust but the evidence is out there.
 
My position is "Verbal, Plenary Inspiration" of which I articulated on the other thread. It would make me quite nervous if you held any different sort of position but as I stated on the other thread, I do not believe that Paul's authority to write "Canonically" had anything to do with his apostleship. Not every apostle got to make a contribution towards "Writing the New Testament Scriptures" but I digress...
The church is built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles. The names on the Twelve foundations of the Holy City, are the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb

Office is very much an integral part of authority.
 
But are there Apostles this day?

Almost every cult says yes. Are there prophets?

John Owen would say, prophecies that agree with the Bible are needless. Those that disagree are false.
 
How many folks do any of us know first hand that possess the education and access to ancient manuscripts who are authorities on the subject? I certainly don't.
The NET Bible puts alternate readings and discussions In the margins... an excellent resource making most issues available to the nonGreek reader.
 

Good quick answer from a source that I personally trust...

I'm familiar with the KJVO interpretation of "jot and tittle" and how it's bent into application to the translation debate. It's a stretch of reasoning at best. It's clear that Jesus was talking about the fact that God's word will come to pass, not how it's going to be translated or interpreted.

I don't know how the original manuscript reads nor how directly jot and tittle translates to English, but could it be that Christ's use of the term is idiomatic much as it is today?
Just for fun, here's some interesting history on the characters in the Hebrew alphabet. Scroll to Yad and Resh for Jot and Tittle.

 
The church is built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles. The names on the Twelve foundations of the Holy City, are the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb

Office is very much an integral part of authority.
It is quite true that the foundation of the Church is laid down by the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). Not everyone is an apostle and only those who are specifically called by God were apostles and of course, the specific qualifications of an apostle (Acts 1:22) renders it impossible for one to hold the actual "Office" of an apostle today. Same goes for those whose writings would be included in the scriptures. They could only write such scriptures as the Holy Spirit moves and enables them to write. We believe the canon to be completed and closed in this modern day and the foundation of the Church has been laid meaning the office of an apostle (or prophet) is no longer extant.

Now, I guess we could make an anagram to show that the apostles wrote scriptures but not all apostles wrote scriptures but all apostles had part in laying the foundation of the Church. Also, not everyone who wrote scriptures were apostles although you could say that some had significant authority and influence in the early Church namely James, the brother of our Lord who eventually became a leader in the Church at Jerusalem.

We can therefore state that those who wrote scripture carried a great bit of weight and influence in the Church but they did not write scripture because they had weight and influence in the Church!

It all comes down to who gives authority to who. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that it is the Church that gives its authority to the scriptures but as we read and study the scriptures, it is understood that the Church receives its authority from the scriptures! There are no more apostles but their authority may be found in the foundation which was laid and the scriptures they have left behind.
 
We will have to define 'inspiration,' at some point. I believe we have differing views of exactly what that is, but I concede the point. All scripture is God-breathed.
I've come across a very elegant and elloquent description of the nature of inspiration or of what it means to be God-breathed.

I found it in the opening chapters of a book by an author I was introduced to a number of years back, the title of which just recently caught my eye:

The Second Death and the Restitution of All Things by Andrew Jukes.

Jukes (1815-1901) Was an English theologian, and interestingly enough had a brief sojourn among the Brethren, of whom John Darby is a well known name.

I've read three books by Jukes, that I found incredibly insightful and edifying. He had an eye for detail, and a gift for synthesizing seemingly inconsequential details into truly revealing expositions. The Names of God in Holy Scripture, and The Four Views of Christ are two books that should be on everyone's shelves.

I was surprised to learn in my reading of this book, that Jukes eventually espoused Universalism, which is a view he attempts to defend in this book. There's a facsimile available here.

He began with a treatment on the nature of Scripture and its inspiration, and how the appearance of the Written Word is in perfect harmony with every other revelation of God, through Providence, through Nature, and through Christ's flesh.

Though his subject isn't textual criticism, he does allude to the so-called higher criticisms which were creeping in in his day, and his description of the nature of Scripture and of inspiration is a more imminent rebuttal than the common notion thereof today.

It's a longer post than I usually like to make, but time to break it down or summarize escapes me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top