The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Westciott Hort vs. Textus Receptus

In another thread Pilgrim made reference to this topic.
I believe he is correct to say that both sides make good points.
One thing that I usually try to focus on in this debate is whether or not it changes any essential doctrines of the faith.
One King James only advocate told me that other versions "take away from the blood."
As I tooked into this although some verses don't use the word blood, it is clear that is what they are talking about. It is also clear that in other verses it does use the word "blood."

I would be interested in some input into this aspect of the issue.
I have found that both the Westcott and Hort and the Textus Receptus teach the same core doctrines.

Tom

Hi Tom,

An excellent book on this subject is "The King James Only Controversy" by James White. I've purchased this book twice, but I still don't have it. Christians make good bookkeepers!

Yes I have heard of that book, and one day intend to read it.
I just realized something about the title, that proves that I should never start a thread on my Iphone without my reading glasses.

Tom

I haven't read the book but just to make clear to those who aren't familiar with the TR vs WH debate...

1. The KJV Only controversy is mainly about a TRANSLATION of ancient manuscripts although the KJV Only people believe that the TR manuscript(s) are the only true and reliable manuscripts. Most of the KJV Only adherents do believe that the King James Version itself is inspired, i.e., it is without error, which is ludicrous on its face, yet that's what they believe.

2. There are other translations which are based upon the TR/Received Text in addition to the KJV, e.g.,
Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530
Coverdale Bible 1535
Matthew Bible 1537
Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560-1644
Bishops' Bible 1568
King James Version 1611,1613,1629,1664,1701,1744,1762,1769,1850
Quaker Bible 1764
Webster's Revision 1833
Young's Literal Translation 1862
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation 1876
Darby Bible 1884,1890[citation needed]
New King James Version 1982
Green's Literal Translation 1985. Included in 1986 The Interlinear Translation.
Third Millennium Bible 1998
Analytical Literal Translation 1999
AV7 The New Authorized Version of the Holy Bible in Present-day English (The AV7 Bible
Modern English Version 2014

Not all translations are reliable or even good regardless of what manuscript collection they were based upon. The NIV is a prime example of an unreliable translation that was widely promoted and unfortunately accepted by a very large number of people and churches. It is NOT a 'translation' as much as it is an 'interpretation' since it uses the "Dynamic Equivalence" method of translation vs. the "Formal Equivalence" method of translation. For those not familiar with these terms, simply put:

- Formal Equivalence: Every jot and tittle of the original manuscripts are inspired, infallible and inerrant. Therefore it is the responsibility to translate the most reliable manuscripts as accurately as possible into the target language.

- Dynamic Equivalence: The individual words are not important compared to the meaning of those words. Thus it is the translators responsibility to use words and phrases which best convey the meaning.

Now, it should be more than obvious that the Dynamic Equivalence theory is utterly ridiculous in principle. Why? Because one cannot comprehend the original meaning of a text without individual words and the letters of which they consist. Consequently, ALL translations which use the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation are someone's interpretation and not a faithful translation of what God the Spirit inspired men of old to write (2Pet 1:20,21). It is my personal opinion that, "To the degree that someone adopts Dynamic Equivalence, to the same degree he/she denies the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration."

I have always been told that the NASB is the most literal translation. That is what I used starting in the late 70s, but today it seems like the ESV is the go to Bible for Reformed and Presbyterian churches and pastors. Maybe it became popular as a way to rid people usage of the NIV.

Actually, the ASV (American Standard Version) is the most literal, especially the New Testament. It didn't find a large interest because of that fact. Popularity of Bible translations tend to be trendy. Some well-known individual recommends a particular version along with an appealing marketing campaign and it becomes a #1 best seller.

Personally, I do like the KJV for various reasons but I use the ASV for study. Both are reliable translations. I haven't used an ESV so I can't comment on that one. The NKJV isn't too bad either. Most of the modern translations, however, were done using the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation and are at best unreliable in their faithfulness to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;..." Westminster Conf. I:8

I don't understand how the original texts could be "by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" if the TR has been so heavily adulterated as claimed by W&H, et al.

Apart from the ESV's use of a non-TR text, I grate at their rendering of "mercy" in the OT as "steadfast love" in numerous places. The former flows from a superior to an inferior, while the latter can go either way. There are numerous places in the Psalms that read so clumsily that I wonder if non-native users of English worked on the translation. Maybe that's why I am a golden oldie :-)

Worse, they render John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3;18, and Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9 without the word "begotten". The Greek (at least in the TR) has the word monogenes not by accident, and dropping this word has implications in any Trinitarian controversy (e.g., the current one concerning eternal subordination).

I'll take the KJV or NKJV any day!

The problem is we do not have the 'original manuscripts'. What we have is copies of the originals, some being very old and not far removed from the originals according to the best estimates... which seem to change as 'better scholars' emerge.

The bottom line re: "Textual Criticism" is that what we do have available when they are all compared as a whole is something extremely close to what the originals are, again according to years of research by the experts. There is not one major doctrine at risk by using either the TR or WH manuscripts. In fact, as best as I have been able to discern, not much of anything is at risk using either. The problem isn't which manuscript evidence is the 'inspired' one, for none of them are since the original writings are not in existence. But rather, what the everyday Christian needs to concern himself/herself with is the TRANSLATION of what is extant. The impetus to make the Bible "more readable" to the lowest common denominator education only results in obliterating the truth contained in those manuscripts. It isn't the responsibility of a translator to make anything "more readable", but rather to be ACCURATE and FAITHFUL to the text. It is the responsibility of the CHURCH to systematically and carefully TEACH the written revelation of God. For example, a translator has no warrant to disregard the word hilasterion/hilaskomai, i.e., "propitiation" since hardly anyone is even familiar with the word. The word should never be by-passed and/or exchanged for some other word(s) which do not and cannot render the same meaning, as most translations have done. Elders and other appointed teachers are to expound/explain this most important word concerning the atonement of the Lord Christ and to make application of it.

For me guys is the fact that Christians say they believe in God and His Word (written and inspired) Without a final authority one is bankrupt to think they can quote anything if it's "fallible". It's on that premise KJ Only and TR folks came to a "Only" conclusion. The fact is Christianity doesn't possess a complete original of anything so to call the argument "ludicrous" flies in the face of any basis to call anything "God's Word".

When Moses came down from the mountain to bring the tablets, God scribed an extra set, due to the fact that Moses threw the originals onto the ground. It's our understanding that the copies were inspired as the originals. In other words people didn't sit around and discuss their validity, they just rolled with it. The fact I'm even writing this is because I trust my King James and the TR. With no final authority, trust in God, becomes here say. The TR and Masoretic texts were compiled and used as a final basis for the KJ's translation. So basically, saying you loosely "trust" a manuscript is a half baked validity of something that may or may not be true.

Saw it written that checking for consistency in doctrinal output as a basis for acceptance also not a good argument because it's like putting the cart before the horse. Textual criticism is a tough subject. Nowhere in the written texts is there a verse for folks to trust only in the originals. People who follow Christ are fools by the world's standards because they follow an invisible God who can change the hearts of people, who to them, are being sucker punched by a goofy belief system period. Are we to say we are fools to each other as well? If one believes they have a Bible and call it less than infallible then that person isn't wholly believing God has preserved His Word.

James White, the author of the book I mentioned above (and which I find extremely helpful on this topic,) was on the translation committee for the NASB (a revision of the ASV,) which is based on the NU (Nestle-Aland/UBS) text, a revision of WH. But the NASB is not my first choice.

I grew up with the KJV, but could never be mistaken for a KJO! On-line, I like to use the Bible Gateway, which allows one to see up to five different versions of one's choice, in parallel. For example, right now I am looking at the NKJV, NASB, ASV, ESV and RSV side-by-side, which makes comparison easy.

Or for hardcopy use, when one is at home, he can make use of whatever versions are available in his library.

But when one doesn't have access to various versions but is restricted to a single Bible, my first choice is the NKJV. This is due not only to personal preference, but also because the NKJV has a very significant advantage that I greatly appreciate:

It's footnotes present the differences of the NA/USB text, and of the Majority text, as compared to the TR. I find this very helpful.

That is undeniably true. the second set was identical to the first because the Author, God Himself inscribed them, aka: divine inspiration. As I mentioned in my reply above, we do not have any of the original manuscripts which were penned by divine inspiration through the instrumentality of men filled with God the Holy Spirit. ANY copy of those original documents are not "inspired". Their accuracy to the originals depends upon the scribe who copied them. The fact that we have variances between parchments, uncials, scrolls, etc., demonstrates that textual criticism is most necessary. I am not speaking about "Higher Criticism" which is totally different and is to be rejected out of hand.

Thus, it is impossible to prove that the TR is "inspired"; 100% impeccable and infallible, never mind any version that is based upon the TR, e.g., the KJV, AV, et al and likewise for the WH or the Nestle-Arland. As I also stated above, what we DO have is a compilation of manuscripts which when taken as a whole bring unassailable confidence to a believer that we have in our possession the very words of God written.

The Westminster Confession states it thusly in Chapter I:


FYI, there are some glaring translation errors in the KJV, the version which I use for everything but study. And, of course, there is the infamous Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7,8. For those not familiar with this passage and/or the problems surrounding, there is an informative and fair presentation found here: The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8.

Now for the record, Elwin and for anyone else who might be curious on my doctrine of Scripture, let me make it crystal clear: I believe that the Scriptures as given by God are infallible and inerrant. I believe that the GOOD translations that use the Formal Equivalence method of translation are 100% reliable and contain the infallible Word of God, with is authoritative and thus worthy of all acceptance.

Pilgrim
Thank you, that was helpful.
I know a few KJO advocate that completely deny that there are any translations other than the KJV that use the TR in translating to English.
They also believe that not only the originals were infalable and inerant, but God keeps the KJV infalable and inerrant.
They go on to say, that it is actually shameful that there are not modern Bible's translated from the TR.
Tom

There were probably those who made similar "arguments" when the KJV first appeared. Geneva Version Only...