Speculum et Lavacrum: October 2009

J I. Packer has apparently crepted into the church, he linked up with Roman Catholics after he employed sound reformed doctrine and is slowing leading reformers away from truth by using this translation?

The Textus Receptus, the Wycliffe, Tydale, Geneva, Luther, King James, and other reformation era Bibles all contain these verses.

There are a few Packer books that I do enjoy but I am slightly concerned about something I heard from a John MacArthur sermon concerning him. That Packer quoted a recommendation on a book that promoted ecumenism?

Simon, according to the manuscript that the NIV and ESV are based on then there are no missing verses. The issue then, isn't the translation. The issue is the transcript itself.... Which poses the question, are the transcripts from which the ESV and NIV based on, false?

Chris. The problem with Packer is that yes he has written some good books, but is that the way heresy creeps in? Through sound doctrine and then moving people from the truth over time? As far as I know the edits in these modern translations, are based upon textual criticism, which is part of the modern scholarship movement, which I am almost totaly... Read More against.

John MacArthur is has very good doctrine but even in his commentary he implies that the section in Johns gospel containing the woman caught in adultery is not actual authentic scripture. Caution...I'm sure you would agree that you don't mess with the word of God.

Yes, I'm a big proponent for word for word translation with italics to denote sentence continuation, as opposed to any kind of thought for through translation.

hmmm... I didn't know that regarding MacArthur in his commentary. Do you suppose that he still believes that?

Well the problem is that certain beliefs and idea's change, so he may have? but it is still in the commentary. J C Ryle was familiar with this arguement back in his day and he rejected the idea and defended that text. I heard even John Piper a few weeks back state in a sermon on his website that a verse missing in the esv of 'the angel of the water' in Johns gospel has been correctly removed. Even he may be moved slightly due to Packers translation? That guts me...

Yeah, that would be an absolute shame as I have a lot of respect, in particular for John Piper and John MacArthur. And yes, you are right concerning even just a little error in any given theology or doctrine is essentially as bad as doctrine being permeated with it. It's the leaven in the bread.... Just a little.

A lot of promotion has gone into ... Read Morethe ESV Study Bible. What would you say to those that claim that the newer manuscripts are infact more accurate than the Textus Receptus due to being older? My logic would conclude that something being older still doesn't denote accuracy, only an older lie.

I have a question regarding Leonard Ravenhill. Do you happen to know if he was a Calvinist? There are those that would argue that he wasn't, however, I'm absolutely certain that he was.

Margaret Ramlall

Hmmm... Disturbing.

I know nothing of Leonard Ravenhill. But I do know that the early church made abridged and unabridged versions of NT but not the old. The Jews transcribed the old and every word was perfect in line with that tradition, the DSS have proven that fact. But the NT was transcribed by the early Christians and on occasions they may have abridged the ... Read Moremanuscripts for public reading in church. These may be the manuscripts now found? but it does not mean that the edited verses are not scripture but that they are but were edited by the early church for reading purposes just as we have abridged and unabridged versions of books today. Thus, it is not the early abridgements that are a problem really but the interpretation of them by modern scholars.

Some time ago there was a tiny fragment of Revelation 13 found in Egypt which has 616 rather than 666. But does that mean that 616 is now the number or 666? I dont see translators include 616 in the actual text and the reason is that it would not fit into their theologies of antichrist. Thus, I think that theology is the issue and I think if research was done into the missing verses, I think you would find that they do not agree with the theology of the text and so attempt to reduce its authenticity? But I cannot prove that as yet and so would not attemt to make such a claim as final...

Margaret, if you're interested. Peter has posted the main body of this in an earlier post. I have responded to this allegation of Peter's that the ESV has "DELETED" texts. The ESV, NASB, NIV, and the like are great translations. Thanks

"Great" is a strong word. What a pity the ESV, NIV are not as strong a word.

Alright, I have a couple minutes before I have to head out to a friend's place to celebrate Reformation day. So I had a couple thoughts.
Your 666-616 varient example is horribly ad hoc. The 616 varient is only based on two mss. One mss, is only the size of a postage stamp. So this varient, though a varient has weak attestation. Dr. Daniel B. ... Read MoreWallace and his team will be investing several man hours into investigating this varient.
Peter, you are contradicting yourself. You chastise, N.T. Textual Criticism. But yet you dabble in the field itself when you say that 666 is MORE RELIABLE. You also do this when you make statements like that the TR is more reliable. Everybody does Textual Criticism on one level or another, but not everybody does it well. Every time you exegete a passage you are doing Textual Criticism.
Also, concerning your sum total of your arguments about the ESV. The TR portions texts as well. 1 John 3:1 omits "and so we are" and John 14:14 omits "if you ask (me) anything in my name". You see Erasmus realized that these texts completely destroyed the Roman Catholic teachings on confession to the Priest. You see, Erasmus was a Priest, and this would have completely circumvented his power. So he omitted this from the TR. And if Erasmus had left "and we are" in the TR this would have completely done away with indulgences. There by taking away Erasmus' income. Now, I firmly think that this is an invalid argument but its better than yours against the ESV.

Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland

Ok. Will review those claims. But your other claims are false since I have at no time claimed the 616 as more reliable. When I critique the modern critical scholarship movement, I critique it because of the claims not the actual scholarship. I too am a scholar B.TH, M.TH cand and my current M.TH is a 50,000 critical discourse on the modern ... Read Morescholarship movement, and for translation I have used the ESV and the AV. I admire Godly scholars. Tyndale, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, and more were all scholars...But they were Godly men and anti Papacy.

But regarding your claims on the TR neither you or anyone else can argue against the fact that we got the protestant reformation out of it, thus God moved mightily through that text. The KJV holds the term "authorised" and by a King, which other translations can have that? Was the LXX authorised? Is the ESV, NIV, RSV, authorised? No they follow in a long line of scholarly translations that started with the LXX.

I am not against good translations, but I hold the KJV in high esteem alongside the Geneva, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and more. I am not attacking the ESV for its translation and I have reviewed the arguments against it and deem them feeble, what I am against are the edited verses. Why did Packer not simply leave them in and add a footnote displaying his argument that some manuscripts omit these verses?

Mark Butterfield II

Well, I didn't say that you do hold to the 616 reading. I was pointing out, that you using that as an example is ad hoc. And, the mere fact that you hold to the 666 reading instead of the 616 reading is a result of a Textual Critical decision.
I have nothing against the KJV, Tyndale, Geneva (I actually like the Geneva far above any of the other ... Read Moreearly English translations). If anyone is going to use the KJV over any of the modern translations for mere preference, I have no problems at all. They just need to understand the issues surrounding our Bible Translations.
Just because a Translation is authorized doesn't make it a better translation. Since we aren't under a monarchy this doesn't apply to us. I could make a similar argument for the ESV or NASB. Most Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches use these two. Also, look at the ESV Study Bible, how many scholars participated in that work. Do you really think these men would have contributed to an evil work. Now, I don't think this is a good argument but it is most certainly comparable to yours. From what I remember, King James was a homosexual who didn't like the study notes in the Geneva. Also, Tyndale's was far from authorized, he was killed for his. So whether or not a pagan king or president gives his go ahead is irrelevant.
Why leave out those texts? Well, if they're not original to the text, why leave them in? I'd prefer moving them to a footnote instead as well. But its really no big deal to me. God bless

Ok. We are most likely saying some very similar things, and yes the Tyndale was far from authorised by man, but by God. King James? Homosexual? Did not lke certain things from the Geneva, true! I have heard that and it is strange...I too find the Geneva outstanding in word and translation, and even more timeless and modern in its use of language? I... Read More wish more people would use the Geneva bible today, but since it has now been un-earthed and re-published again, maybe we might hear more of it?

I guess I could say, what if scholars are wrong and the edited texts are actual scripture? Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and the scholars of the KJV believed they were scripture, so what if modern scholars are wrong, what then?

53 minutes ago

Mark Butterfield II

Hey, sorry it took me so long to respond. I have a busy week ahead of me. Ok, first, your claim that Tyndale's translation was authorized by God. Well, so was the ESV. This type of argumentation is utterly arbitrary. Anyone can make this claim about any "Scripture". God never promised to authorize a translation.

Concerning your question about what if the scholars were wrong? I would say that this question has to be answered verse by verse and in the light of various facts. Right now I'm very tired, so this might seem sporadic. I apologize.

I do not worship scholarship, but I do respect it. The lack of originality of various texts has been known about for over a century. But nobody has the gumption to regulate these texts to the footnotes or omit them, for the reason of reactions such as Juan's and yours. Every translation, the LXX, the Latin Vulgate, the TR, Tyndale's, etc. have had violent reactions. As one text goes from being new and heretical, it moves to normative, and then it becomes tradition. (I'm answering your question, just in a slightly round about way and throwing out some pot shots). But texts such as these were based on a very small variety of texts, all from the Byzantine textual platform, which are from a much later date. But as history has moved on, thousands of mss have been unearthed which are much more reliable because of their condition and antiquity.

Dr. Robert Bowman Jr. describes the condition of our witnesses as a 1000 piece puzzle with 10 extra pieces. It's not that we don't have the original text, its just that we have to figure out which ones are the extras. This is as Kurt and Barbara Aland call, the Tenacity of the Text. We have multiple lines of textual transmission. But through out history, especially during the Christian persecutions, you have unprofessional copyists (Christians) who made mistakes. They had such a passion for the Gospel that they had to copy the letters, even at the risk of their own lives. But in transmission tradition, once an error goes into the text, it stays there. So its just a matter of figuring out where somebody goofed.

I have no reason to doubt that those verses, after looking at the historical evidence, are not original. But what if they were original, you'll find that the majority of the verses that could even possibly be original are found elsewhere in the NT or OT. So nothing is being lost. In my earlier post I went through each verse and gave a basic summary of why they're not believed to be original. Also, THERE IS NO DOCTRINE OR TEACHING that is changed by the omission of these texts.

I think the NASB and the ESV are two of the best translations on the market today (as for modern translations), that the average individual who can't read old English can enjoy, study from, and glean from. I believe that to just throw the ESV out as a demonic plot to undermine the authority of scripture is largely misinformed of the textual issues, and find this attitude to be more dangerous in our present day as men like Dr. Bart Ehrman, D.C. Parker, Eldon J. Epp, are completely high jacking the field of Textual Criticism and putting a post-modern worldview to it. Works of men like Bart Ehrman are being utilized be every skeptic, atheist, agnostic, and Muslim to truly attack our Scripture. And its high time that we as Christians deal with the facts in an integral way and humbly before God. But I'm preaching now, and its time for me to go to bed. God bless.

P.S. this response probably might not make sense. If it doesn't please ask. Sorry.

Oh before I forget, I don't know if you can read Uncial text, but one of our earliest codices has been uploaded to the internet for free use http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Makes full sense Mark! I know where you are coming from and you have right to your opinion, as do I.

I have a healthy fear of God and His word and would not either add or take away from it. In time it will be revealed that these verses are true scripture.

Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland The baptism of the Eunuch: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" Acts 8: 37. Omitted from the ESV and if we review verse 36 and link it right away to verse 38, the text makes little sense? Think about it!

Friday, October 30, 2009

Facebook debate: Are the New Translations of the Bible as Reliable as the KJV and Textus Receptus?~ (I named it as to make this thing sound important)

This is a conversation that I am currently having on Facebook with a gentleman, Simon Peter. I cannot share this conversation through Facebook and I want everyone that I know to have the benefit of this conversation.

Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland How bad is it that the esv has missing verses?

KJV is still the most beautiful alongside the Geneva, Tyndale, Wycliffe translations

Yesterday at 2:45pm

It's not bad at all. And when you say that the KJV is the most beautiful, do you mean linguistically?

Benjamin J. Hartley

that's an interesting study. I use the KJV primarily for that reason, that many verses are missing in the modern English translations. Different transcripts I suppose. Not a big fan of modern translations, but I am not into KJV onlynism. Have you done any in depth study of this subject?

Ben, are you asking Peter or me? I've been studying this area for about a year now.

I'm not a fan of the KJV because it adds verses...lol

Mark. 1) Why not bad at all? Do scholars have authority to add or take away from scripture? 2) Language style and beautiful because it just is...

Benjamin. 1) Not a kjv only either, I love the Geneva, Youngs, Tyndale, Wycliffe but greatly admire the av and regard it as authoritative. Many modern translations have good to offer but the kjv will ... Read Moreoutlast them all, has time not proven that?...I have studied this subject but studies based upon opinions are not final. I judge matters myself and find it best to just read the text and review it with the original hebrew and greek. But even the h & g is not final depending upon which manuscript we refer to...I admire the Textus Receptus and reject the Latin Lulgate, though I know the kjv refers to it...

Ok, I'll try to answer you briefly. I don't have a lot of time right now. So maybe this will help the conversation. First, I do believe that every translation has its limitations and is fallable.

Second, I did not say nor would I say that scholars have the right to arbitrarily remove or add to the text. For that matter this would include scribes as well (this is important).... Read More

Third, I believe that it is a strawman, to claim, that those who hold to the oldest codices and papyri as more reliable, are simultaneously giving liberty to scholars to play light and loose with the English. For this would be a Non-Sequitur and a category error. The fact of it is, the KJV has translational issues (for example: Granville Sharp's Rule: Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1; Beza's Conjectural Emendation in Rev 16:5, the confusion between "os" and the Nomina Sacra in 1 Tim 3:16, etc.) and transcriptional issues (for example: The last twelve verses of Mark and the Comma Johanneum)

Fourth, I need to clarify, I do not hold that all modern translations are equal and reliable. I detest paraphrases and "liberal" translations.

I hope this gives you a good start. God bless. P.S. I'm glad you're not a KJVO.

is there any way I can share this post to my wall? it would make it easier for me to follow.

Benjamin J. Hartley

Aha a discussion is born, shall we carry this on by some other means?

To be honest, I don't have a lot of time. So I'll only be able to respond when I have time. So this format is probably the best. I'm actually preparing a series of Sunday School lessons and the Reliability of the New Testament is one them. But it will only be at most 45 minutes long.

Juan A. Baquerizo-Gambini

Manuscripts are an issue, but the problem is that the variants often only exist in a handful if not less of manuscripts. That majority agree and do not vary.

PS. When I mention something, I am not simply pointing the finger or suggesting that anyone has made a claim, I am simply bringing out what is actually there. If scholars remove texts from translations then they veiw themselves as having the authority to do so, and they do not. It is the word of God.

Theologian Simon Peter Sutherland
The ESV translators have omitted the following verses from their translation. Matthew 17:21, 18: 11, 23: 14. Mark 7: 16, 9: 44, 9: 46, 10:21 (omits "take up cross") 11: 26, 15: 28. Luke 17:36, 23:17. John 5:4. Acts 8: 37, 15: 34, 28: 29. Romans 16:24. 1 John 5: 7. J I Packer has apparently crepted into the c...hurch, employed sound reformed doctrine and is slowing leading reformers away by using this translation?Read More

If a translation is missing verses it should be thrown in the trash or better be burned

Juan A. Baquerizo-Gambini

NIV, RSV, are all guilty of this...

This explains the rise of hideous and preposterous heresies within the church

For not being a KJV onlyist Peter, you're using a lot of their arguments. And Juan, your comment is misinformed. I would like you to substantiate your last claim. Fyi, most cultists use the KJV: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses (along with the NWT), Christian Scientists, Masons, etc. But this is not a good argument at all in determining which text is preferable. Also Juan, if you want to go down that line of argumentation... the individual who wrote the Textus Receptus, the primary text referenced for the AV translation, was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was a Roman Catholic Priest.

Peter, you've made this claim three times that the new versions omit texts. Please substantiate your claims by demonstrating that the earliest, most reliable texts that we have now contain these "alleged omissions".

First, The fact is, the AV was translated out of six MSS all dating later than the tenth century. We have a vast range of MSS at our disposal that date anywhere from the third to fourth century: C. Sinaiticus, C. Alexandrinus, C. Vaticanus, Codex Washingtonensis, 0162, 0171, 0189, 0220, P1, P2, P3, P4...through P115, etc. These are only the Greek MSS, this doesn't include other languages such as Coptic, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic, etc. So translations like the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. have a much greater MSS attestation supporting them.... Read More

Second, you're making a grave error. You're comparing the modern translations to the AV. To put it another way, you're using the AV as the standard by which you compare the modern versions. Unless you're prepared to say that all the godly men throughout history has utilized the KJV, then I would back away from your biases for a bit to examine what you are saying.

Third, as for your list of omissions, there's a reason most of the verses, that are omitted, are from the Gospels. This is important to note. I will deal with some of these texts briefly and some more at length.

Matthew 17:21 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 9:29, the same verse that's omitted in Matthew still appears in Mark.
Matthew 18:11 Accidental Harmonization cf. Luke 19:10. ibid
Matthew 23:14 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 12:10 or Luke 24:47. ibid
Mark 7:16 The WH, NA27, and USB do not include this text as the MSS: Aleph, B, L, Delta*, 0274, do not either. The extra verse was added by scribes, borrowing it directly from 4:23 (see also 4:9) to provide an ending to an otherwise very short pericope, This addition was included in the T.R. and made popular by the KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, etc. (Comfort, 2008, 121; shortened mine) But let it be noted that this verse still exists in Matt 11:15; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14: 35
Mark 9:44, 46 MSS: Aleph, B, C, L, W, Delta, Phi, 0274f1, 28, 565, itk, syrs, cop do not contain these verses. For various reasons it is believed that the repetition of this phrase was inserted by various scribes in order for readability for early church liturgy. However, this verse still remains in Is. 66:24 ESV.
Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") this phrase just lacks early attestation. However this verse still exists at 8:34 ESV.
Mark 11:26 This verse as well has no early attestation to it. It is an accidental duplication of the end of the previous verse. But again, this omitted verse exists in Matt. 6:15; 18:10, 35
Mark 15:28 The first time this verse appears in any MSS is in 083 (Luke 22:37 which is a citation of Is. 53:12), later scribes inserted this verse as a prophetic proof text to show Jesus' death to their Roman audience since this specific audience would have been largly OT illiterate.
Luke 17:36 Accidental Harmonization cf. Luke 17:35
Luke 23:17 Accidental Harmonization cf. Mark 15:6; Matt. 27:15;
John 5:4 See 1 John 5:7 below.
Acts 8:37 See 1 John 5:7 below.
Acts 15:34 This verse, is in contradiction to 15:33, was added to avoid the difficulty in 15:40. The reviser, trying to avoid one problem, created another. This verse doesn't even exist in the Byzantine(M) text type! Erasmus inserted this text from a marginal note in one of the manuscripts he was utilizing in putting together the TR.
Acts 28:29 See 1 John 5:7
Romans 16:24 this was borrowed from verse 20 on accident. It is not in any early MSS.
1 John 5: 7 - John 5:4; Acts 8:37; and The Comma Johanneum. Textual transmission tradition reveals explicitly that when a reading enters the line, it remains in the line. Early scribes and/or copyists when they wanted a copy of a book for themselves or their church would set themselves to hand copy the text. Early copyists were not professional scribes. Many of which risked their lives to copy these books as Christianity was illegal. So if a copyist realized that they missed a passage they would either right it in the margin or at the end of the book. However, various scribes, who knew something about Jewish traditions, would also add their own notes in the margins. So this creates a problem for us. How do we know what was a note and what is actually part of the text? We check the earlier MSS. For those who know anything about NT Textual Criticism this isn't as easy as I'm making it out to be. So, to OVER simplify, this is what happened.

So, if the ESV translators were trying to subversively remove passages of precious Scripture in order to manipulate the masses, they did a pathetic job. They missed identical verses that appear else where in the Bible. When it comes to interpolations, I can an exact contrary argument, specifically, that the KJV adds to the text of Holy Scripture, therefore is should be burned. But, I believe that is non-sense. The Geneva Bible, The KJV, NKJV, Tyndale, etc. are great texts but limited and fallable. God never promised to inspire a translation, scribe, or copyist.

Third, what's with the whole J.I. Packer thing? The ESV was done by a translation committee with Greek and Hebrew consultants. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that they just omitted texts out of some Theological bias? If they did, what would this Theological bias be? If they did, then it would be considered blasphemous. To say that the ESV omitted Scripture is just incorrect. Also, to accuse anyone that they're misleading Reformed Christians by using the ESV is just ignorant and a dangerous accusation on your part. Especially since you didn't substantiate it.

Last of all, on your other post you made the comment, "...the variants often only exist in a handful if not less of manuscripts. That majority agree and do not vary." This again, is not a studied statement. The truth is, there exist roughly six variants per chapter of the New Testament. And a total of roughly 400,000 variants. Yes, most of them insignificant. Now, let's assume that you were right. Then why do object to the new translations? They're all based upon these same MSS.

God bless

Let us deal with one issue at a time shall we.
a) I am not KJV only, never have I said so
b) Did Packer not sign up with Catholics in the 1990's, was he not general editor of the esv?
c) You are cutting and pasting from some writings which may or may not be your own. I can see this from the missing footnotes? Are these your own? If not I will dissmiss them and will not answer those points!
d) I am not using the av as a standard. What about the Vulgate, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva,... Read More
e) Do you read Hebrew/Greek?
f) I am arguing from the textus receptus not the av
g) The interpolations argument is textual criticism and not actual fact. Textual critics base their arguments upon an understanding and upon a handful of manuscipts

Please edit the cut and paste job and then I will reply to the points if you number/letter them and not just add a mass or claims that if each one were to be adressed, they would take thousands upon thousands of words...

I do not have time this morning to answer you point by point again. My last post is all my own work. I wrote it out in WordPad first and then copied an pasted it from there. There are no footnotes necessary. So yes, this is all my own work. Except for the part where it says (comfort). That is merely a reference to Philip Comfort's work. Yes, I ... Read Moreunderstand that responses to claims take thousands of words. I spent two hours on my response to you. So for you to just dismiss it outright is quite rude. I am not calling you a KJVO. I am saying that you're using arguments similar to what they use. Again, you keep mentioning J.I. Packer, I do not agree with the work he is doing. Nontheless, I'm not going to spend my time if I don't have to with this kind of argument. Its misguided (ad hominem) to attack the work because of the man. I can do that too, and have demonstrated how. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic Priest so therefore we should reject the TR. This kind of argumentation is just not good form. The comment you made about interpolations and textual criticism. DUDE, where do you think you got your KJV Bible? Erasmus was a Lower New Testament Textual Critic. You have to be a textual critic in order to collate various New Testament MSS. So if you're not going to answer what I have said. Then I think this conversation is over. God bless.