TR/Majority Text

Any reason you decided on a 9-yr time frame? It seems to me most try to get through the Bible in a shorter time-frame.

:roll: Oops - entered the following text in wrong place!
Right, the 9 year period is not the standard speed and is flexible. My perspective is the focus on short daily passages, book by book (with poetry on Sundays) covering the whole Bible with a reading (content, interpretation, application - meditative approach). Not mysticism, but mixing private prayer with word in a personal systematic and recoverable manner.

Also, would you please unpack what you mean by "majority text" as the term can be construed in a couple of different ways today. Thanks and welcome to the forum.
I mean the Textus Receptus based translation of the New Testament. What are some other ways "majority text" can be construed? Thanks to you too, and good to be in this forum.
 

RevTim

Beta Tester
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

I mean the Textus Receptus based translation of the New Testament. What are some other ways "majority text" can be construed? Thanks to you too, and good to be in this forum.
The TR was classically referred to as the "majority text" so I'm glad that you are of that persuasion.

If you'd like to read some revisionist history about the new majority text and how the TR is only a close-cousin to it, please visit:

http://www.majoritytext.org/aboutmts.htm

Generally speaking the new m-text is the Hodges and Farstad 1985 edition, from which the NKJV springs forth. See also:

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/tc/

You'll find another bit of a spin on the matter here:

http://www.emtvonline.com/emtvmft.htm

If you might be interested in reading an article doing something of a comparison / contrast between the two without of necessity allowing you to guess the bias of the author [at least in a quick read that's what I thought] you might try:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

If you are of the TR mindset, and you really want to see how controlled by the HOLY Ghost that you are, you could visit:

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/

Be forewarned: your flesh will be tempted to think bad thoughts and say bad things. [And telling kids not to eat the cookies in the cookie jar almost certainly insures there will be crumbs aplenty, and that right soon...]

Just to be clear on the matter: I am pro-TR. Take what you find on these sites with the appropriate grains of salt needed.
 
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Generally speaking the new m-text is the Hodges and Farstad 1985 edition, from which the NKJV springs forth. See also:

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/tc/
Thanks Tim - After reading the last work of Dr. Farstad before his going with the Lord "Logos 21, Living Water, The Gospel of John" I saw him draw away from the NKJV and closer to the "Receptus Textus". Have you read this booklet on translating the Gospel of John? I have a few issues with the KJV (Not being a Ruckmanite or KJV only) and prefer the Darby translation occasionally and then the original Greek.

In Christ / Bill
 

RevTim

Beta Tester
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Thanks Tim - After reading the last work of Dr. Farstad before his going with the Lord "Logos 21, Living Water, The Gospel of John" I saw him draw away from the NKJV and closer to the "Receptus Textus". Have you read this booklet on translating the Gospel of John? I have a few issues with the KJV (Not being a Ruckmanite or KJV only) and prefer the Darby translation occasionally and then the original Greek.

In Christ / Bill
No I haven't, but I am always interesting in textual issues. Can you suggest a way I might obtain a copy?

Have you read Touch Not The Unclean Thing by Dr. David Sorenson? He is a third-generation fundamentalist who was once a proponent of the "critical" text and used the NASB, but through prayer and study God brought him to the TR / KJV position.

I received a copy of his book as a comp to pastors, and I must admit I judged it by it's cover [the title]. I thought it was another more or less flaming argument -- IMHO too much of those who are pro-KJV often don't do us any favors vis-a-vis the manner they go about promoting their position.

However one day I picked it up and quickly read through it. It was a great read and very reasoned and balanced. It is now THE book I recommend on the textual issue.

He also took the main arguments in synopsis form and created a tract which he gives out via his church, entitled "Why We Use The King James Version."

I would encourage you to read his book if you haven't, and as an introduction I would be happy to mail you a copy of the tract, or even a *.pdf copy of it via email. Just send me an email with either your snail mail address for the actual tract, or the request to send you just a copy of it, and it will be on the way.

Have a God-blessed Son-day.
 

jerrybouey

Member
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Yes, that is an excellent book. It deals with all the main issues without going off on some weird tangent, like some other KJVonly books do. The purpose of the book is an exhortation to fundamentalists to apply separation to the issue of Bible versions as well - and since the KJV and the TR underlying it are the only ones that consistently fit that stance, that is where he stands.
 
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

No I haven't, but I am always interesting in textual issues. Can you suggest a way I might obtain a copy?

Have you read Touch Not The Unclean Thing by Dr. David Sorenson?
Brother Tim,

Yes, here is the link to request up to 10 free copies
http://www.livingwater.org/InfoMin.html

No I have not read Touch Not the Unclean Thing.

My standards are Believing Bible Study by Edward F. Hills, The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament by Rev MacLean, God Wrote Only One Bible by Jasper Ray and The Language of the King James by Gail Riplinger.

Maybe you can help me here. I am solid on the New Testament, but still not sure of the Masoretic or Greek Text of the Old Testament. Do you have any references :?: The Trinitarian Bible Society has some interesting articles and say it is not as vital as the New Testament.

Romans 3:1-6 / Bill
 

jerrybouey

Member
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

If anyone ever comes across a copy of Believing Bible Study online, let me know. I have read all or part of his KJV Defended (can't remember the exact name), but that other book is the one that sounds more interesting to me.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text is the text behind the KJV - no other modern Bible version solely uses that text, not even the NKJV. Masoretic means "handed down" - it is the preserved OT text. From what I know, any Greek copy of the OT is suspect and not trustworthy. It is just as important to defend the manuscripts behind the OT as those behind the NT - as these modern versions and text editors are playing around with many passages, especially ones dealing with the Messiah. Look up passages like Micah 5:2; Isaiah 7:14; Psalm 22:16; Genesis 22:8 - various other OT prophecies, and you will see how they downplay or twist them.
 
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

The Hebrew Masoretic Text is the text behind the KJV - no other modern Bible version solely uses that text, not even the NKJV. Masoretic means "handed down" - it is the preserved OT text. From what I know, any Greek copy of the OT is suspect and not trustworthy.
Jerry,

Yes, the above is the standard reasoning to support the Masoretic Text.

My reservations are why did not Jesus use the Hebrew Manuscripts for his quotes of the Old Testament. Here is another example; the book of Romans quotes the Old Testament in "different manners" 74 times. Maybe I'll study more, but also looking for convincing logic. Chuck Missler continually refers to the Septuagint as the best manuscript for the Old Testament and TR for the New Testament. If anyone has an excellent reference let me know. :?
 

jerrybouey

Member
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

There is no proof that there ever was a Septuagint before the time of Christ - the earliest copies were in the Hexapla by Origen - and many believe that was Origen's OWN translation.

Quoting an OT passage in slightly different words to emphasize certain things doesn't mean Jesus or the apostles were quoting different texts.
 

RevTim

Beta Tester
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Eventually I'd like to add my speciality Bible as an option. It is designed for a 9 year daily quiet time with prayer and meditation, along with book outlines, gems, Q & A, charts, maps, notes, passage headings and tracking.
I'd still like to know why you chose a 9-yr time frame as opposed to something shorter when most folks I know want something shorter to go through the Word.
 

RevTim

Beta Tester
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

I have a few issues with the KJV (Not being a Ruckmanite or KJV only) and prefer the Darby translation occasionally and then the original Greek.
Bill, do you directly read from and / or study / do devotions from the Greek?
 

RevTim

Beta Tester
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Yes, here is the link to request up to 10 free copies
http://www.livingwater.org/InfoMin.html
I am surprised that you say you are TR and then promote this site?

No I have not read Touch Not the Unclean Thing.
I concur with Jerry's review of the work.

Maybe you can help me here. I am solid on the New Testament, but still not sure of the Masoretic or Greek Text of the Old Testament. Do you have any references :?: The Trinitarian Bible Society has some interesting articles and say it is not as vital as the New Testament.
I do not feel I have enough education to speak to issues related to the text of the O.T. / O.T. textual issues.
 
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

I am surprised that you say you are TR and then promote this site? I do not feel I have enough education to speak to issues related to the text of the O.T. / O.T. textual issues.
Tim,

Have you read the booklet on the Gospel of John yet? My mind was impressed with a strong going back to the Majority Text or TR. Please read and let me know if you concur, a prime example is the endnote on John 7:53-8:11.

I really like to hear and teach both sides before making a decision and know at times there are shades of gray.

Hebrews 4:12 / Bill
 

jerrybouey

Member
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Please read and let me know if you concur, a prime example is the endnote on John 7:53-8:11.

What does that endnote say? That this passage wasn't in the "earliest manuscripts"? If you study out what the main manuscripts are they are referring to, you will see that they are missing chunks of Scripture and have been edited by ten different editors - played around with. Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library - where no true Bible believer was using it (hence its "preservation"; and Sinaiticus was found in a Greek Orthodox monastery, where even they were not using it - but were in fact throwing the pages in the fire to be burned. In the Gospels alone, these two manuscripts - the favourites of the Westcott and Hort crowd - contradict each other over 3000 times. Do you want a Bible based on these corrupt manuscripts? Do you want to question passages in your KJV because Satan has tossed a few corrupt manuscripts into the mix? "Yea, hath God said..." is the devil's first question to man. He is still using that tactic today.
 

RevTim

Beta Tester
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Tim,

Have you read the booklet on the Gospel of John yet? My mind was impressed with a strong going back to the Majority Text or TR. Please read and let me know if you concur, a prime example is the endnote on John 7:53-8:11.

I really like to hear and teach both sides before making a decision and know at times there are shades of gray.

Hebrews 4:12 / Bill
Dear Bill,

I have often said in my pulpit that too much of the things which Christians fuss over are already made black and white in God's Word, and the only gray area where it needs to be applied is contained within our skulls! But of course I'm trying as weak as it is to be pithy in a point of exhortation about applying the Word of God, not necessarily arguing about where we can find the Word.

As far as I could see on their web site, it was just a Gospel of John, albeit one to be used for evangelistic purposes.

I did visit http://www.livingwater.org/about.html and while they have some encouraging things to say, the bottom line is that they rely on the MU [the so-called critical text] and the NU, and from my studies on textual issues it is my conviction that these are corrupt sources from which to translate. Their MU [and certainly their NU] is not the same text which underlies the King James, but they are from the corrupted text families which underlie most modern English versions.

Further, there statement -- "Where English usage allows, the translation is fairly literal; where it does not, a freer rendering is used. In Logos 21, italics show emphasis. What is emphasized is often clear in Greek by word order or other means, but not obvious in English without occasional italics." -- seems to me to be a reinventing of the wheel, since the King James translators did this.

Frankly, there has never been such a collection of men -- intellectually nor Spiritually -- as the men whom God brought together to produce the King James Version. Please understand, I do not believe in secondary inspiration, nor that the English corrects the Greek, nor some of the other foolishness which is sometimes strewn out in defence of the King James text. I certainly have never subscribed to the idea -- as, sadly, some do -- that if a man uses any other English version, he is an heretic, and worse, that if you are born again under the influence of any other English version save the KJV you truly can't be said to be saved. Those thoughts reek of sulphur.

However, IMHO, after many hours of academic studies, as well as many more hours of personal study, it is my conviction that we can not improve upon the King James.

Some like to say that the King James is old English. Even secular linguists will tell you that is wrong. Shakespeare and the King James come roughly from the same time period, as the English is measured, and they come from the dawn of the modern era, when the English language was at it's zenith. Language tends towards corruption over time, as do most things.

The "thees & thous & ye's" of the KJV represent a much more accurate translation of the Greek. I have read with interest in many places where the NAS is one step above the KJV for being literal. However, what is often not made clear in those studies is that the KJV is being measured with the Greek texts which underlie the NAS, and they are not the same. When the KJV is measured by it's Greek texts, and this is compared to the NAS measured by it's Greek texts, the KJV is a more literal translation [or, at least, can be said to be as literal as the NAS with it's Greek].

Why the NIV ever gained popularity I'll never understand. The translation technique or belief in "dynamic equivalence" is a very poor method to apply to the Word of God, and readability studies which I respect show the KJV to have a reading difficulty level of between 6.1 to 8.6 [meaning 6th grade, first month to 8th grade, sixth month] vs. the NIV which ranges from 6.1 to 11.0.

Consider this brief list of words compiled by Dr. Laurence Vance: amazed (aghast), voice (acclamation), enclosings (filigree), courter (mattocks), red (porphyry), lieutenants (satraps), elms (terebinth) and servant (vassal). Which of these word choices make more sense? Not the ones in parentheses, correct? Yet those are words used in the NIV, compared to the words being compared, which are found in the NIV.

From the little e-acquaintance I've had with you here in the forums, I trust you are at least familiar with information like this. You may not agree with it, and I would staunchly defend your intellectual right to do so. Frankly, I know many good men who have studied the issue and truly believe the MU and NU texts are superior and THE Word of God compared to the TR, thus they generally accept a modern English version over the KJV to be able to preach from and honestly proclaim "thus saith the Lord." To those who do I say "Amen" and bring quickly to mind Romans 14 for the both of us. I simply believe they are wrong, and not using the best English version we have, and I hope they allow me the same freedom as I am allowing them. [See also the principles of 1 Cor. 8.]

Some of the men who preceeded me in the pulpit I have held for the past decade used these issues to beat over the head any who would disagree with them. How shameful! Because 99 % of this flock was likewise convinced of the King James as the accepted English standard -- and the Word of God -- I chose most often to preach the Word rather than preach about it. However, on those few times when the textual issues could not be ignored, I spoke.

One such time was the ending of Mark. Those last 11 verses or so are called into question by the Ms's which I believe are corrupt. And what is their subject? The resurrection. THE message of the first church. If I were the devil, that's what I would want to attack and bring into doubt, question and confusion. Wouldn't you?

And yes, I am saying that satanic influence is behind the various corruptions in the text. -- 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Any way, I'm sure this might not have been the response you anticipated -- and when I started the response I didn't anticipate it being this long, either! -- and I do not mean to insult or be argumentative. I believe we can be dogmatic without being dogmatic [yes, it's "cutsie" and you have think a little about it], and we ought to be Christian in our disputes -- that is, disagree without being disagreeable. We ought never come to a place such as Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 15.39.

[And, in point of fact, here was clearly a place Paul was wrong, and should have listened to his old and wise brother. Praise the Lord God allows us to see Paul realized that later in life, too -- 2 Tim. 4.11 -- and how much more fortunate for us Barnabas's influence on Saul and the apostles -- God using him to give us Paul -- as well as his influence on John Mark, so we might have that delightful Gospel which bears his name and Peter's influence.]

And I trust you believe and ascribe to these sentiments as well.

NOW, if the Gospel of John you refer to above also includes their commentary, and is more extensive than what's on the web page I reference above, I have no problem requesting a copy. I am a decided mind, so that I trust I am no more a child, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and their cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive [much like sin lying at Cain's door], nor that I can be spoiled by the philosophies and vain deceit of men, and their traditions, and the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. But I am not a closed mind, so that I won't even consider reading what others who disagree with me write.

So if it is the case that there is more commentary than what I read online, by all means let me know and I will request a copy. If not, and their web site is basically the same information with respect to the textual issues at hand, then I don't see a reason to do so.

The tract will be on it's way tomorrow, and I would encourage you to consider getting a copy of the book so that you might read Dr. Sorenson's argument in toto.

God's blessings to you, my brother,
Pastor Tim
 
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Dear Bill,

So if it is the case that there is more commentary than what I read online, by all means let me know and I will request a copy.
Brother Tim,

The truth is that I did not lok at the website nor care to. Dallas Thoelogical Seminary has a weak stand on Bible history in general. However the commentary of John has most interesting notes which I'd like you to read and let me know if you see where I am coming from.

"Moving from the NKJV toward the Majority Text / TR"
which is good.

By the way. I use the KJV for study, teaching and prescribing for others. Even those that have English as their second language. If a new person comes to Bible study with a NKJV or even a NIV or NASB it is a slow gentle persuasion for them to see the need to switch Bible versions.

Hebrews 11:1-3 / Bill
 

RevTim

Beta Tester
Re: MS Word based KJV (some modern words and 9 yr meditative focus)

Brother Tim,

The truth is that I did not lok at the website nor care to. Dallas Thoelogical Seminary has a weak stand on Bible history in general. However the commentary of John has most interesting notes which I'd like you to read and let me know if you see where I am coming from.
I ordered a copy today. Eventually I'll try to share some thoughts here about it. I say eventually because my family and I are in a transition period in our life, and we will be moving this month.

"Moving from the NKJV toward the Majority Text / TR"
which is good.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. If you are asking me, then remember there was a day when the MT and TR were synonymous terms. Today it is not so. Today the TR is superior to that which is called the MT, "imho."

By the way. I use the KJV for study, teaching and prescribing for others. Even those that have English as their second language. If a new person comes to Bible study with a NKJV or even a NIV or NASB it is a slow gentle persuasion for them to see the need to switch Bible versions.

Hebrews 11:1-3 / Bill
Amen.

I did have to chuckle a little at your short response to my long one! But no biggie. Look forward to more e-fellowship with you here in the forums.
 

Gus

Member
I am really concern about what Bill is bring forth. What in the world make a difference what Bible version is used by a person. 99% of the people that are saved by the blood of Jesus could care less about what the Greek says. Truthfully I believe that God will bless a christian that prays over the word, is a blessinig to all and works to save others is what God want. What ever version of the bible he reads. I use the KJV and The NIV and they both are a great blessing. Praise God for his word. Gus
 

jerrybouey

Member
God cares about truth - so yes, it would matter to Him what Bible we use. If there are corruptions out there - and the Bible predicted there would be - then it is up to us to do our best to determine which are the corrupt versions and abstain from them, clinging to God's preserved Word.
 
Top