[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Thanks, Brother Manny, for the information that you gathered. Reading between the lines (so to speak), it seems to me that there is nothing truly gained by returning to the original languages, the GNT in particular, when the final authority reverts back to the KJB anyhow.

One small part of me agrees that any enlightenment of a word or phrase would be beneficial in finding the intimate details of the message, and that includes seeing from what Greek word (I'll stay with the more disputed NT for now) the particular English word was derived. That same small part of me wants to go to the commentaries and see how some "scholar" (that is, someone able to produce a book and then gain a following) explains the passage, since that person must have a better intellectual skill than I.

That small part of me is shrinking more and more as I find that these methods of understanding push me away from prayerful and intense comparison of Scripture with Scripture. Most commentaries are written by men who themselves question the purity of our present Bible. Further, to seek out the nuance of some word written in an ancient and no longer active language, one must depend again on men whose belief in a pure Bible is virtually non-existent.

If it were possible to be someone who was so steeped in the language as to be able to function completely within that language, then I might agree that using the original could be accomplished without possible seepage of unbelief, but that is extremely rare. Dr. Waite once told me that he did not believe that there were five such men alive today who could qualify. What we are left with is dependence on some "scholar"s lexicon, dictionary, Greek textbook, or such, to be used as our "authority" on the meaning and nuance of the word.

As for me, I will trust that God accomplished all the meaning and nuance needed with that group of men divinely selected to produce the AV1611 and those editors whose later reviews and minor alterations brought about the Bible which I hold as I study and preach.

Amen Bro. Tim. The goal of any Bible student should be to be in tune with the Lord enough that we can go to the Scriptures and simply let God speak to us. Thank God for good commentaries and study aids that help us who are children in understanding. But God's guidance as we compare scripture with scripture is so much better.

[bibleprotector]

It seems that things are coming to an agreement here:

Scrivener replaced those readings with Greek renderings that matched the KJV more closely.

More closely is, of course, not identically. And this is the important point I have made all along. There simply cannot be "more truth" in the Greek, or something there to add or further what is in the English words of Scripture as they stand.

This is what Scrivener’s TR is really about (with quotes from Scrivener himself):

1. In order to see the difference of the Greek of the Revised Version, the presumed readings in Greek of the Authorized Version must be given. In other words, Scrivener’s TR was never designed with the intention of allowing a person to see how accurate a translation the KJB was from the Greek!

“In considering what text had the best right to be regarded as the text presumed to underlie the Authorised Version, it was necessary to take into account the composite nature of the Authorised Version”

2. Beza’s text is assumed to be the basis or most likely used by the translators. This is not a conclusion, but a theory!

“so that Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach. It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorised Version than any other Greek text”

3. Greek TR editions were used, not Latin. Therefore Scrivener disregards the Latin witness, when it is giving proper testimony!

“It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate.”

4. Scrivener’s Greek has a concocted punctuation structure, which does not match the KJB exactly, and even more ironically, he applies English grammar to the Greek!

“The punctuation has proved a source of much anxiety. The Authorised Version as it was originally printed in 161 , rather than as it appears in any later edition, has been taken as a primary guide. Exact reproduction of the English punctuation in the Greek text was however precluded by the differences of grammatical structure between the two languages. It was moreover desirable to punctuate in a manner not inconsistent with the punctuation of the Revised Version, wherever this could be done without inconvenience, as punctuation does not strictly belong to textual variation. Where however the difference of punctuation between the two Versions is incompatible with identical punctuation in the Greek, the stops proper for the Authorised Version are given in the text, with a numerical reference, without change of type, to the other method set forth in the footnotes. Mere changes in punctuation, not consequent on change of reading, are discriminated from the rest by being set within marks of parenthesis ( ) at the foot of the page.”

5. Beza’s New Testament, the basis of Scrivener’s work, has undergone silent emendation, of supposed “errors of the press”, but Scrivener is guilty of using this as an excuse in his English Edition to actually change the KJB!

“Manifest errors of the press, which often occur in Beza's New Testament of 1598, have been silently corrected.”

6. Various changes have been made in the Greek, in forms, in words, etc. Notice the reasons, such as “modern usage”, “recent accentuation” scheme, and Beza’s “inconsistent” forms. Scrivener completely messed this up in his English Edition, why should we trust him with the Greek?!

“In all other respects not mentioned already that standard has been closely abided by, save only that, in accordance with modern usage, the recitative on has not been represented as part of the speech or quotation which it introduces, and the aspirated forms ..., &c. have been discarded. In a very few words ... the more recent and proper accentuation has been followed. Lastly, where Beza has been inconsistent, the form which appeared the better of the two has been retained consistently ... In this edition it has not been thought necessary to indicate variations from Beza”

7. The KJB is an independent form of the TR, and indeed, the final form. The examination of TR editions is interesting on a textual criticism level, but it has no bearing upon the Scripture itself, and the truth that the full meaning and import of all the text as it stands in English is final and absolute.

Scrivener has nothing to say on these grounds.