0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


LivingTemple

  • Standing Ovation? +1/-0
KJV Debated by professor at Heartland
« on: April 08, 2015, 09:22:34 PM »
This has apparently stayed incredibly hushed until now.

http://us5.campaign-archive.com/?u=8cc898c6863a6089bfc819e16&id=b7e338e1ed

Bro. Blythe apparently drifted strongly away from the TR Only position, during a class no less. If anyone else has any information it will be greatly apprecieated!


Thomas Cassidy

  • Standing Ovation? +43/-0
Re: KJV Debated by professor at Heartland
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2015, 10:48:52 AM »
What did he say that was such a terrible sin?
"Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be, the last of life for which the first was made." Robert Browning

LivingTemple

  • Standing Ovation? +1/-0
Re: KJV Debated by professor at Heartland
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2015, 11:41:04 AM »
That's just it. No once can seem to find out exactly what was said other than that he emphasized something greater than the TR and the general Masoretic text and established that they can assuredly be imperfect. They are KJVO, but hold to the more "acceptable" ,if that's even applicable, TR Only position when pressed.

Thomas Cassidy

  • Standing Ovation? +43/-0
Re: KJV Debated by professor at Heartland
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2015, 08:46:53 PM »
And that is what I was implying by my question. It is impossible to be TROnly as there are at least 31 TRs, all different.

And the KJV does not follow any one TR exclusively. In fact it is impossible to identify the TR the KJV was based on so that Frederick Scrivener reverse engineered a "TR" where he attempts to identify the TR that each KJV variant was based on and even he had to admit there were many words he could not find the origin for.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 01:29:07 PM by Thomas Cassidy »
"Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be, the last of life for which the first was made." Robert Browning

LivingTemple

  • Standing Ovation? +1/-0
Re: KJV Debated by professor at Heartland
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2015, 11:32:56 PM »
I agree. It's one of the issues that kicked me back from the IFB and caused a much deeper understanding of church history, translation, and consistent theology. Not to mention a generally happier and joyful demeanor  ;)

logos1560

  • Standing Ovation? +8/-0
Re: KJV Debated by professor at Heartland
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2015, 10:21:36 PM »


And the KJV does not follow any one TR exclusively.

It is true that the makers of the KJV did not follow any one of the printed editions of the Textus Receptus that were available in their day.

One possible explanation or reason for that fact may be that the KJV is actually more a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than it was an original, new translation of any one sole printed edition of the Greek New Testament.  The makers of the KJV picked and chose from the varying pre-1611 English Bibles compared to the original language texts in a majority of places and may have only translated directly from the original languages in those places where they considered pre-1611 English renderings to be inaccurate.  Since the pre-1611 English Bibles were based on different editions of the Textus Receptus, the makers of the KJV in effect followed different TR editions in those places where they kept or followed English renderings based on those different TR editions.