Replies

"The King James translators did have a high regard for the LXX" That's all I was saying. There are any number of things that in the Hebrew are supposedly ambiguous, but that in the LXX are clear. A good example is the verse in Isaiah that most modern translations use "a young woman will conceive." The LXX is unequivocal -- "parthenos" cannot be translated in any way other than as a physical virgin. As familiar with the LXX as they were, they couldn't have helped but have it assist them in their translation of the Hebrew. It has always been my impression, although I've never made a study of it, that the KJV translators were more likely to look to the Greek to illuminate the Hebrew than they were to look to the Vulgate -- *even though the Vulgate was translated from Hebrew* (except for the Psalms, which remained translated from the Greek for the sake of liturgical familiarity and continuity with the Old Latin versions.)

They did not have to look at the LXX, they could have looked at Matthew which defines what is meant in Isaiah.

With regard to the rest of your comments, you are certainly free to believe that the TR is the only true Greek text of the KJV (of course, then one must ask "which" TR edition...)

I believe the TR is the perfect line of the Greek Text.

Where the various editions differ, the correct reading is found in the King James Bible.

I am the first to say that it is certainly possible for a translation to contain more correct and original readings than does an original language text (otherwise we Orthodox wouldn't consider the LXX to be authoritative.)

Amen.

I personally believe that in general, whatever the majority of Byzantine MSS say, that is the most likely reading. But then, I am Orthodox.

Amen.

It seems that hard-line defenders of the TR want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to appeal to the fact that their favorite readings are, by and large, attested to by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. miniscules of the Byzantine text-type), and yet, when that same standard leads to questioning a *very few* passages in the various TR family that is at variance with the majority Byzantine text, then suddenly a minority (even from a translated version) reading is just fine.

That is why I am not a TR man.

I am a King James man.

The TR is the stream from which the pure word of God flowed into the King James.

The translators picked from not only the TR, but many translations, the perfect reading.

I certainly have never scratched out that phrase in Col 1:14 in any of my dozen or so copies of the KJV. It is correct theology, whether it is found only in Ephesians or both in Ephesians and Colossians. The fact that a majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain the "blood" phrase in Col 1:14 makes me inclined to think that it was added in the minority textual tradition -- but this cannot be definitively proven, any more than anyone can definitively prove that the majority Byzantine text represents an omission from the original reading.

No, but that goes for all textual differences.

What has to be looked at is the reading itself and wheather one believes in Divine Preservation of the text.

If one does, then one is not going to accept the idea that textual errors were allowed to creep into the text.

Col.1:14 is an error and it contradicts Heb.9.

But Satan is always trying to get the blood out of the Bible, as did Cain when he rejected the blood offering. (Gen.4)

If the statement "in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins" is incorrect theology, I'm missing something. In Romans 8:23 St. Paul talks about the redemption of the body, with nary a mention of blood anywhere in the passage. Does this mean that this passage is incorrect as well?

That redemption is dealing with the Resurrection body, due to the blood redemption of the soul.(Rom.3:25)

('to wit the redemption of our body'8:23). Romans 8 is dealing with a saved man, not a lost one.

Again, I can respect a Protestant position that basically says that the TR is the result of inspired transmission, compilation, and editing. It is interesting that this inspired transmission came through many generations of Eastern Orthodox copyiests, through the compilation and editing of an unrepentant Catholic -- Erasmus, and includes selected Latin Vulgate readings where Erasmus preferred them.

Well, Erasmus was a Catholic who was very critical of the abuses of Rome and died among AnaBaptists.

He was a scholar of first rank and even though offered positions of power by the Papacy, he refused them all.

In fact, the saying that Tyndale used that a 'plowboy would know the scriptures better then the scholars'I think may have been originally said by Erasmus.

But then as an Orthodox Christian, I have a very different take on the transmission of the texts, since those passing them on and copying them were of the same faith that we Orthodox hold today. Preservation is easy to believe in when one has confidence in the theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church doing the transmitting. Even with the Old Testament, we see ourselves in continuity with the Hebrew faith, and see the translation *by Jews* before the time of Christ of the OT into Greek as being the product of our same faith.

The Jews that translated portions of the LXX into Greek were apostate.

The LXX we have today is the work of Origen.

Preservation through generations of men who did not share your beliefs and who were, by your lights, misinterpreting the Bible grossly -- now that takes real faith, and I salute you for it!

Well, thank you.

But the proof is in the pudding, as one may say, and the fruit that the TR translated bibles produced is clear proof that they were blessed by God.