[bibleprotector]

Can you give actual concrete difference between Scrivener's TR and the KJV?

I will state the case briefly as I understand it: Instead of presenting the actual underlying text to the King James Bible, Scrivener presented on occasions differences to the KJB as are to be found in some or many Greek witnesses, because he limited himself to certain Greek sources, so his work therefore, according to various reviewers, has differences at Hebrews 10:23, 1 John 5:7 and so on.

There is no exact "jot and tittle" (or iota) correct text of the Greek that is being presented today. This is because the King James Bible has gathered from a variety of sources, and presented the exact correct text in English. (It does not exist in Greek in one extant volume.) Going back to the Greek, or attempting to imitate the KJB in Greek is, once we regard the finality of the English Bible, taking a step backwards. Thus, the situation is “fait accompli”.

The real problem is that authority cannot now be in the original languages “in toto” because we cannot be entirely certain as to which sources and when the translators were following what, or whether they found (as we might expect from the title page) every last reading from the Greek for the New Testament. Therefore, we can only rely upon that we know in English, that is, the received tradition as manifested to us through the Church by Divine Providence. Additionally, Scrivener also came up with analysis of where he things that the translators followed Beza as opposed to Stephanus, etc., but all this again is "ex post facto".

Bishop Lloyd's Textus Receptus was being used as the usual Greek standard for a long time, and this is even what Burgon utalised. Having studied Scrivener's work on the King James Bible (he was a member of the Revised Version Committee after all), it is clear that this is a person who did not hesitate to make unnecessary changes.

[bibleprotector]

Scrivener shows in his book (The Authorized Bible) that the KJV translators' greek decisions were no longer very well documented. So he did the next best thing: come along behind them working from english and developing a greek text that matches it.

This is actually why the Greek is secondary to the English now.

I don't see any significant difference between your position and that of Hills'. Scrivener said ther choices were not very well documented anymore and so the only way to reproduce their greek decisions in a single text was to start from the KJV and work towards the greek with it.

Except that Scrivener never got there, and no one can get there in or with the Greek.

I believe there is a lot of power in the argument that since we have the Bible certainly in a language we can understand, that there is no need to reconstruct in Greek, nor to use the Greek in any primary way: the authority of it was essentially transferred into the English in 1611, both in text and the sense.

1. There is no extant authoritative single presentation of the Greek text of the New Testament, nor a sure or certain method which might be employed to divine it, whereas we have a received text in English now available and manifested to the world.

2. There is no present certain understanding or meaning of every Greek word of the New Testament, nor is there a consistent method present that might be utalised to understand the Greek properly, however, we have a translation bequeathed to us in English which is the Word of God to the world.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Instead of presenting the actual underlying text to the King James Bible, Scrivener presented on occasions differences to the KJB as are to be found in some or many Greek witnesses, because he limited himself to certain Greek sources, so his work therefore, according to various reviewers, has differences at Hebrews 10:23, 1 John 5:7 and so on.

Guesswork is not a good starting place. Scrivener has 1 John 5:7 in it - and he also has the same as all the other Greek TR texts in Hebrews 10:23. The word used there is the word for "hope", but the context shows that "faith" fits the context. The words are somewhat interchangeable (don't ask me to defend this, but I have read several great defenses of it).

Having studied Scrivener's work on the King James Bible (he was a member of the Revised Version Committee after all), it is clear that this is a person who did not hesitate to make unnecessary changes.

Slander is not becoming of a professing believer. Yes, Scrivener was part of the committee, at first - they did not listen to his words of caution and disagreement. He did his Greek translation because he wanted to expose their corruption and changes in the underlying manuscripts. He did his text to uphold the KJV, not tear it down.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

2. There is no present certain understanding or meaning of every Greek word of the New Testament, nor is there a consistent method present that might be utalised to understand the Greek properly, however, we have a translation bequeathed to us in English which is the Word of God to the world.

Yes there is, or we would not have an English NT - there are enough Greek lexicons out there to know the Greek NT is perfectly understandable. The problem comes from the Critical Greek texts, not the preserved TR.

[bibleprotector]

Scrivener has 1 John 5:7 in it - and he also has the same as all the other Greek TR texts in Hebrews 10:23.

Scrivener did not fully present the actual Greek text underlying the KJB, although all differences may be translational only. Those who have reviewed his work on the Greek claim that he has omitted to present in Greek where the KJB is said to be following the Latin.

Slander is not becoming of a professing believer. Yes, Scrivener was part of the committee, at first - they did not listen to his words of caution and disagreement. He did his Greek translation because he wanted to expose their corruption and changes in the underlying manuscripts. He did his text to uphold the KJV, not tear it down.

First of all, I am not making a slanderous statement, as you will note, I said, "Having studied Scrivener's work on the King James Bible". I am making a statement which is factual and true. And my statement is that Scrivener made unnecessary changes to the KJB. I also believe that his work in Greek is a deviation. If you look on my website you will find a draft of my book which contains various studies linked with the Scrivener's KJB issue.

Second, while Scrivener did disagree to Westcott, Hort and the others to a point, he did not disagree enough to disavow himself of the work, nor did he hesitate to supervise the printing of their new Greek text, nor did he refrain from making remarks favourable to the Revised Version. There are numerous statements from Scrivener's book which are against the King James Bible, its tradition and its textual basis.

Third, Scrivener was not upholding the KJB. If he did, why would he have to change the constructed underlying text as presented by Lloyd? (Please let me know if there is a valid reason.) Why did he partake of the Revised Version? Why did he make numerous changes in the King James Bible himself, including altering passages such as Hebrews 10:23 in the English?

P.S. I am talking about two different things, his Greek and his English.

In regards to his Greek TR, it is the same as the KJV - from all the years I have studied it. If there are some actual differences, I have yet to find them. His work on his TR was after his work on the Revised Version - and his work on the RV is what led him to defend the TR (to whatever extent he may have done).

I don't care about his personal quirks or whether he personally disagreed with the KJV in various places - his TR is exactly the same (to the best I have been able to determine). I am not defending him and his doctrine or beliefs, but his work which I have used for years.

[bibleprotector]

I said, "There is no present certain understanding or meaning of every Greek word of the New Testament, nor is there a consistent method present that might be utalised to understand the Greek properly"

Jerry said, "Yes there is, or we would not have an English NT".

Yes, I agree that the statement would be true in 1611, but I am talking about 2008. If it were true in 2008, a new valid English Bible could be produced, or further revisions on the KJB be allowed.

Yes there is, or we would not have an English NT - there are enough Greek lexicons out there to know the Greek NT is perfectly understandable. The problem comes from the Critical Greek texts, not the preserved TR.

I stand by my statement, that we cannot be fully certain as to the full and proper meaning of every Greek word, especially since there is no full certainty as to what constitutes the actual Greek text (or otherwise sources) underlying the King James Bible.
However, it is perfectly attainable to know the meaning of every English word as is presented in the King James Bible, about which we can be certain, because we have seen and known it, touched and read it, and, in short, can study it with the Spirit's help.

The Greek NT is not "perfectly understandable", because we are living in a time when most people do not even know a little bit of Bible Greek, and those who know anything don't know that much, and those who know a lot are now dead, and we do not have all their writings or knowledge. But why this Hermetic journey into the Greek, when we may turn to the English, which God in His Divine Providence has given to us and the whole world.

And it doesn't matter which edition of any Greek text, or any manuscript, etc. is used, we still cannot be certain today of the exact meaning of every Greek word. However, we can be certain, from what we know, that the KJB translators got it right, and that the TRs are better that the CTs, and that the King James Bible is an independant form of the Received Text, and is superior because it is the perfect gathering of the text from the preserved tradition, and is also a perfect translation which matches exactly to what was inspired, though it is now presented in English.

God in His providence was able to get His preserved Word fully into English. Therefore, the Greek is of diminishing importance, except to indicate that the King James Bible is right as we now have it.

The meaning of the Greek words has not been lost. The problem with mv's is not their misunderstanding of the Greek - it is that they are using DIFFERENT Greek manuscripts.

[bibleprotector]

In regards to his Greek TR, it is the same as the KJV

Yes, essentially the same, but not perhaps not particularly (e.g. in every jot or tittle).

His work on his TR was after his work on the Revised Version - and his work on the RV is what led him to defend the TR (to whatever extent he may have done).

I am not saying that Scrivener was totally wrong. The truth is that it has been providential that Scrivener did defend to some point the TR. Also, without Scrivener, I think that Hills, Holland and other persons who are looking at the Greek side of the things have been able to confirm that the KJB is at least the best translation from the best Greek. Of course, I think it is a perfect translation and presents the perfect text (in English).

I am not defending him and his doctrine or beliefs, but his work which I have used for years.

I am advocating that the English is perfect. Until a person comes to that belief now, I would want them to keep away from Scrivener or a lexicon. That is because we must approach such things from having the Word fully present, i.e. in our English Bible. Most people are approaching from the opposite direction.

[bibleprotector]

The meaning of the Greek words has not been lost.

But we do not know fully exactly the underlying sources for the KJB, and therefore know how exactly they translated every word, and so we cannot say that we fully know the Greek. Furthermore, I would suggest that the meaning of the Greek words is lost to us today to the point that we have left behind the actual gathering from Greek (i.e. from 1611). However, I fully agree that the full meaning of what was there in the originals is now in English. Of course, we cannot actually check this fully, since we do not know exactly what Greek text was being used to start with. This is besides the obvious fact that the meanings of words are attacked, for some think that "pascha" means one thing, and some another greater meaning. But we can be certain as to the English words which appear in the KJB, and study to see what they mean. What saith the scripture?