Response to Chris Symonds Hello Chris,
You may like to look through this book review (link below) which appeared in the TBS Quarterly Record in 2006 and covers some of the matters you raise.
The choice is ultimately between the Received Text with ecclesiastical pedigree limiting the manuscripts in which the correct reading is to be sought or else a perpetually provisional text based on all the manuscripts available at any given time (and of which we can never know we have reached an end of new discovery).
Great Sermon! you do realize that the TR Erasmus, Stephanus and Bezea differ from each other and also the Majority text. They all contain textual variants. The KJV in its original acknowledged in its footnotes that there were many variants. The KJV translators in their original preface did not say that the KJV is the final word. Silverside's sermon is so full of straw man arguments and logical fallacy's that it begs criticism.. His argument is not apologetic in any sense, it is based on erroneous arguments and ignorance. Most critical scholars do not question the authenticity of scripture at all as Silverside suggests. On Westcott and Hort these are not the basis of modern translations at all another inaccurate assertion. Where the received texts is concerned it is made of of 12 manuscripts not including the majority (Bezentyne) text. It is ultimately dangerous to use an internal argument to support the TR only position.
Must hear! I am grateful to B. McCausland for pointing us to this sermon. I have to admit that to an American ear, hearing this is not the easiest thing. But, one soon grows accustomed to the rather high pitched voice of the speaker.
The content and presentation covers a great deal of ground, hence the length of the sermon. Nevertheless I would encourage everyone who wishes to examine the Bible versions issue to listen to this, because it is quite thorough and the case is built up line upon line to leave no one in any doubt that the modern critical texts are grossly erroneous and that the Byzantine texts, and in particular the Received Texts were the traditional texts of the Churches from the earliest times to the late nineteenth century when they were set aside in favor of the corruptions upon which most modern versions are based.
Great Sermon! This sermon was very informative and made a great deal of sense in its application for the contemporary church. I heartily recommend it and also recommend that notes and bible references be made because there's a lot here to be remembered.
Good considerations Really, modern translations manifest 'political correctness' tendencies of the day. As an observation, this can be asserted by the rendering of husband and wife instead of man and woman in I Corinthians 11:2-16 by which the teaching can be reduced to matrimonial context instead of universal context; or the variety of animal names rendered in the ESV for each time dragon appears in the AV.
The ESVs - constantly changing Vatican Version The Ever Changing ESVs = just another Vatican Version
The ESV has already been through 3 different revisions in just 10 years. They keep changing their underlying Hebrew and Greek base (which is in fact the Vatican controlled UBS/Nestle-Aland "inter confessional" text)
The ESV omits even more whole verses from the N.T. than do the NIV, NASB and adds hundreds of words to the O.T. taken from selected portions of the various so called Greek Septuagints out there. Plus it rejects many clear Hebrew readings and waters down and corrupts several basic Christian doctrines.
Don't believe it? Then READ the article which includes many concrete examples.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
Outstanding Argument! This is the best and most articulate defense of KJV I've ever heard. Whatever the merits of the "critical" texts, the fact that it hasn't been used throughout most of the history of the Church creates a strong presumption against it. Rev. Silversides' makes a watertight reductio ad absurdum argument for the Received Text. If the latter is inferior to the critical text, it means that Christians have been relying on a lousy text for hundreds of years. If I really believed that, I'd look for some other religion.
Great Sermon! Outstanding message about the A.V.! Do not be part of the "dumbed-down" group. The A.V. improves our language. It improves our sense and knowledge of who Our Creator is. It is accurate with the use of pronouns- something the other translations have ruined,btw. It brings a reverance and awe to a Church worship service/funeral/wedding. It is much easier to memorize than modern versions ( I speak as a NAS man for nearly 20 years ). It is not hard to understand. Thanks Rev. Thackway. I will tell others of your message, and post links to it. Rational thought versus screaming and ranting. The A.V. is full of Tyndale's english , not Shakespeare's.
Great Sermon! Thank you Rev. Thackway for this message and warning about the newest waste of ink & paper. As you said - it is not in the line of Tyndale and the A.V.! The publisher and endorsers of this thing are just re-doing the NASV. The ESV is a fraud and a waste of money. Look at the way they have ruined John 1:18. Read that passage and tell me how many Gods does the ESV translator team have? Shame on Packer and Sproul for endorsing this repackaged RSV/NASV! This rotten thing uses the hideous W-H based Nestle/Aland 27th edition Greek text. I said "Amen" when you asked how many times before Nestle/Aland finally get it right?!(27 tries so far) and in this ESV they still can't figure out that there is a big difference between "Thou" and "you". Even the RSV got the pronouns correct but not this "newest" "bestest" edition which puts in brackets the resurrection of the Lord Jesus in Mark's Gospel. Sadly, it seems to be the new "darling" of so many reformed/conservative pastors and laymen. How many are able to memorize verses using this reheated RSV/NAS? ( almost as bad as the NIV). I won an ESV Study edition on a website and the only thing I like is the leather cover. Woe unto them who delete words/verses from God's Bible,and who put in brackets and notes and insert doubts. Is. 40:8
Great Sermon! Greetings. I've received word that a poster has a question about Providential preservation and perceived textual errors in the Scriptures. If that person will write to me, I have some information I can send him.