Theology Club: KJV Issues

Danoh

New member
Most Mid-Acts KJVO people I am aware of hold that the KJV translation was not inspired.

I subscribe to this view myself, as my understanding is that the actual issue is the Preservation of the text through a multiplicity of copies.

Copies which, in Scripture are not only referred to as "Scripture," but respected as having the same weight and authority as the originals.

This is obvious in many passages, some of which are Luke 4:21; Acts 8: 32, and so on. In those two passages, for example, what are obviously two copies of Isaiah are both referred to as "Scripture," and respected as such.

Question: How then did the men behind what resulted in the KJV translation basically manage to preserve the Mystery when it is obvious from both their history and their notes in the earlier versions of the KJV that they were not only Amillennial in their understanding, but they had basically been clueless about the Mystery?

Its a fascinating subject.

For what it causes one to study out, and by that, end up coming away from it all, with an even better understanding of the Mystery!
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Most Mid-Acts KJVO people I am aware of hold that the KJV translation was not inspired.

I subscribe to this view myself, as my understanding is that the actual issue is the Preservation of the text through a multiplicity of copies.

Firstly, new and possibly more correct understandings of scripture can be found regardless of the age in which we live. There is nothing wrong with the idea that the translators of the text did not understand what they were reading. After all, the original prophets themselves sometimes did not understand what they were writing.

However, the onus is still on the interpreter to justify their interpretations from the basic linguistic, cultural and literary data. It does not mean that anyone can make the text mean whatever they want, if they don't happen to like it or if they are trying to justify their pet theology. So that should be a warning to all to ensure that sound principles of hermeneutics are followed.

So, I have a question for you: it appears from what you say above that you recognise that the underlying Greek text of the KJV was the inspired ('preserved' as you put it) scripture, even if the translation itself was not fully inspired for the purpose. Let me first check that I have understood you in this? If that is so, then can you also point to me which of those manuscripts were the true ones? Because, if I am not mistaken, actually none of them fully represent the supposed underlying text and that in reality guesswork was necessary to establish the original text to be translated where manuscripts conflicted with each other or even internally.
 

Danoh

New member
Firstly, new and possibly more correct understandings of scripture can be found regardless of the age in which we live. There is nothing wrong with the idea that the translators of the text did not understand what they were reading. After all, the original prophets themselves sometimes did not understand what they were writing.

However, the onus is still on the interpreter to justify their interpretations from the basic linguistic, cultural and literary data. It does not mean that anyone can make the text mean whatever they want, if they don't happen to like it or if they are trying to justify their pet theology. So that should be a warning to all to ensure that sound principles of hermeneutics are followed.

So, I have a question for you: it appears from what you say above that you recognise that the underlying Greek text of the KJV was the inspired ('preserved' as you put it) scripture, even if the translation itself was not fully inspired for the purpose. Let me first check that I have understood you in this? If that is so, then can you also point to me which of those manuscripts were the true ones? Because, if I am not mistaken, actually none of them fully represent the supposed underlying text and that in reality guesswork was necessary to establish the original text to be translated where manuscripts conflicted with each other or even internally.

KJV Acts 27:
25. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.

Hey DR, hope all is well with you :)

I'm curious, what in my above indicates to you what I hold or do not hold as to the copies I mentioned? For that matter, as to what copies I may or may not have been referring to?

What if my above were all you had to go on? Reflect for a moment on the implication of that on these issues.

I hold that within faith there is no room for resting on guessing at, James 1:8.

And certainly not for building one view or another on such a flimsy foundation, 1 Cor. 3:12-13.

You mention the original prophets, of 1 Peter 1:10-11.

Consider that they were prophets - God's spokesmen, Ex. 7:1, 2 - because they were "faithful men" 2 Tim. 2:2.

Meaning, as is clear throughout Scripture on this, and basically summarized in Heb. 11, when in doubt, they would at one point or another simply "believe God," because that is what faith does, end of story, Acts 9:17

Meaning, when in doubt, keep reading. End of story. Why? Because 2 Tim. 3:16-17, that's why.

And if there is no more to go on, well, then leave it there, until there is, Dan. 12:4.

Just look at what guessing at has turned that passage in Dan. 12:4 into, in many circles.

I leave you to the question I asked you earlier in this post. Thanks, bro.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
KJV Acts 27:
25. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.

Hey DR, hope all is well with you :)

I'm curious, what in my above indicates to you what I hold or do not hold as to the copies I mentioned? For that matter, as to what copies I may or may not have been referring to?

Well, it was the following:

Copies which, in Scripture are not only referred to as "Scripture," but respected as having the same weight and authority as the originals.

This is obvious in many passages, some of which are Luke 4:21; Acts 8: 32, and so on. In those two passages, for example, what are obviously two copies of Isaiah are both referred to as "Scripture," and respected as such.

But as I said, I wanted to check if my understanding was correct. So, to explain more: you cite passages which refer to the public reading of scripture from the original language text (Hebrew OT).

Now, the Hebrew OT was of course preserved and determined more exactly by the Masoretes, not by the Christians, so the Hebrew text is not in issue here and by and large we all accept the Hebrew Masoretic text, the issue is only the Greek NT.

So by induction, I understand you to be talking about the Greek original language texts (or copies thereof) in the same way that Jesus was talking about the Hebrew original text.

So it seems to me that you are asserting that the TR, being the name commonly given to the text used by the KJV translators, is the preserved text of scripture in relation to the NT. That is what I am asking you to confirm.
 

Danoh

New member
Well, it was the following:



But as I said, I wanted to check if my understanding was correct. So, to explain more: you cite passages which refer to the public reading of scripture from the original language text (Hebrew OT).

Now, the Hebrew OT was of course preserved and determined more exactly by the Masoretes, not by the Christians, so the Hebrew text is not in issue here and by and large we all accept the Hebrew Masoretic text, the issue is only the Greek NT.

So by induction, I understand you to be talking about the Greek original language texts (or copies thereof) in the same way that Jesus was talking about the Hebrew original text.

So it seems to me that you are asserting that the TR, being the name commonly given to the text used by the KJV translators, is the preserved text of scripture in relation to the NT. That is what I am asking you to confirm.

Let me ask you this - forget your above induction (looking at a thing from a premise) for a moment: what you have read or heard somewhere about Masoretes, or Christians, or what have you.

What have you read or studied in Scripture itself about these issues and or how to solve for them (looking at a thing from the resulting premise)?
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Let me ask you this - forget your above induction (looking at a thing from a premise) for a moment: what you have read or heard somewhere about Masoretes, or Christians, or what have you.

What have you read or studied in Scripture itself about these issues and or how to solve for them (looking at a thing from the resulting premise)?

I am not sure what you are getting at. Your original post said

Most Mid-Acts KJVO people I am aware of hold that the KJV translation was not inspired.

I subscribe to this view myself, as my understanding is that the actual issue is the Preservation of the text through a multiplicity of copies.
So really, I was just asking you to clarify which are these 'multiplicity of copies'? If God has preserved them for our benefit then I daresay you can point me to the exact ones.

(But I was also trying to be helpful in answering your question as to how the translators could make a reasonably good translation without themselves believing certain doctrines.)

If you can't point to the exact ones, or if you believe the exact ones exist but we don't know which ones they are, then I'd say that was perfectly fine if you're willing to accept the idea that scripture is preserved for us not by a set of specific manuscripts or printed texts but by the general concept of manuscript knowledge. In that case, you would maintain your belief in the preservation of scripture but you wouldn't be able to argue that the KJV was the only decent or authoritative translation.

I am trying to learn what your belief is, not to be led didactically around the Bible. I think I have asked you concrete questions so as to ensure that I don't come across as in any way dishonest. And I don't think these questions are difficult. After all, if you believe God has preserved the scriptures - and at that, for our benefit -, you should surely be able to point to exactly where they are, no?
 

Danoh

New member
I am not sure what you are getting at. Your original post said

So really, I was just asking you to clarify which are these 'multiplicity of copies'? If God has preserved them for our benefit then I daresay you can point me to the exact ones.

(But I was also trying to be helpful in answering your question as to how the translators could make a reasonably good translation without themselves believing certain doctrines.)

If you can't point to the exact ones, or if you believe the exact ones exist but we don't know which ones they are, then I'd say that was perfectly fine if you're willing to accept the idea that scripture is preserved for us not by a set of specific manuscripts or printed texts but by the general concept of manuscript knowledge. In that case, you would maintain your belief in the preservation of scripture but you wouldn't be able to argue that the KJV was the only decent or authoritative translation.

I am trying to learn what your belief is, not to be led didactically around the Bible. I think I have asked you concrete questions so as to ensure that I don't come across as in any way dishonest. And I don't think these questions are difficult. After all, if you believe God has preserved the scriptures - and at that, for our benefit -, you should surely be able to point to exactly where they are, no?

Lol, I've been giving you my answer. But I'm doing so through attempting to challenge you to think outside the box.

Very well, my own view is that the text was preserved through a multiplicity of copies - none of them one exact one in all respects throughout. This one here might have this part of a passage, this one over here, might have a bit more, this one over here, here is one more piece...

Brought together, those formed the TR.

The argument then goes that even earlier copies not available during the time of the TR the KJV was based on, were later found, etc.

But there is a fly in that argument's ointment. Older does not necessarily equate to being closer.

Lol, if their is one point we of Mid-Acts have learned is a fact, it is that one.

Just sayin, ya know.. :)

And thank you for this....my, as you put it "reasonably good translation" question was more a question I was attempting to encourage others to ponder.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Lol, I've been giving you my answer. But I'm doing so through attempting to challenge you to think outside the box.

Very well, my own view is that the text was preserved through a multiplicity of copies - none of them one exact one in all respects throughout. This one here might have this part of a passage, this one over here, might have a bit more, this one over here, here is one more piece...

Brought together, those formed the TR.

The argument then goes that even earlier copies not available during the time of the TR the KJV was based on, were later found, etc.

But there is a fly in that argument's ointment. Older does not necessarily equate to being closer.

Lol, if their is one point we of Mid-Acts have learned is a fact, it is that one.

Just sayin, ya know.. :)

And thank you for this....my, as you put it "reasonably good translation" question was more a question I was attempting to encourage others to ponder.

OK, thank you.
In relation to the bold part, I agree. The TR manuscripts were much better quality than the Westcott-Hort set from Alexandria. They were not however perfect and were let down hugely by Erasmus' overly commercial attitude (or at least that of his publisher), sacrificing (a lot of) accuracy for speed and market share. But the basic choice of manuscripts was quite ok. I presently believe that the nearest thing to perfection is the Byzantine Textform 2005 R&P. This is a purely technical opinion, it has nothing to do with any theology. Otherwise known as the Majority Text.
 

Danoh

New member
OK, thank you.
In relation to the bold part, I agree. The TR manuscripts were much better quality than the Westcott-Hort set from Alexandria. They were not however perfect and were let down hugely by Erasmus' overly commercial attitude (or at least that of his publisher), sacrificing (a lot of) accuracy for speed and market share. But the basic choice of manuscripts was quite ok. I presently believe that the nearest thing to perfection is the Byzantine Textform 2005 R&P. This is a purely technical opinion, it has nothing to do with any theology. Otherwise known as the Majority Text.

Share some that nearest thing to perfection; I'm interested in what it is you see so differs with the TR, as I am ever about the learning curve...
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Share some that nearest thing to perfection; I'm interested in what it is you see so differs with the TR, as I am ever about the learning curve...

You seem to have great faith in your preservation belief, if you do not have a clear idea of where this preserved text is.

Nevertheless, to answer your question, the R&P 2005 is from the same family of mss as the TR. The TR contained innumerable and embarrassing errors and it wasn't until Tischendorf in the 19th century worked on it properly that it was finally given a respectable clean up. It had been cleaned up before then but Tischendorf was the best.

When I say TR, I mean of course that the TR was a compilation from a number of other mss. The TR was not a manuscript but the first printed Greek version. The mss used in this compilation were from a family of mss called the Majority Text, which you could view as the de facto standard text in use by most Christians up until the printing press. All these mss possessed a large degree of consistency and their high quality is the very reason why they are newer than the Alexandrian mss. The Alexandrian mss were highly defective and were basically thrown away in a storeroom (while the excellent Majority text mss were in constant use and so wore out quickly) and that is why they got preserved until Westcott and Hort got their hands on them and declared that because they were a lot older than the earliest Maj text family mss, therefore they must be more authentic.
But even the Tischendorf version of the TR was not final because he only used the basic manuscripts that the TR used and since then a lot of other manuscripts have been discovered, as they will continue to be. The R&P version is basically a newer and more updated version of the majority text. It is a) significantly different from the Westcott/Hort Alexandrian mss (on which the UBS and NA versions and most modern translations are based) and b) more accurate than the TR used in the KJV.
 
Last edited:

themuzicman

Well-known member
The KJVO argument basically goes like this:

Your translation doesn't support my theology. Therefore, your translation is evil, and I can prove it by showing X, Y, and Z about people who are historical to your translation.. blah blah blah.
 

Danoh

New member
You seem to have great faith in your preservation belief, if you do not have a clear idea of where this preserved text is.

Nevertheless, to answer your question, the R&P 2005 is from the same family of mss as the TR. The TR contained innumerable and embarrassing errors and it wasn't until Tischendorf in the 19th century worked on it properly that it was finally given a respectable clean up. It had been cleaned up before then but Tischendorf was the best.

When I say TR, I mean of course that the TR was a compilation from a number of other mss. The TR was not a manuscript but the first printed Greek version. The mss used in this compilation were from a family of mss called the Majority Text, which you could view as the de facto standard text in use by most Christians up until the printing press. All these mss possessed a large degree of consistency and their high quality is the very reason why they are newer than the Alexandrian mss. The Alexandrian mss were highly defective and were basically thrown away in a storeroom (while the excellent Majority text mss were in constant use and so wore out quickly) and that is why they got preserved until Westcott and Hort got their hands on them and declared that because they were a lot older than the earliest Maj text family mss, therefore they must be more authentic.
But even the Tischenforf version of the TR was not final because he only used the basic manuscripts that the TR used and since then a lot of other manuscripts have been discovered, as they will continue to be. The R&P version is basically a newer and more updated version of the majority text. It is a) significantly different from the Westcott/Hort Alexandrian mss (on which the UBS and NA versions and most modern translations are based) and b) more accurate than the TR used in the KJV.

2 Corinthians 4:

13. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
14. Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

Romans 1:

19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

As even your own above posts cannot but affirm: preservation via a multiplicity of witness appears to be God's way.

Matthew 4:

1. Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.
3. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The witness of one text about the importance of the preservation of those that preceded it; reaffirming God's intended will despite even the Adversary himself.

God's determined will that man should have every word.

Thank you, as always, for the challenge of thinking these things through. It is what we ought to do, Prov. 27:17.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
The KJVO argument basically goes like this:

Your translation doesn't support my theology. Therefore, your translation is evil, and I can prove it by showing X, Y, and Z about people who are historical to your translation.. blah blah blah.

Your right. Sitting around "bellyaching" about certain versions of
the Bible is absurd. I hate the whole idea of people doing that.

Unless you can find a version that is so obscure it cannot be believed,
shut your mouth, pray that God will give you wisdom about what you're
about to read and leave it at that. It's disgusting for posters to try and
discredit the written word of God. You people who do that,
are you trying to turn everybody against the Bible? That's the devils
work. Leave it to him.
 

Danoh

New member
The KJVO argument basically goes like this:

Your translation doesn't support my theology. Therefore, your translation is evil, and I can prove it by showing X, Y, and Z about people who are historical to your translation.. blah blah blah.

Your assertion is sorely lacking in consideration of various sides in this issue.

True, there are those who border on being about as rabid as a wild animal when cornered.

But to attribute that across the board to all, well, that just smacks of their same one size fits all mentality.

Part of the real issue for such rabid types is that that is how they are in life in general; what does not fit how they think things should is ever setting off their compulsion to lash out.

There are also many KJVOs/Non KJVO's who are nothing like that; who simply present what they believe the issue to be, and leave it at that.

:chuckle: Which the rabid types on either side then set about distorting, even as they go on about "oh how I love Jesus, and or, well, see, the Mystery (or what ever claim they hold to) is the key to all harmony between the saints.."

One consistency you will find in those who have problems with anyone but their own - on any issue in life - is this same one size fits all notion you have, perhaps unwittingly, demonstrated - the result of not having done one's homework before weighing in on an issue.

Consider putting in the time; doing the homework before you weigh in :)
 
Last edited:

musterion

Well-known member
If only the KJV translation committee had issued some kind of statement on the possibility of other English translations, but such a thought never entered their minds, apparently. And even if it had done, if only we today had some kind of fantastical investigation motor -- an informational "search engine," if I may coin the phrase -- wherewith we perchance could locate such a statement, assuming such an one existed. Such a statement, were it to be found, would surely bury this controversy forever.

Alas.
 

Danoh

New member
If only the KJV translation committee had issued some kind of statement on the possibility of other English translations, but such a thought never entered their minds, apparently. And even if it had done, if only we today had some kind of fantastical investigation motor -- an informational "search engine," if I may coin the phrase -- wherewith we perchance could locate such a statement, assuming such an one existed. Such a statement, were it to be found, would surely bury this controversy forever.

Alas.

From http://www.kjv-only.com/transaid.html

The following is from the Preface to the KJV

...About producing a new translation

"It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be miscontrued, and in danger to be condemned."

...About alternate versions

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

...About word-for-word inspiration and alternate translations

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..."

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places."

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

"...we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way."

...About an inerrant, infallible translation (the need for correction of a translation)

"Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

"But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to others. [Horat.]"

...About the need for Scripture in vulgar (common), everyday language, not some archaic language or dialect

"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

...About the Greek Septuagint

"But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."

"It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded."

"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God."
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If only the KJV translation committee had issued some kind of statement on the possibility of other English translations, but such a thought never entered their minds, apparently. And even if it had done, if only we today had some kind of fantastical investigation motor -- an informational "search engine," if I may coin the phrase -- wherewith we perchance could locate such a statement, assuming such an one existed. Such a statement, were it to be found, would surely bury this controversy forever.

Alas.

You obviously haven't read the translators' preface to the translation!
In which they announce that in their belief all translations are the word of God (assuming they are done by professional translators)!

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.

Does this mean that the issue is now going to be buried forever?
 

Danoh

New member
You obviously haven't read the translators' preface to the translation!
In which they announce that in their belief all translations are the word of God (assuming they are done by professional translators)!



Does this mean that the issue is now going to be buried forever?

Even in that, is the issue of preservation through a multiplicity of copies, each containing here a little, there a little.

Its fine to appeal to what the Translators/Collators wrote as to their thoughts on these issues, but one would do well to do so within their setting, way back 1611.

On another note, as an side, I once owned a photocopy of the original Enzinas New Testament text of 1543 (lost it during a move), which was based on Erasmus's text.

It practically matched the 1611 KJV in just about every passage.

And this, back when the KJV Translators/Collators were mostly babies or toddlers, if they were yet even born.
 
Top