The Nestle/Aland Text and the United Bible Texts are identical starting with N/A 26th edition. Critical Texts are also Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort so on and so forth. Technically Erasmus, Beza and Stephanus are critical Texts, because they changed a few readings, even though they aren't spoken as such. I am a big fan of Erasmus, Stephanus. Also Byzantine Text, Majority Text, Family 35. But mostly of William Tyndale.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question on how KJVO Regard the 1611 Kjv?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Hello,
I wish not to continue this dicussion, its going in circles and not getting anywhere.
Even if I an wrong about Eramus, it dosen't matter.
Many places the Latin preserved the right stuff and the Greek had issues.
Gail had a list if I remember correctly.
I will be going forward focusing my time on reading, preaching the words of God I trust.
Shawn
I wish not to continue this dicussion, its going in circles and not getting anywhere.
Even if I an wrong about Eramus, it dosen't matter.
Many places the Latin preserved the right stuff and the Greek had issues.
Gail had a list if I remember correctly.
I will be going forward focusing my time on reading, preaching the words of God I trust.
Shawn
You are not getting anywhere because you have been misinformed and you choose to dismiss and reject the truth. You were and are wrong about Erasmus' Greek text. The truth does matter even though you try to suggest that it does not.
I follow. Anybody know how many of these additions are the involved in contention, e.g. "the gospels were all copied from each other," etc.?
I assume you mean Gospel harmonization? Where some scribes changed one Gospel Passage to agree with another Gospel. It happened, some scribes did such. But it is not that widespread.
Evidence for this?
Codex Sinaiticus Mark 10:40 has
But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
The words "of my Father" were taken from Matthew 20:23 and inserted into Mark 10:40 by the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus or was already in it's Text it was copied from.
Source The Sinai and Comparative New Testament
TR translation
Mark 10:40
But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.
One more reason why I use TR and not the other manuscripts.
Would that though be due to the will of the Father who would get seated and where?
the point is that I don't use the manuscript that some scribe edited his way into.