Question on how KJVO Regard the 1611 Kjv?

[Blank]

Same as Kjvo, as one can be preferred for translation and text source, but not only

The way I see it is, although the TR comes from a more recent body of mss, it has a greater amount of backed mss, whereas thr Critical Text is older but has less backing. So in the long run it is a coin toss. I guess I'm TR-p (textus receptus -preferred)

 

[Ben1445]

The way I see it is, although the TR comes from a more recent body of mss, it has a greater amount of backed mss, whereas thr Critical Text is older but has less backing. So in the long run it is a coin toss. I guess I'm TR-p (textus receptus -preferred)

Greater volume and more newer copies is what you would expect from a group of people who are using the Scripture to copy more.
Eventually you will wear out the manuscripts that you are copying and using.

TR only for my own personal use.
TR highly recommended for others
And I don’t think it is helpful to be upset or kick people out for using a different Bible.
I really recommend that the church have an official version to avoid (for an extreme example) someone preaching from the NWT.

It will help everyone know what they are going to hear when they come to church. They could have the same translation with them and be able to follow along better. Then everything can be done decently and in order.

 

[Blank]

And I don’t think it is helpful to be upset or kick people out for using a different Bible.
I really recommend that the church have an official version to avoid (for an extreme example) someone preaching from the NWT.

Agreed. And I would add the Lord used the King James in my initial growth, so I am kind of biased in that direction

 

[JesusFan]

The way I see it is, although the TR comes from a more recent body of mss, it has a greater amount of backed mss, whereas thr Critical Text is older but has less backing. So in the long run it is a coin toss. I guess I'm TR-p (textus receptus -preferred)

Either Greek text can be used for bible study and translating

 

[Blank]

Either Greek text can be used for bible study and translating

I feel a bit out of sorts when I see chunks of text missing from the critical text. (CT)

 

[JesusFan]

I feel a bit out of sorts when I see chunks of text missing from the critical text. (CT)

That is due to your assumption that those pieces actually were in the originals and not added by TR

 

[Ben1445]

That is due to your assumption that those pieces actually were in the originals and not added by TR

It’s not a reasonable assumption that all the TR manuscripts that have been found have all been added to in the same way. It is a reasonable assumption that they all have the same source. It is reasonable to assume that the majority would be in favor of the job done as it was intended to be done.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Nothing was added; things were being corrupted and deleted.

Paul was in a time when people were corrupting the word of God.

 

[Blank]

That is due to your assumption that those pieces actually were in the originals and not added by TR

I can see that being the case when it is a word or two like with Rom 8:1,
:But leaving out half a chapter or so? Then someone is playing poker with 51 cards.
At least that's why I'm uncomfortable with the CT

 

[KJB1611reader]

I can see that being the case when it is a word or two like with Rom 8:1,
:But leaving out half a chapter or so? Then someone is playing poker with 51 cards.
At least that's why I'm uncomfortable with the CT

I agree; every reformation English had the rest of 8:1 except WLC forgot 'spirit.'

 

[Logos1560]

Nothing was added; things were being corrupted and deleted.

You are misinformed and uninformed if you assume that there were no additions and no omissions in the Greek New Testament manuscript copies that were used in the making of the varying printed Textus Receptus editions. Erasmus added some readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

 

[KJB1611reader]

You are misinformed and uninformed if you assume that there were no additions and no omissions in the Greek New Testament manuscript copies that were used in the making of the varying printed Textus Receptus editions. Erasmus added some readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

Liar. He used Greek.

 

[Logos1560]

Liar. He used Greek.

You make a false accusation. I did not claim that Erasmus did not make use of some Greek NT manuscripts. My true point is that he added some readings from the Latin Vulgate, and Erasmus himself acknowledged that fact. You demonstrate that you are misinformed or uninformed.

John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). James Edward Snapp wrote: “Erasmus, in order to finish the first edition of his compilation, used Valla’s notes and a Latin Vulgate text to reconstruct the Greek text of verses 16-21” (NT Textual Analysis, p. 140). Jan Krans maintained that this manuscript had some other omissions in its text, noting: “Some striking examples, by no means exhaustive, of omissions in min. 2814 that are restored by Erasmus” on the basis of the Latin Vulgate include phrases or clauses at Revelation 2:2, 2:17, 2:20, 3:12, 6:11, 22:11 (Beyond What is Written, p. 54, footnote 7).

Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11).

Jan Krans acknowledged: “As is well known, some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Jan Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62).

 

[KJB1611reader]

Lies.

 

[Salty]

Lets be careful using the term of lies, liar , ect
another words do not use that term!

 

[David Lamb]

Lies.

Surely we can discuss and differ without calling others on the Forum liars. I often find myself disagreeing with things you write, but I don't stoop to calling you a liar.

 

[Ben1445]

TR only for my own personal use.
TR highly recommended for others
And I don’t think it is helpful to be upset or kick people out for using a different Bible.

I think we were (at least I was) talking about the TR manuscripts. I was not including all translations from the TR. Arguably, Erasmus is not using the TR Greek anymore when he added from the Latin. By definition, it would no longer be a Received Text.

 

[Logos1560]

Lies.

Your incorrect accusation is not true. You refuse to deal with the actual truth. You in effect accuse Erasmus himself of lying when he himself acknowledged translating from Latin into Greek a few times.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills listed several renderings in the KJV that Erasmus added to the Traditional Greek text from the Latin Vulgate (KJV Defended, pp. 200-202). Edward Hills listed additions by Erasmus at Matthew 10:8, 27:35, John 3:25, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5, 6, 20:28, Romans 16:25-27, and Revelation 22:19.

 

[Conan]

I think we were (at least I was) talking about the TR manuscripts. I was not including all translations from the TR. Arguably, Erasmus is not using the TR Greek anymore when he added from the Latin. By definition, it would no longer be a Received Text.

All Textus Receptus Bibles are based on Erasmus's 5th edition. Post Erasmus editors made changes in their TR's, but they are all based on his 5th edition.

 

[Blank]

All Textus Receptus Bibles are based on Erasmus's 5th edition. Post Erasmus editors made changes in their TR's, but they are all based on his 5th edition.

So? That's like saying the Critical Text (CT) is based on the Nestlé Aland (NA) and United Bible Society (UBS).
Is that a good thing or not?