Is the (AV) Translated from the Textus Receptus (TR)?

[Dr. Bob]

In another thread, it was stated that the AV was the best translation because it is the only one that came from the TR.

Quoting information from Tony Cappocia
"One great problem with this whole issue is that the term, "textus receptus" is often misunderstood and misused.

The Trinitarian Bible Society exists for the purpose of circulating uncorrupted versions of the Word of God (namely KJV). Terrence H. Brown, the TBS secretary, makes this honest admission, "One problem is that many people use the term 'textus receptus' without defining it, and give the impression that this received text is available somewhere in a single manuscript or printed copy, but this is not the case. No copy, written or printed, was called the 'textus receptus' until the Elzevirs used this description in the preface to their edition in 1633. It should therefore be understood that the King James Version translators, who published their work in 1611, did not use an edition of the Greek text actually known by this name."

It is very interesting to note that there are about 290 differences between the "textus receptus" and the King James Version. Let me illustrate.

1. Note in Romans 12:11 where the TR has "serving in season" but KJV, along with all modern versions, has "serving the Lord."

2. In I Thessalonians 2:15, the TR has the pronoun "you" while the KJV, along with all other modern versions, has the pronoun "us."

3. The King James Version in Revelation 11:1 has the reading, "And the angels stood." The TR, along with all modern versions, does not include this phrase.

4. If you read 1 John 2:23 in the KJV, you note that the translators included in italics the phrase, "But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." It is omitted in the TR but included as a part of the text in most modern versions.

5. Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; and one shall be taken, the other left" is included in the King James Version but it is omitted in the TR and all other modern versions.

6. Matthew 23:24 is a humorous example of a printing error, not a translation error. The King James Version reads, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." It's obvious to everyone that the word "at" should be "out."

7. The problem of 1 John 5:7-8 was discussed in the lengthy letter earlier so we won't discuss it here.

8. In Revelation 22:1 9, both the TR and the King James Version have the phrase, "Book of Life." That phrase is not found in any Greek manuscript, rather "tree of life" is the only text. Erasmus translated the last six verses from the Latin Vulgate because his Greek manuscript lacked these verses. Just a final note. Even the KJV translators did not claim for their work what modern promoters insist. The original translators at times were uncertain of the correct variant and made marginal notes to indicate other possibilities.

In the preface to the original KJV, the editors acknowledged the profit from other versions. Here is what they wrote:
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded."

 

[EdSutton]

Would this be a good place to point out that 3/4 of the AV (of any flavor or edition, whatsoever) was never translated from anything even remotely resembling the TR?

Not one single word of the OT text can be construed as TR, under any definition that is even remotely close to being accurate, because the TR refers ONLY (Sigh!! There's that word again! ) to the NT.

Ed

 

[Tater77]

The TR is heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate as it was used as a comparison. Even worse is the fact that Erasmus didnt have a complete set of Greek Texts so he back translated the Latin to Greek to "fill" in the gaps. But KJVO's hate the Latin, which makes that hilarious.

 

[HankD]

The TR is heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate as it was used as a comparison. Even worse is the fact that Erasmus didnt have a complete set of Greek Texts so he back translated the Latin to Greek to "fill" in the gaps. But KJVO's hate the Latin, which makes that hilarious.

That may be because they are in competition with it as the "Only" Word of God.

For centuries the Latin Vulgate was called the "Only" perfect translation, yes even better than the Greek and Hebrew because it is/was "the language of heaven".

Later it's English translation of a translation, the Douay-Rheims made similar claims.

in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.​

http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html​

I guess it's really true, we don't learn from the mistakes of the past.​

HankD​

 

[Eliyahu]

A quick comments:

I am not a KJVO but find it having least errors, believe Masoretic Texts- TR are the line of the Word of God, though even they may contain some errors. KJV is the better translation than any other modern versions I believe. I find only a few problems with KJV in NT but quite many in OT. Nevertheless I feel KJV is hundred times as accurate as any other modern versions. These have too many errors and misunderstanding.

Rom 12:11 Stephanus TR has Kairo while TBS TR has Kurio
It seems that KJV translators noticed the errors in the then TR, then corrected it reflecting the manuscripts support.

Naming TR in the later times is not a big problem.

1 Thess 2:15 : Same as the above. TBS TR is the same as KJV

1 Rev 11:1 – TR has a part of majority support

1 John 2:23 – TR has the support from almost the majority, without the italicized statements in KJV

1 Jn 5:7 – I believe both TR and KJV are correct despite the scarcity of the supporting manuscripts. Without the Johannine Comma, we encounter a critical problem with Greek Grammar which we can find nowhere like that. Historical support is another.

Luke 17:36 – Both Stephanus and TBS TR have the verse. Both TR and KJV are correct
TR has the support from the part of majority manuscripts.

Mt 23:24 – I think this was dealt with here before. The Elizabethan English used to state such as Strain at ( not out) and this was not the first in KJV, but earlier translations used such expressions. We may have to check once again Matthew Henry’s and Coverdale, etc.

Rev 22:19 – KJV and TR seem to have no support ! though Book of Life is more coinciding with the context than Tree of Life. We may have to verify further.

In Rev TR departed from Majority Texts many times, and Rev 17:8 may be another issue.

I have found only much less problems with TR-KJV in NT in general. But In OT I find many problems with KJV from different angle, different from MV’s criticism.

 

[Tater77]

Rev 22:19 – KJV and TR seem to have no support ! though Book of Life is more coinciding with the context than Tree of Life. We may have to verify further.

Revelation 22:19 (King James Version)

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:19 (New American Standard Bible)

19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

But we look at Genesis 3

Genesis 3:22 (King James Version)

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Genesis 3:22 (New American Standard Bible)

22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

Now which one gives eternal life? The Tree of Life or the Book of Life? When we answer this question, we will know which one belongs in Rev 22:19.

 

[Eliyahu]

.

Now which one gives eternal life? The Tree of Life or the Book of Life? When we answer this question, we will know which one belongs in Rev 22:19.

Where is your portion recorded ? In the Book of Life or In the Tree of Life?
Book of Life is the common expression in Revelation. You can find it often in Rev.
But I don't say KJV/TR is correct, but say we need to verify further on the manuscript supports.


Php 4:3
And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
Re 3:5 - Show Context He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Re 13:8 - Show Context And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Re 17:8 - Show Context The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Re 20:12 - Show Context And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Re 20:15 - Show Context And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Re 21:27 - Show Context And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. ( Crosswalk.com)

 

[EdSutton]

A quick comments:

I am not a KJVO but find it having least errors, believe Masoretic Texts- TR are the line of the Word of God, though even they may contain some errors. KJV is the better translation than any other modern versions I believe. I find only a few problems with KJV in NT but quite many in OT. Nevertheless I feel KJV is hundred times as accurate as any other modern versions. These have too many errors and misunderstanding.

While I guess it's all right to believe this as an opinion, what you have stated is only that - an opinion.

Why would you possibly think the KJV is "hundred times as accurate as any other modern versions"? Incidentally, are you not aware that the KJV is a "modern version" to begin with?

The textual basis for many other modern versions is precisely the same as that for the KJV (Well, that is, aside from the small, insignificant detail of dropping 10 complete books and parts of two others, that are found in all the genuine KJVs up until a century and a half ago). (Does it matter that most of the KJVs I can purchase today from my friendly local Christian book store or Walmart leaves out a great many things that were a part of the 1611 and 1612 Bibles? If not, why not??)

Leaving aside the exclusion of the Apocrypha (which FTR, I do not believe to be Scripture, but in order to be historically accurate, one must include as a part of the KJV as translated when the version appeared in 1611) the textual basis of the WES (1755); WBT (1833); YLT (1862, 1887, 1898); KJII (1971); NKJV (1982); LITV (1985); KJ21 (1994); MJKV (1997); TMB (1998); AKJV (1999); UKJV (2000); HSV ( 2001); AV7 (2006) and several others is the same as that of the KJV.

However the words and phrasing are not being forever stuck in concrete in four hundred old Jacobean and Elizabethan English.

Or IOW, there are least 10 versions where the English language is at least 350 years closer to the way we speak, than that of 1611.

I suggest that it is a far "more accurate" way of speaking, to speak in today's manner in 2009.

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Leaving aside the exclusion of the Apocrypha (which FTR, I do not believe to be Scripture, but in order to be historically accurate, one must include as a part of the KJV as translated when the version appeared in 1611) the textual basis of the WES (1755); WBT (1833); YLT (1862, 1887, 1898); KJII (1971); NKJV (1982); LITV (1985); KJ21 (1994); MJKV (1997); TMB (1998); AKJV (1999); UKJV (2000); HSV ( 2001); AV7 (2006) and several others is the same as that of the KJV.

However the words and phrasing are not being forever stuck in concrete in four hundred old Jacobean and Elizabethan English.

Or IOW, there are least 10 versions where the English language is at least 350 years closer to the way we speak, than that of 1611.

I suggest that it is a far "more accurate" way of speaking, to speak in today's manner in 2009.

Ed

I consider TMB, YLT, WBT in the same category as with KJV and they are good to be considered for reading. I have no problem with those.
Apparently there is a huge problem with language updating in case of KJV, even though KJVO excuses it by the analysis of sylables. The initial start of the English translation was to provide the lay people with the Bible easy to read or colloquial in the current language. Therefore there is a certain problem with the language of KJV.
However, in many other verses and spots the modern versions have many more problems. Look at 1 Tim 3:16, Eph 3:9, Col 1:14, Luke 6:1, Acts 8:37, Mt 23:14, and so on.

The critical point of the MV's are the basis. They are ultimately based on the Vatican Text B. Aleph is just a side dish which has too many problems.
In other words, MV's are based on the Roman Catholic Text, and Roman Catholic is nothing but the pagan Idolatry.

KJV may have contained Apocrypha because it was the absolutely prevailing practice at that time that the Bible should include the AP.
There are many accusations against KJV but we should discern to discard the small errors or ignore the scribal mistakes in the past history.

Roman Catholic is a horrible rebellion against God and many Protestants are following it unconsciously.
I don't accept Presuppositionalism, but admit such characterstics in some cases. For example, Johannine Comma couldn't be preserved if KJV didn't exist. Even if any small translation may have included it, it couldn't have stood. But KJV has become a powerful supporter sustaining it for long time. Without KJV, we would not have noticed the Easter in Acts 12:4 even though there is a lot of controversy in this case. ( German scholar has a study on Pasahu-Paska-Easter or Passover)

So, there has been a certain Presuppositional Aspect in favor of KJV, though I disagree with any overall Presuppositionalism.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

...But KJVO's hate the Latin, which makes that hilarious.

I am KJVO but I don't hate the Latin Bible.

 

[Rippon]

I am KJVO but I don't hate the Latin Bible.

Very well, but do you recognize the parallel between the veneration for the Vulgates and the KJVs? For more than a millennium many Christains believed that the Vulgates were the only real Scriptures. In modern times the KJVO movement claims the very same thing for the Anglican Version.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Very well, but do you recognize the parallel between the veneration for the Vulgates and the KJVs? For more than a millennium many Christains believed that the Vulgates were the only real Scriptures. In modern times the KJVO movement claims the very same thing for the Anglican Version.

1. Parallel perhaps, but it isn't congruent.

2. An "Anglican Version" is anything based on the work of Bishop Westcott and Prof. Hort.

3. Your and Dr. Bob's attempt to tag the King James Version as "the Anglican Version" can only be taken in the pejorative sense. If you don't want me to put down your favorite version then, please don't belittle mine.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

3. Your and Dr. Bob's attempt to tag the King James Version as "the Anglican Version" can only be taken in the pejorative sense. If you don't want me to put down your favorite version then, please don't belittle mine.

I agree.

This thread title violates the spirit of this special posting rule:

The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.<

I have therefore edited the title and request that posters refrain from using the pejorative title.

 

[EdSutton]

Wrong on this one!

I agree.

This thread title violates the spirit of this special posting rule:

The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.<

I have therefore edited the title and request that posters refrain from using the pejorative title.

May I be permitted to disagree with C4K, here, that referring to a genuine KJV as an "Anglican Version" is any 'pejorative title?'

Is it a pejorative title to describe the NWT and Emphatic Diaglott as "Jehovah Witness" versions? The NWT was both 'translated' and published, and in the case of the EmpD was published of the under the auspices and control of the 'Watchtower Bible and Tract Society' organization.

How about referring to the CWT as the SDA version?

The GEN as a "Reformation Bible" or a/the "Reformed" version?

The JST (I.V.) as the Mormon Bible, although it is not technically any LDS Bible, but belongs to the Community of Christ or RLDS group, and is considered "inspired" by some other LDS off-shoots, including one known as the "Strangites", after the former late leader James Strang.

Or the VUL, D-R, KNOX, TJB, NAB, and NJB as Roman Catholic Bibles?

Or the NKJV and HCSB as "Baptist Bibles," which term I often use, simply because the NKJV had a higher percentage of Baptist translators than any other major English translation in history, and the HCSB was commissioned by, translated under the auspices of, controlled by, and is entirely owned by the Southern Baptist Convention?

All the above are accurate descriptions, IMO, just as it is entirely accurate to describe the versions (and I do occasionally describe almost all of the above in this manner, although I do not believe I have ever actually previously mentioned the KNOX in this manner on the BB.).

The GREAT, BISH, any 'genuine' KJV (or AV or KJB) and 'genuine' RV (ERV) are also properly described as Anglican Bibles, at least when considering that every single (known) active translator associated with each of the above four versions, with the exception of the RV, was a member of the Church of England (The Scottish Presbyterians were "locked out" from actively contributing to the 1611 Bible, and the Congregationalists and Baptists were deliberately NOT allowed to have any input into the version, by not being permitted to be on the Committees at all, in any manner.), and the above four versions were all done under the auspices of the Church of England (CoE) or Anglican Church, and I believe which church still, to this day properly holds all rights (or at least never willingly or intentionally ceded them to any other) to the above four versions, in the United Kingdom, and I am 100% certain about the AV in this.

It is not correct (and I do not do this) to describe any American (or any other) "pirated" or "counterfeit" and American published AV, or now "updated" King James Bibles, such as the KJ21 or AKJV, or the ASV which happens to be an RV derivative, as Anglican Bibles.

I have clearly stated my own personal preferences, and several times on this Board at that, for the 1967 Oxford edition of the KJV and the 1988 Edition of the NKJV which two English Bibles I most often use, as my preferred editions/versions of the Bible. I submit that the description of the KJV as an "Anglican Bible" and the NKJV as a "Baptist Bible" is not any pejorative usage, when I say this, but both are accurate descriptions, just as all the others above would be accurate descriptions and identifications, in the same manner.

It is absolutely ridiculous to even suggest that I would in some manner "belittle" or "put down" either of my own two preferred Bibles, in any manner, I'd say.

Nor, off the top of my head, and FTR, do I recall seeing (at least recently) anyone who actually prefers another version use any "pejorative titles" when referring to any KJV. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about several posters who hold another perspective. And I also can recall even some who prefer other versions besides the KJVs, who will "belittle" some versions, other than the KJV, that they do care for. Unfortunately, this one also happens to include some of the BB brass. :tear:

While I will certainly grant that one can use a perfectly legitimate description in a "pejorative manner," I do not see that that has happened in this case. IMO, the only manner in which one can see this wording, which is actually an "objective description" is one who has afforded a "special status" or "elevated status" over any and all other English Bibles to the KJV, to begin with, as apparently does the poster who 'griped' about the thread title, to which you responded.

Dr. Bob did not use any "derisive terms" as far as I can tell, and I believe he is also the one who composed the above cited posting rule.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You are of course free to disagree - but AV does not generally stand for "Anglican Version." Your research is accurate and cannot be argued. That is why I made my decision based on the 'spirit of the law.'

I would have not problem stating that 'The Authorised Version' was translated by a team of Anglican translators.' That is a fact.

Use of the title "Anglican Version" is a play on the title 'AV' and therefore cannot help but stir up passions which will result in the same type of tactic by those who hold strongly to the KJVO position. The KJV could also correctly be called "King Jimmy's Bible" but that would not make it right.

Dr Bob does have seniority over me. He therefore has every right to reverse my decision and I will accept that as his prerogative, but in the mean time I have to 'call 'em as I see 'em' without bias.

 

[EdSutton]

1. Parallel perhaps, but it isn't congruent.

Why not? Where is the qualitative difference between "only" and "only" that I missed?

2. An "Anglican Version" is anything based on the work of Bishop Westcott and Prof. Hort.

This is a ridiculous assertion, on the face. In fact, it is beyond ridiculous. By your same reasoning, one would have to call anything based on the work of Erasmus, either Roman Catholic, or Dutch.

3. Your and Dr. Bob's attempt to tag the King James Version as "the Anglican Version" can only be taken in the pejorative sense. If you don't want me to put down your favorite version then, please don't belittle mine.

I have just addressed all this in my last post.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

1. Parallel perhaps, but it isn't congruent.

Are you trying to squirm away from the obvious?

2. An "Anglican Version" is anything based on the work of Bishop Westcott and Prof. Hort.

You're not one of those Westcott and Hort bashers, are you?

You do realize that the ERV team was a large interdenominational group, don't you? It is not accurate (to say the least) that the ERV team was Anglican.

By the way, Charles Spurgeon's good friend and mentor -- the famous Baptist --Joseph Angus, was on the New Testament team.

3. Your and Dr. Bob's attempt to tag the King James Version as "the Anglican Version" can only be taken in the pejorative sense.

No, you're wrong. It can be used most descriptively of the 1611 team.You don't get to establish that it is used as "only in the perorative sense".

Every single member of the 1611 team was Anglican. How would calling it the Anglican version be considered "only pejorative"? Are you going to say :"Well, it may very well be true that every single member of the 1611 team was Anglican, but I don't like that translation referenced in that manner."

If you don't want me to put down your favorite version then, please don't belittle mine.

No belittling intended. And I hope you can distinguish between honest objections and belittling.

 

[Rippon]

Use of the title "Anglican Version" is a play on the title 'AV' and therefore cannot help but stir up passions which will result in the same type of tactic by those who hold strongly to the KJVO position.

Until I read this post of yours I honestly never thought of calling the 1611 translation the Anglican Version because the initials are A.V. It simply did not even occur to me. I just like calling it more than just a couple select names.

To call it the "King James Bible" seems like honoring a man who was extremely ungodly . To call it the "Authorised Version" seems to give it an elevated sense of importance way beyond what it conveyed in 1611.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... To call it the "King James Bible" seems like honoring a man who was extremely ungodly. To call it the "Authorised Version" seems to give it an elevated sense of importance way beyond what it conveyed in 1611.

Yes, I would agree. I frequently find it difficult to make reference to this Bible text. The first editions published in England merely had "Holy Bible" on the titlepage, and so I usually write "AV" or "AV1611" to identify these. For more recent and contemporary American publications I usually use "KJV" (which is usually proclaimed on the cover or inside someplace).

I have also protested the use of the term "modern versions" as pejorative. What is usually meant by that description is 'all-versions-except-the-KJV', which is an indefensible class of texts that would have to include obviously poor and heretical translations. And because it seems no one can satisfactorily define the bounds of "modern", the term "modern versions" is both ambiguous and necessarily casts guilt by association.

 

[robycop3]

Thing is, Sportzz Fanzz, that we have already easily shown KJVO has no merit without resorting to any insults or slurs against anyone nor against any BV.

The ball is in the KJVOs' court for them to *PROVE* their doctrine, which is totally lacking in Scriptural support, is the least bit true. So far, in almost 80 years of trying, they've failed miserably.