Any 'major" Differences Between the TR/CT For A greek text?

Good morning JesusFan

The answer to this question is yes....of course.
But think about it for a second....
We are talking about “the Bible”:

Therefore, if one single word is removed, it MAKES A DIFFERENCE!
--------------------------------------------------
A good example would be the second “and:” in Revelation 1:2
“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ,
and of all things that he saw.”

In my “word by word” study through Revelation, I had a decision to make;
The “Bible” includes this second “and”, and it clearly makes a difference in the interpretation of the verse.
But....some “scholars” say that this “and” isn’t suppose to be there.
So I have a choice.

Do I BELIEVE God’s Word(without reservation); Or do I believe men, when they try and tell me that.... “it doesn’t really say that”?
--------------------------------------------------
Think about the two choices you are talking about.......
➀ The Textus Receptus, is simply a collection of manuscripts, that all say the same thing.
➁ But the Critical Text, is man’s opinion, about what the “Bible should” say!

They are clearly different, which means one is right and the other is wrong, but because the Critical Text is more “scholarly” it is more respected?!?
--------------------------------------------------
When this life is all over, we are "not" going to stand before a scholar to give an account:
We are going to stand before God, who gave us His Word!

 

That's not even close to true.

That's not even close to true

Both statements warrant this from politifact.

probably, neither one is perfectly right. Though I would say the critical text is close, that's my opinion.

 

Talk out of both sides of your mouth often?

BOTH texts were collated by men, based upon their judgment and opinion.

And spare the old "one word missing" argument. God isn't going to let His Word fail even if it is cut up with a pen-knife and thrown into the fire. Has He become impotent and can no longer maintain the integrity if His Own Word? It would appear that you believe just that.

 

The lack of commentary from the "Onlyists" here is telling.

 

It was already stated, all texts we have were derived by men who decided what was and was not to be included in text. The KJV, for instance, must rely upon the work of Erasmus. He had several editions, so happens the one the KJV used is one that Erasmus believed was not his best or even close to it.

As for your statement using the word "and", you barely get into the textual criticism. The Bible in many places uses more conjunctions than the Bible uses (even KJV leaves out a conjunction). Yet, the issue is that it is impossible to perfectly translate the Greek and Hebrew in English. There are nuances in the Greek that cannot be perfectly conveyed in any translation, but we can accurately translate it.

For instance, the Greek often offers emphasis by the word order of the sentence. This is impossible to convey in the English because our word order is more static. If I said, for instance, "Ran into people Tommy" it would make little sense. Yet, in Greek you can convey emphasis using this word order and it would make sense.

There are words that have deeper meaning than any one word can convey in English. The word for "God breathed" or "inspired" in II Timothy 3:16 is more powerful in the Greek than in the English. There are a number of these issues.

There are many others, like tenses, grammar, and definitions of words. Yet, I do not look for English texts to be perfect, they can't. I look for them to be accurate to the original.

 

Depends on your view of inspiration and how one goes about translating.

As an initial point there are several areas where the TR fails to produce to the actual text which the authors wrote. This is because Erasmus, by his own admission, lacked sufficient Greek texts as he compiled the TR. So he had to take Latin texts and back translate into Greek. The result were some changes from what would later (and presently) be authentically reconstructed in the CT.

Of course in the OT there are more issues between what Erasmus pulled together and what has been shown to be mor authentic to the originals than the NT.

That said I can't say if there is enough difference for major problems in translation. Depends on how one approaches that task.

 

A competent translator will have no trouble translating either the TR or a CT. And his translation philosophy will determine how he does that no matter which Greek text he uses.

The kicker is that many of the differences in Greek texts involve words or phrases dropped or changed. Each of these differences involves differences in individual translations, renderings of individual verses and phrases.

 

Okay,you define the words Bible and God's Word as the KJV (of whatever stripe you prefer).

However,your translation of choice is a mere translation of the original --it is not composed of the autographs.

You get this confused all the time.

 

To maximum by differently translating/interpreting is dangerous because of the lack of identification with the wording of the autographs.

For example of John 1:1

KJV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And so on....

See the above -- they agree each other. Therefore they identified with the wording of the autographs.

 

Can someone please translate this sentence for me? Not Literal, I just want the dynamic equivalence...:smilewinkgrin:

 

Translation: "I believe that anything that is not the KJV is not the Bible".

 

You shouldn’t put words in other people’s mouths!
That is just not right!

 

I am sorry Askjo, I realise that English is your second language and I can usually get what you are saying, but I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you try it again please?

 

Oh, sorry- I forgot to add :smilewinkgrin:, :laugh:, and to my translation.

Please loosen your tie, it's too tight.

 

What I mean is maximum uncertainty. When a translator DIFFERENTLY translated any words to the maximum, he corrupted God's Words because these corrupted words can't identify with the wording of the autographs.

 

I disagree that a differing translation is wrong. It has happened all throughout the history of the English bible, not just since 1611.

 

Ok, let me ask you if they are right or not:

Fig tree = Banana tree -- Is that literal translation right?
Snow = coconut -- Is that literal translation right?
Blood = death -- Is that literal translation right?

 

Maybe I missed some post, but I think the textbook answer to this oft asked question is no, there are no major differences between the TR and the CT. The CT does not have as many words, because in the minds of the CT compliers, the words had been added by copists, and were not inspired.

Much of the effort to make a big deal about the differences is to push the KJV as opposed to modern translations like the NASB, ESV, and HCSB. For example say the KJV refers to Christ with the implication that Christ is God 15 times, but the NASB only 12 times. So the KJV advocate might write that the NASB denies Christ is God and cite those three verses. And no matter how we (advocates for the CT) try to explain that the 12 represent what the authors actually wrote, and the other three were added by copists, it falls on deaf ears. And so the bickering over foolishness continues.

Meanwhile, Satan is devouring the lost, because we are sidetracked.