Featured Random KJVO Discussion Poll

The TR didn't exist til ole rastus made it in 1516, so nobody was quoting it before 400 AD unless Rastus had a time machine.

You made your own vacuum with THAT one ! !

 

What text type or types do the most early church fathers use? If the Byz. type goes no further than the 4th cent. why then do kjv. only people say that church fathers from the 2nd cent used this type? – Evidence for Christianity

 

I don’t believe in time machines.


During the first 100 years after the New Testament was written, the greatest corruptions took place to the Received Text used by the early church. The Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and 43 another manuscripts are the result of such corruptions. Some of the heretics operated in this period.[1] Westcott and Hortused these corrupted manuscript to his New Testament. They made 5 604 changes to the Textus Receptus, 1 952 of these Waite found to be omissions, 467 to be additions, and 3 185 to be changes.[2]

Historical evidences for the priority of the Textus Receptus:[3]

• All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus
• Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus
• Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus
• The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D) used the Textus Receptus
• The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus
• The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus
• The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus
• The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus
• Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus
• Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus
• Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus
• Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus
• The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus (99% of them)
• The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus.

Manuscript evidences:[4]

• 85% of papyri used Textus Receptus, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort
• 97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 9 manuscripts used text of WH
• 99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used text WH
• 100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus.

 

He also used the 1881 at times to correct faults in the Kjv though!

 

Think that many though holding to KJVO do indeed see the 1611 Kjv as inspired and inerrant, same way I would see the Originals only!

 

Is the claim correct that many early translations and writings of the church fathers show they are in support of the Byzantine text? | Bible.org

 

Your KJV-only source may be misinformed. There are facts that would conflict with their unproven claim.

According to scholars who have examined them, the Waldensian translations were translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome that may have included some readings added from Old Latin.

Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).

Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).

James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).

 

Because of the preserved text? Yes. Not the translators themselves.

 

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT :

The TR simply DIDN'T EXIST til Erasmus Desiderius made it, finishing in 1516. I told you that once! Ask anybody else here when it was made !

 

I suppose it was all made up then...

 

Ole Rastus made it from a number of mss. but he had to go to the Latin Vulgate for the ending of the Revelation. And the TR has been revised over 30 times! Erasmus himself revised it twice? And Dean John Burgon wrote that it could withstand yet another thorough revision. So, WHICH EDITION is the most-correct one ?

 

What were the textual sources used by the Geneva and other English versions before Kjv?

 

Perhaps you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the poster stated.

It was not claimed that it was all made up. It was not all made up, but at least part of it (or a little of it) was in effect created by Erasmus by adding several readings translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and by introducing some conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

No preserved Greek NT manuscripts made from A. D. 100 until 1500 have been demonstrated to have a Greek text 100% identical to that made by the inconsistent textual criticism decisions of Erasmus.

Do some attempt to suggest that there were no human textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the around thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions?

 

Yes, the English Revised Version was what Spurgeon went with in one of his final sermons (1891), on Psalm 68:11 "The Lord giveth the word; the women that publish the tidings are a great host"(ERV):

"Man and woman fell together; together they must rise. After the resurrection, it was a woman who was first commissioned to carry the glad tidings of the risen Christ; and in Europe, where woman was in future days to be set free from many of the trammels of the East, it seems fitting that a woman should be the first believer. Not only, however, was Lydia a sort of first-fruit for Europe, but she probably also became a witness in her own city of Thyatira, in Asia. We do not know how the gospel was introduced into that city; but we are informed of the existence of a church there by the message of the ascended Christ, through his servant John, to "the angel of the church in Thyatira." Very likely Lydia became the herald of the gospel in her native place. Let the women who know the truth proclaim it; for why should their influence be lost? 'The Lord giveth the word; the women that publish the tidings are a great host.'" — Charles Spurgeon

 

I dunno, but Logos might.

 

We had the word of the Lord into English before Kjv, or the Greek text of Eramus!

 

Wasn't Erasmus's Greek New Testament published around 1515-1520? If so, the Saxon Gospels and Wycliffe's translations preceded it, but those were translated from the Latin. Some say that Tyndale and others used the Erasmus text. I have seen some speculation that the Geneva translators used the texts of Robert Stephens (Estienne) 1551 and Theodore Beza. However, I am not certain whether Beza had published his in time for the first Geneva translations. If I remember correctly, the Geneva NT used the Stephens 1551 verse divisions, so that speculation is probably correct that they consulted it. Also, Stephens lived in Geneva circa 1555 to 1559, and died there.

Perhaps someone else can offer more accurate information.

 

Erasmus published different editions of the Greek New Testament. Stephanus published several different editions based on Erasmus's 5th edition. Beza also published multipule Greek Testaments based on Erasmus's 5th edition. So while they all contain slight differences and sometimes different readings they all go back to Erasmus's 5th edition. That's why the are all called "Textus Receptus" because they all are based on Erasmus. Beza's editions were popular on the continent, Stephanus in England.

 

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "E"

Influence: The second edition (1519) was followed by Martin Luther in his German translation (1522). The third edition (1522) was used by William Tyndale in his English translation (see Tyndale 1526). The text of the fourth and fifth edition (1527, 1535) was closely followed by Robert Estienne in his influential third edition (1550), which in turn provided the basis for all editions later published by Beza (1565-98), subsequently followed by the translators of the King James version. The editions of Elzevir (1624, 1633) also derived from Erasmus 1527, as mediated by Estienne and Beza. Erasmus' text therefore became the foundation for nearly all editions and translations of the Greek text published for two centuries afterwards.

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "E"