Bible version

[agedman]

Recently I began reading the Berean Study Bible and the Berean Literal Bible.

From their website: Greek and Hebrew Sources - Berean Study Bible
they used these sources:

NA - Nestle Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece

SBL - Society of Biblical Literature, Greek New Testament

ECM - Editio Critica Maior, Novum Testamentum Graecum

NE - Eberhard Nestle Novum Testamentum Graece

WH - Westcott and Hort, New Testament in the Original Greek

BYZ - The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform

GOC - Greek Orthodox Church, New Testament

TR - Scrivener’s Textus Receptus
Stephanus Textus Receptus

DSS - Dead Sea Scrolls

MT - Hebrew Masoretic Text: Westminster Leningrad Codex
Hebrew Masoretic Text: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

LXX - Greek OT Septuagint: Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta
Greek OT Septuagint: Swete’s Septuagint

SP - Samaritan Pentateuch
​

I am not so much suggesting that folks give up what they use, what I desire is for the good students of Scriptures to spend time in this translation work and present accurate reports concerning what they find.

Especially those of you who are extremely used to working in the languages.

It is important that quality information is discerned and disseminated.

Thank you for all your contributions.

This is not a debate topic, but one of each of us sharing our findings and discernment as God has given us enlightenment that ALL benefit.

 

[timf]

I use esword v9 with the Amplified plugin.

I find the critical text inferior, but not cataclysmically so. I like the KJV for the pronoun differentiation. I like Wuest for the verb tense information that is often lost when translating to the English.

 

[agedman]

I use esword v9 with the Amplified plugin.

I find the critical text inferior, but not cataclysmically so. I like the KJV for the pronoun differentiation. I like Wuest for the verb tense information that is often lost when translating to the English.

Thank you.

At one time I would agree and may in the future agree concerning critical text thinking, for it greatly depended on the scholarship of those putting it together, sort of like the TR was initially thrown together using a handful of manuscripts.

There are more pieces and parts then ever, and as scholarship continues, it seems that a certain basic authoritatively sound script will emerge that will cohesively bond the scripts to be as close to the original as possible.

At least I do hope so. I do enjoy my KJV but don’t rely upon it when I testify to others concerning the Christ. I get more awareness of the truth and comprehension when using even the NKJV or my mid 1990’s NASB.

 

[JD731]

Thank you.

At one time I would agree and may in the future agree concerning critical text thinking, for it greatly depended on the scholarship of those putting it together, sort of like the TR was initially thrown together using a handful of manuscripts.

There are more pieces and parts then ever, and as scholarship continues, it seems that a certain basic authoritatively sound script will emerge that will cohesively bond the scripts to be as close to the original as possible.

At least I do hope so. I do enjoy my KJV but don’t rely upon it when I testify to others concerning the Christ. I get more awareness of the truth and comprehension when using even the NKJV or my mid 1990’s NASB.

Interesting! Where are passages in the KJV where one cannot rely upon it concerning the Christ, as you say?

 

[agedman]

Interesting! Where are passages in the KJV where one cannot rely upon it concerning the Christ, as you say?

Not what I even implied.

 

[Reformed1689]

I find the critical text inferior

Based on?

 

[Dr. Bob]

This is not a debate topic, but one of each of us sharing our findings and discernment as God has given us enlightenment that ALL benefit.

Unsure of what direction this thread is heading, since it is posted in the DEBATE forum?? 5 posts in and already 2-3 major questions arising. I don't want to derail the thread, but can areas be debated here? Thanks.

 

[JesusFan]

Based on?

Someone preferring the Kjv and its underlining greek text, maybe?

 

[Conan]

Based on?

I would answer textual criticism.

 

[agedman]

Unsure of what direction this thread is heading, since it is posted in the DEBATE forum?? 5 posts in and already 2-3 major questions arising. I don't want to derail the thread, but can areas be debated here? Thanks.

I didn’t men to exclude all debate.

What I am seeking is other contributor’s input and problems that this translation work may have.

If a healthy debate will draw out credible information, I am all for it, but you have to be a full contributor to this thread.

I have missed your input, wisdom and humor on the BB.

 

[Conan]

At one time I would agree and may in the future agree concerning critical text thinking, for it greatly depended on the scholarship of those putting it together, sort of like the TR was initially thrown together using a handful of manuscripts.

A handful indeed. But what a handful! We are blessed most turned out to be like the vast majority of all Manuscripts. The Byzantine Text. Perhaps not always perfect, but highly accurate non the less.

 

[agedman]

A handful indeed. But what a handful! We are blessed most turned out to be like the vast majority of all Manuscripts. The Byzantine Text. Perhaps not always perfect, but highly accurate non the less.

Yes after it went through numerous revisions. Many do not realize that in the rush to print the results were so profound scholars considered the early editions as unworthy of credible use.

That does not mean I disapprove, but just mentioning history.

 

[Conan]

Yes after it went through numerous revisions. Many do not realize that in the rush to print the results were so profound scholars considered the early editions as unworthy of credible use.

That does not mean I disapprove, but just mentioning history.

But were they correct? The scholars who thought they were unworthy of credible use? I would say it was propaganda.

 

[agedman]

But were they correct? The scholars who thought they were unworthy of credible use? I would say it was propaganda.

Perhaps this resource will help in brief it presents:

… Then in the late fifteenth century, the Greek language—unknown for hundreds of years—was recovered in the West, the geographical area of the Latin Church. With the rediscovery of Greek and its inception as the language of the people, the Latin Vulgate translation was subjected to a critical examination in comparison with the Greek original. Scholars discovered numerous mistranslations or outright errors in the Vulgate. This provided a reason for printing the New Testament in its original language, Greek.

Erasmus, a 15th-century Dutch theologian, working at great speed in order to beat to press another Greek New Testament being prepared in Spain, gathered together what hand-copied Greek manuscripts he could locate. He found five or six, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century. Working with all the speed he could, Erasmus did not even transcribe the manuscripts; he merely made notes on the manuscripts themselves and sent them to the printers. The entire New Testament was printed in about six to eight months and published in 1516. It became a best seller, despite its errors, and the first printing was soon gone. A second edition was published in 1519 with some of the errors having been corrected.

Erasmus published two other editions in 1527 and 1535. Stung by criticism that his work contained numerous textual errors, he incorporated readings from the Greek New Testament published in Spain in later editions of his work. Erasmus’ Greek text became the standard in the field, and other editors and printers continued the work after his death in 1536. In 1633, another edition was published. In the publisher’s preface, in Latin, we find these words: “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum,” which can be translated as “the [reader] now has the text that is received by all.” From that publisher’s notation have come the words “Received Text.” The Textus Receptus became the dominant Greek text of the New Testament for the following two hundred and fifty years. It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position. …(What is the Textus Receptus? | GotQuestions.org)​

 

[Conan]

Yes that is the problem. The Textus Receptus, despite having been hastily done originally is still of excellent accuracy because of the manuscripts that were available to Erasmus. Sure its not perfect and has defects. But not as many as "the Westcott and Hort" Greek Text. Which has more defects than the Textus Receptus. A later edition should be more accurate. But not in this case.

 

[agedman]

Yes that is the problem. The Textus Receptus, despite having been hastily done originally is still of excellent accuracy because of the manuscripts that were available to Erasmus. Sure its not perfect and has defects. But not as many as "the Westcott and Hort" Greek Text. Which has more defects than the Textus Receptus. A later edition should be more accurate. But not in this case.

Agreed, perhaps some day folks will find the originals and see that all errors of the texts are mere spelling differences because nobody used Webster.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Agreed, perhaps someday folks will find the originals and see that all errors of the texts are mere spelling differences because nobody used Webster.

I always assumed that if even a page of an original text was found, there would be a huge papist edifice built on the spot with this sacred icon in a golden ark and paraded around at festivals

I saw a giant Styrofoam Bible painted AV1611 paraded at a pastor's fellowship in Hammond, Indianna, with people shouting, many kneeling, and the choir singing worship songs (to the idol) saying THIS is the rock made without hands. Maybe it wouldn't be only Catholics to worship the book above worship of the Author of the book.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes after it went through numerous revisions. Many do not realize that in the rush to print the results were so profound scholars considered the early editions as unworthy of credible use.

That does not mean I disapprove, but just mentioning history.

What particular Byzantine text are you talking about? Hodges/Farstad? Pierpont/Robinson? PIckering? None of these had "numerous revisions," and I don't know of scholars who reject the first two out of hand, even on the critical text side. They are considered to be credible representations of the Byzantine text type. (Pickering's text is simply not very widely known among critical text scholars.)

If you are talking about the TR, it is really a subset of the Byzantine, since it was done from so few mss. And what scholars "considered the early editions as unworthy of credible use"? For many years the TR is all there was. There are modern scholars who don't consider the TR as worthy, but you used the past tense, "considered."

Also, the revisions were not that sweeping. I've compared all of the Stephanus TR and the Scrivener TR to each other, and almost all of the NT in the Robinson/Pierpont to the TR, and I don't see the "sweeping" changes you mention. The TR in its various editions is fairly consistent, certainly not having the numerous changes the critical text has had over the years. In fact, the TR/Byz is noted for its consistency as a text type compared with the Alexandrian, which has wide differences in the mss.

 

[John of Japan]

Agreed, perhaps some day folks will find the originals and see that all errors of the texts are mere spelling differences because nobody used Webster.

I know you're kidding around, but spelling differences were not a big deal back then, and there was no standard for spelling. One difference that occurs is the word for the adverb "immediately" in the Greek NT, which can be spelled as either εὐθύς or εὐθέως.

 

[kyredneck]

sharing our findings

I like their rendering of 'anothen' in John:

3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above,a he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”
7Do not wonder that I said to you, ‘It is necessary for you all to be born from above.’
31The One coming from above is above all. The one being from the earth is from the earth, and speaks from the earth. The One coming from heaven is above all. Jn 3

11Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over Me, if it were not given to you from above. Because of this, the one having delivered Me up to you has greater sin.”
23Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven from the top all throughout. Jn 19

James as well:

17Every good act of giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of shifting. Ja 1

15This is not the wisdom coming down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
17But the wisdom from above is indeed first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and of good fruits, impartial, sincere. Ja 3