-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Do Christian who prefer TR Greek text view Moden Versions based upon CT?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Deficient, but the Word of God to the exact extent it duplicates the autographs.
They right now though have a very good translation, and would suggest that they should mimic the Nkjv, and out in margins and footnotes variant MT/TR variants so at least can see them
What do you think of the Web bible, as its based off the Greek MT ?
So are useful, but the Kjv textual basis translations are better to you?
Useful mainly only for the apparatus (esp. Nestle's), and to look at what modern versions are translated from.
one Japanese translation was based off Nas though wasn't it?
The first Japanese NT was translated by Baptist missionary Nathan Brown in 1871, long before the first Nestle's Greek NT, and was probably based on Tischendorf's Greek NT, near as I can tell. The cover said, "From the oldest existing Greek manuscripts." The NT of the "Original Translation" was published in 1887 from a similar Greek NT base. It was the NT of the first complete Japanese Bible. The Classical Japanese Bible was published in 1917, and the NT was based on Nestle, as were the later Colloquial Version and then the New Japanese Bible. This last one, the Shinkaiyaku, was done from Nestle's and by the principles of the Lockman Foundation, publishers of the NASV. Unfortunately, the Lockman Foundation thought it necessary to sue the Japanese team over copyright issues, and the Japanese translators had to pay many thousands of dollars just to have control over their own translation.
The first Japanese NT from the TR was translated by Japanese Pastor Nagai from the Stephanus TR, and was in the very difficult classical Japanese. The first ever Japanese NT from the Scrivener TR, the first in modern Japanese from any TR, was the Lifeline Japanese NT, which my team published.
I'm attaching a pamphlet I wrote about the history of the Japanese Bible for anyone interested.
Dont all Greek texts used today have a great deal they agree upon for readings?
So any of those Greek texts would have produced a viable and accurate Japanese translation for use then?
It's not the Greek text that produces a viable and accurate translation, but the translation method and the translator's skill.
At any rate, the Shinkaiyaku, done from the principles of the NASB but with the NT from Nestle's, is the one most used by the evangelicals of Japan. The new missionary who has only known the KJV has to learn to watch out for the missing verses, phrases and words.
True story. A Ruckmanite, believing in the inerrancy and inspiration of the KJV, learned that the Classical Translation was not the "Japanese KJV" as Ruckman thought. So he called his pastor and said, "What do I do when I preach?" The pastor answered, "Put one hand on the KJV and the other on the Japanese translation while you preach, and the power will carry over."
Of course.
A good version. 2 thumbs up
Dave G
Well-Known Member
The Westcott and Hort text?
I'm sorry to seem offensive, but I view any translation in any language that uses it, as corruptions of God's preserved words.
Based on what I've learned about the "CT", I see it as a much narrower ( and more spurious ) collation of extant Greek manuscripts than even the "TR" is;
and I find it amazing ( and concerning ) that any Christian would trust it...
Especially considering its two primary sources:
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Personally, I wouldn't use them, recommend them, nor consider them to be anything other than corruptions of God's precious word.
To me, they may contain many of them, but they are not the Scriptures handed down to His people in their entirety.
As it stands, the Authorized is the best and only English translation that I use.
Anything in English that follows it exactly, and can be said to update only the words that have more modern equivalents, I would be glad to review.
In other languages, I would consider most, if not all of the ones that the Trinitarian Bible Society to have published, as faithful renditions of the preserved texts.
Additionally in the French, I've found nothing disagreeable ( so far ) with the Louis Segond 1874;
and in the Spanish, the Reina Valera from 1602.
That said, I'll bow out of this thread now in order to avoid the usual attacks that I get ( and have received ) every time that I share my thoughts and convictions on this subject.
May God bless you all.
Last edited:
How in the world can a critical text of the NT be "spurious"? Almost every word of it is in the TR. It leaves out words and phrases and sometimes whole verses (and I strongly object to that), but what is left is virtually all what is in the TR. Caveat: I am a Bible translator and do my work from the traditional texts, so I am certainly not advocating translating from a critical text.
Example: Here is John 3:16 from the UBS critical text: Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
Now here it is from the TR: Οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
The only difference in the UBS Greek text and the Scrivener TR is the sigma added to the very first word, which does not change the meaning in the slightest. Now, would you dare to say that the UBS is "spurious" or not the Word of God???
As I always have held that regardless of which Greek text one chooses to use, there can be made accurate and valid translations, as to me more important then text used would be if the translators has a formal view or a more dynamic view on how to translate
That would be basically Nas based off MT, correct?
So you are then KJVO?