Bible Study

[Dr. Bob]

The Textus Receptus was first published in 1516 with editions also published in 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598, 1604, 1624, 1633 et cetera. The edition of 1633 was the first to call the work the "Textus Receptus," but was not the first Textus Receptus.

Nice story but 100% false. There is an actual Textus Receptus and one can look at it and get copies. They are NOT the same as any of the previous Greek texts you list. It is NOT the same as the Greek underlying the AV1611.

Even the most ardent KJVonly will admit that the AV is not translated from the Textus Receptus, but a now-lost eclectic blend of Greek texts (probably combining many of the ones you list).

This is why they "reject" the New KJV, since it cannot have exactly the same Greek text; no one knows the exact Greek text used by the translating committee. One study shows it varied from committee to committee.

The TR is an attempt 20 years later to standardize the hundreds of blends of various Greek manuscripts and texts. It is, of course, very close to the underlying text of the AV1611, but definitely different.

What is different is not the same. Just helping to clarify rather than allow error to be propagated.

 

[Harold Garvey]

[snipped - attack on the Word of God]

Strange, we all know of MSS that have been corrupted through insertians and philanderings and pointing out these arent a part of the preservation of the word of God is an attack??? [personal attack snipped]

 

[annsni]

Strange, we all know of MSS that have been corrupted through insertians and philanderings and pointing out these arent a part of the preservation of the word of God is an attack??? [personal attack snipped]

It's the "we all know" that is questionable Harold.

With the large number of manuscript evidence we have, we can see what was most likely in the originals and not. What is greater is that we have so many more manuscripts now than we ever did - and thus are better able to forensically reproduce a Bible that is most likely more accurate than ever before.

 

[Baptist4life]

With the large number of manuscript evidence we have, we can see what was most likely in the originals and not. What is greater is that we have so many more manuscripts now than we ever did - and thus are better able to forensically reproduce a Bible that is most likely more accurate than ever before.

Can you prove that statement?

Some texts include verses, some texts leave them out. How does having texts that disagree make us " better able to forensically reproduce a Bible that is most likely more accurate than ever before"?


BTW, I'm NOT a believer that the "older" texts are the more accurate ones.

 

[Johnv]

Some texts include verses, some texts leave them out.

Or it's a matter of some texts adding verses, and some not adding verses.

BTW, I'm NOT a believer that the "older" texts are the more accurate ones.

But you seem to be a believer that the "newer" texts are the more accurate ones.

 

[annsni]

Can you prove that statement?

Some texts include verses, some texts leave them out. How does having texts that disagree make us " better able to forensically reproduce a Bible that is most likely more accurate than ever before"?


BTW, I'm NOT a believer that the "older" texts are the more accurate ones.

No need to prove it for you. The evidence is there. Ignore or listen to it if you wish.

Yes, some texts leave it out - but it's relatively easy to figure out 99.9% of what is truly supposed to be there by looking at the WHOLE of the evidence.

 

[Baptist4life]

But you seem to be a believer that the "newer" texts are the more accurate ones.

Bingo! It's a personal belief whichever way you look at it. No PROOF either way.

 

[Baptist4life]

No need to prove it for you.

And no need for me to believe it then. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[annsni]

And no need for me to believe it then. :smilewinkgrin:

That's your choice. The proof is there. However, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Johnv]

Bingo! It's a personal belief whichever way you look at it. No PROOF either way.

So you acknowlege that the position of "the source texts of the KJV are more accurate" is strictly a personal belief, not based on objective support, or upon scriptural support. Therefore, you must also acknowlege that any belief of KJV being superior is also strictly a personal belief, and not based on objective support, or upon scriptural support.

Your position successfully refutes KJVOism.

 

[Baptist4life]

So you acknowlege that the position of "the source texts of the KJV are more accurate" is strictly a personal belief, not based on objective support, or upon scriptural support. Therefore, you must also acknowlege that any belief of KJV being superior is also strictly a personal belief, and not based on objective support, or upon scriptural support.

Your position successfully refutes KJVOism.

Yes, I agree with that. I've repeatedly said I'm not KJVO. I am KJV PREFERRED. I just don't understand why you think the "older" texts have to be more accurate. Maybe they weren't used because they WEREN'T accurate. As I said, no proof either way.

The proof is there.

Sorry, annsi. you seem to be ignoring that. If the proof is there, and so plain to see, please, show this dumb ole Baptist that proof. I think what YOU believe is YOUR personal opinion, however, I'm open to someone showing me differently. I'm not too stubborn to admit when I'm wrong.

 

[Johnv]

Yes, I agree with that. I've repeatedly said I'm not KJVO. I am KJV PREFERRED.

Thanks for clarifying. I respect that.

I just don't understand why you think the "older" texts have to be more accurate.

That's a general rule of literary archeology, and it's consistently shown to be correct in regards to other literary works. There's no reason to think it does not apply in regards to scripture.

Maybe they just weren't used because they WEREN'T accurate.

The objective evidence to that would be to find an earlier manuscript that contains items found exclusively in the later texts. But there is no such evidence.

 

[thecross2]

You'd have to be so locked into the belief that the KJV is the only inspired translation and thereby only the manuscripts that they used are inspired; for you to deny all other manuscripts, or to deny the overwhelming evidence they support.

It's obvious, no need to point to this line in this manuscript, to prove that earlier manuscripts should be more accurate. That is not to say any one manuscript is any more accurate than any other, just that the earlier manuscripts as a whole would obviously more accurately reflect what was originally written.

If manuscripts are copied and recopied, the longer that process endures, they more mistakes will slip thru the cracks. And they did! If you just took the later manuscripts alone, they don't all agree line for line 100%. They are in fact discrepancies (however minor).

Logically, with that in mind, the more manuscripts you have to compare, the more accurately you can identify exactly what the original was. When one manuscript has a line missing, but many others have it, it's obvious the one is the error. Multiply that scenario a hundred different ways and that's textual criticism.

Our goal should not be to prove the KJV right (or any other version for that matter), but to prove what God actually said (to be as accurate in that obligation as possible). King James I was not God, nor were his translators. Nor did they speak for God (they said so in they own preface), Paul did and the rest of the apostles and prophets. I really cannot understand how people justify deifying the work of a group of translators. It's the Word Itself that is Holy! If God has given us the ability to get better and better at accurately reflecting His Word, why would we ignore that? Let alone attack that?

People attack it, in the name of conservatism and trying to defend God's Word. But they are actually in fact, attacking God's Word and His work!

 

[annsni]

Yes, I agree with that. I've repeatedly said I'm not KJVO. I am KJV PREFERRED. I just don't understand why you think the "older" texts have to be more accurate. Maybe they weren't used because they WEREN'T accurate. As I said, no proof either way.

Sorry, annsi. you seem to be ignoring that. If the proof is there, and so plain to see, please, show this dumb ole Baptist that proof. I think what YOU believe is YOUR personal opinion, however, I'm open to someone showing me differently. I'm not too stubborn to admit when I'm wrong.

Best I can do for you right now is to post links. I don't have time tonight to write a paper since hubby is looking for hot soup on the table when he gets home. Hope you don't mind.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#MxD3htsMihwc
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm
http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC.html

 

[Robert Snow]

I agree, it is a great Bible. But there is alway room for improvement.

There are many English versions that are vastly superior to the KJV. The main reason many stay with it is because it is something they are familiar with. Also, many love the Elizabethan English, but as I stated before, there are several version that surpass the KJV, both in accuracy and in readability.

 

[Baptist4life]

Best I can do for you right now is to post links. I don't have time tonight to write a paper since hubby is looking for hot soup on the table when he gets home. Hope you don't mind.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#MxD3htsMihwc
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm
http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC.html

Thanks! I'll read them. As I said, I'm an old dog, but you CAN still teach me some new tricks! :tongue3:

 

[Thermodynamics]

Nice story but 100% false. There is an actual Textus Receptus and one can look at it and get copies. They are NOT the same as any of the previous Greek texts you list. It is NOT the same as the Greek underlying the AV1611.

Even the most ardent KJVonly will admit that the AV is not translated from the Textus Receptus, but a now-lost eclectic blend of Greek texts (probably combining many of the ones you list).

This is why they "reject" the New KJV, since it cannot have exactly the same Greek text; no one knows the exact Greek text used by the translating committee. One study shows it varied from committee to committee.

The TR is an attempt 20 years later to standardize the hundreds of blends of various Greek manuscripts and texts. It is, of course, very close to the underlying text of the AV1611, but definitely different.

What is different is not the same. Just helping to clarify rather than allow error to be propagated.

Hello Bob,

It is sad that you are once again allowing your expressed hatred for the Church of England, the AV and it's translators to cause you to repeat these absurd falsehoods. The history of the English Bible and the texts it is based on have nothing to do with KJVOism and it is wrong of you to attempt to tie the two together.

The Greek text first published by Erasmus in 1516 and published in later editions by Erasmus as well as Stefanus, Beza et cetera were the basis of the AV New Testament and did come to be known as the "Textus Receptus."

Based on some of your posts I am not sure how interested you are in actual facts, but I have listed 10 links below that cite a pre 1611 Textus Receptus. You'll note that NONE of the sites listed are KJVO sites.

God bless!

http://www.answers.com/topic/textus-receptus

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/textus+receptus

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O94-textusreceptus.html

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Textus_Receptus/

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Textus_receptus/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Textus_Receptus

http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/STEPHENS

http://www.google.com/search?q=greek+textus+receptus&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1W1ADRA_en&sa=X&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=FYZGS_rNOYm1tgfuge3iAQ&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CCwQ5wIwCg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

 

[Harold Garvey]

I'll just stick with the one that follows consistency instead of any of these suppositionals and fact twistings .

 

[annsni]

I'll just stick with the one that follows consistency instead of any of these suppositionals and fact twistings .

Is that the NASB or the ESV??

 

[Harold Garvey]

Is that the NASB or the ESV??

Considering the earliest available MSS come from a group comprised of a certain majority which that group consists, it is most logical the originals would have stood apart from them without any possibility of error. What this suggests is those less consistent in a family of texts to have produced suppositional ideals their respective versions are made up of. The KJV is most consistent while others jump to and from perspective versions and thereby a dissimulation occurs within the ranks. The versions placed into the mix the lessening of consistency and the greater dissimulation, or should I say division?