More properly --the correct Bible translation, or Bible version.Yeah. Our bible expert can't even get the right bible.
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!
More properly --the correct Bible translation, or Bible version.Yeah. Our bible expert can't even get the right bible.
Define Traditional text please.the question is whether the Critical Text is an improvement over the Traditional text, and the answer is no.
Certainly.Define Traditional text please.
Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. Commenting and Commentaries, 1876, p. 31
A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading, but as an assistant to the student it deserves honorable mention, despite its faults. It exhibits here and there special beauties, and has, no doubt, in certain places brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out; we have a notable instance in my present text. “And We Are”: A Jewel from the Revised Version (July 19, 1885)
You are quite out of step with most New Testament scholars.Certainly.
I believe that the T.R. is correct in many more places than the Critical Text,
The TR of today is essentially the same as the TR of Spurgeon's day.he believed the TR of his day was in dire need of revision.
You quite out of step with most New Testament scholars.
So your Byzantine Only stance is a minority report.
That's what Martin Luther was told. And the Particular Baptists. I can live with it.
It just goes to show that Spurgeon, like all of us could make mistakes. Chrysostom, Victorinus-Rome (who?), Jerome and FWIW Pelagius all quote at least part of the disputed section. Also, because others do not quote it, but only quote the beginning of the verse, that does not mean that they didn't know it is there. It suited their purpose only to quote the first part.Regarding the add-on at the end of Romans 8:1 in the KJV (TR)
"...this part of my text is not a true portion of Holy Scripture."
"The most learned men assure us that it is not a part of the original text.“
”The oldest copies are without it, the versions do not sustain it, and the fathers do not quote this sentence."
The W-H text used by the 1881 group was not, but the CT used for more modern versions was!Who does not desire that? the question is whether the Critical Text is an improvement over the Traditional text, and the answer is no.
So Spurgeon did indeed see the RV as being an improvement over the Kjv?Spurgeon recommended the 1877 Revised English Bible edited by Joseph Gurney, F. W. Gotch, Benjamin Davies, G. A. Jacob, and Samuel G. Green and published by Eyre and Spottiswoode. Gotch and Green were Baptists.
This edition was entitled: The Holy Bible according to the Authorised Version, Compared with the Hebrew and Greek texts, and carefully revised" (Darlow, Historical Catalogue, p. 381). The heading “Revised English Bible” was above that title at the top of the page. Concerning this edition, William Chamberlin noted: “The design ‘is to correct what may be considered indisputable errors and inadequate renderings in our present English Bible’” (Catalogue, p. 29). That design is stated on the first page of its preface.
Charles Spurgeon wrote the following in his review concerning this 1877 edition: "Here is our own English Bible with its mistranslations amended, and its obsolete words and coarse phrases removed" (Sword and the Trowel, Sept., 1877, p. 438). Spurgeon asserted: “Mr. Gurney has done great service to the church by employing learned men to make the needful corrections. Not one word is altered more than is needed to be, nor are the thoughts re-cast, it is our grandmother’s Bible, with many a blunder of the translator’s set to rights” (Ibid.). Spurgeon added: "We commend the work heartily" (Ibid.).
What needed alterations, revisions, or corrections could be found in this 1877 edition of our English Bible? Here are some examples. This 1877 edition has “almond” for “hazel” (Gen. 30:37), “hot springs” for “mules” (Gen. 36:24), “hamstrung an ox” for “digged down a wall” (Gen. 49:6), “ask“ for “borrow“ (Exod. 3:22), “ostrich“ for “owl“ (Lev. 11:16), “crying lizard“ for “ferret“ (Lev. 11:30), “Far be it“ for “God forbid“ (1 Sam. 14:45), “javelin“ for “target“ (1 Sam. 17:6), “baggage“ for “carriage“ (1 Sam. 17:22), “bow of brass“ for “bow of steel“ (Job 20:24), “precious ores“ for “defence“ (Job 22:25), “ostriches“ for “owls” (Job 30:29), “pipe“ for “organ“ (Job 30:31), “falsehood“ for “leasing“ (Ps. 5:6), “salvation“ for “saving health“ (Ps. 67:2), “turtle-dove“ for “turtle“ (Song of Solomon 2:12), “terebinth“ for “teil tree“ (Isa. 6:13), “All workers for hire shall be sad of soul“ for “all that make sluices and ponds for fish“ (Isa. 19:10), “vats“ for “fats“ (Joel 2:24), “wormwood“ for “hemlock“ (Amos 6:12), “lay bare“ for “discover“ (Micah 1:6), and “pelican“ for “cormorant“ (Zeph. 2:14).
In its New Testament, some examples of revisions in this 1877 edition are the following: “strain out“ for “strain at“ (Matt. 23:24), “lampstand“ for “candlestick“ (Mark 4:21), “honour“ for “worship“ (Luke 14:10, “tithes of all my increase“ for “tithes of all that I possess“ (Luke 18:12), “one flock“ for “one fold“ (John 10:16), “office“ for “bishoprick“ (Acts 1:20), “Joshua“ for “Jesus“ (Acts 7:45), “Passover“ for “Easter“ (Acts 12:4), “temples” for “churches” (Acts 19:37), “bishops” for “overseers” (Acts 20:28), “Joshua” for “Jesus” (Heb. 4:8), “hope“ for “faith” (Heb. 10:23), “lead you astray“ for “seduce you“ (1 John 2:26), “bodies“ for “slaves“ (Rev. 18:13), and “tree of life“ for “book of life“ (Rev. 22:19).
What about the so called Majority text than?Certainly.
I believe that the T.R. is correct in many more places than the Critical Text, , but by 'Traditional Text,' which is the term Burgon used, I mean the text that appears in the vast majority of the Greek MSS and is associated with the Byzantine Text.
Basically all except for those holding to KJVO!You are quite out of step with most New Testament scholars.
I think that one can be either CT/Bzt/Majority preferred, but have doubts on the TR!So your Byzantine Only stance is a minority report.