SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
TR is the closest Greek text extant
overall an excellent text, better than the Byzantine text that some go on about!
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!
TR is the closest Greek text extant
When used at the end of every sentence, it is.NO, IT IS NOT!!! [emoji57]
Both MT and CT though at least as good....overall an excellent text, better than the Byzantine text that some go on about!
The theological concept of inerrancy in bibliology does not have to do with textual criticism (omissions, additions, etc.). (For the record, I don't like the term "corruption" when used for Scripture. God's Word cannot be corrupt.) It involves errors of science, history, internal contradictions, etc. I can take the TR, Byz., UBS, or even Hort & Westcott (I have the 1886 American edition), and answer any objections in these areas.Just wonder how you can demonstrate this about "copies", as many of them are blatantly corrupt in many places? Surely on the Original Autographs were Inspired by The Holy Spirit, and this Inspiration is unique and can never be claimed for any copy (mss), regardless of how good they are; nor for any Bible translation in any language.
Both MT and CT though at least as good....
Would seem that the Majority text should be the choice of those not trusting in the CTgetting there, though the TR is not without its own faults, as the great John Burgon admitted that it too needed to be "revised". The KJV is mainly based on the Greek text of Theodore Beza. The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure, "extum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus. Translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt.", this is after the 1611 KJV.
For the record, I don't like the term "corruption" when used for Scripture. God's Word cannot be corrupt.
Think John was stating that the term itself seems to bring in the notion means manuscripts are bogus...it is well known in the study of Textual Criticism, that there are mss that have been wilfully corrupted by copyists. I have seen them form myself over the years when comparing many Bible passages. This is a fact, that sadly does exist.
The term "corruption" is, of course, common in textual criticism. But again, theologically you cannot corrupt God's Word. "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).it is well known in the study of Textual Criticism, that there are mss that have been wilfully corrupted by copyists. I have seen them form myself over the years when comparing many Bible passages. This is a fact, that sadly does exist.
Um, the TR is a Byz. text. This is why we could use it as the source text for our Japanese NT with no regrets.overall an excellent text, better than the Byzantine text that some go on about!
Um, the TR is a Byz. text. This is why we could use it as the source text for our Japanese NT with no regrets.![]()
Wider sense? Don't know what you mean. All of the mss Erasmus used were Byz., so it's a Byzantine text. I'm pretty sure Dr. Robinson (of the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. Textform NT) would agree.yes, but only in a wider sense?
The term "corruption" is, of course, common in textual criticism. But again, theologically you cannot corrupt God's Word. "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
The word "corrupt" in 2 Cor. 2:17 means something different now than it did in 1611: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." In 1611, "corrupt" meant to dilute something, and that is the meaning of the Greek word.
Wider sense? Don't know what you mean. All of the mss Erasmus used were Byz., so it's a Byzantine text. I'm pretty sure Dr. Robinson (of the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. Textform NT) would agree.
When I read KJVO use of that term though, they seem to be stating that those holding to other then TR are using corrupted as in intentional done tom prervert the scriptures. not honest mistakes!The term "corruption" is, of course, common in textual criticism. But again, theologically you cannot corrupt God's Word. "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
The word "corrupt" in 2 Cor. 2:17 means something different now than it did in 1611: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." In 1611, "corrupt" meant to dilute something, and that is the meaning of the Greek word.
The Majority text is something else then, correct?Um, the TR is a Byz. text. This is why we could use it as the source text for our Japanese NT with no regrets.![]()
Is it true that Eramus though used at times readings from Latin Vulgate, and other times still do not know even today where he received those in from?Wider sense? Don't know what you mean. All of the mss Erasmus used were Byz., so it's a Byzantine text. I'm pretty sure Dr. Robinson (of the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. Textform NT) would agree.
There are also evidences to support that John did not write that in that way though also....Whe I refer to "corrupt", I have in mind passages like 1 Timothy 3:16, where θεος has been wilfully (especially after the very strong objection to it by George Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, who was on the 1881 committee) changed to the grammatically nonsensical reading ὃς, which is also admitted to by Dr Charles Ellicott! Likewise, in 1 John 5:7, there is very strong internal Greek evidence from the grammitical construction, as well as very early Patristic evidence from Tertullian, Cyprian, and even the heretic, Pricillian, that John did indeed write the words, "ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. καὶ οὖτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν", etc, etc.
Um, the TR is a Byz. text.
There are also evidences to support that John did not write that in that way though also....
Is it true that Eramus though used at times readings from Latin Vulgate, and other times still do not know even today where he received those in from?
Also. is it not true that the 1 John 5:7 was not found in his first 2 editions, and he "found it" in the third edition?