-
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!
KJVO Lies
- Thread starter DeclareHim
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
KJV1769, KJV1873,
Third Millennium Bible(TMB), 21st Century
King James (21KJ)
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
The Critical Text is pretty much unused now a'days, anyway. Most scholars lean toward the Majority Text
, unless they are TR men 
.
I really like the Majority text, in that it derives from all the different manuscript families, not just one.
And it isn't worshipped like the TR...
In Christ,
Trotter
.I really like the Majority text, in that it derives from all the different manuscript families, not just one.
And it isn't worshipped like the TR...
In Christ,
Trotter
Lacy Evans
New Member
NKJV </font>[/QUOTE]Orvie I'm not doubting you but how do you respond to these apparant instances where the NKJV departs from the KJV and lines up with the MVs.
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/nkjv01.htm
I realize that I may be off subject as to my W/H question, so bear with me. Do you think the W/H text had no influence here?
Lacy
The NKJV "lines up" with the MV's only because the MV's use a better word (in today's vernacular) than that of our beloved KJV and in fact and most likely a universal word such as replacing "charity" with "love" as in 1 Corinthians 13 or "bowels" with "heart" in 2 Corinthians.
The acid test: Go to 1 John 5:7, if it is there with no explanation you can be assured that you are reading a TR based Bible.
There are several other belwether tests but this is the one that I use.
This is not meant to be an argument as to the authority of 1 John 5:7 (although, I believe it is apostolic) but as I said, a reliable TR test.
HankD
"how do you respond to these apparant instances where the NKJV departs from the KJV and lines up with the MVs. "
''
In addition to what Hank said.
Within what we call the TR there are a number of variant readings. The AV 1611 often included those as footnotes.
The translators of the Geneva Bible also a TR translation at times chose to use those readings that ended up on the sidelines of the AV.
The same happened with the translation of the NKJV.
''
In addition to what Hank said.
Within what we call the TR there are a number of variant readings. The AV 1611 often included those as footnotes.
The translators of the Geneva Bible also a TR translation at times chose to use those readings that ended up on the sidelines of the AV.
The same happened with the translation of the NKJV.
DeclareHim
New Member
Its sad that the KJV translators didn't make known what exact TR they used. Although it was probably Stephens 1550. I think they should translate a Modern Bible from the TR that doesn't have the initials KJV in it. I personally like the Robinson/Pierpont Greek Text based on the oldest known Byzatine texts. I have no problem with Alexandrian texts I like them. It would just be nice to have an TR MV Bible.
It appears to be a composite or an eclectic text (eek!) taken from more than one source, namely the big three TR's at the time of the translation plus some unique Vulgate readings.
Scrivener published a Greek text (TR) in 1884/5 which puts it all together in one Greek Text (for the most part).
Where is Skan when we need him?
HankD
Lacy Evans
New Member
Thanks Hank and Orvie. I'm still not sure I'm buying it but I appreciate your answers. I'll try to study the issue more myself. Roby, I didn't have a point this time (other than on the top of my head), I was just curious. But I probably will (have a point)again before it is over.
lacy
The question is moot: The AV1611 was translated DECADES prior to the TR.
In 1624 Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir of Leiden published an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1633 they published a second revised edition.
In the publisher's preface of the 1633 revision, in Latin, we find the following words: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum that can be translated as: the (reader) now has the text that is received by all. From this publisher's blurb has come the words "Received Text."
This was the FIRST TIME the TR or Textus Receptus phrase was used. And even in this case, the Elzevir provided no proof the text of their edition had been received by anyone!!
In 1624 Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir of Leiden published an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1633 they published a second revised edition.
In the publisher's preface of the 1633 revision, in Latin, we find the following words: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum that can be translated as: the (reader) now has the text that is received by all. From this publisher's blurb has come the words "Received Text."
This was the FIRST TIME the TR or Textus Receptus phrase was used. And even in this case, the Elzevir provided no proof the text of their edition had been received by anyone!!
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Yes, the New Testament text primarily used by the translators of the King James Version was the third edition of Robert Estienne’s Greek text published in 1550 (Robert Estienne is also known at Robert Stephens or Stephanus, a 16th century printer in Paris). It is commonly called the Textus Receptus although the true Textus Receptus was not published until 1633.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then give a name for versions
made since 1611 which were NOT made from
the Westcott/Hort sources.
I am quite willing to use the term
"Modern Version" for versions made
from the Westcott/Hort source after the
17th century (1601-1700).
Here are some Bibles we need to describe:
KJV1769
KJV1873
Third Millennium Bible (New Authorized Version)
The 21st Century King James
For your statement: Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations." to be true,
these Bibles must NOT be construed as
"Modern Versions". My list may not
be complete, it is only suggestive.
BTW, the New King James Version, while
referencing the so called Westcott/Hort
source, generally in the text uses what
we think may be the received text
(and comments in footnotes the W/H Source).
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations.
JW Bible is also Westcott/Hort translation. This is a CULT!
That's how they derived from the W/H text. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, the Mormons use the KJV. Should we throw it out just because a cult uses it?
Sorry, you are setting a dangerous precedent by your logic.
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
Howdy brotinytim! Long time no see! We raised our children on the kjbible and that is the very thing satan used to seduce our youngest son into another cult called oneness.
Yup, if they had used anything else, he'd never have gone there, but because they read from the one bible he was assured of, he decided to take 'em up on their "bible study" also known as "scripture twisting". The devil knows exactly what he is doing!
Yup, if they had used anything else, he'd never have gone there, but because they read from the one bible he was assured of, he decided to take 'em up on their "bible study" also known as "scripture twisting". The devil knows exactly what he is doing!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
You know it is strange how certain parties who favor
the KJV1769 err in misunderstanding the resolution
of the "they" in Psalm 12:7 to be the words of
God in Psalms 12:6 when in fact it refers to the
people in Psalm 12;5.
Here is what is said above:
Granny Gumbo: "We raised our children on the kjbible and that is the very thing satan used to seduce our youngest son into another cult called oneness."
When i first read it i misunderstood that the
"the very thing" referred to the kjbible
In fact, "the very thing" refers to the post before,
not to the "kjbible".
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, Sonne of God
the KJV1769 err in misunderstanding the resolution
of the "they" in Psalm 12:7 to be the words of
God in Psalms 12:6 when in fact it refers to the
people in Psalm 12;5.
Here is what is said above:
Granny Gumbo: "We raised our children on the kjbible and that is the very thing satan used to seduce our youngest son into another cult called oneness."
When i first read it i misunderstood that the
"the very thing" referred to the kjbible
In fact, "the very thing" refers to the post before,
not to the "kjbible".
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk: