StraightwayByGrace
New Member
Have they ever OR Will they ever produce another Bible version using the "Received Text"???
If one is out what is it called?
If one is out what is it called?
-
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!
New Bible Version using Received Text?
- Thread starter StraightwayByGrace
- Start date
Greektim
Well-Known Member
It's called the NKJV
StraightwayByGrace
New Member
OK I have been using it but came across info that said it was not, and after checking many verses in comparison to the King James version it is different.
.....confused
.....confused
Or maybe the KJV is different?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
If I understand your question correctly, there are other Bible versions based upon the Textus Receptus Greek text. Historically preceding the KJV there were several: Tyndale's NT, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Taverner's, the Bishop's Bible, and Geneva.
Others are merely minor variations of the KJV: Webster's 1833 version, the Modern KJV, the Defined KJV, Jay Green's LITV/KJV2/KJV3, the Third Millenium Bible, and the AV7-NT are some examples.
There are some that are TR-based but not so closely linked to the KJV family: Young's Literal Version, the People's New Testament, and the Last Days NT.
Some Bibles do not disclose their underlying sources explicitly but seem to be based upon a text that at least mostly resembles the TR in English translation like Norlie's NT, and Darby's.
There are also a few versions based upon the Greek of the Majority Text which is textually very similar to the TR: the ALT-NT, and the English Majority Text Version.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Of course its different. What would be the point of duplicatating a version that already exisited?
The vast majority of differences are matters of translation, not of the underlying text.
The textual basis of the NKJV is the Textus Receptus (though it's supposed to be Scrivener, the NKJV translators used another edition in some places, just as the KJV translators used various editions of the TR and sometimes departed entirely from the Greek for the Vulgate.)
The textual basis of the NKJV is the Textus Receptus (though it's supposed to be Scrivener, the NKJV translators used another edition in some places, just as the KJV translators used various editions of the TR and sometimes departed entirely from the Greek for the Vulgate.)
Young's Literal Translation
New King James Version
King James II and/or Modern King James Version (both Jay Green's version, not sure the difference if any)
The New Scofield is a KJV with archaic words updated.
KJV 2000
Last edited by a moderator:
The text of the NKJV is the same as the KJV. Obviously there are differences in translation, for example in 2Peter 1:1, but that has nothing to do with the underlying text.
Steve
Some die hard kjv only advocates claim that there are textual differences between the KJV and the NKJV. This is simply untrue. While there are differences between the two translations, 99.999999999% of them are translational. There are two exceptions that I can think of. One is with a Greek term that has some accent mark at the end which causes a very slight, non meaningful difference in the English. The other is Matthew 22:10 where the KJV has wedding (γάμος) while modern versions have "wedding hall" (νυμφών). The NKJV has "wedding hall" with the "hall" italicized to show that the Greek text(TR) that the NKJV is based on didn't have "hall" in the text.
Of course, "wedding" is an event and "wedding hall" is more specific and it's the "wedding hall" that is decorated, though we do sometimes say the more generic like the KJV.
Any difference doctrinally? No.
Those are the only ones I'm aware of. As for the rest, they are all translations where the Greek text has the same term.
Example: 2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
The Greek word σπουδάζω(spoudazō) means diligent. The KJV used the term "study" which did have a defintion of "To endeavor diligently." So that was correct in 1611, but incorrect to translate it that way today. That's why the NKJV translated it "be diligent" to give the correct English translation today.
Sorry for the bump but I believe Gerrit Verkuyl's 1940s-1950s Berkeley Translation (revised as the Modern Language Bible around '69) is primarily based on the TR. I've checked the Berkeley's passages re: the deity of Christ against the KJV and there are only two verses I found, in the later letters, that he went with the non-Received reading. Throughout the Gospels and Paul's letters, it lines up with the KJV on the deity of Christ...not every modern translation does so. It's an overlooked but surprisingly good translation. A bit interpretational in a few spots but you can clearly see what he was aiming for and why, but on doctrinally minor points so far as I've seen. Regardless, its fresh and incisive translation. For me, its real strength is his footnotes, most of which are almost devotional in quality. I have both versions and use them often.
Thanks for letting me post.
Thanks for letting me post.
Another Bible version that may be useful is the World English Bible (WEB). It shares much of the underlying text with the TR, but differs in a few places. Both the NKJV and the WEB are superior translations for those who do not believe the KJV is without error.
The MLB New Testament was based on the 8th edition of the Greek text of Tischendorf.
Agreed. I like it a lot. I'll never forget the day when I held it in my hands for the first time after a long wait of keen anticipation. It reamained my #1 choice until I received a gift of the old 84 NIV back in 98 from a Korean pastor.
I don't think the footnotes are its "real strength", but they are certainly devotional --even if they miss the point of a given passage every now and then.
FM mentioned the Darby Bible. It was based on the critical work of Samuel Prideaux Tragelles. He died in 1872 just nine years before the ERV came out. He was on an oversight committee for that.
My Mom had a copy of the Darby N.T. which passed to me upon her death in 2004. It is small and the print is tiny with lots of even smaller footnotes. The language is as obtuse as can be --but it is worth comparing with other translations.
My Mom had a copy of the Darby N.T. which passed to me upon her death in 2004. It is small and the print is tiny with lots of even smaller footnotes. The language is as obtuse as can be --but it is worth comparing with other translations.
what would be nice is to have an entire bible version, with the NT translated off from the greek MT, is there such a version?
The World English Bible.
have you read it? What is your opinion of it as a version?
Sorry, I haven't read it through, just consulted it occasionally.
makahiya117
New Member
What are you calling the Received Text ?