Random KJVO Discussion Poll

[Conan]

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "E"


The text of Estienne's third and fourth edition (1550, 1551) was used by William Whittingham and his colleagues as the basis for the English version of the New Testament included in the Geneva Bible, which was the most widely used English translation prior to the appearance of the King James version (1611). Theodore Beza also used the text of Estienne 1550-51 as the basis for his own influential editions (see Beza 1565), and it generally came to be regarded as a standard text, especially in England. It became the most commonly used text for the purpose of manuscript collation and exegetical commentary, and has been reprinted hundreds of times in various forms, up to the present day (see Newberry 1877, Berry 1897, Scrivener and Nestle 1906). Literal translations are
given in Newberry 1877, Berry 1897, and Young's Literal Translation.

For a biography of Estienne, see Elizabeth Armstrong, Robert Estienne, Royal Printer: an Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus (Cambridge, 1954).

 

[Yeshua1]

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "E"

Influence: The second edition (1519) was followed by Martin Luther in his German translation (1522). The third edition (1522) was used by William Tyndale in his English translation (see Tyndale 1526). The text of the fourth and fifth edition (1527, 1535) was closely followed by Robert Estienne in his influential third edition (1550), which in turn provided the basis for all editions later published by Beza (1565-98), subsequently followed by the translators of the King James version. The editions of Elzevir (1624, 1633) also derived from Erasmus 1527, as mediated by Estienne and Beza. Erasmus' text therefore became the foundation for nearly all editions and translations of the Greek text published for two centuries afterwards.

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "E"

So there seems to be evidence that works such as ther Latin Vulgate at times were just a important a textual source as the Eramus Greek NT?

 

[Yeshua1]

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "E"


The text of Estienne's third and fourth edition (1550, 1551) was used by William Whittingham and his colleagues as the basis for the English version of the New Testament included in the Geneva Bible, which was the most widely used English translation prior to the appearance of the King James version (1611). Theodore Beza also used the text of Estienne 1550-51 as the basis for his own influential editions (see Beza 1565), and it generally came to be regarded as a standard text, especially in England. It became the most commonly used text for the purpose of manuscript collation and exegetical commentary, and has been reprinted hundreds of times in various forms, up to the present day (see Newberry 1877, Berry 1897, Scrivener and Nestle 1906). Literal translations are
given in Newberry 1877, Berry 1897, and Young's Literal Translation.

For a biography of Estienne, see Elizabeth Armstrong, Robert Estienne, Royal Printer: an Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus (Cambridge, 1954).

So that was the primary Greek text used before the TR?

 

[Conan]

So that was the primary Greek text used before the TR?

No. It is a TR. They all descend from Erasmus. There are Multiple TR editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and even Scrivener. They are all slightly varing editions of the "Textus Receptus".

 

[Conan]

So there seems to be evidence that works such as ther Latin Vulgate at times were just a important a textual source as the Eramus Greek NT?

On a very few occasions, yes, that is true.

 

[robycop3]

No. It is a TR. They all descend from Erasmus. There are Multiple TR editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and even Scrivener. They are all slightly varing editions of the "Textus Receptus".

Yeah, the TR has been revised over 30 times!

 

[37818]

Yeah, the TR has been revised over 30 times!

You would not happen to know a resource for this information?

 

[Yeshua1]

No. It is a TR. They all descend from Erasmus. There are Multiple TR editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and even Scrivener. They are all slightly varing editions of the "Textus Receptus".

So which TR text would then be the perfect and inerrant copy of the Original text?

 

[Yeshua1]

On a very few occasions, yes, that is true.

Which if admitted refutes KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, the TR has been revised over 30 times!

So which edition would be the perfect one?

 

[robycop3]

So which edition would be the perfect one?

I ask KJVOs that question all the time.

 

[Baptist4life]

Which edition would be the perfect one?

I ask KJVOs that question all the time.

Which edition is the one where God says He created an entire other race of people for Cain to get a wife from? Is it the same edition that says God created all the different races, causasion, negro, asian, etc., separately? Since that is what he believes, I ask roby that all the time.

 

[robycop3]

Which edition is the one where God says He created an entire other race of people for Cain to get a wife from? Is it the same edition that says God created all the different races, causasion, negro, asian, etc., separately? Since that is what he believes, I ask roby that all the time.

Same ones that say, in so many words, that God does not condone incest.(Not arguing that stuff in this thread.)

 

[Baptist4life]

Which edition is the one where God says He created an entire other race of people for Cain to get a wife from? Is it the same edition that says God created all the different races, causasion, negro, asian, etc., separately? Since that is what he believes, I ask roby that all the time.

Same ones that say, in so many words, that God does not condone incest.(Not arguing that stuff in this thread.)

Well, at least everyone can see you're not denying that's what you believe. I just wondered what Bible version you read that you got those ideas from? So, which one would that be? I'd like to read that version!

 

[robycop3]

Well, at least everyone can see you're not denying that's what you believe. I just wondered what Bible version you read that you got those ideas from? So, which one would that be? I'd like to read that version!

Many valid ones, from the Geneva thru the ESV. Perhaps you can tell me which one says the marka the beast is symbolic.

 

[Baptist4life]

Perhaps you can tell me which one says the marka the beast is symbolic.

I never said it was. You have me mixed up with someone else?

 

[Yeshua1]

I ask KJVOs that question all the time.

Every get an answer?

 

[Conan]

Which if admitted refutes KJVO!

True!

 

[robycop3]

Every get an answer?

None that make sense or are actual answers.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1 am EDT (Sat) 10 pm PST (Fri)

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new thread