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!
At issue is the identity of the New Testament text. What God gave in His original autographs.We have a war going on in regards to the text of the New Testament and what is and what is not the actual word of God. KJVO, TR, the so called critical texts, the Majority text and the common text which is not in dispute except from the enemies of the word of God.
The enormous number of Greek manuscripts, and collated Greek New Testaments are certainly a blessing.The most accurate Greek Text seems to me to be the Majority/Byzantine Text. Not that it is always right/correct, but it seems to me to be the most accurate.
Then next it seems the Textus Receptus is highly accurate. It definitely has some mistakes, sometimes even agreeing with the Nestle/Aland against the Majority Text in a few cases. But still highly accurate.
Then comes Nestle/Aland, and it seems to me to be the lest accurate of the three. Still highly accurate, just not as accurate usually as the above two. However there a few cases where this text could be correct against the above-mentioned Greek Texts where words were accidentally skipped in the Majority Text yet preserved in Nestle/Aland.
I think we are blessed to have all 3 Greek Texts. One is not always right against the others all of the time. Or so it seems to me.
the modern translations such as the nas and esv actually do give to us what the Originals were teaching better then the Kjv does!The hot issue is over how God has preserved His word to us. The textual issuses of the AV aka KJV are well known. The modern versions make far more than they fix, it is that bad.
Indeed, as we can be assured that any of the 3 main greek texts do give to us an accurate representing of what the originals were to us!The enormous number of Greek manuscripts, and collated Greek New Testaments are certainly a blessing.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The NA and the Majority texts seem to be better as in closer to what the originals were then the TR text, as that text was put together based upon eranmus and took in renderings from latin Vulgate, and from unknown sources to thias very day!The most accurate Greek Text seems to me to be the Majority/Byzantine Text. Not that it is always right/correct, but it seems to me to be the most accurate.
Then next it seems the Textus Receptus is highly accurate. It definitely has some mistakes, sometimes even agreeing with the Nestle/Aland against the Majority Text in a few cases. But still highly accurate.
Then comes Nestle/Aland, and it seems to me to be the lest accurate of the three. Still highly accurate, just not as accurate usually as the above two. However there a few cases where this text could be correct against the above-mentioned Greek Texts where words were accidentally skipped in the Majority Text yet preserved in Nestle/Aland.
I think we are blessed to have all 3 Greek Texts. One is not always right against the others all of the time. Or so it seems to me.
The NA and the Majority texts seem to be better as in closer to what the originals were then the TR text, as that text was put together based upon eranmus and took in renderings from latin Vulgate, and from unknown sources to thias very day!
We do not agree. Pick an example.the modern translations such as the nas and esv actually do give to us what the Originals were teaching better then the Kjv does!
The great news is that as you stated earlier, one can use with confidence any of those 3 greek texts with confidence that one has the word of the Lord!1. The MT, TR, CT agree. Highest percentage.
2. The MT, TR agree verses the CT. Next highest percentage.
3. The MT, CT agree verses the TR. 3rd or 4th highest percentage.
4. The TR, CT agree verses the MT. 3rd or 4th highest percentage.
Even with all the mistakes of Erasmus and every editor of the TR's the Majority Text and TR still have far more agreements than with any CT's. Critical Text editors have their "Erasmus" type blunders as well.
I do not see the 1 John 5:7 as having that much support from Greek text/sources, as believe even Erasmus himself did not see it supported at all until third edition!We do not agree. Pick an example.
1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record," Otherwise it verse 7 is skipped and is the beginning of verese 8. Got another example?I do not see the 1 John 5:7 as having that much support from Greek text/sources, as believe even Erasmus himself did not see it supported at all until third edition!
The 3 that bear record were not the three of the kjv text reading though is the point!1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record," Otherwise it verse 7 is skipped and is the beginning of verese 8. Got another example?
A number problems of the AV aka KJV are well known. For every KJV real fix many more errs in the modern CT and ET versions, John 6:47, Luke 4:4 are case examples.The 3 that bear record were not the three of the kjv text reading though is the point!
The shorter reading of John has strong support. But regardless, one is justified in translating the shorter the same as the longer. Context makes it clear Jesus is the object of the participle πιστεύων (pisteuon). Having the Greek εις εμέ (in me) doesn't change the meaning. One can rightly add the words in English based on the shorter reading.A number problems of the AV aka KJV are well known. For every KJV real fix many more errs in the modern CT and ET versions, John 6:47, Luke 4:4 are case examples.
At 0.5% of the manuscrpts.The shorter reading of John has strong support.
Manuscripts that have scribal harmonization with Matthew are less than 10% (with the Orthodox Churches). Less than 0.5% of manuscripts omit "but by every word of God."Luke 4:4 is likely scribal harmonization.