You are equating here, and commiting fallacy, that the Textus Receptus is exact copy of the originals and so is the Kjv in its translation!
-
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!
The KJV Update Project
- Thread starter Baptizo
- Start date
GodisgraciousR325
Member
No, the Textus Receptus is not perfect, there is no perfect Greek/Hebrew.
Are you then suggesting that the KJV corrects the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT or that the KJV is superior to the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT?
Since there is no prefect Greek and Hebrew source texts, why is the kjv superior to Nkjv and Nasb, was it due to the 1611 translators having divine inspiration afforded to them by the Holy Spirit then?
That would an extreme Ruckman type viewpoint
It has not been demonstrated that one specific edition of the KJV out of the over 100 to 200 existing, varying KJV editions is a perfect one. There is not one perfect English text of the KJV that has been printed every word the same from 1611 until today.
TheOneWhoLives
New Member
Only the original manuscripts were perfect, yet those have been lost to time. However, scholars do utilize textual criticism to figure out how the originals did read. Whether or not you want to use the Textus Receipts or the Critical Text, it's all personal preference and you won't be spiritually harmed in any way.
indeed, as there are valid and good translations made off from TR/Bzt/Ct, and there is no English translation perfect and only word of God to us today
37818
Well-Known Member
The text of the handed down Biblical codex came from their original autographs. Known textual variants become at issue. An original reading is to be found between known variants.
Godisgracious1031
Member
Dear readers,
Yes, the 1611 isn't exactly the same as what we have to day and the reason is quite simple.
The way books were printed long ago was manually down, upside down, for the entire book and thus, will have some mistakes or omissions.
I did an pdf of the whole New Testament once, there was so many times I need to revise it since I missed a word or misspelled, its not easy.
Yes, there is a perfect standard text: Pure Cambridge Edition from 1900.
Yes, the 1611 isn't exactly the same as what we have to day and the reason is quite simple.
The way books were printed long ago was manually down, upside down, for the entire book and thus, will have some mistakes or omissions.
I did an pdf of the whole New Testament once, there was so many times I need to revise it since I missed a word or misspelled, its not easy.
Yes, there is a perfect standard text: Pure Cambridge Edition from 1900.
Godisgracious1031
Member
So, how we know that the verses we believe are true, won't be annualled with new "evidence", the baises of the Christian faith is that Jesus is God, the Bible is true.
The so-called "pure Cambridge edition" first printed around the 1920's is not a perfect edition of the KJV. This edition is not presently printed by Cambridge University Press. This edition has some inconsistencies and imperfections that other KJV editions had correct. It fails to put some added words in italics even though they had been accurately put in italics in earlier KJV editions. One of several examples is found at Isaiah 29:8.
Isaiah 29:8 [italics] [compare hungry man in this same verse]
thirsty man (1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1737, 1743, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1804 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1660, 1689, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1717, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1811, 1853, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1715, 1722, 1735, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Bristol) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1790 Bolton) (1790, 1804, 1828 MH) (1792, 1821, 1831 Brown) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Blomfield) (1814, 1832, 1835, 1851, 1858 Scott) (1814 Woodward) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1830, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1839, 1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1841 Thomas) (1844, 1848 Hartford) (1846 Benson) (1846 Portland) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2024 FGWB) (1842 Bernard)
thirsty man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
At Luke 10:30, it inconsistently puts "man" in italics when the Greek Textus Receptus has a Greek noun meaning man in its text.
Luke 10:30 [see Luke 14:2, Luke 14:16, Acts 3:2] [Greek word for man--anthropos in TR text]
A certain man (1675, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1729, 1747, 1749, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1648, 1650, 1655, 1657, 1672, 1684, 1689, 1706, 1711, 1723, 1730, 1735, 1743, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1714, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1695, 1798 Baxter) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH) (1792, 1821 Brown) (1832, 1835 Scott) (1843 AFBS) (1897 Mackail) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (2003, 2011, 2012 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (2003 EB) (KJVJB) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA) (2024 FGWB)
A certain man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
Kjvo though state that the Cambridge 1873 text is that, or else the 1900 Scrivener text, so even KJVO argue among themselves which is the prefect English translation and Greek text!
Never have gotten an answer from a KJVO as to which english Kjv text is the perfect one, nor which Greek text is that perfect TR one
Godisgracious1031
Member
Pure Cambridge Edition
37818
Well-Known Member
What Hebrew and Greek texts?
Godisgracious1031
Member
Check Bibleprotector.com, I don't believe his Pentecosalism, but he explains real usags of italics. The italics can mean somethinh implied in the Greek/Hebrew or minority text. Also, what about that verse in 1 John that have almost half of the verse in italics?
The 1769 wasn't perfect, it missed some words in Rev 18:22. also printing was very hard manual work. Stuff happen.
Either way, they are all King James besides the wicked one and such.
Godisgracious1031
Member
I am not sure, its probably the same the King James Bible used, not the critical text.
Its just an edition that was fixing the errors and misprints of previous King James.
Hebrew is that Ben text, Masoretic, also some is Amaramic, ans the Greek is T.R.
They also compared other foriegn Bibles and so on, not just one manuscript.
Godisgracious1031
Member
There is no perfect Hebrew/Greek, they all have minor differences, also there is also those who try to use such to mistranslate liberally some verses.
37818
Well-Known Member
The KJB onlyist are deliberately keeping wrong readings.