37818
Well-Known Member
Again, Matthew 17:21 is either there or not there. It is an all or nothing. Your context argument is totally false. Fasting with prayer is taught. Acts of the Apostles 13:2-3 for ministry is an undisputed text.
-
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 objective truth of God's word.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
The KJV & NKJV & TR all came from the majority line.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Yes Acts 13:2-3 does speak of commissioning for ministry but that is different from Mat 17:21 & Mar 9:29 which are referring to healing.
Just as this verse does:
Jas_5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
But we are not talking about Jas 5:16 or Acts 13:2-3. When a verses text is in question then we have to look at the context as we have nothing else to use. The bible is it's own best commentary so if we were to use other verses in support of our view then it would seem that James 5:16 which speaks of healing would have more weight than Acts 13:2-3 which speaks of commissioning of Saul/Paul and Barnabas.
Are you saying that the context of a verse has not relevance? You said that fasting with prayer is taught and I agree but you overlook that healing through prayer is also taught.
The nine disciples were ineffective because the power to cast out demons was not inherent in themselves. It was still God's power, and it came directly from Him. Therefore they needed to acknowledge their dependence on Him for power to be successful. Jesus' prayer life reflected even His dependence on the Father. Prayer is the conduit for the power of God the Father.
No, that is not exactly correct. The KJV/NKJV were translated from the Textus Receptus. The Majority Text is different from the Textus Receptus. True they are similar, but there are readings in the Textus Receptus that were never from the Majority Text.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
As I said they came through the same line. Do you disagree? FYI yes the KJV & NKJV were from the TR but where did it come from and does that change what we have been discussing.
The New Testament was translated using the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of Greek texts. These would be the majority Greek texts would they not.
The following may add a bit to your studies.
The Greek New Testament that was the basis for the KJV was a revised version of Erasmus’ New Testament.
The Greek manuscripts that Erasmus used were:
minuscule manuscript 1 (whole NT except Revelation) — 12th century;
minuscule manuscript 1rK" role="presentation">rK
= manuscript 2814 (Revelation) — 12th century;
minuscule manuscript 2 (gospels) — 12th century;
minuscule manuscript 2ap" role="presentation">ap = manuscript 2815 (Acts and the letters) — 12th century;
minuscule manuscript 4ap" role="presentation">ap = manuscript 2816 (Acts and the letters) — 15th century;
minuscule manuscript 7p" role="presentation">p
= manuscript 2817 (Paul’s letters) — 12th century;
minuscule manuscript 817 — 15th century.
Since manuscript 2814 was incomplete, Erasmus translated a few verses of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.
Erasmus’ second edition revised his earlier work, comparing to manuscript 3 (everything except Revelation) — 12th century.
Erasmus’ third edition added one verse from manuscript 61 — 16th century.
His two later editions differed very little from the third.
The King James Version was a revision of the Bishops’ Bible, to which they compared the printed editions of Erasmus (above) and Beza. Beza’s testament used Erasmus as a base but incorporated occasional readings from Syriac and a few other manuscripts. So that’s the NT of the KJV.
Max Gretinski
Student of the Bible since 1974; Greek since 1988.
What manuscripts did people use to create the NIV and KJV? - Quora
Last edited:
No they are not the same. They are different. Your work shows that by listing Greek witnesses and the Latin Vulgate. You have described the Textus Receptus, or Recieved Text, perfectly. The Majority Text is different. One the Latin Vulgate was not USED in it. And the Majority of all Manuscripts were used in its Text, not just a few like you described for the TR.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
@Conan are they from the same line of transmission? YES. You can look at any of the bibles in that line and you will find differences so your argument is spurious at best. You are trying to split hairs where there are no hairs to split. Curious, what are you trying to prove?
I am trying to tell someone that the TR and Majority Text are not the same. That is what I am trying to prove. Go back and re-read your fine last post. There you posted what the Textus Receptus was perfectly. Or excellently. But you did not describe the Majority Text.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
They have the same line of transmission do they not? What you are saying is the same as saying the Bishops or Beza's bible is not the same as the KJV or the TR. They all came through the same line. they all had the same foundation, do you disagree with that?
What you are saying is like saying that the NASB is different from the NIV or NRSV. They all came through the same line of transmission. There foundation is the same.
Since you seem to hold the TR in such high regard the question becomes:
Which Textus Receptus?
According to Textus Receptus Bibles (.com), there are no less than 27 different versions of the Textus Receptus!
Here is their list:
Complutensian Polyglot
- 1514 (Complutensian Polyglot)
- 1516 (Erasmus 1st Novum Instrumentum omne)
- 1519 (Erasmus 2nd)
- 1522 (Erasmus 3rd Novum Testamentum omne)
- 1527 (Erasmus 4th)
- 1535 (Erasmus 5th)
- 1534 (Simon de Colines)
- 1546 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 1st)
- 1549 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 2nd)
- 1550 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 3rd – Editio Regia
- 1551 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 4th)
- 1565 (Beza 1st)
- 1565 (Beza Octavo 1st)
- 1567 (Beza Octavo 2nd)
- 1580 (Beza Octavo 3rd)
- 1582 (Beza 2nd)
- 1589 (Beza 3rd)
- 1590 (Beza Octavo 4th)
- 1598 (Beza 4th)
- 1604 (Beza Octavo 5th)
- 1624 (Elzevir)
- 1633 (Elzevir) edited by Jeremias Hoelzlin, Professor of Greek at Leiden.
- 1641 (Elzevir)
- 1679 (Elzevir)
- 1825
- 1841 (Scholz)
- 1894 (Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ)
So if the Confessional Position wants to say the Textus Receptus was perfectly preserved by God and inerrant, then we must ask: “which Textus Receptus?” You need to ask which of the 27 possible versions they will pick, because none of them are identical with another.
It’s a problem.
Further, all of these manuscripts which can be called the Textus Receptus contain unique readings not found in any other manuscripts whatsoever. How can the scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages” when – if the Textus Receptus is “pure” – it has readings that never existed before?
God certainly preserved the scriptures through the ages. However, He never promised to preserve them perfectly and to assert that He did is to put words in God’s mouth. That’s a bad idea. There’s no scriptural basis for the idea whatsoever, and so asserting it dogmatically is a very bad idea.
We know God preserved the scriptures because even in the New Testament, over 99% of the Textual Variants have no effect on anything. The remainder don’t impact major doctrines, and certainly nothing concerned with salvation or the Gospel. I believe God preserved it, I’m just don’t think the preservation was word-perfect. Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot
Again, you have done an excellent job of defining the Textus Receptus. Not the Majority Text.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
@Conan and you continue to miss the obvious or rather you just refuse to accept it. Question which TR do you think is your gold standard?
So if you want to say the Textus Receptus was perfectly preserved by God and inerrant, then we must ask: “which Textus Receptus?” You need to ask which of the 27 possible versions you will pick, because none of them are identical with another.
It’s a problem. And you just ignore it or hope no one will question you on it.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
And since we know factually that we do not have the inerrant word of God as given to the first writers of the documents what is your solution?
37818
Well-Known Member
We have the texts of the autographes in their handed down copies. Otherwise said documents would have no identity.
We have completely misunderstood one another. I never said that one of the Textus Receptuses were a gold standard or any such thing. The TR's are good but none perfectly preserved. I was saying that the TR is not the Majority Text. They were 2 different Texts.
37818
Well-Known Member
The Majority Text view has a very logical structure of reasoning behind it. I read The Identity of the New Testament Text, and it made sense. However, the Critical Text method, in my humble opinion, is much more closely developed and representative of what I believe is the correct method.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
We do not have inerrant copies. Just a bit of reading will show you that. Has God preserved all that we need to know so as to know Him, yes. Has He preserved every word as written by the apostles, no I do not think He has. What we have is accurate.
We can create a list of four types of Textual Variant
- Neither meaningful nor viable (they don’t change the meaning and have no chance of being original)
- Viable but not meaningful (they don’t change the meaning and have a chance of being original)
- Meaningful but Not viable (they do change the meaning, but have no chance of being original)
- Both Viable and meaningful (they do change the meaning and do have a chance of being original)
These are Textual Variants which have no effect on anything. These comprise over 75% of all textual variants, which means over 75% of textual variants have no effect on anything whatsoever.
In fact, the most common type of Textual Variant is spelling differences, often a single letter. The single most common textual variant is called a “movable Nu“, with “Nu” being the Greek letter which sounds like our “N”. This Textual Variant (movable Nu) is the single most common Textual Variant.
Other examples include when one manuscript has “Jesus Christ”, and another has “Christ Jesus”, with only the order changed. Again, it simply doesn’t matter which is original because there’s no impact on meaning.
Over 75% of all Textual Variants are not meaningful, even if they are viable. (Viable = possibly original)
Textual Variants that are Meaningful, but not viable.
These are variants where it’s essentially impossible for them to have been original, even if they would change the meaning of the text. Typically, these variants are found only in a single manuscript, or in a small group of manuscripts from one small part of the world. Most often, they are simple scribal errors.
I have a rather humorous example:
1 Thessalonians 2:7 But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children.
There’s a Textual Variant on the word “gentle”. Most manuscripts read “gentle”, some read “little children” and one manuscript reads “horses”. It’s easy to explain these variants when you see how these words are spelled in the Greek, so here are the first three words of the verse in each Textual Variant:
- Alla Egenēthēmen ēpioi (gentle)
- Alla Egenēthēmen nēpioi (little children)
- Alla Egenēthēmen hippioi (horses)
Further, there’s no possible way that hippioi (horses) was intended. It was a simple scribal error, easily noticed and just as easily corrected. Both Textual Variants are meaningful, but it’s nearly impossible for them to be original (they aren’t viable).
These types of Textual Variants make up ~24% of all Textual Variants.
Combined with the ones that aren’t meaningful, you have over 99% of all Textual Variants make no impact on meaning whatsoever.
Textual Variants that are Meaningful and Viable
These Textual Variants have a good chance of being original (viable), and change the meaning of the text (meaningful). They comprise less than 1% of all Textual Variants.
The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8. Other major Textual Variants include the story of the woman caught in Adultery and the last 12 verses in Mark’s Gospel. Those three are probably the most well-known, but there are many more.
Berean Patriot
You can check out this information at:
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot
As they say at this site: "The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article because we’ll look at these topics in exhaustive detail." It is over 50 pages and quite detailed.
- Status