• 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 real TR

rsr

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
Dr. Cassidy and I have somewhat divergent views on the "true" text of the New Testament -- and I certainly do not have his expertise in this area -- but I think both he and I are willing to correct the mistaken assertions of our respective views. For that I congratulate him.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon, my dear brother,
Do you think that I would say that Sinaiticus doesn't have the Pastoral Epistles, if it does? Why don't you look it up?
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Martin, I recommend you read A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Textament by Frederick H. SCRIVENER
Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1864.

It is now available online through Google Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=v...epage&q=sinaiticus pastoral epistles'&f=false

Scrivener says, on page xxxiii of the Introduction, "The four gospels stand in their usual order, then follow St. Paul's Epistles - that to the Hebrews preceding the four Pastoral letters then the Acts and the Catholic Epistles in their usual order, then the Apocalypse." [Emphasis mine.]
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
stilllearning said:
There is so much disinformation about the Bible all over the internet(even here), that at some point the truth must be stated.
The TR(Textus Receptus or received text), is not something that some man wrote. It is a collection of thousands of manuscripts. The 27 books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek and passed from local Church to local Church and thousands upon thousands of Greek copies were made of these 27 books/letters, as they were being circulated. This continued until all the original autographs were worn out and lost. But God’s Word was not lost, because of the thousands of exact copies that were made, of each individual book/letter.

Over the centuries that followed, a lot of these copies were discovered and kept in a safe place. Later Greek scholars discovered that each copy(or partial copy), of Acts for example, all said “the exact same thing”(word for word/jot & tittle), which was no surprise, because Christians were doing the copying and God(in his providential care, oversaw it).

This continued for hundred of years, with bits and pieces of manuscripts of the New Testament pilling up, with each scrap of paper being examined by Greek scholars. Then every few decades or so, a Greek copy of the Bible was found and these scholars would discover that it was not “an exact copy”, therefore IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, because it “was not exactly like the thousands of other documents”, even though some of them were much older than the rest.

A couple of these corrupt copies, were not just a single letter/epistle of the New Testament, but included all the books of the of the Old and New Testaments, in Greek.

This collecting of manuscripts went on for centuries(in fact it is still going on), even though humanity already has a completed and canonized Bible, archeology doesn’t stop. But the same thing still happens. If a Greek book or letter, is found to be an EXACT COPY of the 5 or 6 thousand other documents in the TR, than it is included to it. But if it is different(flawed), it is put to the side. Therefore, although the TR is growing, it NEVER CHANGES, because all it is, is a pile of documents that PERFECTLY agree with each other.

Now, lets say over the centauries they found 3000 copes of Matthew and 2400 copes of John and 200 copes of Revelation and 1800 copes of Acts, for instance. What if they only found a hand full of copies of 1John or Titus.... Does that mean, that these letters aren’t suppose to be in the Bible? Of course not. But what it does mean, is that these handful of the corrupt copies of the entire New Testament, may not agree with this handful of individual letters. So it doesn’t make any sense to cast doubt upon the letters in the TR, because these same letters that are found in corrupt Bibles, do not agree with them. But here in 2015, we will hear people say,.... “only a few copies of this letter include this or that verse...”, and we will START TO DOUBT THE BIBLE!
------------------------
It has always been Satan’s goal, to cast doubt upon God’s Word, as seen in Genesis 3:1, when he said to Eve, ...”hath God [really] said,....?” The fact is, there is a God in Heaven who has given us His preserved Word and if we ever DOUBT it, than we are DOUBTING God’s ability to have kept it for us! It’s that simple.
Click to expand...

So which of the various TR texts would be seen as being the 'real one?"
 
DMorgan

DMorgan

Member
I really need to stay away from these discussions. I am just a simple Baptist. So now after reading every page of this debate, i do not know which bible to use: my ESV Reference, ESV study bible , Collins KJV, Nelson NKJV, Nelson NKJV study Bible, Holman study bible, or the old Douay-Rheims gathering dust on an unused shelf. I am certain this is important work, but I must say that to the average layman, it is all very confusing.
 
J

Jordan Kurecki

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DMorgan said:
I really need to stay away from these discussions. I am just a simple Baptist. So now after reading every page of this debate, i do not know which bible to use: my ESV Reference, ESV study bible , Collins KJV, Nelson NKJV, Nelson NKJV study Bible, Holman study bible, or the old Douay-Rheims gathering dust on an unused shelf. I am certain this is important work, but I must say that to the average layman, it is all very confusing.
Click to expand...
KJV. read Psalm 12:5-6.
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Jordan Kurecki said:
KJV. read Psalm 12:5-6.
Click to expand...
Where does Psalm 12:5-6 mention the KJV? "For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
 
rsr

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
Because the KJV is the seventh revision of the English Bible. Never mind that the counting is off or that it usually includes the Wycliffe, which is based on the Vulgate, not the Greek. Details, details.
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
Yes, I do apologize. I am completely confused (as so often!). It is Vaticanus that is missing the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon and the concluding verses of Hebrews.

Apologies once again.
Click to expand...
Thank you!

To be more specific, B is missing Hbrews 9:14-13:25 and all of Revelation along with 1 and 2 Timothy as well as Philemon.
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DMorgan said:
I really need to stay away from these discussions. I am just a simple Baptist. So now after reading every page of this debate, i do not know which bible to use: my ESV Reference, ESV study bible , Collins KJV, Nelson NKJV, Nelson NKJV study Bible, Holman study bible, or the old Douay-Rheims gathering dust on an unused shelf. I am certain this is important work, but I must say that to the average layman, it is all very confusing.
Click to expand...
Read them all DMorgan :)
My primary 3 are NASB, ESV, and NIV84. However I use the NKJV and HCSB to compare frequently. None of the translations you listed (KJV, ESV, NKJV) will change your beliefs. You will get the same doctrine. During study I would just compare the ESV to the KJV/NKJV, or vice versa.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
 
DMorgan

DMorgan

Member
McCree79 said:
Read them all DMorgan :)
My primary 3 are NASB, ESV, and NIV84. However I use the NKJV and HCSB to compare frequently. None of the translations you listed (KJV, ESV, NKJV) will change your beliefs. You will get the same doctrine. During study I would just compare the ESV to the KJV/NKJV, or vice versa.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Thanks, that is pretty much what I do. I find the ESV study bible notes are more indepth than the NKJV notes, but being brought up in the KJV, the NKJV reads better. It is all good, and i do not get into the manuscrpt debate. Way above my level of expertise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top