Featured Which version - Why?

No, I'm not suggesting anything about the quantity of reading that I have done over the last two years on this subject.

Can you point to any translation team of any modern version with the language skill sets of the translators of the KJB? Can you point to any set of guidelines, as laid out for the KJB translation groups, that are comparable in scope for modern translations.

For the sake of this particular point, lets just stay with the translator's qualifications and quality control measures, rather than drifting into the "political" arena, as that is a different segement of the overall KJB debate that can be addressed separately.

(I have to leave now. Hopefully, I get back in time tonight to reply to your other quote from my prior post.)

 

My NKJV says 70. Geneva says 70 also.

 

SEVENTY
is another combination of two of the perfect numbers, seven and ten. We have seen something of the significance of their sum under the number seventeen; their product is no less significant.

As compared with the sum of two numbers, the product exhibits the significance of each in an intensified form.

Hence 7 x 10 signifies perfect spiritual order carried out with all spiritual power and significance. Both spirit and order are greatly emphasised.




THE SEVENTY NATIONS
which peopled the earth are set forth with a particularity which shows the importance of the fact (see Gen 10).




THE SEVENTY SOULS OF GENESIS 46
are marked not only by the perfection of spiritual truth, as seen by the multiple of 7, but by the perfection of Divine order, as seen in the multiple of 10, seventy being 7 x 10.

We stop not to notice the number given in Acts 7:14, which is different because it refers to a different classification, viz., "all his kindred," which amounted to 75. In Genesis 46:26, God is speaking of another class, viz., only those "which came out of his loins"; these were seventy in number.

This number is made up in a remarkable manner, distinguishing the descendants of Leah and her maid from Rachel and her maid,* the latter being a more marked multiple of 7:—

* The gematria of their names is just as remarkable. See pp. 210, 211.

The Children of Leah 33 (3x11)
(Only 32 are named, because one, viz., Jochebed,* the mother of Moses, though conceived, was not born till Egypt was reached (Num 26:59), and therefore could not be named here.)
The children of her maid Zilpah 16 (4x4)
Together (though not separately) making a multiple of 7 49 (7x7)
The children of Rachel 14 (2x7)
The children of her maid Bilhah 7
21 (3x7)
Making separately and together a multiple of seven 70 (7x10)

* The gematria of her name is 42 (6x7), for though of Divine calling she was very human.

These seventy built up the nation of Israel. See Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5 and Ruth 4:11.
Seventy elders furnished Israel's great Tribunal, Exodus 24:1; Numbers 11:16, afterwards called the Sanhedrim. See below, under the next number (120).

Seventy disciples sent out by the Lord prefigure the mighty host which followed them (Luke 10:1,17) in spirit and in power.

It is the number specially connected with




JERUSALEM
for the city kept its sabbaths seventy years, while Judah was in Babylon, Jeremiah 35:11.

And seventy sevens were determined upon it to complete its transgression, and bring in everlasting righteousness for it, Daniel 9:24 (see pp. 5, 6, 7,).

 

That's good stuff. None of it proves what you're saying, that it is the 'perfect spiritual order' nor have you defined this lofty sounding term at all. Needless to say, neither does it prove the KJV is superior which was the intent. In addition you've not quoted your source, nor has this source defined the phrase you've used.

 

That was not the intent, the intent is to show the Textus Receptus as the superior, i.e. the received text.

 

My NASB says 70, but adds a footnote saying some manuscripts read 72. I appreciate the honesty of the footnotes that say other manuscripts read differently.

 

Meaning later text that have found that date later than the textus receptus. Text found in Alexandria for instance that were dated later than the Manuscripts from Constantinople. The Textus Receptus came from the Greek and Hebrew text that were brought out of Constantinople when it fell and these are known as the received text (Textus Receptus). The NAS and especially the NIV are translated from these later version that are considered as incomplete text and many see them as corrupt. The Textus Receptus came from the Orthodox church in Constantinople and many including William Tyndale produced English translation. Tyndale was strangled and burned at the Stake for his efforts in translating the bible into English this in 1536. From the Testus Receptus and the Bishops Bible came the KJV in 1611, the Textus Receptus manuscripts are the oldest known manuscripts of the word. The NIV from later Alexandrian (Egypt) manuscripts. NAS is from other later version of manuscripts. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Novum Testamentum Graece. So for accuracy one would want to go to the oldest manuscripts of which the KJV, Tyndale and Bishops Bibles were translated from that would be the Textus Receptus.

 

WHAT???? First, do you have a list of Mss that the TR utilized (Erasmus, Beza, et al)? Second, even if you are referring to the Byz text-type, do you have knowledge of any Byzantine Ms that substantiates your claim of "oldest known manuscripts"? Third, by whose standards do you determine "oldest known manuscripts"??? Fourth... WHAT????

I disagree w/ your textual approach, but that's not even the point. If oldest Mss were the plumb line to determine accuracy, the TR and KJV would be at the bottom of the list formulated by a few late Mss. If antiquity is what you want in extant Mss, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

The NIV and NAS use even younger versions that the KJV, so by your standard none are acurate. Not to mention that the Alexandian manuscript was not a complete manuscript which the NIV was translated from.

 

trying to understand why being "received text" automatically makes it the 'superior" text?

 

just curious as to why being the received text means superior?

Wouldn't it be more accurate reflecting the state of textual criticism up until that time, but would not be reflecting advancements in the field, nor the later discovered manuscripts used in Critical text?

 

Of course many feel the work of Erasmus is part of the Textus Receptus. However some feel that Eramus did not have the full scripture for his writtings. The point is that the Textus Recptus comes from older translations, older than those used by the NIV and NAS translators.

 

just curious as to how that could since, as MANY of the earliest manuscripts cited by CT were NOT even known by those who made TR?

 

My favorite version for study is the NASB95. The reason is it best reflects the underlying grammar. It is based on the CT.

However, other versions (ESV, HCSB, NIV, and NKJV) need to be looked at to see if there is a difference of opinion as to what the verse or passage says. Two other ones I look at if there is a difference are the NET (with its apparatus) and the good old KJV.

 

my main study bible is Ryrie 1977 NASB, and it really is "good in greek, poor in English!"

maybe that is why my Grammar lacks here at times, per some posters!

 

90% of the Greek Manuscripts we have are the Byzantine text-type which is what the Testus Receptus contains. While the Alexandrian text of the CT is found in only 10% of the manuscripts.

Kurt Aland a CT translator readily admits this.

The Byzantine Text was predominate from about 350 A.D. to 1516. While CT Alexanadrian was centalized in Egypt.

Interseting is that Aland states that the Alexadrian text was later subjected to the "corrosive effects" of the Byzantine text-type.

The opposite did not occur there was no "corrosive effects" of the Alexandrian Greek upon the TR, thus the Byzantine text was widely regarded as the authoritative form of the text.

The TR from which the KJV is translated from is regarded by many scholars as the authoritative text. While the CT is from the Alexandria text which is considered corrupted due to the Gnostic influence on the church in Alexandria.

 

is there any real proof of this, other than what the KJVO persons wish to elucidate concerning the superior merits of the TR compared to the CT?

 

So many errors so little time.

You made this in reply to me asking question which you never answered. Plus your reply has nothing to do with your original assertion of Mss NOT translations. Not such a good start.

Not exactly. While the TR is primarily Byzantine, it does depart 1,800 times. The TR also has readings w/ absolutely no Ms support. But one could argue the same for the CT (which I am not arguing for either).

This is more or less an overstatement. Do you know where the Mss discovered in Egypt originated? Do we have any way of knowing that??? And your dating of Byzantine Mss is not exactly correct. You were a bit too generous. I would say its dominance began in the 6th century, and that is being kind. But 4th century??? You do realize that is the date for Aleph and B (circa).

You might be correct in your summary of the Alexandrian and Byzantine transmissional history, but your last few statements were terribly inaccurate. There are not that many "scholars" that hold to the TR as authoritative. And to juxtapose it against the CT as if many scholars "considered corrupted" is simply disingenuous to the facts. Not to mention that it is mere speculation of a gnostic influence had crept into the Alexandrian text-type. Remember where Arianism flourished??? Antioch. Remember where a prolific anti-Arian Christian, Athanasius, ministered??? Alexandria, Egypt. So your "poisoned well" argument doesn't hold water (to mix metaphors).

 

Antioch Syria