Why is it called the Texus Receptus (recieved text)?

[Comrade]

Why? Because the New Tesament churches recieved it. This is the manuscript that was translated for the KJV. As for the Alexandrian the NT churches rejected it and did not use it. The madern day versions are all translated from this text. Do you go with the one that the churches started by Paul and other apostles used or the text that the was rejected by those churchs? The choice is yours.

 

[Bro Tony]

That is why I like my NKJV as they used the Received Text.

Bro Tony

 

[gb93433]

There are only about 30. So which one do you mean?

 

[Comrade]

Actually there have been found around 5,000 manuscripts whether that be a verse or chapter or whole book or collection of books but for the most part they all agree about 95%-98% of the time. Meanwhile the Alexandrian has about 250-300 manuscripts and agree less than half the time.

 

[HankD]

There are only about 30. So which one do you mean?

Scrivener 1894.

My preference.

HankD

 

[russell55]

As for the Alexandrian the NT churches rejected it and did not use it.

Could you give evidence for this: first of all, evidence that the NT churches used the received text, and secondly, that they rejected the "Alexandrian" text?

Also, could you explain exactly what you mean by this, and then give supporting evidence for that, too:

Meanwhile the Alexandrian... agree less than half the time.

What does you mean that they agree less than half the time? What is being measured to come up with that statistic?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Comrade:
Why? Because the New Tesament churches recieved it. This is the manuscript that was translated for the KJV. As for the Alexandrian the NT churches rejected it and did not use it. The madern day versions are all translated from this text. Do you go with the one that the churches started by Paul and other apostles used or the text that the was rejected by those churchs? The choice is yours.

Why? Because two printers in 1624 thought that it would help sales. It wasn't called the Textus Receptus before then as far as anyone has documented... the title certainly does nothing to prove that it was used by Paul or any ancient church.

Further, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that any family of texts was rejected... such a view would be absolutely absurd since that system of categorizing texts was invented until many centuries later.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Comrade:
Actually there have been found around 5,000 manuscripts whether that be a verse or chapter or whole book or collection of books but for the most part they all agree about 95%-98% of the time. Meanwhile the Alexandrian has about 250-300 manuscripts and agree less than half the time.

Our panel of experts average
a 10% variation between the KJV1769 and
the nKJV. "... less than half the time"
would indicate a variance between your
data and the pool data shared by our members.

I used to be a professional quality assurance
verifier in a large software house.
We never did really agree what is the
measure of a "variance".
If you have a word off twice, is that
as bad as two words off once?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Comrade:
Why is it called the Texus Receptus (recieved text)?

Why? Because the New Tesament churches recieved it. This is the manuscript that was translated for the KJV. As for the Alexandrian the NT churches rejected it and did not use it. The madern day versions are all translated from this text. Do you go with the one that the churches started by Paul and other apostles used or the text that the was rejected by those churchs? The choice is yours.

And here is the above paragraph
rewritten to NOT contain errors:

Corrected by Ed:
Why is it called the Texus Receptus (recieved text)?

Why? These are the manuscripts that were translated for the KJV. As for the
Alexandrian documents, some NT churches rejected
it and did not use it. The majority of
modern day
versions are translated from this
text. Do you go with the one that
Ruckman, Riplinger, and other
non-experts on the matter say were used
by the
churches started by Paul and other
apostles OR will you use the texts
that Ruckman, Riplinger, and other
non-experts say were
rejectedd by those churchs? The choice is yours.

Fact 1. The Textus Receptus was a
bundle of similiar sources of the Bible.

Proof 1. The KJV1611 edition side notes
show that variant source documents were
used. "Heb" shows a variant in the Old
Testament Sources. "Gr" shows a
variant in the New Testament Sources.

Fact 2. A single source called TR was
created after the translation of the KJV.

Proof 2. Reliable historians note this.

Praise Iesus!

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Proof 1. The KJV1611 edition side notes
show that variant source documents were
used. "Heb" shows a variant in the Old
Testament Sources. "Gr" shows a
variant in the New Testament Sources.

I don't think that's correct, or at least it is not always correct. These notations generally note dynamic equivalency and not alternate readings.

For instance, the end of Psalm 12:2 reads "with a double heart do they speake". The margin note reads, "Hebr. an heart, and an heart." This is not a matter of one manuscript containing what is in the text and another containing what is in the margin, but rather a case where the KJV translators felt that the thought of the Hebrew was best expressed in English by using a less word-for-word translation.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
That is why I like my NKJV as they used the Received Text.

Bro Tony

40% in the NKJV is non-TR.

 

[AVL1984]

Oh oh...you mean they left out a word? Me oh my!


AVL1984

 

[Bro Tony]

40% in the NKJV is non-TR.

Askjo,

This is not true. You need to look at the NKJV and examine it and its preface rather than getting your info from bias anti-bible sources. If you are going to state something know what you are saying.

Bro Tony

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by russell55:
Could you give evidence for this: first of all, evidence that the NT churches used the received text, and secondly, that they rejected the "Alexandrian" text?

Polycarp, for example, used the TR because he witnessed the autographs in the hands of the Apostles and used references from them 50 times BEFORE he was a martyr. Polycarp's references agreed with the KJV. He was there before the Alexandrian texts appeared.

 

[Bro Tony]

I don't think that's correct, or at least it is not always correct. These notations generally note dynamic equivalency and not alternate readings.

For instance, the end of Psalm 12:2 reads "with a double heart do they speake". The margin note reads, "Hebr. an heart, and an heart." This is not a matter of one manuscript containing what is in the text and another containing what is in the margin, but rather a case where the KJV translators felt that the thought of the Hebrew was best expressed in English by using a less word-for-word translation.

Mecury,

Are you stating that the KJV translators used dynamic equivalence in their translations? That is anathema to the KJVO camp.

Bro Tony

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />40% in the NKJV is non-TR.

Askjo,

This is not true. You need to look at the NKJV and examine it and its preface rather than getting your info from bias anti-bible sources. If you are going to state something know what you are saying.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Bob has my information.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Comrade:
Why? Because the New Tesament churches recieved it. This is the manuscript that was translated for the KJV. As for the Alexandrian the NT churches rejected it and did not use it.

Absolutely yes!

Do you go with the one that the churches started by Paul and other apostles used or the text that the was rejected by those churchs? The choice is yours.

I go to the TR.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Some corrections made

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Comrade:
Why is it called the Texus Receptus (recieved text)?

Why? Because the New Tesament churches recieved it. This is the manuscript that was translated for the KJV. As for the Alexandrian the NT churches rejected it and did not use it. The madern day versions are all translated from this text. Do you go with the one that the churches started by Paul and other apostles used or the text that the was rejected by those churchs? The choice is yours.

And here is the above paragraph
rewritten to NOT contain factual
errors (spelling errors in the
original are retained).

Corrected by Ed:
Why is it called the Texus Receptus (recieved text)?

Why? These are the manuscripts that were translated for the KJV. As for the
Alexandrian documents, some NT churches rejected
it and did not use it. The majority of
modern day
versions are translated from this
text. Do you go with the one that
Ruckman, Riplinger, and other
non-experts on the matter say were used
by the
churches started by Paul and other
apostles OR will you use the texts
that Ruckman, Riplinger, and other
non-experts say were
rejectedd by those churchs? The choice is yours.

Fact 1. The Textus Receptus was a
bundle of similiar sources of the Bible.

Proof 1. The KJV1611 edition side notes
show that variant source documents were
used. "Heb" shows a variant in the Old
Testament Sources. "Gr" shows a
variant in the New Testament Sources.

Fact 2. A single source called TR was
created after the translation of the KJV.

Proof 2. Reliable historians note this.

Praise Iesus!

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Scott J:
]Why? Because two printers in 1624 thought that it would help sales. It wasn't called the Textus Receptus before then as far as anyone has documented... the title certainly does nothing to prove that it was used by Paul or any ancient church.

The TR begun with the Apostles right down to the present.

 

[russell55]

Polycarp, for example, used the TR because he witnessed the autographs in the hands of the Apostles and used references from them 50 times BEFORE he was a martyr. Polycarp's references agreed with the KJV. He was there before the Alexandrian texts appeared.

Well, it wouldn't have been exactly the TR he used, but it might have been manuscripts similar to those on which the TR is based. Can you give an example or two of where Polycarp quotes from sources that disagree with the Alexandrian text family and follow the texts that the KJV is based on?