1769 KJV editor's translation

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 24, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Would KJV defenders accept the translating of
    Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), who was editor of
    the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, as reliable and trustworthy?

    Blayney made new translations of the books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Zechariah, and Psalms.
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here is Blayney's 1784 translation of Lamentations 1:7

    Jerusalem hath called to mind in the days of her affliction, and of her abasement, All her desirable things which were in the days of old;
    When her people fell into the hand of an enemy, and she had no helper, The adversaries saw, they laughed at her discontinuance.
     
  3. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    [off topic comment snipped]

    [ January 04, 2006, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  4. PeterAV

    PeterAV
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    *******
    Would Textus Receptus folks accept the translating of Erasmus' second edition,as trustworthy and reliable?

    Erasmus made his own translations of Latin.
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Erasmus did not translate the Greek of his second edition of 1519, nor any other. He compiled a Greek text using primarily 2 Greek manuscripts.
    Erasmus made a translation of the Greek into Latin as part of his diglot edition of 1516.

    His edition of 1519 was essentially a revision of his first edition.

    His edition of 1522 is remarkable for its inclusion of the comma for the first time.

    His edition of 1527 contained 3 columns, the Greek text, the Latin Vulgate, and his own Latin Translation.

    In his last edition of 1535 he omitted the Latin Vulgate and published only the Greek text and his own Latin translation.
     
  6. PeterAV

    PeterAV
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are a TR man?
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    No. There are over 30 Greek texts all loosely called TR and all are different. I take a position usually called "Byzantine Priority."
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    What do you mean by that, Thomas? And how would you distinguish it in todays "KJVonly" or "TRonly" etc, debates?

    Thanks
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    No. There are over 30 Greek texts all loosely called TR and all are different. I take a position usually called "Byzantine Priority." </font>[/QUOTE]So are you saying that the TR is an eclectic text?
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ah ha, the truth comes out. :eek:

    The methods of textual criticism are not only used to form the eclectic text of Nestle-Aland Greek text but are used in the Byzantine family of manuscripts too.

    Rob
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    I mean that the Byzantine textform better meets the greater criteria of number, age, historicity, geography, agreement, credibility, and internal considerations of context and is thus more likely to reflect the autographal textform.

    And I distinguish it from KJVOnly by the fact that I, and Byzantine Priority, proponents are not KJVOnly. We prefer bibles translated from the Byzantine textform.

    As to TROnly, I have to ask the same question I ask KJVOs, "Which TR?" There are over 30 of them, all different. The TR is one representative of the Byzantine textform but it is by no means the most accurate or most reliable.
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Which TR? Erasmus's 1516 certainly wasn't. Nor were most of the 16th century editions. Scrivener's 1894 TR certainly was.
     
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Sorry, but that is not even close to being accurate. The modern methods of textual criticism did not even exist until first formulated by Johann Bengel in 1725. And, of course, textual criticism is not used in manuscripts, it is used to form texts.
     
  14. mesly

    mesly
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    In your opinion, which Byzantine textform is the most accurate and reliable? Is there an English translation of that textform?

    Thanks.
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    What evidence is there to support that a later text is more accurate then an earlier text considering the fact that all texts originated from one source and then copied and copied and copied. What evidence is there to support the idea that the later Byzantine text is the most accurate text and why?
     
  16. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read Acts to find out where Paul got the word of God used on his missionary trips.
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    There is only one Byzantine textform, made up of over 5,000 manuscripts, and manifesting itself in about 35 printed texts including the 30+ TRs and the 2 Majority Texts currently available.
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    There is little (or no) evidence that says the later (Alexandrian) text is more accurate than the earlier (Byzantine) text. In fact the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction, that the earlier, Byzantine, text is superior to the later, Alexandrian, text.
    You seem confused. The Byzantine textform is the earlier and the Alexandrian is the later. And the most telling evidence of Byzantine superiority has already been posted in my earlier response. [​IMG]
     
  19. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe I asked this question before, but I'll ask it again, because I either forgot or cannot find the answer.

    Are there any good translations in English that DO use the Byzantine textform or the Majority Texts (not necessarily the TR in the NKJV, etc.)?
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Yes, several. LITV, KJ2000, TMB, WEB, and several others. All excellent translations.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...