Differences in TR Versions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Keith M, Nov 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are several English Bible versions translated from the Textus Receptus available today. Among these are the Modern King James Version (MKJV), the American King James Version (AKJV), the Third Millennium Bible (TMB), and the Twenty-first Century King James Version (KJ21).

    Can anyone show examples where the modern TR versions reflect wording different enough that it changes doctrinal stance or the meaning of passages?
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The great majority even almost all the changes made in the KJ21 were to update archaic renderings in the KJV.

    One possible exception might be Job 22:25, but even the change there is found in the 1611 KJV marginal note.
    Job 22:25a
    Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defence (KJV, TMB)
    Yea the Almighty shall be thy gold (KJ21) ["Or, gold" 1611 KJV margin]
    Yea, the Almighty shall be your gold (MKJV)

    John 2:3a
    And when the wine failed (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, 1539 Taverner's, 1557 Whittingham's, 1560 Geneva, 1994 KJ21)
    and when they wanted wine (1568 Bishops', 1611 KJV)
    and when they lacked wine (TMB)


    Some KJV-only advocates complain about the following change, but it is found in some of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles.
    Acts 7:45b [Hebrew word for Joshua translated into Greek is the same Greek word for Jesus]
    Joshua (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, MKJV, KJ21, TMB)
    Jesus (Geneva, Bishops', KJV)

    Hebrews 4:8
    Joshua (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Whittingham's, MKJV, TMB)
    Jesus (Bishops', KJV, KJ21)

    The MKJV seems to have a few more differences or changes than the KJ21 or TMB.
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,969
    Likes Received:
    128
    No major doctrine but as I studied through Samuel a while back I came across this:
    in 1 Samuel 13:21.

    21 Yet they had a file* for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forkes, and for the axes, and **to sharpen the goads. KJV
    (notes: * Hebr. a file with mouthes. ** Hebr. to set.)

    21 and the charge for a sharpening was a pim for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads. NKJV

    21 and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads. ESV

    21 They charged a silver coin for the plowshares and mattocks, and half that for the rest. MESSAGE

    In the 19th century archeologists came across stones marked “pim” in Palestinian digs that they figured out were weights with an equivalent worth of about two thirds of a shekel.

    Rob
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,969
    Likes Received:
    128
    double post
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, Deacon, but the ESV and The Message are not TR vrsions, are they? The OP has to do with differences in versions based on the Textus Receptus.
     
  6. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for the typo in the word "versions" in my last post. When I attempted to correct the error, the system would not prmit the edit. Must be some little glitch somewhere in the works...
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    This exposes two reasons (of many) why I do not consider a KJVO position to be a tenable theory:

    1) the AV/KJV lineage of Bibles are not based upon a singlarly identified Greek text; there are minor differences among the several different 'TR' versions.

    2) that other 'TR'-based English translations are not acceptable.

    I own a New Testament in its Original Order (Coulter, 2002) which is stricly based upon 1550 Stephens Text but would be unacceptable to most all Onlyists.
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would imagine so...
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    What are some other TR-based translations from the last 100 years (that are not simply an edited KJV, like 'sacred names' versions)?

    I know of the AV7 New Testament (2006, which was discussed on this board a short while back); the LITV by Jay Green; New Testament in its Original Order (I mentioned in a previous post); the Last Days Bible (Johnson, 1999); and the People’s New Testament, a literal translation of the Textus Receptus by a Baptist!(Chenault, 1996/2002). Others?

    A little older and with expired copyrights, aren't Darby and Young based upon the TR? Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal Translation (NT only, 2001) is based upon Young, and so is the Urim-Thummin Version (James, 2001), as I understand it.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do you know a source for obtaining copies of the Last Days Bible and the People's New Testament that you mentioned?

    Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament is based on or translated from the Byzantine Majority Text edited by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. Thus, it would not be considered to be based on the TR.

    Another example would be the King James 2000 Version edited by Robert Couric and printed by The Bible League. There is also Jay Green's Modern King James Version which differs from his Literal Translation. There is the 1982 NKJV.

    The 1842 edition of the KJV "carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars" that was printed in Philadelphia by J. B. Lippincott should be considered to be based on the Textus Receptus. The editor for its New Testament was A. C. Kendrick.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...