Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Apr 10, 2013.
Would one be holding to both or?
What is God's glorious name are you asking?
just that it seems that BOTH are held by KJVO folks, in that ONLY the TR is seen as being the "real " greek Text to us to translate off from, and only the KJV based off that is the Bible to us now!
That is my understanding of the KJVO movement. However, it seems like some may be moving toward an acceptance of the Majority Text.
Being KJV-only is not exactly the same thing as being TR-only although they may use some of the same arguments.
A KJV-only view in effect makes one English translation at least equal in authority to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages if not in practice greater in authority. According to typical KJV-only reasoning, the present KJV could not be corrected by the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages including any edition of the Greek NT texts called the Textus Receptus.
TR-only would hold the Greek New Testament text editions known as the Textus Receptus to be the authority and standard for the making of translations including the KJV. Thus, a TR-only person should permit corrections to be made to the KJV if the corrections have the authority of the Textus Receptus text.
There is not actually one Greek text that is known as the Textus Receptus that is identical in all its editions. There are 20 or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus. The KJV's NT did not actually follow 100% any one of the TR editions available to the KJV translators.
The printed editions of the Textus Receptus have some readings added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate that are not found in the majority of Byzantine Greek manuscripts and in some cases in no Byzantine Greek manuscripts.
But, there is Scrivner's TR that makes it all better, right? Now there IS a TR that agrees with the KJV 100%! ;-)
Okay, this is a bit better. As others have noted, this does appear to be the case. One of the moves that some KJVO folks have attempted to make over the past several years is to support the textual basis over just the English translation.
This is, of course, a bad move since the TR is significantly inferior to the CT. One can make a better claim about the MT, but the TR is so significantly inferior it is hardly able to stand up against the CT.
Scrivener's late 1800's edition of the Textus Receptus is very close to the KJV, but it may not agree with the KJV 100%. Scrivener suggested that there were a few places where the KJV seemed to follow the Latin Vulgate.
One example could be John 10:16 where the Textus Receptus has a Greek word that is more accurately and consistently translated "flock" but where the KJV has "fold" in agreement with the Latin Vulgate.
The KJV translators themselves had translated this Greek word "flock" at other verses. William Tyndale, the father of our English Bible, had properly and accurately translated it "flock" at John 10:16.
Timothy Morton, a KJV-only advocate, admitted: "The King James Version is NOT a word for word translation of the Textus Receptus or of the Majority Text. It is based on the Textus Receptus, but it also has a few readings from other sources" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 45). Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only advocate, acknowledged: "You're going to find places where the King James Bible doesn't agree with even the Textus Receptus" (Ankerberg, Which English Translation, p. 1). Len Smith, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The King James is not a faithful, accurate, scholarly translation of the Textus Receptus or of any manuscript on earth” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 7). He also commented: “The real reason we know that the Authorized King James Version did not come from the Textus Receptus is because the King James does not agree with any manuscript in the Textus Receptus. In fact, the KJV has readings in it that do not appear in any manuscript in any family on earth” (p. 3). William Grady wrote: “The King James Bible is an eclectic text, which means that it was produced from a variety of underlying sources” (Given by Inspiration, p. 44). Grady asserted: “Sometimes they [the KJV translators] bypassed the Greek altogether in favor of a Latin text” (Ibid.).
Edward F. Hills pointed out: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207). In his preface to a Norton Critical Edition of the KJV’s New Testament, Austin Busch affirmed: “There are a few places where they [the KJV translators] seem to follow the Vulgate” (p. xxvi). Doug Kutilek asserted: "In at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).
This would mean the KJV would have had apsotolic inspiration behind it, for there was NOT a received sole greek text for them to translate from, and even if there were, they chose to accept other sources at times!
So God did indeed remake the originals for us in the KJV, per their beliefs!
No wonder I have had some say to me" if it was good enough for Moses and peter/good enough for me!"
I triedto show them wher it stated otherwise in the Grrek , but they relied upon the KJV itself!
yes, they would beMUCH better able to support their views if they held the MT as the basis, not the TR!
why would you say that, for even the editors of the 28 th edition of nestle agreed that in some areas the MT BZT text rendering had some sound basis for them seen that way?
I said that the MT is just barely better than the TR. The editors of the current Nestles obviously go with the CTfor the most part.
that is true!
Wonder if worth money to upgrade from 27th to the 28th edition out now?
No, though some would hold the KJV is the best translation of the TR.
true, though many who hold to the 'TR family' seem to think the geneva was better then even the KJV!
But I was talking about versions commonly available today.
far as I know, you can still purchase a geneva, even one with update modern spelling!