Provide proof

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by av1611jim, Jan 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want to see the proof that the Critical Text is superior to the TR.

    Many on this forum make the claim that Modern versions are better than the KJV. More accurate, whatever. Excluding the "modern" revisions of the KJV (i.e. KJV2000, NKJV, etc.) I would like for the MV-ists to show proof why they think the underlying texts of the NASB, NIV, RSV, etc. are better.

    I did my own studies while earning my degree which is why I am a KJVo. I am not here to debate KJVo. If you want to do so then stick to the dozens of threads that are already beating that horse. Let's talk underlying texts. I would like to see your proof. Don't ask for mine as this thread is not going there. This should be exclusively about the Critical Text and why it is "better".

    Thanks for keeping to the subject.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    There is no "proof" that either side is superior.
     
  3. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just for clarity, the NKJV is not a revision of the KJV, but it is a TR translation of the New Testament.

    If people are to show proof that the Critical Text is better than the TR, may I ask which edition of the TR we are comparing it to?
     
  4. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    agreed....
     
  5. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    IF there were, would we have NIVonlyists? NASBonlyists?
     
  6. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to that!

    That should have been defined ion the OP...
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Quite obviously there are differences between the two.

    What you are really looking for is not proof but a logical argument.

    Rob
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I agree with ALL the above posts. This is another apples & oranges discussion. Are apples better than oranges? Yes, for making applesauce. Are oranges better than apples? Yes, for obtaining orange juice.

    When we git dun wif this'n, kan wee kumpear fords & shevies?
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    The TR is a 'critical text', in several 'critical editions'.

    The TR is a subset of the larger Byzantine/Majority text-family. The "Critical Text" from the OP is likely to be represented by the text-family known as Alexandrian, or Eclectic. There are other families (Western, for example), and there have been other ways to group documents, and different names applied to these groupings.

    Every ancient language manuscript discovered has been found to have variants. When comparing different manuscripts, or witnesses, of a single text, it is not always apparent which variant is probably original and which is probably an error. A textual critic will sort through the variants and establish a 'critical text' that is intended to best represent the original by explaining the state of all extant witnesses. The TR is critically-edited compilation of several manuscripts readily available at the time.

    A textual critic is a fallible human being. There is no scriptural revelation concerning the inspiration of textual critics; therefore, we can be sure they make errors in the creation of 'critical texts'. Erasmus was the critical editor of the first published printed edition of the Greek New Testament (1516), which much later, along with several other 'critical editions', became known collectively as the "textus receptus".

    Erasmus' expertise was in Latin, and it was his desire to publish his Latin version of the NT that drove him to make his Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot which had many errors. In the 2nd (1519) edition the more familiar term Testamentum was used in the title. Those two editions did not include the passage (1 John 5:7–8, known as the Comma Johanneum). The 3rd edition (1522) was the basis for the 1550 Stephanus edition presumably used by the translators of the Geneva Bible, and King James Version. Erasmus published a definitive 4th edition (1527) containing three parallel columns of Greek, Latin Vulgate, and his Latin text. He then used the available Polyglot Bible to improve this version. In 1535 Erasmus published his final edition which dropped the Vulgate column.

    In establishing the 'critical text', the textual critic considers both external evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and internal considerations (what the author and scribes, or printers, were likely to have done). There are three fundamental approaches to textual criticism: stematics, copy-text editing, and eclecticism. Erasmus used the copy-text approach, which basically means that he selected a base text from a manuscript he thought to be reliable. The other methods are now considered to arrive at the original text with a higher level of certainty, especially in light of the many more manuscripts discovered and made available since the 17th century. More recent secular documents and archealogical finds have also contributed to the the ancient languages and customs knowledge pool.

    Many modern 'critical editions' contain an apparatus that presents the evidence that the textual critic considered, the editor's analysis of that evidence, and a record of rejected variants.

    All these flawed manuscripts were once a (or more likely, several) believer's trusted Bible!
     
    #9 franklinmonroe, Jan 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2007
  10. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the school yard lesson but this has nothing to do with the OP.
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Actually, it does.

    I mentioned three reasons why the eclectic texts are generally considered superior to the TR: 1) the method employed by Erasmus to construct his text; 2) the relatively few manuscripts and resources used to compose the TR texts; and 3) more recent archealogical evidence and advancements in ancient languages that can now be applied with textual criticism.

    Primarily, I was supporting my initial statement that the TRs are a critical text in the same character as more modern eclectic texts. I demostrated to a small degree that there really is no established TR text.

    In the end it will be difficult to objectively hold superiority of one critical text over another, since they will be merely different. The question is why? It isn't so much the end results being compared that will tell us which is better, but rather the decisions and the 'canon' of erecting those critical texts.
     
  12. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you franklin;
    that was more to the point and concise.

    anybody else care to make a stab at it?
    Roby?????Logos???????RSR??????Anybody?????
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have not claimed that the Critical Text is better than one of the twenty plus editions of the Textus Receptus. I have not recommended the Critical Text. Thus, this topic has not been shown to relate to my view of Bible translation.
     
  14. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you. You see, many modern versions followed the CT rathar than the TR.
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I disagree with you.
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    See the bold above -- is that true?
     
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Okay then Askjo, prove that either text body is better.
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Rather than having two threads runnings. lets use this one thread for anyone to try and prove a superior text body.

    As I see it the only way to prove it is to compare them to the originals, which we don't have.
     
  19. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Unless Jim clarifies things and tells us exactly what he’s looking for, this thread is dead in the water too.

    As C4K says, conclusive proof requires the original documents.

    In their absence
    …we can provide strong and compelling evidence, relevant to the issue,
    …we can provide a perfusion of witnesses to support the evidence,
    …we can, so to say, plead a case before our peers.

    But I don’t think this is what Jim is looking for.

    I also think it's a bit too broad a topic to be handled adequately in a debate thread.

    Rob
     
  20. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen!

    On what authority or grounds do you disagree that there is no proof that either side is superior, Askjo? Is this based on fact? On your own opinion? On hearsay or what someone else said?

    By all means, Askjo, please prove that either text body is better.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...