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

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Comrade, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Comrade

    Comrade
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is why I like my NKJV as they used the Received Text.

    Bro Tony
     
  3. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    There are only about 30. So which one do you mean?
     
  4. Comrade

    Comrade
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    Scrivener 1894.

    My preference.

    HankD
     
  6. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:

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

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    And here is the above paragraph
    rewritten to NOT contain errors:

    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.

    [​IMG] Praise Iesus! [​IMG]
     
  10. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    40% in the NKJV is non-TR.
     
  12. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Oh oh...you mean they left out a word? :eek: Me oh my!
    ;)

    AVL1984
     
  13. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  14. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mecury,

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

    Bro Tony
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely yes!
    I go to the TR.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some corrections made
    And here is the above paragraph
    rewritten to NOT contain factual
    errors (spelling errors in the
    original are retained).

    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.

    [​IMG] Praise Iesus! [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TR begun with the Apostles right down to the present.
     
  20. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     

Share This Page

Loading...