1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Are there Differences Between the Received Text and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Alan Gross, Jan 18, 2024.

  1. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,561
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are there Differences
    Between the Received Text
    and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?


    "There are many myths that are perpetuated today
    by the defenders of the modern versions,

    and one of those is that there is very little difference

    between the Received Text underlying the King James Bible
    and other ancient Protestant versions
    and the Westcott-Hort Greek text
    underlying most of the modern versions.

    "Westcott and Hort
    themselves made this claim in their day,
    and it is widely repeated today.

    Hort stated:

    “... the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text”

    (F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek,
    1882, vol. II, p. 2).

    More recently, Mark Minnick,
    who is associated with Bob Jones University, stated:

    “To put this ‘thousandth part of the entire text into perspective,
    I am looking at the last page of my Greek New Testament.

    "It is numbered 895.

    "Hort’s estimate means that if all of the substantial variation
    between the families was grouped together in one place
    it would combine to occupy less than one page
    of my entire Testament

    (Mark Minnick, “Let's Meet the Manuscripts,”
    From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,
    edited by James B. Williams, 1999, pp. 85, 86).

    The fact is that the differences are large
    and serious and a choice must be made.

    The following is from Dr. Donald Waite’s book
    Defending the King James Bible:

    The Westcott and Hort Text
    changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places.

    “Do you know how many changes they made?

    "My own personal count, as of August 2, 1984,
    using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to above,
    was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made
    to the Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text.

    "Of these 5,604 alterations, I found 1,952 to be OMISSIONS (35%),
    467 to be ADDITIONS (8%), and 3,185 to be CHANGES (57%).


    "In these 5,604 places that were involved in these alterations,
    there were 4,366 more words included,
    making a total of 9,970 Greek words that were involved.

    "This means that in a Greek Text of 647 pages
    (such as
    Scrivener's text), this would average 15.4 words per page
    that were CHANGED from
    the Received Text.


    Pastor Jack Moorman counted 140,521 words
    in the Textus Receptus.

    "These changes would amount to 7% of the words;
    and 45.9 pages of the Greek New Testament
    if placed together in one place.

    Rev. Jack A. Moorman, in December 1988, wrote a book entitled: ‘Missing in Modern Bibles--Is The Full Story Being Told?’

    "It was published by The Bible For Today in April, 1989.

    "Rev. Moorman counted every word of no
    and also every word of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text

    and, on a chapter by chapter count, came up
    with the Nestle/Aland text being SHORTER
    than the Received Text by 2,886 words.

    "This is 934 words more than were Omitted
    from the Westcott and Hort text. (1,952 vs. 2,886).

    "The Omitting of 2,886 Greek words is the equivalent,
    in number of English words involved,
    of DROPPING OUT THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF 1 PETER AND 2 PETER!"


    Pastor Moorman's book is eighty large pages.” [B.F.T. #1726]
    (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108)

    Updated November 24, 2004 (first published August 11, 2004)

    David Cloud, Way of Life Literature,
    P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
    866-295-4143, [email protected]
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are some non-true claims or myths made by KJV defenders concerning the Textus Receptus.

    KJV-only author Ed DeVries claimed: “Using the legible copies of the Received Text Erasmus typeset a text on the printing press. This new printed text was letter for letter and word for word the same as the Received Text from which it was copied” (Divinely Inspired, p. 14). Ed DeVries declared that “these ‘received’ manuscripts are in complete agreement with each other” (p. 16). Ed DeVries claimed: “No one, not even liberal scholars, questions the fact that the Textus Receptus is a perfect representation of the manuscripts from which it was copied” (Ibid.). Ed DeVries declared that “the Received Text manuscripts were exact copies of the original autographs and/or of each other” (p. 17). DeVries claimed: “The Textus Receptus has been proven to be a perfect rendering of the Received Text” (p. 27).

    Troy Clark asserted that “he [Erasmus] perfectly copied” and that “there was not one Word change from its original form” (Perfect Bible, p. 121). Bob Kendall contended that “the TR has not one footnote” and that “the TR has no footnotes” (How Firm, pp. 28, 41). Troy Clark claimed: “Stephanus used the 16 Majority Text Greek manuscripts in the library of King Francis I and son Henry II. These were all identical, even down to the letter” (Perfect Bible, p. 144). Troy Clark asserted: “The Textus Receptus will always represent the undisputed majority of 95-99% of Greek texts that mirror agreement with each other” (p, 72).

    Michael Hollner claimed that “the Authorized King James Version is backed up by the majority of all existing manuscripts” and “this majority, being well over 95% in number out of some 5800 manuscripts, is called the ‘Majority Text’” (KJ Only Debate, p. 18).

    Al Lacy asserted: "From God's pure manuscripts came the AV1611" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 18). Al Lacy maintained that “there is a set of manuscripts that are free of error” (p. 85) and that God “kept us error-free COPIES in the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew and the Received Text of the Greek” (p. 116).

    David W. Daniels claimed that the KJV “was accurately translated from perfect copies of God’s words” (BattleCry, Sept/Oct., 2007, p. 11).

    Wayne Williams asserted: "There are many infallible manuscripts such as the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus to verify the preserved Scripture" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 21).

    Bruce Borders claimed that “over 5000 Antiochian manuscripts or parts of manuscripts are in existence today” and that “each completely agrees with the others, with absolutely no discrepancies” (The Only Bible, p. 14). Jeffrey Khoo asserted: “The Lord has certainly kept these [Byzantine] manuscripts pure and uncorrupted throughout the centuries” (Kwok, VPP, p. 129).

    James Rasbeary claimed that “the Greek texts used by the [KJV] translators were not marred by mistakes and accumulated errors” and that “these [5300] Greek manuscripts are in agreement with each other and with the King James Bible” (What’s Wrong, p. 103).

    Even D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 80, 95). D. A. Waite claimed that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text known as the Traditional Text” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 27), that “the Textus Receptus kind of text is represented by over 99% of the 5, 255 manuscripts” (p. 52), and that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (p. 53). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132). Waite claimed: “Each of these manuscripts of the Traditional Text or Received Greek Text are virtually identical” (Foes of the KJB, p. 130).

    Edward F. Hills maintained that “the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor”, and that “the several editions of the Textus Receptus vary from each other slightly” (KJV Defended, pp. 222, 223). Edward F. Hills claimed that the Textus Receptus “is the printed form of the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts” (pp. 111-112).

    Trevor Kirkland asserted that “within the Received Text tradition there are very few [variants], and they are often noted in the margin of the AV” (Riddle, Why I Preach, p. 131).
     
  3. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,561
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen.
    ...

    What kind of beef do you have with Edward F. Hills?

    There's something that doesn't meet your standards that he said?


    ...

    GO GET EM, MAN! (they are the easiest sitting ducks ever in existence).

    AND THEY AND THEIR CLAIMS ARE NOT HERE.

    THE CLAIMS SUCH AS YOU MADE DON'T MATTER A BIT.

    THE SPECIFICS YOU CITED ARE ALL TOTALLY IRRELEVANT

    TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD;

    O.P.; "Are there Differences Between the Received Text
    and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?"
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What Edward F. Hills stated is misleading and is not the truth. According to what he and other KJV defenders suggest to be significant differences there would be those kind of significant differences in the twenty or more varying Textus Receptus editions and even more in those TR editions' underlying Greek manuscripts. Whole verse differences and whole clause differences would be significant according to the measures/standards used by KJV defenders.

    David Cloud maintained that “no one denies that such a variety [among the Byzantine or traditional Greek manuscripts] exists” (Faith, p. 714), but some KJV-only advocates do attempt to deny it.

    The first two editions of the Textus Receptus edited by Erasmus did not include four whole verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 21:26] that are found in the KJV so are those slight differences?

    The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373).

    Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26.

    In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.

    Edward F. Hills maintained that the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the “majority of the Greek manuscripts” have their purification at Luke 2:22 (KJV Defended, p. 221). Many of the Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the TR editions and several TR editions have the reading his father at Luke 2:33.

    In the case of Luke 10:22, an edition of Stephanus has a reading [“and turning to his disciples he said”] followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible that Backus reported where Beza “remarks that the phrase appears in many ancient MSS” although he omits it from his text (Reformed Roots, p. 85). Edward F. Hills declared that “Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse [Luke 17:36] with the majority of Greek manuscripts” (Believing Bible Study, p. 208). At the beginning of John 14:1, Erasmus’ text has a reading (“And he said unto his disciples”) that is not found in Beza. Concerning 1 Timothy 1:4, Edward F. Hills asserted that Stephanus and “majority of Greek manuscripts” read dispensation of God while Erasmus, Beza, and KJV read godly edifying (KJV Defended, p. 222). At Hebrews 9:1, Edward F. Hill claimed that Stephanus “reads first tabernacle, with the majority of the Greek manuscripts,” and that the KJV “omits tabernacle and regards covenant as implied” (Believing Bible Study, p. 209). One reading followed in the KJV at Revelation 17:8 (and yet is, instead of, and shall come) is said by Edward F. Hills to be an “uncorrected printer’s error in Erasmus” (p. 83).

    Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202). Jan Krans referred to this reading at Revelation 17:8 as “one of the Erasamian blunders” (Beyond what is Written, p. 54, footnote 6).

    Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3).

    There are more than a few variants in the Greek NT manuscripts underlying the varying Received Text editions. There were also textual conjectures introduced into the varying TR editions along with some errors introduced by the printers.
     
    #4 Logos1560, Feb 14, 2024
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2024
  5. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,561
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you have anything to say about,
    'What Edward F. Hills stated is misleading and is not the truth."?

    A question comes to my mind with regard to this, early this morning,
    and that is "so what?"

    Nothing to note of any significance I take it.

    Oh, and that can go along with the rest of the irrelevant quotes in your post.
    ...

    Ref:

    "How many differences are found
    between the Scrivener text
    and the Stephanus and Beza texts?


    "There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550.

    "These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences -- many of which are quite substantial -- between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus."


    OOPS! Starting to go there!

    Somewhere that matters.
     
    #5 Alan Gross, Feb 14, 2024
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2024
  6. Conan

    Conan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    316
    Faith:
    Baptist
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Conan

    Conan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    316
    Faith:
    Baptist
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some significant textual differences can be found in the pre-1611 English Bibles that comprise the heritage of the KJV and that are on the KJV-only view’s good tree.

    Some pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale’s New Testament and Matthew’s Bible did not have three whole verses (Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Revelation 21:26) because those verses were not in the editions of the Greek text of Erasmus. The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible has three whole verses in Psalm 14, which are not found in the KJV. From the twenty to thirty varying Textus Receptus editions, some other significant textual differences (Mark 15:3c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 18:23a), which involve clauses, phrases, or words, could also be noted.

    Concerning Mark 15:3c, John Eadie claimed that it is omitted in Beza, but inserted in the second edition of the Bishops’ and the KJV “after the margin of Stephens” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 81). Since several TR editions have the reading “their purification” at Luke 2:22 and “his father” at Luke 2:33, several pre-1611 English Bibles have those renderings. For one example of a textual difference, the 1560 Geneva Bible has these words “Jacim. And Jacim begat” in its text that are not found in the 1611 KJV’s text, but these words are mentioned in a 1611 marginal note. At Luke 10:22, the 1560 Geneva Bible had these words “Then he turned to his disciples” based on a TR edition by Stephanus that are not found in the text of the 1611 KJV. The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible did not have a whole verse [Luke 17:36] that is in the KJV. At the beginning of John 14:1, the 1560 Geneva Bible (and most of the other pre-1611 English Bibles) has these words “And he said to his disciples” that are omitted in the text of the 1611 KJV. Do any KJV-only authors mention and discuss the fact that the KJV translators put in their marginal notes some readings that the 1560 Geneva Bible had in its text? The 1560 Geneva edition did not have the second half of 1 John 2:21 since it was not found in the TR editions on which it was based. In addition, the fact should be acknowledged that the makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Rheims New Testament—a non-TR source which is on the KJV-only view’s corrupt tree of Bibles, and that is one of the reasons for many differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV. There would be a far greater number of significant textual differences in the 1582 Rheims, which is also part of the lineage and heritage of the KJV.

    KJV-only authors themselves have maintained that the New Testaments of the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV are both translated from the Received Text or from the same basic Greek texts. On the other hand, KJV-only advocates attempt to suggest that the New Testaments of the KJV and the NKJV are not translated from the same Greek texts. Are consistent, just measures being used in KJV-only assertions concerning the underlying New Testament text of both the Geneva Bible and of the NKJV? Are some KJV-only advocates ignoring the actual amount of textual variation in the twenty to thirty differing printed editions of the Textus Receptus?

    William Grady acknowledged that the KJV “was not a direct translation of any one edition of the Textus Receptus, but rather embodied an eclectic text (i.e., constructed from several sources)” (Given by Inspiration, p. 292). If the Geneva Bible could have any textually-based differences and still be asserted by KJV-only authors to be translated from the same Greek NT text as the KJV, why could the same not be true concerning the NKJV? It is fair, reasonable, and scriptural to ask that the same exact measures be applied consistently and justly.

    In their very own stated positive assertions concerning the Geneva Bible, would KJV-only advocates overlook or ignore textually-based differences, including some that are significant, between the Geneva Bible and the KJV? The marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV pointed out some of these textual differences so those should not be too hard to find. Other examples can be found by comparing the Geneva Bible and the KJV in places where the varying Textus Receptus editions have been pointed out to have differed. Some of the claimed likely sources for the possible textually-based differences according to various sources are indicated. One resource that pointed out several of these differences, giving a claimed source or reason for them, was the book The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament by Irena Backus.

    Surely, any possible textually-based differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV would be relevant and significant facts to be considered concerning the KJV-only view's good-tree argument and concerning the Textus Receptus.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Possible examples of textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV in the gospel of Matthew

    Matthew 1:11 "Jacim. And Jacim begat" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in the 1611 KJV] [see also 1611 edition's marginal note]

    Matthew 1:20

    Joseph the son of David, [1560 Geneva Bible]
    Joseph, thou son of David, [1611 KJV] [“thou”--possible Luther’s German Bible influence]

    David Norton asserted: “The most obvious sign of Luther is ‘thou son of David’, which has no warrant in the Greek” (KJB: A Short History, p. 36). Norton claimed: “The retention of Coverdale’s (and Luther’s) ‘thou son of David’ might be carelessness. It is untrue to the Greek” (p. 39).

    Matthew 2:11
    found [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus, Beza] (see Backus, pp. 45-46)
    saw [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]

    Matthew 2:13

    After their departure [1560 Geneva Bible]
    And when they were departed [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 4:10

    Avoid Satan [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]
    Get thee hence, Satan [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Matthew 4:12

    John was delivered up [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 48)
    John was cast into prison [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Matthew 5:21

    said unto them [1560 Geneva Bible]
    said by them [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]

    Matthew 5:21

    shall be culpable of judgment [1560 Geneva Bible] [early Beza]
    shall be in danger of the judgment [1611 KJV] [later Beza]

    Matthew 5:27

    said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]
    said by them [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 5:29

    right eye cause thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 51)
    right eye offend thee [1611 KJV] [possible Vulgate] [see 1611 marginal note]

    Matthew 5:30

    right hand make thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible]
    right hand offend thee [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 5:33

    said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]
    said by them [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 5:47

    what singular thing do ye [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 52)
    what do ye more than others [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Matthew 6:34

    for the morrow shall care for itself [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (Backus, p. 54)
    for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Matthew 8:18

    to go over the water [1560 Geneva Bible]
    to depart unto the other side [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 8:23

    into the ship [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
    into a ship [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 9:4

    But when Jesus saw their thoughts [1560 Geneva Bible]
    And Jesus knowing their thoughts [1611 KJV]


    Matthew 9:26

    And this [1560 Geneva Bible]
    And the [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

    Matthew 10:9

    Possess not gold [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 58)
    Provide neither gold [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Matthew 10:18

    in witness to them [1560 Geneva Bible]
    for a testimony against them [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Matthew 11:28

    I will ease you [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]
    I will give you rest [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Matthew 14:2

    great works are wrought by him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 59-60)
    mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [1611 KJV] [see 1611 margin]

    Matthew 18:19

    Again, verily, I say unto you [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 61)
    Again I say unto you [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 18:26

    and besought him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 62)
    and worshipped him [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]

    Matthew 21:32

    were not moved with repentance afterward [1560 Geneva Bible]
    repented not afterward [1611 KJV]

    Matthew 26:15

    And said [1560 Geneva Bible]
    And said unto them [1611 KJV] [Latin Vulgate] [“unto them” in italics in later KJV’s]

    Matthew 26:26
    and when he had given thanks [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 64-65)
    and blessed it [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Possible of examples of textual differences in the gospel of Luke between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV

    Luke 1:28

    thou that art freely beloved [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, pp. 79, 91)
    thou that art highly favoured [1611 KJV] [Erasmus]

    Luke 6:16

    Judas [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
    And Judas [1611 KJV]

    Luke 7:28

    then John [1560 Geneva Bible]
    than John the Baptist [1611 KJV]

    Luke 8:14

    bring forth no fruit [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus] (see Backus, pp. 83-84)
    bring no fruit to perfection [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Luke 8:29

    was carried [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus & Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 84)
    was driven [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Luke 9:22

    and the third day rise again [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]
    and be raised the third day [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Luke 10:19

    nothing shall hurt you [1560 Geneva Bible]
    nothing shall by any means hurt you [1611 KJV]

    Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible from an edition of Stephanus are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, pp. 85-86)

    Did the makers of the KJV remove words from the text of a pre-1611 English Bible and put them in a marginal note?

    Luke 11:3

    for the day [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 86)
    day by day [1611 KJV] [Erasmus] [see 1611 marginal note]

    Luke 12:56

    the face of the earth, and of the sky [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
    the face of the sky and of the earth [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]

    Luke 15:13

    So not long after [1560 Geneva Bible]
    And not many days after [1611 KJV] [Latin—non post multos dies]

    [Daniell maintained that the “KJV followed the Latin” (Bible in English, p. 363)]

    Luke 15:26

    one of his servants [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
    one of the servants [1611 KJV] [Beza]

    Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
    The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, p. 88)

    Luke 20:32

    And last of all, the woman died also [1560 Geneva Bible]
    Last of all the woman died also [1611 KJV]
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A few possible textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV in the gospel of John

    John 4:31

    the disciples [1560 Geneva Bible]
    his disciples [1611 KJV]

    John 7:3

    see thy works [1560 Geneva Bible]
    see the works [1611 KJV]

    John 8:1

    And Jesus went [1560 Geneva Bible]
    Jesus went [1611 KJV]

    John 8:6 "as though he heard them not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

    John 8:42

    Therefore Jesus said [1560 Geneva]
    Jesus said [1611 KJV]

    John 8:59 "going through the midst of them, and so passed by" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

    John 12:26

    and if any man serve me [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
    if any man serve me [1611 KJV] [possible Latin Vulgate influence]

    John 13:31

    When he was gone out [1560 Geneva Bible]
    Therefore, when he was gone out [1611 KJV]

    John 14:1

    And he said to his disciples [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus]

    [these words found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles are not in KJV]

    John 14:6

    and the Truth [1560 Geneva Bible] [Textus Receptus]

    the truth [1611 KJV] [many KJV editions from 1638 Cambridge, including the 1769 Oxford, and until 1800 and even till the 1844 Cambridge had “and the truth”]

    John 14:23

    keep my word [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
    keep my words [1611 KJV]

    John 16:2

    They shall excommunicate you [1560 Geneva Bible]
    They shall put you out of the synagogues [1611 KJV]
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The 1560 Geneva Bible may have been based on the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus while the 1611 KJV is said to be more based on the last one or two Greek text editions by Beza although multiple editions were consulted.

    Either the 1560 Geneva Bible nor the 1611 KJV seems to have followed any one Greek NT text edition 100% as both were influenced by multiple textually-varying sources.

    The possible or likely textually-based differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV may possibly indicate more differences between 1550 Stephanus text and the 1598 Beza text than have been commonly noticed.

    Scrivener asserted that Beza’s 1598 Greek N. T. contained “manifest errors of the press” (Scrivener’s Annotated Greek N.T., p. xi).

    D. A. Waite pointed out that Scrivener found about 190 places where the KJV translators departed from the 1598 edition of Beza (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 71).

    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).

    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).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,561
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you can find anyone on the Internet that is interested
    in any of this marvelous information you have posted at length
    in posts #2, #4, #8, #9, #10, & #11, on this thread,
    I suggest you post it to them, there.

    I didn't say, to just post them indiscriminately anywhere,
    regardless of them having any relevance, find someone who cares
    about the various different tangents that you have launched into here
    and post them there, so that they are not just a worthless waste of time.

    Powerful stuff, though, for anybody who wants to see variations
    between versions of the Bible that are less significant
    than variations already found within the contents of the KJV Bible,
    for example.

    Hey, man! Did you know that there are even different spellings
    of the SAME PERSON'S NAME, in the New Testament,
    then was recorded in The Old Testament??

    It's a virtual plethora of varia at the highest level of uncontrollable psychomaniacal literary miscellany.

    Not that these aren't very powerful. Thank you, for them.

    I mean, GOOD GOD, HELP US!!

     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You selectively pick out a few of the more minor variations while you avoid and dodge more significant textual differences involving phrases, clauses, or a whole verse.

    Matthew 1:11 "Jacim. And Jacim begat" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in the 1611 KJV] [see also 1611 edition's marginal note]

    Mark 15:3 "but he answered not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles] [Complutensian reading introduced in Bishops’ Bible]

    Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible from an edition of Stephanus are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, pp. 85-86)

    Did the makers of the KJV remove words from the text of a pre-1611 English Bible and put them in a marginal note?

    Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
    The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, p. 88)

    John 8:6 "as though he heard them not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

    John 8:59 "going through the midst of them, and so passed by" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

    John 14:1
    And he said to his disciples [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus]

    [these words found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles are not in KJV]

    Acts 14:23

    And when they had ordained them elders by election [1560 Geneva Bible] [TR with possible influence from Latin NT of Erasmus or Latin NT of Beza or both]

    And when they had ordained them elders [1611 KJV] [TR with possible textual influence from Latin Vulgate perhaps by means of 1582 Rheims]

    James 4:2
    ye envy, and have indignation [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus]
    ye kill, and desire to have [1611 KJV] [Stephanus, Beza]

    1 John 2:23b
    [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also [1611 KJV]
    [this second half of this verse in KJV is not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles because not found in early TR editions]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,561
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nothing you are posting means one thing at all. Nothing matters one wit.

    Nothing you have posted has any relevance to anything or anybody in the world
    that I can imagine. I picked the stupidest ridiculous retarded ones,
    but they are all stupid ridiculous and retarded.

    You don't have a nickel's worth of content you post in six months.

    There's posts and they are filled right up with nonsensical worthlessness,
    but do you or anybody else have any idea what you're doing?

    You don't have any business posting a bunch of nothingness on this thread.

    Have you ever been on the Internet before? And you posted what here??

    Is there something wrong with you or something?

    Nothing you think that you are up to belongs here and where it could,
    I could care less. Nothing you are saying has any association with anything
    that I know of. There is no significance to one word of it in any scenario.

    Nothing you're obsessing about relates to anything in life, whatsoever,
    and unless I missed you ever mentioning one word that is in the O.P.,
    it sounds to me like you just need to shut up and move on.

    There isn't anything that you've said that means anything to anybody, at all.

    WHY ARE YOU TALKING?

     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your opinion is wrong. You try to dismiss and avoid the truth that conflicts with your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

    The consistent truth matters. Attempting to apply justly the scriptural truths that advocate the consistent, just application of measures/standards and that condemn the inconsistent, unjust use of divers measures [double standards] matters.

    Like physical measurements, mental and spiritual judgments or measures also should be good, true, upright, and just or righteous (John 7:24, Lev. 19:35, Lev. 19:15, Ps. 19:9, Ps. 119:39, Zech. 7:9, Prov. 12:17, Ps. 119:66, 1 Thess. 5:21, Ps. 119:137, Prov. 31:9, Deut. 1:16, Phil. 4:8, Eph. 4:25, 2 Cor. 4:2).

    Believers are instructed and commanded to think on things that are honest, just, and pure (Phil. 4:8) and to speak the truth (Eph. 4:25).

    According to what the Scriptures state and teach, it would be clear that the holy, just God would oppose the wicked perverting or wresting of righteous judgment by use of unjust measures (Job 34:12, Job 8:3, Exodus 23:7, Exodus 23:2, Rev. 15:3).

    Have you actually demonstrated that you choose the way of truth and the mind of Christ if you choose to use inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards (Ps, 119:30, Prov. 12:17, Prov. 16:11)? Would use of unjust measures be good works (2 Tim. 3:17)?

    Every false or evil way including that of the making of inconsistent, unrighteous judgments or decrees and the use of unjust measures should be hated or abhorred by believers (Ps. 119:104, 128, Rom. 12:9, Ps. 97:10). Should not believers denounce the hidden things of dishonesty and unjustness (2 Cor. 4:2)? Would unrighteous judgments or use of unjust measures be things that exalt themselves against the knowledge, wisdom, and truth of God (2 Cor. 10:5)? How long will men judge unjustly (Psalm 82:2)? What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness (2 Cor. 6:14)? What fellowship has truth with fallacies or false claims? Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from God above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17, Deut. 1:16-17).

    Showing partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of Bible translators would not be agreement with the wisdom from God above and with righteous judgment (James 3:17, James 2:9, Deut. 1:17, Job 13:10, 1 Tim. 5:21). The making of sound, true, righteous judgments would be properly considered a weightier matter (Matt. 23:23).

    A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15, Ps. 19:9) in comparing or trying manuscript copies or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that would result.

    According to scriptural truth, should anyone who would use unjust measures or would be unjust concerning textual differences that are considered least be trusted in greater textual differences (Luke 16:10)? In order to be faithful, true, and just in that which is least, one would need to use consistent, just measures/standards.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Conan

    Conan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    316
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Logos 1560 has given you nothing but the truth. God will hold you accountable for the ugly words and non truthful statements about another. You are way out in left field Somewhere bumping into a wall.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The 1539 edition of the Great Bible has several differences with a 1540 edition of the Great Bible or with its 1541 edition.

    Sometimes the next Bible in the claimed line of good Bibles made some changes by adding words likely from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible.

    In several likely additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14 (between verses 4 and 5), an edition of the Great Bible in 1540 has over one hundred eighty words in the book of Psalms that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Ps. 13:6, 14:1, 17:9, 18:6, 19:14, 20:9, 29:1, 33:10, 38:16, 48:4, 55:23, 65:1, 73:13, 73:28, 85:8, 92:13, 95:7, 108:1, 111:10, 115:9, 118:2, 120:7, 132:4, 134:2, 136:26, 147:8, 148:5). An edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred fifty words in the book of Proverbs that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Prov. 4:27, 6:12, 12:11, 13:13, 15:5, 15:27, 16:6, 18:22). Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). These textual differences (pertinent facts), involving over 400 words, were found in a reprint of one of the 1540 editions of a Great Bible so they may not be in every one of the varying editions of the Great Bible.

    In Psalm 14, the Great Bible (also 1535 Coverdale's Bible) has three additional verses which are not in the KJV. These three verses from the Latin Vulgate are also in the Douay-Rheims Bible [numbered Psalm 13 in Douay-Rheims]. The 1540 Great Bible added words found in the Septuagint at Psalm 17:9 [“to take away my soul”]. In his introduction to a reprint of Coverdale's Bible, S. L. Greenslade observed that at Psalm 29:1, "Great 1540 adds to 1535 the Vulgate 'Bring young rams unto the Lord,' which has Septuagint but not Hebrew authority" (p. 24). At the end of Psalm 33:10, the 1540 edition included this extra phrase: “and casteth out the counsels of princes.” The 1540 Great Bible added the words “in the gates of the daughter Sion” at the end of Psalm 73. In Psalm 92:13 after “in the courts,” the 1540 Great Bible added the words “of the house.” The 1540 Great Bible added at the end of Psalm 111 the following: “Praise the Lord for the returning again of Aggeus and Zachary the prophets.” Another addition is found at the end of Psalm 132:4 [“neither the temples of my head to take any rest”]. An addition is also found in the 1540 Great Bible at the end of Psalm 134:1 [“even in the courts of the house of our God”]. At the end of Psalm 136, the 1540 Great Bible has the following addition or verse not in the KJV: “O gave thanks to the Lord of Lords, for his mercy endureth for ever.” In just these examples out of the seventy claimed additions, this edition of the Great Bible already has over one hundred forty words in Psalms that are not in the KJV. Gerald Hammond maintained: "Of all the books of the [English] Bible, the Psalter is the least in touch with the original text. This is a matter of familiarity--in the Authorized Version's case it is familiarity with the Great Bible version in the Book of Common Prayer" (Making of the English Bible, p. 86).

    The 1540 edition of the Great Bible has some other additions in the Old Testament not found in the KJV. At the end of Proverbs 12:11, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has the following: “who so hath pleasure to continue at the wine, leaveth dishonour in his own dwelling.” After Proverbs 13:13, the 1540 Great Bible added the following sentence: “A deceitful son shall have no good: but a discreet servant shall do full well, and his way shall prosper.” After Proverbs 15:5, the following is found in the 1540 Great Bible: “Where righteousness is plentiful, there is very great power, but the imaginations of the ungodly shall be rooted out.” After Proverbs 15:27, it has this addition: “Through mercy and faith are sins purged, and through the fear of the Lord doth every one eschew evil.”

    Thus, the Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, would likely have hundreds of more words than the 1611 KJV, the third authorized version of the Church of England.

    Were these significant textual differences in the Great Bible (likely most from the Latin Vulgate) changes towards more purity or changes for the worse?
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62).

    The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“

    More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a faithful or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18 and 9:23, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “at his feet“ at Mark 3:11 and Luke 8:47, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “unto them“ at Luke 8:10, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

    Scrivener wrote: “In some places, they [referring to the interpolations or additions from the Latin Vulgate found in the Great Bible] are retained” in the Bishops’ Bible (Supplement, p. 96). At Luke 16:21, the Bishops’ Bible kept the following added words in the Great Bible: “and no man gave unto him.” The Bishops’ Bible kept added words [“all the whole”] at John 12:19 from the Great Bible. Likewise, the added words [“not only before God, but also”] in the Great Bible at Romans 12:17 are retained in the Bishops’ Bible. Scrivener maintained that “unto them” at Matthew 26:15 is “wrongly added by Cranmer’s [Great], Bishops, [and] AV from the [Latin] Vulgate (p. 299).
     
  20. Alan Gross

    Alan Gross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    5,561
    Likes Received:
    454
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The O.P. is:

    Are there Differences Between the Received Text
    and the Westcott-Hort Greek Text?



    Have you ever posted to the Internet before?

    Try to stay on the topic of the O.P., if you would.
     
Loading...