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!

Differences between the TR and Alexandrian

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Boanerges, Feb 28, 2006.

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

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great another anti-education IFB. :rolleyes:
     
  2. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    So doc do you feel that Revelation in the TR is a great text?
     
  3. Boanerges

    Boanerges New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    "A great text" is subjective to ones personal ideals, and also their opinions of modern TC. My point was that the reformation translators translated what was written in the TR accurately from the Greek into English.
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't believe the TR is a great text. It is a flawed representitive of the Byzantine textform which I consider most likely to reflect the autographa. But I think the TR is probably less flawed than most of the representitives of the Alexandrian textform.
     
  5. Boanerges

    Boanerges New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any opinions on the OP Dr C?
     
  6. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then I would completely agree with that conclusion. My point was the fact the TR is not a very good text in Revelation.
     
  7. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have noticed TR reflects mostly MT,but it differs from MT from time to time, not so often. However, mostly TR has the just reason to quit from its friends of Majority. Behind such choice, I believe that the absolute majority of Latin texts preserved by the true believers were supporting those minorities.
    Here we are talking about some verses where TR has the weakest postion, but if we check with all NT verses, it will be apparent that Alexandrian texts lose the ground.
    I have never seen any Bible which reflects entirely the Oldest, the Best manuscript or text like B or Aleph. Aleph itself seems to be the most erroeous. If CT likes the Oldest- the Best, why don't they delete out John 8:1-11 in their Bible? Is that addition? What about Eph 3:9 (through Jesus Christ)? I think the game between CT and TR is over. We can think about that between MT and TR, about why TR deviated from MT in some verses, which happened in 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37, John 17:12, and several verses in Revelation.
    Apparently Eagle doesn't make sense in Rev 8:13 where TR states angel, also TR was correct in Rev 5:7.
     
  8. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can angel be the right rendering in Revelation 8:13 when no manuscript contains that reading? I guess it's just another precious gem lost from all the Greek manuscripts huh?
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The manuscript evidence seems to suggest that "His name and the name of His Father" is the more likely reading.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who told you "no manuscript contains that reading?" Whoever told you that gave you false information! Von Soden lists two of his "K" manuscripts, (d) and (e) as reading "aggelou. [​IMG]
     
  11. Boanerges

    Boanerges New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who told you "no manuscript contains that reading?" Whoever told you that gave you false information! Von Soden lists two of his "K" manuscripts, (d) and (e) as reading "aggelou. [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]You know Dr C, you are rapidly becoming a TC "myth buster" Maybe you can get a TV show on TBN...just kidding. [​IMG]
     
  12. Boanerges

    Boanerges New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Double post...again...duh
     
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Me? On TBN? Perish the thought!

    But, seriously, I have heard these "myths" repeated over and over again to the point where it seems people are actually accepting them as fact and it goes against my pedagogic nature to allow such myths to stand unchallenged. .

    The most probable reason that the reading of Von Soden's K (d) and (e) manuscripts made its way into the TR is that they are all part of the Andreas manuscript subset from which 1r descends. Hodges and Farstad, and, of course, Schmid (who H&F were probably following), place them in their "Me" group, a subset of the Andreas text containing such manuscripts as 181, 598, 2026, 2028, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2038, 2044, 2052, 2054, 2056, 2057, 2059, 2060, 2065, 2068, 2069, 2081, 2083, 2186, 2286, and 2302. The H&F "M" group is their nomenclature for Von Soden's "K" group. The fact that each succeeding generation tends to rename/renumber the manuscript evidence contributes greatly to the confusion.
     
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are manuscripts with angel on Rev 8:13. I don't know the numbers but my book shows Md, Me, and TR, and therefore there must be some good numbers with it. Dr. Cassidy may assist on this.
    I can hardly imagine the eagle speaking in the turmoil.
     
  15. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea but can you imagine the world following a "beast" :rolleyes: . Obviously Revelation is full of symbolism and to say it didn't use it here is not only crazy with so little mss support but also pretending you know how the Word of God ought read.
     
  16. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're misrepresenting the facts again Doc. Here is the true explanation of what Herman Hoskier really said:
    All Credit to Euthymius.
     
  17. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again credit to: Euthymius
     
  18. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    So again my point is simply the TR is a horrible representation of the Byzantine text especially in Revelation.

    Credit: Euthymius
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not sure who this anonymous "Euthymius" is, but I don't put a lot of confidence in anonymous name-callers and slanders. As to Hoskier's 141 (2049), every catalog lists it as a 16th century Byzantine copy of Revelation. The assertion that it may may have been a hard written copy of a printed text is irrelevant to the discussion.

    Quite frankly, with all the name calling and ad hominem he engages in I would not place a lot of confidence in his neutrality. Accusing Hoskier of being a necromancer is as stupid as the KJVOs accusing Hort of the same fault!

    Now, if you have something to offer that is your own, and not borrowed from anonymous internet source, please feel free to offer it. If not just admit you over-stated your case and move on.
     
  20. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well since I'm 18 and have not yet been to Seminary I do fairly rely on others. BTW you relied on Hoskier first I'm just letting everyone know Hoskier discredited all three mss you claim that he claimed were proof that Erasmus didn't copy from the Latin. The fact is Erasmus did copy from the Latin. Period. The person was addressing a KJVO Ruckmanite using your same ridiculous arguement.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...