The MT is another name for the Byzantine text
Is the KJV inspired?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John Rivera, Sep 27, 2020.
Page 4 of 7
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
-
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
-
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
there is no textual scholar that I know of, who can produce a work on 1 Timothy 3:16, for the reading "theos", that is better than what Burgon has done. Burgon is A+++ as a textual scholar, neither White, Wallace, Metzger, etc can be placed in the same! -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So, I'm having a conversation with Dr. Robinson about this. (We became friends through my son who taught for him when needed.) He tells me that there are over 1800 differences between the TR & the Byz. Textform that he edited with Pierpont. However, he agrees with me that the vast majority of the differences do not change the meaning in translation.
Maybe I'll do a thread later on the differences in Matthew. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Conversing with Dr. Robinson about this, he shared his phraseology about the TR being a Byz. text with me. I think this is important.
"The TR Scrivener edition is a *general* representative of the Byzantine text, but it is still only a sub-representative, just as are many "Byzantine" MSS themselves to varying degrees." -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
"“The distinction between the Textus Receptus, on the one hand, and the Majority text or the Byzantine texts, on the other hand, is one worth making here, if only briefly. All of these Greek texts are often referred to as forms of the ‘traditional text.’ The Textus Receptus is any form of the Greek text that goes back to the edition of Erasmus and the several late manuscripts he used. The Textus Receptus is a more restricted and limited form of Byzantine text, but it is not the Byzantine text as found in the edition of Robinson and Pierpont, or the Majority text found in the edition of Hodges and Farstad. Daniel Wallace notes that Hodges and Farstad’s edition of the Majority text differs from the Textus Receptus in 1,838 places. Aland and Aland list fifteen verses that they indicate are in the Textus Receptus but not in the Nestle-Aland critical edition. Four of those—Luke 23:17; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6b-8a—are not found in the Majority text (Farstad and Hodges) or the Byzantine text (Pierpont and Robinson) either. I note also that the portions where Erasmus or others translated from Latin back into Greek, such as the final six verses of Revelation and 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johannine Comma), are also not part of the Byzantine text or the Majority text.”
(How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation, p.52) -
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
1. Luke 1:35, "εκ σου" (out of you) is missing. This, like Matthew 1:16, teaches very clearly, that the Human Nature of Jesus Christ was derived from that of Mary (sin excepting). Some of the early heretics, as do some even today, denied this very Important teaching, and taught that Jesus simply "passed through" Mary, as water does a tube, without actually parttaking of the tube! On what textual authority is this omission, seening that the KJV (Beza) have it? Justin in the 2nd century quotes it!
2. The whole verse of the Eunich's confession on Jesus Christ as SON OF GOD, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God", has been OMITTED!!! Ireneaus also in the second century quotes it!
3. The clearest single text for the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, has been EXPUNGED!!! Tertullian, Cyprian, among others knew of this in their GREEK and LATIN NT!
These are SERIOUS CORRUPTIONS to the Word of God, and makes this "translation" a modern day attack on the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Bible!!! SHAME on Dr Robinson! -
SavedByGrace Well-Known Member
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 4 of 7