Have they ever OR Will they ever produce another Bible version using the "Received Text"???
If one is out what is it called?
New Bible Version using Received Text?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by StraightwayByGrace, Apr 3, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
-
OK I have been using it but came across info that said it was not, and after checking many verses in comparison to the King James version it is different.
.....confused -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Others are merely minor variations of the KJV: Webster's 1833 version, the Modern KJV, the Defined KJV, Jay Green's LITV/KJV2/KJV3, the Third Millenium Bible, and the AV7-NT are some examples.
There are some that are TR-based but not so closely linked to the KJV family: Young's Literal Version, the People's New Testament, and the Last Days NT.
Some Bibles do not disclose their underlying sources explicitly but seem to be based upon a text that at least mostly resembles the TR in English translation like Norlie's NT, and Darby's.
There are also a few versions based upon the Greek of the Majority Text which is textually very similar to the TR: the ALT-NT, and the English Majority Text Version. -
-
The vast majority of differences are matters of translation, not of the underlying text.
The textual basis of the NKJV is the Textus Receptus (though it's supposed to be Scrivener, the NKJV translators used another edition in some places, just as the KJV translators used various editions of the TR and sometimes departed entirely from the Greek for the Vulgate.) -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
New King James Version
King James II and/or Modern King James Version (both Jay Green's version, not sure the difference if any)
The New Scofield is a KJV with archaic words updated.
KJV 2000 -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Steve -
Of course, "wedding" is an event and "wedding hall" is more specific and it's the "wedding hall" that is decorated, though we do sometimes say the more generic like the KJV.
Any difference doctrinally? No.
Those are the only ones I'm aware of. As for the rest, they are all translations where the Greek text has the same term.
Example: 2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
The Greek word σπουδάζω(spoudazō) means diligent. The KJV used the term "study" which did have a defintion of "To endeavor diligently." So that was correct in 1611, but incorrect to translate it that way today. That's why the NKJV translated it "be diligent" to give the correct English translation today. -
Sorry for the bump but I believe Gerrit Verkuyl's 1940s-1950s Berkeley Translation (revised as the Modern Language Bible around '69) is primarily based on the TR. I've checked the Berkeley's passages re: the deity of Christ against the KJV and there are only two verses I found, in the later letters, that he went with the non-Received reading. Throughout the Gospels and Paul's letters, it lines up with the KJV on the deity of Christ...not every modern translation does so. It's an overlooked but surprisingly good translation. A bit interpretational in a few spots but you can clearly see what he was aiming for and why, but on doctrinally minor points so far as I've seen. Regardless, its fresh and incisive translation. For me, its real strength is his footnotes, most of which are almost devotional in quality. I have both versions and use them often.
Thanks for letting me post. -
Another Bible version that may be useful is the World English Bible (WEB). It shares much of the underlying text with the TR, but differs in a few places. Both the NKJV and the WEB are superior translations for those who do not believe the KJV is without error.
-
I don't think the footnotes are its "real strength", but they are certainly devotional --even if they miss the point of a given passage every now and then. -
FM mentioned the Darby Bible. It was based on the critical work of Samuel Prideaux Tragelles. He died in 1872 just nine years before the ERV came out. He was on an oversight committee for that.
My Mom had a copy of the Darby N.T. which passed to me upon her death in 2004. It is small and the print is tiny with lots of even smaller footnotes. The language is as obtuse as can be --but it is worth comparing with other translations. -
I stand corrected on the text issue, I heard wrong, thanks.
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Page 1 of 2