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

That is why I like my NKJV as they used the Received Text.

Bro Tony

 

There are only about 30. So which one do you mean?

 

Scrivener 1894.

My preference.

HankD

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

Praise Iesus!

 

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.

 

40% in the NKJV is non-TR.

 

Oh oh...you mean they left out a word? Me oh my!


AVL1984

 

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

 

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.

 

Mecury,

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

Bro Tony

 

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.

 

Absolutely yes!

I go to the TR.

 

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.

Praise Iesus! </font>[/QUOTE]

 

The TR begun with the Apostles right down to the present.

 

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?