The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text. In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries." A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language. Consider the following: Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott] Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/The King James Version old testament is translated from the massoretic text of the Jews.The Dead Sea srolls - Isaiah scroll is massoretec text, showing that this is the text of the old testament used by Jesus and the apostles in palestine.
KJV The Received Text
- Thread starter stone
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
(stone;62021)
The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text. In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries." A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language. Consider the following: Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott] Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/The King James Version old testament is translated from the massoretic text of the Jews.The Dead Sea srolls - Isaiah scroll is massoretec text, showing that this is the text of the old testament used by Jesus and the apostles in palestine.
The KJV was a rush job ordered by King James and thus was translated only from the Greek into medieval English which to me, is the same as translating it into a foreign language. The NIV was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew into modern day English which is understandable to me. When one compares the KJV to the NIV in depth, the meaning is the same except for a few minor differences.
The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text. In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries." A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language. Consider the following: Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott] Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/The King James Version old testament is translated from the massoretic text of the Jews.The Dead Sea srolls - Isaiah scroll is massoretec text, showing that this is the text of the old testament used by Jesus and the apostles in palestine.
The KJV was a rush job ordered by King James and thus was translated only from the Greek into medieval English which to me, is the same as translating it into a foreign language. The NIV was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew into modern day English which is understandable to me. When one compares the KJV to the NIV in depth, the meaning is the same except for a few minor differences.
The Received Text (the basis for the KJV) itself might be directly based on only about six manuscripts, but those objecting to the Received Text refuse deal with is the fact that those six manuscripts represent the majority of the ancient manuscripts and those primarily used by the church through the ages.
(Follower;62139)
The Received Text (the basis for the KJV) itself might be directly based on only about six manuscripts, but those objecting to the Received Text refuse deal with is the fact that those six manuscripts represent the majority of the ancient manuscripts and those primarily used by the church through the ages.
Who is objecting to the Textus Receptus?What educated people are objecting to is things like the first paragraph of the OP. While it might sound good, it is factually incorrect - and repeatedly incorrect. The assertion that the Textus Receptus is 2000 years old is completely, totally and absolutely wrong. And the OP just goes downhill from there. :naughty:
The Received Text (the basis for the KJV) itself might be directly based on only about six manuscripts, but those objecting to the Received Text refuse deal with is the fact that those six manuscripts represent the majority of the ancient manuscripts and those primarily used by the church through the ages.
Who is objecting to the Textus Receptus?What educated people are objecting to is things like the first paragraph of the OP. While it might sound good, it is factually incorrect - and repeatedly incorrect. The assertion that the Textus Receptus is 2000 years old is completely, totally and absolutely wrong. And the OP just goes downhill from there. :naughty:
(ffbruce;62141)
Who is objecting to the Textus Receptus?
You are when you stress that the Received Text was produced by a humanist with six manuscripts.
The assertion that the Textus Receptus is 2000 years old is completely, totally and absolutely wrong. And the OP just goes downhill from there. :naughty:
On the contrary, the author correctly equates the Received Text essense with the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, and Syrian Text. Those texts do go back much further than the Received Text edition. That 2000 years indicates a bit of rounding.
Who is objecting to the Textus Receptus?
You are when you stress that the Received Text was produced by a humanist with six manuscripts.
The assertion that the Textus Receptus is 2000 years old is completely, totally and absolutely wrong. And the OP just goes downhill from there. :naughty:
On the contrary, the author correctly equates the Received Text essense with the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, and Syrian Text. Those texts do go back much further than the Received Text edition. That 2000 years indicates a bit of rounding.
(Follower;62143)
You are when you stress that the Received Text was produced by a humanist with six manuscripts. On the contrary, the author correctly equates the Received Text essense with the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, and Syrian Text. Those texts do go back much further than the Received Text edition. That 2000 years indicates a bit of rounding.
"A bit of rounding"? That's like saying that my car is 1,000 years old - give or take 990 years or so.Please read the OP again. The dates aren't the only thing wrong.
You are when you stress that the Received Text was produced by a humanist with six manuscripts. On the contrary, the author correctly equates the Received Text essense with the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, and Syrian Text. Those texts do go back much further than the Received Text edition. That 2000 years indicates a bit of rounding.
"A bit of rounding"? That's like saying that my car is 1,000 years old - give or take 990 years or so.Please read the OP again. The dates aren't the only thing wrong.
call it what you want, it doesn't matter, because the Textus Receptus is what was used in 1535 to create the first Bible that was in English to what we know now as the King James Version, and is what is used as the norm for in-depth Bible studies across the worldnow, besides the New World Translation, I'm not saying that all other translations are heretical... but if you want to do a thorough Bible Study, you can't go wrong with KJV. if you want to, get a Greek/Hebrew Bible as well, and read along with a Greek/Hebrew dctionary
(cemab4y;62137)
Sorry, Friend you are mistaken. The Textus Receptus dates from 1535. See:http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htmThe Textus Receptus was assembled and translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and it is in no way "2,000 years old".For more information:http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html
Scholarly work tends to get ignored or, worse yet, shunned by the KJVO crowd.Personally, I have absolutely no problem with people only reading KJV. My 99-year old grandma has never read anything else, and doesn't want to read anything else. My personal preference for reading the Psalms is KJV.But there's some honest soul-searching that is necessary here. Gail Riplinger - the godmother of the KJVO movement, Gail Riplinger, has degrees in Home Economics and Art, for crying out loud. Do people REALLY think she knows more about Greek and Hebrew than scholars who have studied it their whole lives?Furthermore, Riplinger and her disciples make the erroneous assumption that KJV is the ONLY correct English translation. They also err in comparing other English versions to KJV instead of comparing them to the ancient Greek and Hebrew.My bottom line observation is this: In nearly 25 years of full-time pastoral ministry, I've dealt with this hype innumerable times. From these discussions/studies, I've concluded several things:1. Some people LOVE to think that they've uncovered some sinister conspiracy. (Some such people believe that George Bush rigged the WTC Towers with explosives.) 2. Virtually everything espoused and repeated by the KJVO crowd is a copy-and-paste (or slight variation) of what Riplinger wrote. So... read and study whatever translation you like. Be especially careful to understand the difference between a paraphrase (Living Bible, The Message, etc.) and a translation (KJV, NIV). But let's not be so judgmental and condemning toward somebody who doesn't agree with the KJVO mantra.
Sorry, Friend you are mistaken. The Textus Receptus dates from 1535. See:http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htmThe Textus Receptus was assembled and translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and it is in no way "2,000 years old".For more information:http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html
Scholarly work tends to get ignored or, worse yet, shunned by the KJVO crowd.Personally, I have absolutely no problem with people only reading KJV. My 99-year old grandma has never read anything else, and doesn't want to read anything else. My personal preference for reading the Psalms is KJV.But there's some honest soul-searching that is necessary here. Gail Riplinger - the godmother of the KJVO movement, Gail Riplinger, has degrees in Home Economics and Art, for crying out loud. Do people REALLY think she knows more about Greek and Hebrew than scholars who have studied it their whole lives?Furthermore, Riplinger and her disciples make the erroneous assumption that KJV is the ONLY correct English translation. They also err in comparing other English versions to KJV instead of comparing them to the ancient Greek and Hebrew.My bottom line observation is this: In nearly 25 years of full-time pastoral ministry, I've dealt with this hype innumerable times. From these discussions/studies, I've concluded several things:1. Some people LOVE to think that they've uncovered some sinister conspiracy. (Some such people believe that George Bush rigged the WTC Towers with explosives.) 2. Virtually everything espoused and repeated by the KJVO crowd is a copy-and-paste (or slight variation) of what Riplinger wrote. So... read and study whatever translation you like. Be especially careful to understand the difference between a paraphrase (Living Bible, The Message, etc.) and a translation (KJV, NIV). But let's not be so judgmental and condemning toward somebody who doesn't agree with the KJVO mantra.
(Super Kal;62151)
call it what you want, it doesn't matter, because the Textus Receptus is what was used in 1535 to create the first Bible that was in English to what we know now as the King James Version, and is what is used as the norm for in-depth Bible studies across the worldnow, besides the New World Translation, I'm not saying that all other translations are heretical... but if you want to do a thorough Bible Study, you can't go wrong with KJV. if you want to, get a Greek/Hebrew Bible as well, and read along with a Greek/Hebrew dctionary
I'm so sorry, but that is simply incorrect.There were SEVERAL English translations BEFORE the KJV. The Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, and the Geneva Bible (for instance) were all prior to KJV.
call it what you want, it doesn't matter, because the Textus Receptus is what was used in 1535 to create the first Bible that was in English to what we know now as the King James Version, and is what is used as the norm for in-depth Bible studies across the worldnow, besides the New World Translation, I'm not saying that all other translations are heretical... but if you want to do a thorough Bible Study, you can't go wrong with KJV. if you want to, get a Greek/Hebrew Bible as well, and read along with a Greek/Hebrew dctionary
I'm so sorry, but that is simply incorrect.There were SEVERAL English translations BEFORE the KJV. The Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, and the Geneva Bible (for instance) were all prior to KJV.
and all were made by a power hungry church who only read it in Latin to make it's own leader seem holier than everyone else...and if you REALLY want to get down to the basics, you can thank John Wycliffe who made the very first New Testament free from Catholic repression in 1384.
(Super Kal;62155)
and all were made by a power hungry church who only read it in Latin to make it's own leader seem holier than everyone else...and if you REALLY want to get down to the basics, you can thank John Wycliffe who made the very first New Testament free from Catholic repression in 1384.
And what does all this have to do with the KJV?You DO know, don't you, that the Textus Receptus was the work of one man - a Catholic priest by the name of Erasmus? So if you're going to bash the Roman Catholic Church, you're undermining your entire argument FOR the KJVO point of view.
and all were made by a power hungry church who only read it in Latin to make it's own leader seem holier than everyone else...and if you REALLY want to get down to the basics, you can thank John Wycliffe who made the very first New Testament free from Catholic repression in 1384.
And what does all this have to do with the KJV?You DO know, don't you, that the Textus Receptus was the work of one man - a Catholic priest by the name of Erasmus? So if you're going to bash the Roman Catholic Church, you're undermining your entire argument FOR the KJVO point of view.
(stone;62021)
The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text. In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries." A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language. Consider the following: Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott] Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/The King James Version old testament is translated from the massoretic text of the Jews.The Dead Sea srolls - Isaiah scroll is massoretec text, showing that this is the text of the old testament used by Jesus and the apostles in palestine.
Sorry, Friend you are mistaken. The Textus Receptus dates from 1535. See:http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htmThe Textus Receptus was assembled and translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and it is in no way "2,000 years old".For more information:http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html
The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text. In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries." A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language. Consider the following: Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott] Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/The King James Version old testament is translated from the massoretic text of the Jews.The Dead Sea srolls - Isaiah scroll is massoretec text, showing that this is the text of the old testament used by Jesus and the apostles in palestine.
Sorry, Friend you are mistaken. The Textus Receptus dates from 1535. See:http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htmThe Textus Receptus was assembled and translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and it is in no way "2,000 years old".For more information:http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html
(ffbruce;62156)
And what does all this have to do with the KJV?You DO know, don't you, that the Textus Receptus was the work of one man - a Catholic priest by the name of Erasmus? So if you're going to bash the Roman Catholic Church, you're undermining your entire argument FOR the KJVO point of view.
did you actually read the rest of my first post?... or did you selectively read only what you wanted to read?
And what does all this have to do with the KJV?You DO know, don't you, that the Textus Receptus was the work of one man - a Catholic priest by the name of Erasmus? So if you're going to bash the Roman Catholic Church, you're undermining your entire argument FOR the KJVO point of view.
did you actually read the rest of my first post?... or did you selectively read only what you wanted to read?
(ffbruce;62163)
The former.The reason I didn't respond to the second half is because it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
actually, yes it does, ffbruce... if you actually sat down and read it.to say the KJV is the only text where it shows the Word of God is a joke at best.
The former.The reason I didn't respond to the second half is because it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
actually, yes it does, ffbruce... if you actually sat down and read it.to say the KJV is the only text where it shows the Word of God is a joke at best.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 668
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 205
- Replies
- 245
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 426
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 268