Being one that believes in the Doctrines of Grace (or so called Calvinism), it appears to me that Logos makes a great aim in a lot of their books that they offered to be written by Calvinist, which is good for me.
Ted, …The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view. This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV. I hope this helps. God bless you and keep you,Ken Ken What is the source of this information? Jack
Ted, …The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view. This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV. I hope this helps. God bless you and keep you,Ken
Ted,
…The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.
This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.
I hope this helps.
God bless you and keep you,Ken
Ken
What is the source of this information?
Jack
Jack,
I was only attmpting to give a strait answer on what the AV position is; the question was about wheather or not the NKJV would be considered kosher with the AV; I was mearly answering this question with a little background on the AV position.
If you google AV, Textus Reseptus and such, you can find more information on the AV position; there is plenty of information available to show that their position is what I stated. If you are asking me to prove what the are saying is correct then that will take more time digging thru old historical documents and such.
I was only answering the question based on some of the stated AV reasons; I was not offering to defend the AV position.
Some noted Calvinist are Piper (ESV), Sproul (ESV), MacArthur (NASB and once used NKJV).
I was refering to Calvin not Calvinists; Calvin used TR based Greek Texts [:)]
The Greek text behind the AV is from a text done not until the 16th century, by a Roman Catholc, Erasmus. We have many other older manuscripts. I say this because KJV only people often go back to TR as the best text. However, many KJV only people (Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc.), say that the KJV corrects the original Greek. I have, through the efforts of Logos, manuscripts that date back to the 2nd century. When I have a textual variant, I will usually go with the older manuscript as long as it fits the context. However, I have never found an unexplained doctrinal variant, and rearely do I find a doctrinal variant.
I like George's concept. "I don't need anyone to tell me what I believe". Hope I quoted you right George. Every thing written or spoken relating to religion available in Libronix.
I like George's concept. "I don't need anyone to tell me what I believe". Hope I quoted you right George.
Every thing written or spoken relating to religion available in Libronix.
It's either exactly what I said or close enough that I wouldn't quibble with it.
It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view. What in the world ever gave you that idea? There is nothing Arian regarding the Critical Text or the texts on which it is based. The TR is the corrupt text as has been shown time and again. The Pericope Adultera, the Johannine Coma, numerous errors in single words such as the one you earlier asked regarding in Revelation. It didn't occur to me to check the TR on that since I knew the TR was corrupt which is why I wasn't aware that there was actually a textual difference. Even the Byzantine Majority text is an improvement on the TR. You realize, I suppose, that Erasmus even had to backtranslate from the Vulgate since there were some verses for which he had no text. I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.
It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.
What in the world ever gave you that idea? There is nothing Arian regarding the Critical Text or the texts on which it is based. The TR is the corrupt text as has been shown time and again. The Pericope Adultera, the Johannine Coma, numerous errors in single words such as the one you earlier asked regarding in Revelation. It didn't occur to me to check the TR on that since I knew the TR was corrupt which is why I wasn't aware that there was actually a textual difference. Even the Byzantine Majority text is an improvement on the TR. You realize, I suppose, that Erasmus even had to backtranslate from the Vulgate since there were some verses for which he had no text. I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.
It is interesting that Ha Satan quoted the Bible; Jesus, corrected him because he misrepresented the information. Notice, Ha Satan did not lie; in other words you can be telling the truth; though, not tell the whole story, giving a fasle representation of the truth. For this I will not contend with what you have said; though, I will note that it is not obvious that the entire story is being told; thus, it is not apperant that the truth is being represented in its proper context.
I was refering to Calvin not Calvinists; Calvin used TR based Greek Texts
Of course he did. That is what was available at the time. Did you expect him to use NA27?
You have asked this question several times and I believe you deserve a strait answer; the answer Mr. Jones gave is not that. It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view. This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV. I hope this helps. God bless you and keep you,Ken
You have asked this question several times and I believe you deserve a strait answer; the answer Mr. Jones gave is not that.
Dear brother Ted H.,
Ken just gave you his rationale for why the TR is the better manuscript than the CT. Ken also gave his opinion as to why a Calvinist would reject NKJV - "if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT."George, a Calvinist, has strongly criticized the TR and defended the CT manuscripts in these forums. So not all Calvinists would agree with Ken.
I agree whole-heartedly with Ken that TR is the better manuscript. I would state just because someone dies for their beliefs does not make them right. Consider Michael Servetus' execution by Calvin and the modern day suicide-bombers.
I answered your question precisely, based on what the "AV only" proponents would say. Every one of them would reject the Geneva Bible, even though it is also based on the TR and preceded the AV in publication. The self-described KJVO does not accept any other version - no matter what Greek manuscripts it is based on. They even reject The Evidence Bible which is essentially the KJV with just the Thees/Thous/Thines updated. You will rarely hear them refer to the "original Greek" from the pulpit. So I surmise the issue the self-labeled KJV Only adherents would take with the NKJV is not manuscript-based but a faith that the AV is THE version God will have us read and no changes are permissible. (BTW: the NKJV editors claim it is based on the TR with "comparisons" to the CT manuscripts.)
I thought you were asking for a cultural insight into the "KJV Only" views. If you were inquiring about manuscripts & the best version for Calvinists, I am sorry I misunderstood.
When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text.
No, they are not variants of the TR even though you qualify it as "based on a common text." The TR and Byz Maj and other individual texts such as Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are variants of a common text. It is not that the others are variants of the TR. It seems that this statement is a backdoor attempt to establish the TR as the base.
You will need to do better than that. You are attempting to dismiss my statements without actually showing that any are in error or missleading by being incomplete. Unless you can produce evidence, your comparison of my statements to those of Satan are reprehensible.
The statement about the AV/KJV lacks some detail; the fact that you have not found doctrinal errors is very interesting. When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text. If you study the actual variances you will soon learn there are approximately 1,000, very minor, differences between the texts. The TR that was used for the KJV was the culmination of generations of people working and dying to preserve the most accurate version of the majority of the texts; mostly correcting minor scribal errors.
Hey Ken,
Thanks for the comment. However, much of what you said is historically incorrect. That is the musing of Riplinger, Ruckamn and Cloud. The TR, historically, were the beginning work of one man, Erasmus. In fact, when he did the TR, he didnt even have The Revelation. He had to translate that back from the Latin. What I said lacked detail simply because of space, I dont want to write a book here. I will submit to to you that there are alot more than 1,000 variants, since no Greek text would agree with each other 100%. But when people speak about the TR being the most accurate, I ask them "which one." And when I get the raised eyebrows, i tell them that there are about 100 different TR texts and none of them agree 100%. That is why we take the majority of the readings, in context, and a true textual critic will consult all of the 5,000 text and get the true reading, bringing all of the text into view. I have also challenged people who tell that there are doctrinal variants between the TR and the CT that are unexplained and they have not been able to do so. Thanks for sharing on this thread, I appreciate your comments very much.
I was only referring to one Calvinist; that would be, Calvin [;)]
It is not obvious that everyone has read the commentaries written by the people living at the time who inject their personal opinions about the changes; for example, Clark, Barnes, Gill and Wesley to name a few.
Interesting that Calvin, used variants of the TR and then his successor Theodore Beza produced the text that was used by the KJV translators. You say, he didn't have a better text; actually, a version was available; as a matter of fact, when the Catholic scribes were producing what became the TR they completely ignored the Greek texts used for the Critical Text.
Calvin had a direct influence on the KJV thru his succesor Beza.
Hey Ken, Thanks for the comment. However, much of what you said is historically incorrect. That is the musing of Riplinger, Ruckamn and Cloud. The TR, historically, were the beginning work of one man, Erasmus. In fact, when he did the TR, he didnt even have The Revelation. He had to translate that back from the Latin. What I said lacked detail simply because of space, I dont want to write a book here. I will submit to to you that there are alot more than 1,000 variants, since no Greek text would agree with each other 100%. But when people speak about the TR being the most accurate, I ask them "which one." And when I get the raised eyebrows, i tell them that there are about 100 different TR texts and none of them agree 100%. That is why we take the majority of the readings, in context, and a true textual critic will consult all of the 5,000 text and get the true reading, bringing all of the text into view. I have also challenged people who tell that there are doctrinal variants between the TR and the CT that are unexplained and they have not been able to do so. Thanks for sharing on this thread, I appreciate your comments very much.
As I understand it, the starting text is Erasmus compilation of the texts that were considered correct. As we know there were multiple texts with scribal errors; the texts that followed were based off of the same texts that were considered correct.
The RT was produced by men who had the fear of God in them and spent their entire life examining the texts to produce the best possible Greek text. If you want to sort thru the details there is a great web site that is full of valuable information; it probably will not change your mind; though, it might fill in the details that are so often overlooked.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html
It is interesting that Ha Satan quoted the Bible; Jesus, corrected him because he misrepresented the information. Notice, Ha Satan did not lie; in other words you can be telling the truth; though, not tell the whole story, giving a fasle representation of the truth. For this I will not contend with what you have said; though, I will note that it is not obvious that the entire story is being told; thus, it is not apperant that the truth is being represented in its proper context. You will need to do better than that. You are attempting to dismiss my statements without actually showing that any are in error or missleading by being incomplete. Unless you can produce evidence, your comparison of my statements to those of Satan are reprehensible.
I was only pointing out my own personal opinion that I do not believe your depiction is accurate; though, I do believe it is the truth. As far as Ha Satan goes; I was not calling you Ha Satan, I was giving an example of how truth can be used to deceive. Am I accusing you of purposefully being deceptive with the truth, no. I am saying that what you have represented is not the entire story; in my opinion, it is not reprehensive of the complete story.
Again I ask which of the 100 TR's is the most accurate? All of which have variants with each other. Many people live with the dissolution that the TR was the inspired text, but it was not. I was a product of preservation, having not been done until the 16th century. However, I am not saying that it is a bad text. It is a very good text. It is not the only good text. Just like the KJV is a good translation, but it is not the only good one. But it does have variants. Check out the King James Only Controversy by James White. www.aomin.org
The TR, historically, were the beginning work of one man, Erasmus. In fact, when he did the TR, he didnt even have The Revelation. He had to translate that back from the Latin.
I am pretty sure it was just the last six verses of Rev 22, not all of The Revelation. I found this quote:
Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 93. It is claimed that Erasmus openly declares in the Annotations of his 1516 edition (page 675) that he "ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca"(supplied the Greek from the Latin). Thus the claim that last sixverses of Revelation chapter twenty-two were retranslated from theVulgate into Greek. However, the reprint of the 1516 edition of Erasmusdoes not contain this phrase on page 675 of his Annotations, which is the conclusion of his notes on the book of Revelation. Nor is such a phrase found elsewhere in that edition.
When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text. No, they are not variants of the TR even though you qualify it as "based on a common text." The TR and Byz Maj and other individual texts such as Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are variants of a common text. It is not that the others are variants of the TR. It seems that this statement is a backdoor attempt to establish the TR as the base.
Have it your way; I will word it differently:
The TR is based off of a common set of texts that disagree with the commonalities of the Vaticanus and Alexadrinus texts.
Is that better [:D]
Hey Ken, Again I ask which of the 100 TR's is the most accurate? All of which have variants with each other. Many people live with the dissolution that the TR was the inspired text, but it was not. I was a product of preservation, having not been done until the 16th century. However, I am not saying that it is a bad text. It is a very good text. It is not the only good text. Just like the KJV is a good translation, but it is not the only good one. But it does have variants. Check out the King James Only Controversy by James White. www.aomin.org
Erasmus's->Estienne->Beza; it is important to look at which edition the TR is based on.
This is why I use the same Bible the early Christians used; it is called the Old Testament [;)]
it is important to look at which edition the TR is based on.
I realize this, but you still did not answer the question. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. When people tell me that the TR is the best text, I ask "which one of the 100?".
Michael
Sorry, I must not have made it clear: Erasmus's->Estienne->Beza
What about Elivzar, Stephen, Shcrivers, Etc. They also have TR's that differ in some areas to Erasmus.
As I understand it, the starting text is Erasmus compilation of the texts that were considered correct.
Not correct. Erasmus compiled his Grk NT from the manuscripts he had available. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus plus many, many others were not available. Also, the science of textual criticism had not yet been developed so the tendency was to choose those texts which seemed to lie behind the Vulgate.
I was only pointing out my own personal opinion that I do not believe your depiction is accurate;
That is not good enough. Your opinion or my opinion does not matter. It does not matter whether we afre "comfortable" with a position. What matters is whether it is correct. You really should get some books on textual criticism and educate yourself in the field if you intend to continue to make statements regarding it. Logos has a collection on textual criticism you might consider. Also, you would do well to avoid comparing someone to Satan when you are discussing his position.
You have a different first name, but you remind me of another Avery who knew no Greek or Hebrew but who was a steadfast defender of the AV and the TR. I had not intended to mention his name, but are you related?
When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text. If
Wrong again. The TR is itself a variant. It was the product of many copies of many earlier manuscripts with errors being introduced at each stage. If you have ever attempted to copy a manuscript (other than as a zerox), you will know the difficulty that one incurs in attempting to avoid making errors.
Not correct. Erasmus compiled his Grk NT from the manuscripts he had available. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus plus many, many others were not available. Also, the science of textual criticism had not yet been developed so the tendency was to choose those texts which seemed to lie behind the Vulgate
Good explanation, George. Which is one of the reasons why the other translations have been considered closer to the original, because of the discovery of so many other text and the ability to get to the heart of the inspired word.
Ted, You have asked this question several times and I believe you deserve a strait answer; the answer Mr. Jones gave is not that. It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view. This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV. I hope this helps. God bless you and keep you,Ken
Thank you very much, this helps me understand the issue more. I thought the NKJV was based on the Texus Receptus, after reading up on the subject i could not understand what was the disagreement with the NKJV. I wanted to check my findings with someone who was sympathetic to the AV only position, so i turned to the forum.
I know it is strange asking questions of this nature in a forum b/cos some assume that, you what to fight and debate about the issue. But i can assure you, that was not my intention i just could not figure out what the issue was. My Logos Library did not help either!
Thanks again for the info & throwing light on the subject for me.
Kind Regards,
Ted.
I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.
Hi George, any proof that the NKJV is based on the TR? I am happy with my NKJV,AV,NASB,ESV & many more literal translations. I do not want to start a war here, i just want to get the right info. Thanks
Sir T.
I know it is strange asking questions of this nature in a forum b/cos some assume that, you what to fight and debate about the issue. But i can assure you, that was not my intention i just could not figure out what the issue was. My Logos Library did not help either! Thanks again for the info & throwing light on the subject for me. Kind Regards, Ted.
Your welcome [:D]
We are in agreement; the fight is easy to find and I really do not wish to script an argument that can easily be researched.
If anyone would like to get horse's-mouth info re what the NKJV translation is based on, I suggest you get a hardcopy from a bookstore and check out the Preface. It may not be very detailed, but at least it does make it fairly clear what relation it bears to some flavor or other of the TR. Also note - one of the things I like about the format of the NKJV - it includes as a part of the translator's efforts a relatively extensive set of brief but interesting annotations as to other sources considered and/or alternate readings, in the side margins - not a function of whatever study-bible-author's notes might be included. This is a big plus, in my opinion, for the hardcopy edition.
In fact, this investigative method has always been my starting point when considering a new translation - I read thru the Preface very carefully. What they DON'T say is often as revealing (suppositionally) as what they DO say.
I was somewhat disappointed to learn (just now) that the NKJV provided with Libronix does not include access to that Preface. Nor does it include the Preface for the ESV or NASB or NIV or HCSB. Does anyone know how to access that text within Libronix? I own all the hardcopies - that's where I've gotten info in the past.
FWIW, I feel sort of cheated ... I bought those licenses, and that text IS a part of the copyrighted document.
Jack, I was only attmpting to give a strait answer on what the AV position is; the question was about wheather or not the NKJV would be considered kosher with the AV; I was mearly answering this question with a little background on the AV position. If you google AV, Textus Reseptus and such, you can find more information on the AV position; there is plenty of information available to show that their position is what I stated. If you are asking me to prove what the are saying is correct then that will take more time digging thru old historical documents and such. I was only answering the question based on some of the stated AV reasons; I was not offering to defend the AV position. God bless you and keep you,Ken
Sorry Ken, for having drawn you into this. I will follow up on the lead & try to google AV, Textus Reseptus. It is my hope this does not turn into a debate.
I happen to have a copy of the NKJV translation handy. It's got a long preface ... but on the fifth page (in this printing), after reciting a long and interesting history of translation principles used in relation to the KJV, the eighth paragraph under the heading "New Testament Text" says:
"In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority-Text variant readings in the center reference column. Although these variations are duly indicated in the center-column notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text:"
In my opinin the preface to the NKJV is one of the best of its type in explaining not only where its sources came from, but also the intent and mechanisms the translators used.
I'm not offering an opinion here about which text is better or worse. Just wanted to give you info from "the horse's mouth". There is a lot more avail in the hardcopy.
I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it. Hi George, any proof that the NKJV is based on the TR? I am happy with my NKJV,AV,NASB,ESV & many more literal translations. I do not want to start a war here, i just want to get the right info. Thanks Sir T.
Here is what the NKJV says under the heading of New Testament:
[quote]In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the popup notes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Surprisingly, the NKJV reads like the NIV.
Your AV will be based on the Beza TR.
The NKJV I am not sure how they satisfied their claim; I know what they say; though, it is not obvious when comparing texts with the AV and the NIV, it reads more like the NIV.
NASB and ESV will be determined by "textual criticism".
Someone will prob ask about OT texts ... here is an extract from the preface of the NKJV about that:
"For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Bilbia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testment and the Latin Vulgate were also consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resource of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in the center reference column."
In my opinion, which is worth very little in these areas, it appears that this group of translators have tried to "duplicate" the "mindset and approach" of the original KJV group, as if that group was doing their work TODAY, with the additional info that is now available. That's just my impression, from reading thru the entire preface ... I'd encourage y'all to do that.
I hope this has been helpful.
Hey Ken -
Where did you find that paragraph you quoted ... looks like you copied and pasted ... I had to type it all out :~(
I can feel your pain, I have Logos books where sections are omited; for example, Dr Fructenbaum's "Footsteps of the Messiah" is missing the most useful section, the extensive verse cross reference.
Hey Ken - Where did you find that paragraph you quoted ... looks like you copied and pasted ... I had to type it all out :~(
LOL - From Libronix [:D]
Every one of them would reject the Geneva Bible, even though it is also based on the TR and preceded the AV in publication. The self-described KJVO does not accept any other version - no matter what Greek manuscripts it is based on. They even reject The Evidence Bible which is essentially the KJV with just the Thees/Thous/Thines updated.
Interesting "no matter what Greek manuscripts it is based on" they would reject even the Geneva Bible which is based on the TR . I am now getting somewhere in my understanding.
I agree whole-heartedly with Ken that TR is the better manuscript.
I like my NKJV, it is the bible i use mainly[;)] though any literal translation will do me fine.
It was all relevant, thanks for taking the time to respond.
Ted
Sorry Ken for having drawn you this. I will follow up on the lead & try to google AV, Textus Reseptus. It is my hope this does not turn into a debate. Ted.
Sorry Ken for having drawn you this. I will follow up on the lead & try to google AV, Textus Reseptus. It is my hope this does not turn into a debate.
Hey, no problem, I knew answering the question would bring out the "Scholars"
Here is an excellent link for you: http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html
Hey Ken - Where did you find that paragraph you quoted ... looks like you copied and pasted ... I had to type it all out :~( LOL - From Libronix
LOL - From Libronix
Ok, but where? I tried just scrolling to the tops of the documents, and they all start with Gen 1.1 ... how do I get access to the preface info?
I'm probably missing something really obvious ..
As I understand it, the starting text is Erasmus compilation of the texts that were considered correct. Not correct. Erasmus compiled his Grk NT from the manuscripts he had available. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus plus many, many others were not available. Also, the science of textual criticism had not yet been developed so the tendency was to choose those texts which seemed to lie behind the Vulgate.
You may want to go back and check your notes [;)]
Toggle Contents Pane? (the little icon in the upper right hand corner of the document bar)
Hey Guys,
We have really gotten off the subject of this thread. This is blowing my email up, so please move this to another thread. My original question has been exhausted and it seems that we have more calvinist here than non. So my question has been answered. Thank you very much.
The RT was produced by men who had the fear of God in them and spent their entire life examining the texts to produce the best possible Greek text. If you want to sort thru the details there is a great web site that is full of valuable information; it probably will not change your mind; though, it might fill in the details that are so often overlooked. http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html God bless you and keep you,Ken
Thanks for drawing my attention to this Web Site.
I'm probably missing something really obvious .. Toggle Contents Pane? (the little icon in the upper right hand corner of the document bar)
Hmm ... yep I had tried that ... here is what I see:
How can I get that little folded-paper icon to OPEN UP and show me its text?
TIA for your help!
The best evidence is straight from the horse's mouth. This is from the Preface to the NKJV
The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament. Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the side reference column as being opposed by both Critical and Majority Texts (see “Popup Notes”).
Hey Guys, We have really gotten off the subject of this thread. This is blowing my email up, so please move this to another thread. My original question has been exhausted and it seems that we have more calvinist here than non. So my question has been answered. Thank you very much.
Michael please forgive me but this is sort of hilarious. I and many others have made a lot of PLEAS to L to provide alternative folders in the forum for long discussions, so that it would be easy to "uncheck" those feeds.
Yes, yes YES it DOES clutter up the inbox, don't it???
But think about it ... the initial post is in fact, intentional or not, what opened up this particular can of worms. I wonder how many OTHER people had to wade thru the gazillion back and forth inbox postings who were NOT interested in the conversation at all.
It's sort of funny to see one of the primary participants complain of the postings AFTER their interest wanes.
This is NOT intended as a criticism of your comment ... hey, I'd like to say that about a LOT of threads ... ones that I did not start or participate in ... but what's the use? No one is listening.
Interesting; as far as I know, you should be seeing the text you have selected (purpose).
I am not sure why it is not working?
it seems that we have more calvinist here than non.
Hi Michael
Thereare 1,743 users on this forum. Just wonderng how you were able to comeup with believing that most users are Calvinists. Did you get manyresponses privately? Second, could you please help us to understandthe number in terms of percentage? I assume in your world there areonly two categories: Calvinists and non-calvinists. If you have othercategories, that would be fine. Some of us actually think there aremore categories. But regardless of whether you have two categories ormore, it would be helpful I am sure to some of us if you could shareyour findings more exactly. You have helped us to establish that thereare more calvinists on this forum. Could you now give us thepercentage? I think it would be most appreciated.
It was all relevant, thanks for taking the time to respond. Ted
The whole thread was NOT pointless but it was, as a former US President said, " a thousand points of light." I've learned half a dozen tidbits in this one. Thanks to Michael, Ted and all the rest.
As I understand it, the starting text is Erasmus compilation of the texts that were considered correct. Not correct. Erasmus compiled his Grk NT from the manuscripts he had available. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus plus many, many others were not available. Also, the science of textual criticism had not yet been developed so the tendency was to choose those texts which seemed to lie behind the Vulgate. You may want to go back and check your notes
You may want to go back and check your notes
You may wish to read some more authoritative material and actually take some notes to which you would then be able to refer.
Erasmus, Desiderius (1466–1536), ‘Roterodammensis’ or ‘Roterodamus’, humanist. There has been debate about the date of his birth. He was probably the (illegitimate) son of Rogerius Gerardus. Christened ‘Herasmus’; he took in adult life the name of ‘Desiderius’ as a Latinized form of ‘Erasmus’, itself a supposed Greek equivalent of his baptismal name. of Alexandrinus to England (only 16 years after the release of the Authorized [King James] Version), this codex was the first early ms of the Gk Bible to be well-known and consulted by scholars. The interest that resulted prompted a search for mss of the Bible, especially of the NT, which has lasted for over 3 centuries.
Codex Alexandrinus is a 5th century Gk codex containing both testaments. Because of the early arrival :1074). New York:
