Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Can someone tell me about original greek | Bible general Archive 1 | RevC | 2218 | ||
Can someone tell me about original greek texts such as how the KJV was translated and from(what text) what is the problem with the Wescott and Hort text and so on. What are the most reliable manuscripts and what versions are translated from those manuscripts | ||||||
2 | Can someone tell me about original greek | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2533 | ||
There are three major groups of manuscripts; the Received Text (RT), the Critical Text (CT), and the Majority Text (MT). The KJV, and NKJV are both from the RT, and both are LITERAL translations, or the translators attempted word for word accuracy. The RT was composed of 6 greek manuscripts and the sections that were not available at the time in greek were translated back from the Latin Vulgate. (These translated section are the biggest problem with the RT, much of Revelation was missing and because of that there are many differences in Rev between the RT and the MT, CT.) The NKJV give footnotes for all variation between the RT, CT, and MT, but you spend most of your time in the margins! (slight exaggeration ;-) The RT also has some obvious additions, see 1Jn 5:7,8 in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (All added; in neither the CT nor the MT!) Wescott and Hort prepared the most widely used version of the CT. Critics of the CT say that the majority of the text is based upon two very old manuscripts (4th Century?!) both found in Eygpt. The problem with this is that at the time there is substantial Church Father writing to suggest that there was great apostasy in Eygpt. The Pro-CT folks say that the older the manuscript the more reliable. The two manuscripts disagree on many renderings which suggests there was no collusion, and if the two manuscripts agree, that must have been the original writing! Many translations use the CT: NASB, NIV, NRSV, etc. The MT is the last group, it is similar to the RT, but much more reliable because of the vastness of the manuscripts(hence, majority). Critics say that the manuscripts in the MT "evolve" towards agreement; thereby, eliminating descrepancies and difficult readings. Pro-MT folks say all the original letters with the exception of perhaps one (drawing a blank??) were sent to western Europe, so they would have the originals to correct any incorrect manuscripts. So, if the originals were compared to the copies every decade or so, the manuscripts in Eygpt would be more likely to have errors, and the majority of manuscripts would agree because as mistakes were found in manuscripts those manuscripts would be destroyed! Hotly debated topic! I prefer the MT; because, the CT eliminates Jn 7:53 - 8:11, I love that passage!! For further study see: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html (MT site; gives thorough and well reasoned arguments.), and NET Bible: (Dallas Theological Seminary) - http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/theology.htm(CT site) go to Bibliology (The Written Word) and click on anything that mentions the MT or KJV. (Very thorough, they really go at the MT!) You'll have to make up your own mind RevC, but a very good question. Unfortunately there is no main stream version using the MT, so our options are limited!(Though it doesn't seem that way with the vast amount of english translations!!) Hope this helps, those websites are great! You may want to put the NET Bible site on you Fav's, great theological site!! GOD bless! Chris |
||||||