Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6758 | ||
I have recently seen a tract that explains that the Received Text, or Majority Text/Textus Receptus, is superior to the Critical Text, or an 'eclectic' Greek text. Is there any truth to the claim that one set of Greek texts, the Byzantine (Majority/TR) or the Alexandrian (Critical), is better than another and therefore, more reliable? | ||||||
2 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6856 | ||
This is a good question, I prefer the Majority Text. This is not the Received Text, which if I recall correctly, was partially translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. (Revelation, in my opinion, SHOULD NOT be studied with the Received Text. The number of disagreements between the RT and both the CT and the MT are staggering; though the variations are minor every word counts!) In brief, I believe the scribes of the New Testament were abundantly faithful, and the easiest mistake to make when coping something is omission not addition. The original texts for almost all of the books of the New Testament were originally sent or kept in the Antioch area, so these autographs could be used for verification of texts. Also, it is stated in the writings of the Church Fathers that some of the Churches in Eygpt were guilty of apostasy at this time.(The approximate time of the mss.) To add to what Tim said, all manuscripts in English are 98 percent the same. (The differences in spelling and word order usually do not show up in translations.) I realize my defense of the MT is weak but I have some great websites! (And unfortunately, there is no mass marketed traslation of the MT, only the RT. As I stated early, I will not study the book of Revelation with this text so I use the NASB as well.) Majority Text Advocate: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html Critical Text Advocate: Dallas Theological Seminary - http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
3 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 10124 | ||
I found this neat list itemizing the various translations and their sources: New Testament versions based upon the Textus Receptus: King James Version (1611) Modern King James (1962) New King James Version (1982) Revised Webster Bible (1998) Webster Bible (1833) Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898) New Testament versions based upon the Critical texts: American Standard Version (1901) Contemporary English Version (1995) Goodspeed's Bible (1939) The Jerusalem Bible (1966) The Message (NT, Psalms, Proverbs) (1993) Moulton's Modern Reader's Bible (1895,1935) Moffatt's Bible (1954) New American Bible (1987) New American Standard Version (1977, 1995) New English Bible (1971) New International Version (1978) New Jerusalem Bible (1985) New Revised Standard Version (1993) Schonefield's New Testament, Revised Edition (1998) Phillips' New Testament (1957) Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (1996) Revised Standard Version (1952) Revised Version (1881-1885) Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (1902) Today's English Version (1976, 1992) The Twentieth Century New Testament (1904) Weymouth New Testament (1930) From www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm |
||||||