Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC) Posts: 544 Thanks: 4 times
|
The discuission has moved on some and I'm contemplating approriate replies. In defense of the KJV and Textus Receptus she shared the following: Having recently reanalyzed the situation, I have discovered that the overall scholarly world views the TR rather skeptically, stating that it's "just like the rest of the texts that are out there" and dismissing its uniqueness entirely. Here are some things worth noting: Quote:1. The Gnostics loved hanging out in Egypt, reading "secret" or "mystical" literature. 2. It was a few of the Gnostics in Egypt who faked some of Paul's letters. 3. The Gnostics "created" their OWN version of the scriptures, leaving out certain portions of text here and there. 4. Later, Westcott and Hort built on that legacy that they had left behind, taking out even more scriptures then they had! Quote:Quote: 1. The differences between the various editions of the Greek Received Text are extremely slight and cannot be compared to the differences found in the Alexandrian manuscripts.
According to Scrivener’s extensive comparisons, there are only 252 places in which the Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and Complutensian Polyglot disagree sufficiently to affect the English translation. The 3rd edition of Stephanus and the 1st edition of Elzevir differ only 19 times in Mark. The editions of Beza differ from the 4th edition of Stephanus only 38 times in the entire New Testament.
In contrast, consider three of the chief Alexandrian manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Codex D. In the Gospel of Mark alone, Vaticanus disagrees with Sinaiticus 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with one another in more than 3,000 places in the four Gospels alone!
2. Following are some of the most important of the differences between editions of the Greek Received Text:
Luke 2:22 -- Erasmus and Stephanus have “their purification,” while Beza, Elzevir, and Complutensian have “her purification”
Luke 17:36 -- Erasmus and the first three editions of Stephanus omit this verse, while Beza, Elzevir, and the 4th edition of Stephanus include it.
John 1:28 -- Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, and the 3rd and 4th editions of Stephanus have “Bethabara beyond Jordan,” while the 1st and 2nd editions of Stephanus have “Bethany beyond Jordan.”
John 16:33 -- Beza and Elzevir read “shall have tribulation,” while Erasmus and Stephanus read “have tribulation.”
Romans 8:11 -- Beza and Elzevir read “by His Spirit that dwelleth in you,” while Erasmus and Stephanus read “because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you.”
Romans 12:11 -- Beza, Elzevir, and the first edition of Erasmus read “serving the Lord,” while Stephanus and the 2nd to the 5th editions of Erasmus read “serving the time.”
1 Timothy 1:4 -- Erasmus, Beza, and Elzevir have “godly edifying,” while Stephanus has “dispensation of God.”
Hebrews 9:1 -- Stephanus reads “first tabernacle,” while Erasmus and Beza omit “tabernacle.”
James 2:18 -- The last three editions of Beza has “without thy works,” while Erasmus, Stephanus, and the first edition of Beza have “by thy works.” The scholarly writings failed to mention the amount of changes that had been done to their texts vs. the RT, lumping the RT in with all the rest! In conclusion, there is a prologue at the very front of most KJV Bibles from the scholars who translated the RT (and it packs a pretty powerful punch if you ask me!) It's REALLY good! You can find it either by searching for it on google or by going to Michael Marlow's website "Bible Research", click on "English versions of Scripture", then the "KJV", and finally, "preface". I recall Yada going into some length on the KJV preface. I'd like to gather more information before comparing how the earliest texts differ among each other before comparing these with TR to other early sources. This seems like a subject Swalchy can speak to far better than I, but I'm open to pointers.
|