Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
3) The reverse-engineering attempt hits some snags, both in Greek text and in translation. You might look at a combination of the following sources to determine each one.
|
The real problem, Steve, is that Scrivener was establishing the text followed by the KJV 1611 not the KJV 1769 or beyond. He started with the Beza 1598 Greek text as his base text, and took all the printed editions that would have been available to the King James translators and compared them to the KJV of 1611, and where Beza 1598 was the best match he left it there and where it was not, he replaced it with Stephanus 1550 or whatever matched better. Thus he established the Greek text followed the 1611. But the 1769 is a revision of the 1611 that brought our modern KJVs into conformity with the Stephanus 1550 in various verses where previously they didn't agree exactly with that text, and as the italics were changed to reflect English words that don't exist in Stephanus as being italicized. Hence in comparing the modern KJV to Scrivener's text you will have a hard time in some passages, but no in comparing the actual 1611 to Scrivener. And of course, the one issue that KJVOs who really love to dog on Scrivener's text always complain about saying Scrivener messed up royally is that his text of Hebrews 10:23 says "hope" whereas the KJV says "faith." But all Greek text say faith, and this is not really a textual issue but translational. Hope and faith are synonyms in some contexts and this is not a verse for anyone to complain about for any reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
2) F.H.A. Scrivener approached the text with much confusion personally. Matthew has discussed this some, with emphasis properly on the Revision, I will simply mention that Scrivener did not consider Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture, and thus was involved in the direct attack on God's word. Even if in many other places he defended the Traditional Text against corruptions.
|
Scrivener's text being referred to is a re-construction of the text followed by the KJV of 1611, not an opinionated "these are the verses that I like" type of text like Nestle-Aland, so your objection here is a lie. Now, what you say may be true in one sense, but it is a lie in another because you are implying that Scrivener's "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" leaves out Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma, which of course it does not.