05-20-2008, 06:10 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Thanks brother,
I would have done that sooner, except I have given away most of my books on this subject.
It's just simply " amazing" what a quote within "context" can do to clear up the lies and falsehoods spread by some of the "brethren" who are seemingly standing strong for the unsearchable scriptures, i.e. the "Textus Receptus" or maybe the "Traditional Text", or could it possibly be - the "Majority Text"! Let's see - which one will it be today? Eeny-Meeny-Miny-Mo?  |
This is addressed in this article.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htm
Here is just the first part of the article.
Quote:
When a believer begins to defend the King James Version, unbelievers immediately commence to bring up various questions and problems in the effort to put the believer down and silence him. Let us therefore consider some of these alleged difficulties.
(A) THE KING JAMES VERSION A VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus [Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 60]. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.
|
|