Quote:
Originally Posted by researching
I am a student and new at studying the differences in Bible translations. My assignment for this week is to start studying the difference between translations and find out why they are different. I did not know there were any major differences until I started my research.
I read that “the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.”
Why are the other texts considered corrupt? Do they also use the Textus Receptus? Thanks in advance for any help.
|
If you wish to know the differences in the versions as opposed to the KJV, you need to start with the preface of all the "versions" In all cases they will say they use as a basis the "LXX" which has no historical support below 300 AD for the OT, and Vaticanus for the NT. They will sometimes say they use Nestle's or the United Bible Societies text for the NT, both based on Vaticanus.
The two major corrupted families of texts(both traced to have been edited by one man, Origen)have their little characteristics that set them apart from each other. The western text
adds words to the readings, the Alexandrian
subtracts words from the readings. Both families
add apocryphal books to the body of the manuscripts.
I had 135 version sof the bible in English. One of them was based on the Massoretic Hebrew text and what's known as the TR/Majority/Received text, the KJV. The other 134 were all based on Vaticanus. I live in an area that has many used book stores, if you want to take the time(7 years) and effort to collect 100+ versions, you will come to the same conclusion I did.
Grace and peace
Tony