SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : trying to buy the Textus Receptus!

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )
PosterThread
leaf
Member



Joined: 2006/2/27
Posts: 12
sheffield, UK

 trying to buy the Textus Receptus!

Can anyone help! I've looked all over the web for a shop that sells Textus Receptus texts. Not the old Trinitarian society one but a decent usable one. Everywhere I look its the minority text in every colour and binding known to man but no Receptus, can anyone help! :-o


_________________
nicholas bye

 2006/5/26 8:57Profile









 Re: trying to buy the Textus Receptus!

Stever posts:

If you purchase the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Jay P. Green, Sr. you will have the "Textus Receptus" that created the King James Bible.

You can also purchase The Interlinear Greek-English N.T. by Berry.

Both books are available on Amazon.com however, I prefer Green's book over Berry's.

In both of these books you will find the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated in 1611. Literal modern English words appear between the Greek lines and under each word, making it possible for anyone to make an accurate check of all Bibles versions. The KJV appears in the margins. Notice in how many ways modern translations vary from the Greek text.

Textus Receptus
Before we consider the King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.


Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament.

However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2)
The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim, under whose editorship it was printed in in 1524-5).


Two Bibles
In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller's first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:

1) Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). For 45 years I was in this camp; but I thank God for opening my eyes.

2) Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text - Textus Receptus. I have now joined this camp.

Fuller continues: Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.

All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)


Why did the early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church.

Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of of the writings of the early Church Fathers (Patristics) 86,000+ citations!

Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

Reverend Gipp comments further: Quote: "The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3)



Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book: Quote: "Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' " (Ref:B4)


In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus: Quote: "Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref:D3)


In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
Quote: "For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text…

If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I pray that this is helpful to you.

God bless,

Stever


 2006/5/26 9:24
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

www.e-sword.net I believe you can download the TR.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/5/26 12:26Profile
leaf
Member



Joined: 2006/2/27
Posts: 12
sheffield, UK

 Re:

Thanks Everyone, I now have a Textus Receptus but, still feel that it's a scandal how difficult they are to come by!


_________________
nicholas bye

 2006/5/30 14:15Profile
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1791
Hemel Hempstead

 Re:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

is another source[url=http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/]Trinitatrian Bible Soceity[/url]

and again
[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0907861873/qid%3D1149021039/202-7450668-8612662]Amazon[/url]
and for the americans
[url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0907861873/qid=1149021039/102-2417793-6935338?n=283155]Amazon USA[/url]


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2006/5/30 16:31Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.


Let us not forget the Johannine Comma.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

[b](1)..........if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.[/b]


The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text.

If nothing else this shows that the TR is not 'perfect'...

Clearly Im not a KJVonly-er...as I dont believe God speaks english, nor favors english in any way.
The TR and the KJV bible are great resources, great works for the cause of the Lord.... yet not perfect.


I wouldnt trust the Minority Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

The ACTUAL Majority Texts, not the TR with its added Comma, should be the basis for our NTs.

 2006/5/31 1:06









 Re:

Stever responds:

The Comma Johanneum is a fraud, put forward by Metzger who will lie in order to make his chosen "newer versions" (NIV, NASB, etc.) more palatable to an unsuspecting Church:

The truth of the matter, and Metzger's withdrawal of his charge from all of his newer versions of his book "The Text of the New Testament" can be found here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/mythsabout-erasmus.html


"In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2)."

The first two editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament in the early 16th century omitted the following words from 1 John 5:7-8 -- “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” This portion of Scripture containing a clear Trinitarian statement is called the Johannine Comma. It was added to the third edition of the Erasmus Greek New Testament and it was not again seriously questioned until the 19th century.

There are two popular myths regarding Erasmus and 1 John 5:7 that are parroted by modernists, evangelicals, and even fundamentalists today who defend the modern versions against the KJV.

The first myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).

The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book Erasmus’ Annotations and was repeated by James White in 1995 (The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy).

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.”

De Jonge has also refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth). In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:

“I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus’ Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety. ‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.’

“From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

“In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject” (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).

Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “... it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, The King James Version Defended).

In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2).

The problem is that these myths continue to be paraded as truth by modern version defenders.

A recommended resource for further study is Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a tracing of the longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity (Comma Publications, P.O. Box 1625, Tempe, AZ 85280-1625, receptus@sprynet.com; a second edition is scheduled for publication sometime in late 2005).


Stever concludes:

When will it ever end? The Textus Receptus is not corrupt. The "Scholars" that support the newer versions are the ones with the truly spurious charges. They are the corrupted ones, trying to make the Minority Text equal to the Majority Text by fabridcating stories and creating lies about it!

God bless,

Stever :-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Quote]
FOC wrote:

.


[b][color=0033FF]THIS IS FALSE- SEE ABOVE POST BY STEVER[/color][/b]
Quote:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.


Let us not forget the Johannine Comma.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

[b](1)..........if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.[/b]
.
[b][color=0033FF]THIS IS FALSE- SEE ABOVE POST BY STEVER[/color][/b]

The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text.

If nothing else this shows that the TR is not a 'perfect' translation....as if translation could ever attain perfection to begin with.

Clearly Im not a KJVonly-er...as I dont believe God speaks english, nor favors english in any way.
The TR and the KJV bible are great resources, great works for the cause of the Lord.... yet not perfect.


I wouldnt trust the Minority Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

The ACTUAL Majority Texts, not the TR with its added Comma, should be the basis for our NTs

 2006/5/31 1:39
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

$10 bucks says Stever drops an Atomic Bomb on FOC :-P ;-)


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/5/31 1:39Profile
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Whoa! Stever dropped in his post less than one minute before me! HAAH :-P


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/5/31 1:40Profile
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Stever,

If the earliest of the Byzantine Texts do not have 1 John 5:7,

Aren't we kind of in trouble?

I mean, after all, since Byzantine is where the textus receptus comes from, wouldn't it make the most sense in this case, that the earliest Byzantine (and majority) Byzantine are the best?

I heard 1John5:7 is only in a few of the 5000 Byzantine texts we have. Is this true?


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/5/31 1:56Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy