From what I understand, the ESV is based on the UBS4 Greek and the HCSB is based on the NA Greek. So, TRO/KJO would probably want neither... If you do not hold this view, then the UBS4 and NA are identical except for the number of variants.
Here's the skinny:
There have been at least 6 different UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts, and 27 different NA (Nestle-Aland) Greek texts, and both of these started out as the WH (Westcott-Hort) Greek text, which started as the TR (Textus Receptus, Received Greek Text) which the KJV was based on. Basically, in the 1840s liberal German 'scholars' decided that although the TR has been perfectly preserved and has remained the same from at least the 4th century on, they would reject it, thus rejecting 95% of all known Greek manuscripts from all over the world. They decided that God had not preserved his word and that they would take the remaining 5% of manuscripts all of which are from Egypt (a mass of mutilated pages that all dissagree with each other) and create a new text from that. Thus by their scholarly powers, they thought, they would re-create the original text of Scripture that God had failed to preserve. Although this started as early as the 1840s it did not gain too much popular acceptance among English speakers until 1881 when the Revised Version (partially a TR and partially a WH translation) and the Westcott-Hort Greek text came out. So, we now have 1 WH, 6 UBS, and 27 NA Greek texts, and a host of modern English Bibles based on one of them or a combination of a few of them. At one time the NIV in John 1:18 read "only Son" but now reads "God the One and Only" because the NA text changed from monogenes uios (onlybegotten Son) to mongenes theos (onlybegotten God). So then, the Greek text that 'scholars' call the Original Greek is constantly changing, at their whim, and so are the modern English translations since they constantly update themselves to conform to the newest scholarly whims. But through it all, the Received Greek Text has remained the same, as has the KJV which was based on it. So, should you get an ESV or a HCS? Well, if you want the newest scholarly theory on what the Bible should say, then get whatever translation has the latest copyright, but if you want the preserved word of God in English, get a KJV.
Last edited by JohnJones; 6th September 2004 at 09:11 PM.
The KJV which is based on very late Greek witnesses, so the theory by the KJV only types falls flat, as it is based on very late texts. The critical text of Nestle/Aland rely on the oldest witnesses so it is the best available. There is nothing preserved about the KJV, one has only to look at the various changes that text has gone through over the years.
Jeff the Finn
In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind
35
Join Date: 12th April 2004
Location: Bossier City, LA (removed from his native South Carolina)
Posts: 9,760
Blessings: 7,304
My Mood
Reps: 390,015,776,044 (power: 390,015,791)
Originally Posted by JohnJones
Here's the skinny:
There have been at least 6 different UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts, and 27 different NA (Nestle-Aland) Greek texts, and both of these started out as the WH (Westcott-Hort) Greek text, which started as the TR (Textus Receptus, Received Greek Text) which the KJV was based on. Basically, in the 1840s liberal German 'scholars' decided that although the TR has been perfectly preserved and has remained the same from at least the 4th century on, they would reject it, thus rejecting 95% of all known Greek manuscripts from all over the world. They decided that God had not preserved his word and that they would take the remaining 5% of manuscripts all of which are from Egypt (a mass of mutilated pages that all dissagree with each other) and create a new text from that. Thus by their scholarly powers, they thought, they would re-create the original text of Scripture that God had failed to preserve. Although this started as early as the 1840s it did not gain too much popular acceptance among English speakers until 1881 when the Revised Version (partially a TR and partially a WH translation) and the Westcott-Hort Greek text came out. So, we now have 1 WH, 6 UBS, and 27 NA Greek texts, and a host of modern English Bibles based on one of them or a combination of a few of them. At one time the NIV in John 1:18 read "only Son" but now reads "God the One and Only" because the NA text changed from monogenes uios (onlybegotten Son) to mongenes theos (onlybegotten God). So then, the Greek text that 'scholars' call the Original Greek is constantly changing, at their whim, and so are the modern English translations since they constantly update themselves to conform to the newest scholarly whims. But through it all, the Received Greek Text has remained the same, as has the KJV which was based on it. So, should you get an ESV or a HCS? Well, if you want the newest scholarly theory on what the Bible should say, then get whatever translation has the latest copyright, but if you want the preserved word of God in English, get a KJV.
I'm sorry, but regardless of what you think of the WH/NA/UBS Greek, it did not start from the TR. It did use the TR as one of its reference texts, but it is not based on the TR. It is based on a plethora of Greek manuscripts found over the past centuries through archeology. Have any opinion you like regarding KJ-O or "NIV= not inspired version", but ensure your basis is factual first.
Here's a view from a KJV proponent who discusses the changes the KJV has gone through. Even proponent theologians of the KJV talk of its changes. Some say the revisions and changes were more involved than others, but the key is that the KJV you hold today has changed several times since 1611. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvupdt.html
__________________
1 Cor 4:6 Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
"Don't be a system disciple. Be a disciple of Christ. You might get to Heaven & realize your system was not His system."-Wiersbe
It isn’t ‘giving in to sin’ to disagree w/ love & kindness. ‘Giving in to sin’ is speaking w/o love & kindness.
Love is our mandate. Eph 4:32 2Tim 4:2 1Cor 13
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The KJV which is based on very late Greek witnesses, so the theory by the KJV only types falls flat, as it is based on very late texts. The critical text of Nestle/Aland rely on the oldest witnesses so it is the best available. There is nothing preserved about the KJV, one has only to look at the various changes that text has gone through over the years.
Jeff the Finn
The oldest extant manuscript of each form dates back to the 4th century. Westcott and Hort who originated the theory that the NU-text is older even admitted that the Textus Receptus has been faithfully transmitted from the 4th century on. Their theory that the NU-text is older was based on the mere assumption that the oldest NU-text manuscript is from the first half of the 4th century and the oldest TR manuscript from the second half of the 4th century. It cannot be proven that this is the case. We can speculate on which is from the first and which is from the second half of the 4th century, or we could even say that both manuscripts were written simultaneously, but that's all beside the point. The points that matter are these:
(1) God preserved his word by usage, not by hiding it, as Paul says "if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." (2 Cor 4:3)
The NU-text was hidden in the sands of Egypt from the 4th century to the 1840s, whereas the Textus Receptus was actually in use from the 4th century to today
.
(2) The Textus Recpetus manuscripts come from all over the world, whereas the NU-text mss are all Egyptian, a merely local text.
Alexandria Egypt from which all the NU-text mss come was in a state of flux in the 4th century. There was a time period where all the orthodox were exiled and the Arians ruled the area. That was ample time to corrupt many manuscripts, each Arian changing what he personally felt ought to be changed, which explains why the Alexandrians mss differ with each other so much, whereas Byzantine mss agree with each other. It also explains why they are found burried in the sand, the orthodox throwing them away on their return.
Originally Posted by daveleau
Here's a view from a KJV proponent who discusses the changes the KJV has gone through. Even proponent theologians of the KJV talk of its changes. Some say the revisions and changes were more involved than others, but the key is that the KJV you hold today has changed several times since 1611.
There have been changes to update spelling or clarify the meaning of the English, but these changes are still based on the same Greek text not a new one. When the NIV changed from "only Son" to "God the One and Only" in John 1:18, that was done because the Greek text they had used changed. Nestle and Aland have become the popes of that translation. If in the future they change that verse to say "chicken" then the NIV will be forced to go along with it. The Greek behind the KJV ever remains the same, and all changes made to the KJV were for the sake of clarifying the English not changing the meaning.
Last edited by JohnJones; 6th September 2004 at 10:06 PM.
In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind
35
Join Date: 12th April 2004
Location: Bossier City, LA (removed from his native South Carolina)
Posts: 9,760
Blessings: 7,304
My Mood
Reps: 390,015,776,044 (power: 390,015,791)
Well, many of them are from Egypt, but many of them are also from Israel and Syria. The Qumran scrolls are a player in much of the newer translations' OT printings.
__________________
1 Cor 4:6 Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
"Don't be a system disciple. Be a disciple of Christ. You might get to Heaven & realize your system was not His system."-Wiersbe
It isn’t ‘giving in to sin’ to disagree w/ love & kindness. ‘Giving in to sin’ is speaking w/o love & kindness.
Love is our mandate. Eph 4:32 2Tim 4:2 1Cor 13
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Sorry, I just updated right when you posted that, and I want to point out that we're not dealing with the OT here. The differences between the KJV and other translations in the OT are usually due to newer translations rejecting the vowel pointing and using conjectural pointing, or merely misunderstanding the passage and therefore translating it wrong to try to make it make more sense.
For example:
(Mal 2:16 KJV) For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
(Mal 2:16 NKJV) "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously."
(Mal 2:16 NIV) "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
(Mal 2:16 NRSV) For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.
(Mal 2:16 NASB) "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."
The meaning of the Hebrew is that the priest comitts violence via his divorce and then says "Ah, but look at this garment I am wearing! I am priest! If I do something it must be right," thus he covers the violence with his priestly garment. Modern translators do not understand that, so they change what the Hebrew says on purpose to try and make sense out of it.
Another example is Psalm 22:21. Here, the Jewish Publication Society's NEW translation has a footnote admitting that the verse literally says what the KJV says!
(Psa 22:21 KJV) Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
(Psalm 22:21 JPS Old) "Save me from the lion’s mouth; yea, from the horns of the wild-oxen do Thou answer me."
(Psa 22:21 NKJV) Save Me from the lion's mouth And from the horns of the wild oxen! You have answered Me.
(Psa 22:21 NIV) Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
The meaning of the Hebrew is that the Father heard Christ while he was on the horns of these animals - the horns of the unicorns interesecting making the figure of the cross - the Father heard the Son while he was on the cross. But, not being able to make sense out of it, modern translators change it from "you heard me from the horns of [some animal]" to "save me from the horns of [some animal]."
Last edited by JohnJones; 6th September 2004 at 10:16 PM.
I appreciate your thoughts and input but that was not the type of response I was looking for. I have been through the whole "KJV vs Modern Translation" debate and so I understand the issue at hand. But like I said I appreciate your concern.
There have been at least 6 different UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts, and 27 different NA (Nestle-Aland) Greek texts, and both of these started out as the WH (Westcott-Hort) Greek text, which started as the TR (Textus Receptus, Received Greek Text) which the KJV was based on. Basically, in the 1840s liberal German 'scholars' decided that although the TR has been perfectly preserved and has remained the same from at least the 4th century on, they would reject it, thus rejecting 95% of all known Greek manuscripts from all over the world. They decided that God had not preserved his word and that they would take the remaining 5% of manuscripts all of which are from Egypt (a mass of mutilated pages that all dissagree with each other) and create a new text from that. Thus by their scholarly powers, they thought, they would re-create the original text of Scripture that God had failed to preserve. Although this started as early as the 1840s it did not gain too much popular acceptance among English speakers until 1881 when the Revised Version (partially a TR and partially a WH translation) and the Westcott-Hort Greek text came out. So, we now have 1 WH, 6 UBS, and 27 NA Greek texts, and a host of modern English Bibles based on one of them or a combination of a few of them. At one time the NIV in John 1:18 read "only Son" but now reads "God the One and Only" because the NA text changed from monogenes uios (onlybegotten Son) to mongenes theos (onlybegotten God). So then, the Greek text that 'scholars' call the Original Greek is constantly changing, at their whim, and so are the modern English translations since they constantly update themselves to conform to the newest scholarly whims. But through it all, the Received Greek Text has remained the same, as has the KJV which was based on it. So, should you get an ESV or a HCS? Well, if you want the newest scholarly theory on what the Bible should say, then get whatever translation has the latest copyright, but if you want the preserved word of God in English, get a KJV.
Hi JohnJones,
What is your view on the Majority Text vs. the Textus Receptus?
What is your view on the Majority Text vs. the Textus Receptus?
In Christ,
Daniel
When you think of the phrase "Majority Text" you may think that it means the majority of all manuscripts right? Well, the majority text of all manuscripts is the Received Text (Textus Receptus) which is attested by 95% of all manuscripts. On the other hand, however, the text that is commonly called the "Majority Text" is simply the majority reading of the Egyptian mss only, that is the majority reading of only 5% of existing manuscripts. Which is more of a majority, the majority readings of a majority of manuscripts (95% of mss.) or the majority reading of a minority of manuscripts (5% of mss.)? The answer is obvious. The Textus Receptus is the majority.
Given that most of them are late, does not mean much. The oldest texts are Alexanderan and that means a great deal even the oldest known fragments follow the Alexanderan readings.
Jeff the Finn
Linear Mode
