"Textus Receptus"

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T

texian

Guest
#81
Digital_Angel_316

The Scofield Reference Bible places Scofield's comments right on the page with scripture, which can lead Christians who do not know the Bible too well to accept Scofield's theology, called dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, separation theology or postponement theology. C.I. Scofield, along with John Darby and Lewis S. Chafer are the early or classical dispensationalists. But when I was looking for direct statements by Scofield in the 1917 edition of his Reference Bible, my impression was that he is slippery and is not as easy to pin down in this work as are some other dispensationalists. So I quoted from Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,' Bibliotheca Sacra, 93, October (1936), Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 1966, and J. Dwight Pentecost,Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965 to show by the words of dispensationalists their starting postulates.

Those starting postulates of dispensationalism are that every statement in the Bible must be given a literal interpretation, the plain, natural meaning its words imply, and that God has two distinct and separate groups of people, the Jews and the "church," for whom God has different plans, and the two groups in classical dispensationalism are said to remain separate for eternity. These starting postulates determine the various doctrines of dispensationalism, including its end time prophecy. A postulate is a fundamental assumption in a theory, as in math, or in man-made theories, in both hard and soft experimental science. A postulate or axiom is assumed to be true. In dispensationalism their starting postulates were created by John Darby, C.I Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer leaning to their own understanding and not to "it is written." So, when their various doctrines and interpretations of Bible texts work out from the beginning postulates, there are many contradictions with scripture, especially scripture interpreted by scripture and not by dispensationalist theory.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#82
Conclusion
K.W. Clark has written in Today's Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament.
The textual history history that the WestcottHort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis.
Wilbur N. Pickering has written in The Identity of the New Testament Text (p. 91):
And that completes our review of the W-H critical theory. It is evidently erroneous at every point. Our conclusions concerning the theory of necessity apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it, as well as to those versions based upon such texts (and to commentaries based upon them).
On page 92, Mr. Pickering also wrote, "The evidence before us indicates that Hort's history never was tenable."
There have been so many manuscripts, or portions thereof, come to light, since the days of Westcott and Hort, that the new evidence simply totally destroys the entire Westcott and Hort theory of textual criticism.
It is my hope that students of the Bible will resume their respect and appreciation for the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus.
Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 3, 22-23
January 3, 1985


The Received Text, or the "Textus Receptus"

taken from the bottom of original post,
I was going back through the entire thread and decided I'd like to re-post this last piece.
It had been so long since I've seen this thread I'd forgotten how much information was originally posted.
-thoroughly read it if you get a chance. God bless
 
May 2, 2011
1,134
8
0
#83
Digital_Angel_316

The Scofield Reference Bible places Scofield's comments right on the page with scripture, which can lead Christians who do not know the Bible too well to accept Scofield's theology, called dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, separation theology or postponement theology. C.I. Scofield, along with John Darby and Lewis S. Chafer are the early or classical dispensationalists. But when I was looking for direct statements by Scofield in the 1917 edition of his Reference Bible, my impression was that he is slippery and is not as easy to pin down in this work as are some other dispensationalists. So I quoted from Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,' Bibliotheca Sacra, 93, October (1936), Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 1966, and J. Dwight Pentecost,Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965 to show by the words of dispensationalists their starting postulates.

Those starting postulates of dispensationalism are that every statement in the Bible must be given a literal interpretation, the plain, natural meaning its words imply, and that God has two distinct and separate groups of people, the Jews and the "church," for whom God has different plans, and the two groups in classical dispensationalism are said to remain separate for eternity. These starting postulates determine the various doctrines of dispensationalism, including its end time prophecy. A postulate is a fundamental assumption in a theory, as in math, or in man-made theories, in both hard and soft experimental science. A postulate or axiom is assumed to be true. In dispensationalism their starting postulates were created by John Darby, C.I Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer leaning to their own understanding and not to "it is written." So, when their various doctrines and interpretations of Bible texts work out from the beginning postulates, there are many contradictions with scripture, especially scripture interpreted by scripture and not by dispensationalist theory.

OK texian. Thank You. I think we agree that while
Scofield still uses the King James, and thus is not
technically a new translation, that the footnotes and
other notes in this version are their own interpretation
of scripture (some of which should be considered, some
considered and rejected). As you stated :

Texian:
Scofield's comments right on the page with scripture,
...can lead
Christians who do not know the Bible too well to accept Scofield's
theology, called dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, separation
theology or postponement theology
 
May 2, 2011
1,134
8
0
#84
Conclusion
K.W. Clark has written in Today's Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament.
The textual history history that the WestcottHort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis.
Wilbur N. Pickering has written in The Identity of the New Testament Text (p. 91):
And that completes our review of the W-H critical theory. It is evidently erroneous at every point. Our conclusions concerning the theory of necessity apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it, as well as to those versions based upon such texts (and to commentaries based upon them).
On page 92, Mr. Pickering also wrote, "The evidence before us indicates that Hort's history never was tenable."
There have been so many manuscripts, or portions thereof, come to light, since the days of Westcott and Hort, that the new evidence simply totally destroys the entire Westcott and Hort theory of textual criticism.
It is my hope that students of the Bible will resume their respect and appreciation for the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus.
Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 3, 22-23
January 3, 1985


The Received Text, or the "Textus Receptus"

taken from the bottom of original post,
I was going back through the entire thread and decided I'd like to re-post this last piece.
It had been so long since I've seen this thread I'd forgotten how much information was originally posted.
-thoroughly read it if you get a chance. God bless

Great thread, glad we had a chance to revisit it!!
 
Oct 12, 2012
1,563
929
113
68
#87
Which version in your opinions, that we can get today is the closest to the 'Textus Receptus'?
 
M

Mammachickadee

Guest
#88
sorry, I know its a long read, I would have only used sections, but I know some people don't like that.. SOOOO its all there
wanted to at least get people to start thinking about the differences in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus vs. The textus receptus. (where the different translations come from) enjoy :)
Check out the Geneva Bible
 

jduck1986

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2014
22
1
3
#91
digitalangel316 how do you feel about the NKJV
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#92
you quote a guy from Rolla...are you from Rolla as I grew up within 35 miles of Rolla and live within an Hour of Rolla now.....