This paragraph is talking about certain verses in Revelation. The article deals with problems with specific verses. I do not see any differences in the verses you mentioned in I Corinthians 13. Do you have a source for that? I posted a Byzantine text that had identical wording for the two verses you mentioned.
Former pentecostal
- Thread starter JonathanBentley
- Start date
-
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.
This is just foolish talk. The Received Text was being constantly refined for about 40 years after Erasmus, and it was the 1550 edition of Stephanus that was actually used in the KJV. At the same time, the translators had a wide range of sources and many more manuscripts, so the KJV text is slightly different. Therefore to call the King James Bible a "PERVERTED BIBLE" is to slander the leading English-language translation of the Bible. Only minions of Satan slander the Word of God.
How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
If you are referring to the most corrupt Greek manuscripts which are deemed to be from the 4th century -- Aleph and B -- you do not even have a leg to stand on. Study the matter carefully and see that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence. Had Westcott & Hort not tricked the Revision Committee, they would have still remained in the dust bin as the rejected manuscripts that they are. Erasmus was fully aware of Vaticanus, but he rejected it for good reason.
from the Christian Publishing House:
FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION
Robert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.
How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.
FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION
Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman
Allan Alexander MacRae was an evangelical Christian scholarRobert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.
How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.
-
1
- Show all
if that's not a nail in the coffin then nothing is!
so Erasmus only went as far back to the TENTH CENTURY and in other parts just retranslated the LATIN.
and then this part is a true GIFT unto researchers like myself:
Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.
so from these Scholars and specifically [[Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary]] is claiming the TR and KJV should not be considered INSPIRED WORD of GOD!
so Erasmus only went as far back to the TENTH CENTURY and in other parts just retranslated the LATIN.
and then this part is a true GIFT unto researchers like myself:
Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.
so from these Scholars and specifically [[Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary]] is claiming the TR and KJV should not be considered INSPIRED WORD of GOD!
i think the first set of Verses listed clearly speaks about Jesus and now we see Him as an Enigma but that will change when we see him "face to face."
the second set of Verses are phrased in a way by using the word "that" before which is perfect to come allows variance and this is where the difference many cessationist use for their emphasis on debating the perfect to come is the finishing of the Bible.
ultimately, the first set of Verses are much clearer. so when the TR Version hit the market, the debate over Gifts Ceasing and Continuing had merit. but if we just stuck to the Original Verses, we would most likely confirm what the Church Fathers claimed the Perfect to Come is when we see God face to face.
the second set of Verses are phrased in a way by using the word "that" before which is perfect to come allows variance and this is where the difference many cessationist use for their emphasis on debating the perfect to come is the finishing of the Bible.
ultimately, the first set of Verses are much clearer. so when the TR Version hit the market, the debate over Gifts Ceasing and Continuing had merit. but if we just stuck to the Original Verses, we would most likely confirm what the Church Fathers claimed the Perfect to Come is when we see God face to face.
I have a question for you. If Hebrew cannot be translated fully into Greek or Greek fully translated into Latin, how can all three be 100% translated into English? When the English language is even know the real word as an example: for At-one-ment?
Also, the word Love in the Hebrew and Greek are different. The truth is that the English language cannot fully provide 100% translation we do have more than enough for Salvation, righteous living, and worship of God.
Also, if the Textus receptus is errored of only 1cor 13:8-10, why are they correct for the three unit chapters starting at chapters 12 through 14? And what are you not taking issue with chapters and verses which were not in Hebrew or Greek but added much later that every version or translation you accept uses in addition to the KJV?
Thank you
Also, the word Love in the Hebrew and Greek are different. The truth is that the English language cannot fully provide 100% translation we do have more than enough for Salvation, righteous living, and worship of God.
Also, if the Textus receptus is errored of only 1cor 13:8-10, why are they correct for the three unit chapters starting at chapters 12 through 14? And what are you not taking issue with chapters and verses which were not in Hebrew or Greek but added much later that every version or translation you accept uses in addition to the KJV?
Thank you
There is nothing about 'to 'my favor'' here. I do not hold to a doctrine that the Textus Receptus or HV are flawless. You expressed your distrust of two verses in the Textus Receptus for which I showed a word for word exact version from a cite with a Byzantine text.
The article you posted gave a laundry list of specific issues with the Textus Receptus. I did not see those two verses in the list.
The article you posted gave a laundry list of specific issues with the Textus Receptus. I did not see those two verses in the list.