"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.
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#61
sir, you must finish your investigation. Old as in written on deer skin and still sitting in the Vatican that Omitted books like Genesis and many others? not only this but the information you are going on is old info. Since the king james was written on younger texts they have discovered older texts much older.. like 80 AD and they match almost identically to the ones used to translate the KJV. Wescott and Hort? *shiver.. do research anybody but don't stop in one place.. dig deeper this world is owned by Satan himself.

Wescott and Hort were anything but Christian- look into it. Look into the board who helped them put it together.. investigate those people.
I assume your talking about the Codex Vaticanus? It doesn't omit complete books but is missing some sections out of some books, however, that is because of it's age.

As for Westcott and Hort. Even if they didn't hold to a very high inspiration of Scripture that doesn't mean they weren't capable of compiling a text.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#62
I assume your talking about the Codex Vaticanus? It doesn't omit complete books but is missing some sections out of some books, however, that is because of it's age.

As for Westcott and Hort. Even if they didn't hold to a very high inspiration of Scripture that doesn't mean they weren't capable of compiling a text.

every person will come to his or her own conclusion. Here is what we have.
1: there are thousands of ancient texts that are nearly identical. "received texts"
2: there are 2 others the vaticanus and the sinaiticus. If one could prove that there are flaws in either of these scripts then why would anyone accept a new translation including it. The sinaiticus was changed repeatedly, erased, rewritten again and again.. often with poor grammar.
3rdly and lastly, if you can't trust the motives for a new translation or the people putting it together why on earth would you keep it as doctrine?

and lets not forget the obvious. There are thousands of ancient manuscripts that are nearly identical. again.. why would you NOT choose that and go with the few that don't match up to anything? guided by people with less than honorable motives.. thats crazy
 
Last edited:
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#63

every person will come to his or her own conclusion. Here is what we have.
1: there are thousands of ancient texts that are nearly identical. "received texts"
2: there are 2 others the vaticanus and the sinaiticus. If one could prove that there are flaws in either of these scripts then why would anyone accept a new translation including it. The sinaiticus was changed repeatedly, erased, rewritten again and again.. often with poor grammar.
3rdly and lastly, if you can't trust the motives for a new translation or the people putting it together why on earth would you keep it as doctrine?

and lets not forget the obvious. There are thousands of ancient manuscripts that are nearly identical. again.. why would you NOT choose that and go with the few that don't match up to anything? guided by people with less than honorable motives.. thats crazy
I actually prefer the Received Text (well more specifically the Latin Vulgate) just so you know. But the differences between the Received Text and the Critical Text are mostly minor, and both provide a perfectly serviceable NT.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#64
I don't believe that a bit. 99.9 percent of rat poison is good food. if you change anything you can do real damage. Like removing Lucifer and putting Morning star for example. But lets just say for conversations sake..

you and me have the duty of reconstructing a book out of 2502 copies of it. 2500 are the same.. 2 are not even the same as each other.. would you and I figure out which parts of all 2502 we thought belonged? no of course not we would disregard the 2 and copy the 2500 that do agree in all aspects.
its pretty much that simple.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#65
just to take it a step further, imagine this is a bet. The odds are 2500 to 2 . which would you bet on? and we are not talking about money, we are talking beyond priceless. We are talking about access to Gods word.
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,137
216
63
#66
I don't believe that a bit. 99.9 percent of rat poison is good food. if you change anything you can do real damage. Like removing Lucifer and putting Morning star for example. But lets just say for conversations sake..

you and me have the duty of reconstructing a book out of 2502 copies of it. 2500 are the same.. 2 are not even the same as each other.. would you and I figure out which parts of all 2502 we thought belonged? no of course not we would disregard the 2 and copy the 2500 that do agree in all aspects.
its pretty much that simple.

Something in what you say, the people behind the translations, do they consider lucifer to be their morning star?

Is the slightest change the most telling of those that make the changes?


People of this world, the devil worshipers are deceiving you into accepting their beliefs.

They believe Yahvah God to be the "bad guy" and the devil is helping them escape.......

It seems "crazy" but it is true.

The evil rebellion have used the time they have to manipulate and enslave people.

The truth is there for those that seek it.

They have been extracting Yahvah God's blue prints and believe they can become gods with the knowledge.

In there own ignorance they do not see that they are living out all the Bible speaks of and fail to believe that
the battle is won and time only remains to allow the good crop to become ripe before the Harvest.
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#67
I don't believe that a bit. 99.9 percent of rat poison is good food. if you change anything you can do real damage. Like removing Lucifer and putting Morning star for example. But lets just say for conversations sake..


You are aware that Lucifer does mean Morning star right? Lucifer comes from two Latin words "Lux" (light) and "Fero" (bear) put together as a compound it has one of four meanings light-bearer, morning star, daystar, or the planet Venus.

you and me have the duty of reconstructing a book out of 2502 copies of it. 2500 are the same.. 2 are not even the same as each other.. would you and I figure out which parts of all 2502 we thought belonged? no of course not we would disregard the 2 and copy the 2500 that do agree in all aspects.
its pretty much that simple.
Not exactly. If I have 2500 copies of Paradise Lost ranging from the years 1870 to 2012 and two copies from 1715 I'm going to lend significant credence to those copies and find out what is different between these two copies and the other 2500. Then I'm going to try and find out when additions crept in and then I'm going to try and determine if those additions were originally part of the original text or if my older copies omit these verses because they started from an incomplete text to begin with.

The last part being impossible without the original text I will then include the suspected additions in my edition of Paradise Lost while footnoting them with "The oldest manuscripts do not contain these verses".
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#68
You are aware that Lucifer does mean Morning star right? Lucifer comes from two Latin words "Lux" (light) and "Fero" (bear) put together as a compound it has one of four meanings light-bearer, morning star, daystar, or the planet Venus.

Not exactly. If I have 2500 copies of Paradise Lost ranging from the years 1870 to 2012 and two copies from 1715 I'm going to lend significant credence to those copies and find out what is different between these two copies and the other 2500. Then I'm going to try and find out when additions crept in and then I'm going to try and determine if those additions were originally part of the original text or if my older copies omit these verses because they started from an incomplete text to begin with.

The last part being impossible without the original text I will then include the suspected additions in my edition of Paradise Lost while footnoting them with "The oldest manuscripts do not contain these verses".
yes, I am fully aware of what Lucifer means in latin, I am also aware of the King of Liars. I will never believe Lucifer A doesn't exist or B Jesus called himself Lucifer in latin at the end of my bible. second.. They have found Textus receptus that date back closer to 70 and 80 ADremember there have been many discoveries since the texts became "received"

we included those in our 2502
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#69
New Testament Part 3

Time Proximity & Manuscript Quantity

The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it.
–Napoleon
When it comes to the authenticity of the New Testament there are three things that should be considered.​

  • Time Proximity
  • Manuscript Quantity
  • Manuscript Accuracy


Time Proximity


Despite the breadth of eyewitness accounts that make up the New Testament collection, however, many people still argue the reliability and authenticity of the New Testament books. One of the most popular arguments against the New Testament is that “it was either written too long after the life of Jesus and the boom of the early churches, or the earliest remaining documents are so far after the originals that they cannot ”
Truth be told, this argument is nothing more than a straw man, propped up in an attempt to scare off would be seekers by making them think that the books were written by crazed men, too far removed from the time of the events to know what they were talking about.
William Foxwell Albright, one of the world’s foremost biblical archaeologists, said: “We
can already say emphatically there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD80, two full generations before the date (AD130-150) given by the more radical New Testament Critics of today.”
Albright reiterates this point in an interview for Christianity Today, 18 Jan 1963: “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably some time between about AD50-75). Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and His immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 AD.”
Dr. John A.T. Robinson, comes to some startling conclusions in his groundbreaking book Redating The New Testament. His research has led to the conviction that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Dating of New Testament Books
WORK CONSERVATIVE DATING LIBERAL DATING Paul’s Letters AD 50-66 AD 50-100 Matthew AD 70-80 AD 80-100 Mark AD 50-65 AD 70 Luke Early AD 60’s AD 70-90 John AD 80-100 AD 90-100 The Number of Manuscripts and Their Closeness to The Original

“On the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians’ New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity.”
Counting Greek copies alone, the New Testament is preserved in some 5,656 partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand from the second through the fifteenth centuries. Today, we now have more than 5,686 known Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 Latin vulgate, and almost 9,300 other early version manuscripts of the New Testament. Combined, this is nearly 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.
No other document of history even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, Homer’s Iliad is second, with 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete text of Homer dates from the thirteenth century.
Type of Manuscript # of Copies in Existence Extant Greek Manuscripts
Uncials 307 Minuscules 2,860 Lectionaries 2,410 Papyri 109 SUBTOTAL 5,686 Manuscripts in Other Languages
Latin Vulgate 10,000+ Ethiopic 2,000+ Slavic 4,101 Armenian 2,587 Syriac Pashetta 350+ Bohairic 100 Arabic 75 Old Latin 50 Anglo Saxon 7 Gothic 6 Sogdian 3 Old Syriac 2 Persian 2 Frankish 1 SUBTOTAL 19,284+

TOTAL ALL MANUSCRIPTS 24,970+ The importance of the sheer number of manuscript copies cannot be overstated. As with other documents of ancient literature, there are no known extant (currently existing) original manuscripts of The Bible. Fortunately, however, the abundance of manuscript copies make it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy.


taken from

New Testament Part 3… Time Proximity & Manuscript Quantity « Following The Way
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#70
http://alangiles.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/time-proximity-manuscript-quantity/

it looks way better on their site ^^ a lot easier to read. However I just wanted to state I grossly understated the numbers
not 2500.... 25,000 !!!! Praise GOD

case closed :)
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#71
yes, I am fully aware of what Lucifer means in latin, I am also aware of the King of Liars. I will never believe Lucifer A doesn't exist or B Jesus called himself Lucifer in latin at the end of my bible.
First I am not denying that Satan exists, second even in Latin Christ is not called Lucifer in the Apocalypse, he is called the "stella splendida et matutina" (The glorious (or bright) and morning star), and this is due to the fact that in Greek the Greek does not use a single word here (phosphoros) but instead uses a circumlocution (e.g like saying the father of
my father instead of grandfather). In fact the Latin Vulgate has the word Lucifer referring to constellations and pretty much everything dealing with light in the OT. For some reason the KJV translators decided to use the Vulgate in their translation of Isaiah 14:12 instead of the Greek and carry the word Lucifer wholesale into English (note that they do not do this with any other occurrence of Lucifer in the OT or NT).

For your reference here are some occurrences of Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate.

NT: II Peter 1:19: et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris.

II Peter 1:19. And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

OT: Job 11:17. et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer

Job 11:17. And brightness like that of the noonday, shall arise to thee at evening: and when thou shalt think thyself consumed, thou shalt rise as the day star.

Job 38:32. numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis

Job 38:32. Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth?

Isaiah 14:12. quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

Isaiah 14:12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

All English translations taken from the Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate.



]second.. They have found Textus receptus that date back closer to 70 and 80 ADremember there have been many discoveries since the texts became "received"

we included those in our 2502
Not quite, The earliest fragment of the NT we have is a piece from a page of the Gospel of John from the first half of the 2nd century AD (between 100 and 149 AD). The two earliest mostly complete copies of the NT we have are still the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#72
the Sinaiticus can clearly be seen where its been erased and written again and again over spaces of time with different peoples hand writings, I don't see how you still accept that as anything but trash?

and I'm not trying to get under your skin, you are my brother in Christ, in fact the idea that any more words would make anyone angry is enough to get me to stop.
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#73
I will also point out that the site you posted is the addressing the reliability of the NT and not the Received Text in particular.

In fact it points out that these 25,000 manuscripts are from a number of languages including Latin, Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian, Syriac, Bohairic, Arabic, Old Latin, Anglo Saxon, Gothic, Sogdian, Old Syriac, Persian, and Frankish. With the majority of these manuscripts (10,000+) being the Latin Vulgate.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#74
as far as I'm concerned any manuscript that says the same thing is the same to me.. call it latin vulgate or textus receptus.. says the same thing. its still not the vaticanus or the sinaiticus. And that was my point- the reliability of the texts.. all of the texts that say the same thing. isnt that our focus brother? to find truth? they are reliable, and they say the same thing..and they aren't the other 2.. :) agreed?
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#75
the Sinaiticus can clearly be seen where its been erased and written again and again over spaces of time with different peoples hand writings, I don't see how you still accept that as anything but trash?
Sinaiticus may not be the most reliable in parts, but Vaticanus is a whole nother deal.

and I'm not trying to get under your skin, you are my brother in Christ, in fact the idea that any more words would make anyone angry is enough to get me to stop.
Don't worry they don't make me angry. I said before that I prefer the Latin Vulgate (which coincidentally agrees with the Textus Recptus on almost all points), but I still see value in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#76
duly noted, we agree to disagree :) I like talking to you man, you've got good spirit
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#77
duly noted, we agree to disagree :) I like talking to you man, you've got good spirit
Same to you man. I will admit I do get a little charged over the Lucifer thing, but I've got no problem with Lucifer being a name for Satan (Christian tradition has held to that since fairly early), but I still see Morning Star as a valid translation.
 
T

texian

Guest
#78
"sir, you must finish your investigation. Old as in written on deer skin and still sitting in the Vatican that Omitted books like Genesis and many others? not only this but the information you are going on is old info. Since the king james was written on younger texts they have discovered older texts much older.. like 80 AD and they match almost identically to the ones used to translate the KJV. Wescott and Hort? *shiver.. do research anybody but don't stop in one place.. dig deeper this world is owned by Satan himself.

Wescott and Hort were anything but Christian- look into it. Look into the board who helped them put it together.. investigate those people."

What I was saying is that the wikipedia article I quoted to give the definition of "Received Text," the English translation of the Latin Textus Receptus, went on to try to discredit the Textus Receptus, the word of God, in subtle ways - by emphasizing that Erasmus was a Catholic and a humanist, and that the Alexandarian Greek texts Westcott-Hort used are older than the recent copies of the Byzantine texts. All this was an attempt to support the Westcott-Hort theory that the older the Greek text the closer it is to the originals. This is on: Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted a series of articles on this forum about the Textus Rceptus and Westcott-Hort, calling the series "Riders of the Wrecking Machine." One in the series I posted here is called "King James Wordings Found In Early Greek Papyri New Testament Manuscripts," which pointed out that fragments of Greek New Testament manuscripts on papyri found since Westcott-Hort wrote show that the verse wordings of the Textus Receptus type were much earlier than those guys claimed.

Another post in the series on Riders of the Wrecking Machine was "The Occult Connections of Westcott and Hort."

Emphasizing that Easmus was a Catholic and a humanist by wikipedia is misleading. Martin Luther was also a Catholic. Because modern humanists are usually atheists or agnostics does no mean that Erasmus was an atheist or agnostic. In fact, ol Erasmus as a scholar of New Testament manuscripts knew more than the modern "Bible scholars" did, who created the English translations from the Westcott-Hort Alexandarian Greek texts. Some of these English offspring of Westcott-Hort were the American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible and the NIV. Erasmus knew that the Byzantine Greek copies were superior to the Alexandarian texts available to him at the time, which were used by the Catholics, though not exclusively. The Vaticanius was in the Vatican Library when Erasmus lived, though the Sinaiticus was not fond until the 19th century.

The Byzantine Greek texts were apparently copied faithfully through the centuries in the somewhat more humid climate of Syria,and the area that is now Turkey, Greece, and Italy, than the dry climate of Egypt where some older manuscripts survived. Study of the Westcott-Hort text on the deity of Christ doctrine versus the same verses in the Textus Receptus shows an agreement between the gnosticism of Alexandria, Egypt and the Westcott-Hort verse wordings. The omissions in the Westcott-Hort text are significant on the doctrine of the deity of Christ and his appearing in human flesh, something the gnostics did not accept.

 
May 2, 2011
1,134
8
0
#79
New Testament Part 3

Time Proximity & Manuscript Quantity

The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it.
–Napoleon
When it comes to the authenticity of the New Testament there are three things that should be considered.​

  • Time Proximity
  • Manuscript Quantity
  • Manuscript Accuracy


Time Proximity


Despite the breadth of eyewitness accounts that make up the New Testament collection, however, many people still argue the reliability and authenticity of the New Testament books. One of the most popular arguments against the New Testament is that “it was either written too long after the life of Jesus and the boom of the early churches, or the earliest remaining documents are so far after the originals that they cannot ”
Truth be told, this argument is nothing more than a straw man, propped up in an attempt to scare off would be seekers by making them think that the books were written by crazed men, too far removed from the time of the events to know what they were talking about.
William Foxwell Albright, one of the world’s foremost biblical archaeologists, said: “We
can already say emphatically there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD80, two full generations before the date (AD130-150) given by the more radical New Testament Critics of today.”
Albright reiterates this point in an interview for Christianity Today, 18 Jan 1963: “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably some time between about AD50-75). Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and His immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 AD.”
Dr. John A.T. Robinson, comes to some startling conclusions in his groundbreaking book Redating The New Testament. His research has led to the conviction that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Dating of New Testament Books
WORK CONSERVATIVE DATING LIBERAL DATING Paul’s Letters AD 50-66 AD 50-100 Matthew AD 70-80 AD 80-100 Mark AD 50-65 AD 70 Luke Early AD 60’s AD 70-90 John AD 80-100 AD 90-100

The Number of Manuscripts and Their Closeness to The Original


[... remainder of earlier post deleted for clarity ]

New Testament Part 3… Time Proximity & Manuscript Quantity « Following The Way
Beware the Preterists in certain early datings
 
May 2, 2011
1,134
8
0
#80
"sir, you must finish your investigation. Old as in written on deer skin and still sitting in the Vatican that Omitted books like Genesis and many others? not only this but the information you are going on is old info. Since the king james was written on younger texts they have discovered older texts much older.. like 80 AD and they match almost identically to the ones used to translate the KJV. Wescott and Hort? *shiver.. do research anybody but don't stop in one place.. dig deeper this world is owned by Satan himself.

Wescott and Hort were anything but Christian- look into it. Look into the board who helped them put it together.. investigate those people."


What I was saying is that the wikipedia article I quoted to give the definition of "Received Text," the English translation of the Latin Textus Receptus, went on to try to discredit the Textus Receptus, the word of God, in subtle ways - by emphasizing that Erasmus was a Catholic and a humanist, and that the Alexandarian Greek texts Westcott-Hort used are older than the recent copies of the Byzantine texts. All this was an attempt to support the Westcott-Hort theory that the older the Greek text the closer it is to the originals. This is on: Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted a series of articles on this forum about the Textus Rceptus and Westcott-Hort, calling the series "Riders of the Wrecking Machine." One in the series I posted here is called "King James Wordings Found In Early Greek Papyri New Testament Manuscripts," which pointed out that fragments of Greek New Testament manuscripts on papyri found since Westcott-Hort wrote show that the verse wordings of the Textus Receptus type were much earlier than those guys claimed.

Another post in the series on Riders of the Wrecking Machine was "The Occult Connections of Westcott and Hort."

Emphasizing that Easmus was a Catholic and a humanist by wikipedia is misleading. Martin Luther was also a Catholic. Because modern humanists are usually atheists or agnostics does no mean that Erasmus was an atheist or agnostic. In fact, ol Erasmus as a scholar of New Testament manuscripts knew more than the modern "Bible scholars" did, who created the English translations from the Westcott-Hort Alexandarian Greek texts. Some of these English offspring of Westcott-Hort were the American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible and the NIV. Erasmus knew that the Byzantine Greek copies were superior to the Alexandarian texts available to him at the time, which were used by the Catholics, though not exclusively. The Vaticanius was in the Vatican Library when Erasmus lived, though the Sinaiticus was not fond until the 19th century.

The Byzantine Greek texts were apparently copied faithfully through the centuries in the somewhat more humid climate of Syria,and the area that is now Turkey, Greece, and Italy, than the dry climate of Egypt where some older manuscripts survived. Study of the Westcott-Hort text on the deity of Christ doctrine versus the same verses in the Textus Receptus shows an agreement between the gnosticism of Alexandria, Egypt and the Westcott-Hort verse wordings. The omissions in the Westcott-Hort text are significant on the doctrine of the deity of Christ and his appearing in human flesh, something the gnostics did not accept.


Texian:
[Editorial Note by Digital_Angel_316]
You can cite another person's post by using the "QUOTE" button in the lower right hand
corner of the post (you can also 'multi-quote', taking segments of a person's post for
review one by one in your reply). You can edit (e.g. highlight, change font size, select only
a portion -- but please, not the content) the other person's quote, and it is then
highlighted by demarcation, making it easier for others to read, and see that you are
responding to their particular post.
I agree with your assertions regarding the Textus Receptus in the above post, and in
regard to Westcott and Hort (et. al.) But again it leaves me s
omewhat confused in regard
to your stance on the Scofield Bible, which is largely an editorial modification by margin
and footnote manipulation, but in principle, not much different than what Westcott-Hort
(et. al.) did in their corruption.
Would you please restate your understanding and position
on Scofield as well?