The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > The Scriptures > Translations and Manuscripts

Translations and Manuscripts Discussions regarding translations of the Bible and Bible manuscripts. This is now a moderated forum. New threads/posts will be approved at the discretion of the Admins/Mods.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God.

» Online Users: 36
1 members and 35 guests
TimV
Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM.
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 09:27 AM
Kim G's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 539
Thanked 469 Times in 220 Posts
Modern Version of the Textus Receptus?

I never read the King James Bible because I prefer reading the Bible in my own language (sorry for the jab . . . ). So I alternate between the NAS, the ESV, and the NIV.

I've never heard of a modern version of the Textus Receptus. For those who are advocates of the TR, do you know of any modern English versions?
__________________
Kim G
Non-denom church (holds to the WCF)
Zion Community Church, Greenville, SC

Teach me Your way, O LORD;
I will walk in Your truth;
Unite my heart to fear Your name.

Psalm 86:11
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 09:29 AM
Jimmy the Greek's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,133
Thanks: 676
Thanked 807 Times in 438 Posts
The NKJV is based on the TR. It has marginal notes that indicate variant readings in both the Majority Text (MT) and the Critical Text (NA26).
__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy the Greek For This Useful Post:
Backwoods Presbyterian (08-28-2008), Ivan (08-28-2008), Kim G (08-28-2008)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 09:42 AM
Kim G's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 539
Thanked 469 Times in 220 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus View Post
It has marginal notes that indicate variant readings in both the Majority Text (MT) and the Critical Text (NA26).
My NAS also notes the differences, but I like the way it reads better than the NKJV.

I'm talking about a version that goes strictly back to the TR manuscripts and translates without trying to feel like the KJV as much as possible.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 10:06 AM
Jimmy the Greek's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,133
Thanks: 676
Thanked 807 Times in 438 Posts
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)

However, I believe these all relied on the KJV (to some extent) in the process.

Last edited by Jimmy the Greek; 08-28-2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason: add note
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy the Greek For This Useful Post:
Backwoods Presbyterian (08-28-2008), Kim G (08-28-2008), yeutter (08-28-2008)
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 10:17 AM
Kim G's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 539
Thanked 469 Times in 220 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus View Post
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)
I didn't even know those existed. Are they good (i.e., faithful translations)?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 10:23 AM
Jimmy the Greek's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,133
Thanks: 676
Thanked 807 Times in 438 Posts
Sorry, I have not used them. I am merely passing on information. As I mentioned in my added note above, I believe these all relied on the KJV (to some extent). Webster refers to Noah Webster -- his revised translation is public domain and can be found online for free.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 11:21 AM
yeutter's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mason, MI
Posts: 979
Thanks: 136
Thanked 91 Times in 60 Posts
KJVII is also based on the majority test.

Thanks for pointing out that Strongs was based on the majority test. I was not aware of that.
__________________
Thomas Yeutter,
Mason, MI
Member St. Patrick's Anglican Church, Comstock, MI

Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to do it and to teach its statues in Isreal.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 11:24 AM
yeutter's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mason, MI
Posts: 979
Thanks: 136
Thanked 91 Times in 60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim G View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus View Post
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)
I didn't even know those existed. Are they good (i.e., faithful translations)?
Youngs in style is similar to the ASV. It is painfully literal at times.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2008, 01:55 PM
JonathanHunt's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Posts: 2,105
Thanks: 316
Thanked 524 Times in 292 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeutter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim G View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus View Post
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)
I didn't even know those existed. Are they good (i.e., faithful translations)?
Youngs in style is similar to the ASV. It is painfully literal at times.
Here is a painfully notable example:

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (NKJV)

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (Youngs)

Hmm. I sure do hope Heaven isn't of a limited duration.
__________________
Jonathan Hunt

Elder-Who-Preaches-A lot
Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church (Confessionally Based)
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
-- Thomas Elsworth
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69