Which Kjv is the correct versions, and which TR greek text?

Shoonra

Member
The original question was Which KJV edition is the "correct" one and similarly for which Textus Receptus edition.

I doubt this can be answered in an acceptable way. Even the first edition of the KJV had a serious typo, and subsequent editions either varied from the first edition in some wording or had typos of their own. Similarly for the question about the Textus Receptus -- the phrase was first used in 1632 to describe the Elzivir edition of 1624 - but nobody pretends that edition was perfect, nor was it used to work up the KJV. There were more than a hundred Greek NT editions published prior to 1611, the date of the KJV, but none matches the KJV 100%.
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
The original question was Which KJV edition is the "correct" one and similarly for which Textus Receptus edition.

I doubt this can be answered in an acceptable way. Even the first edition of the KJV had a serious typo, and subsequent editions either varied from the first edition in some wording or had typos of their own. Similarly for the question about the Textus Receptus -- the phrase was first used in 1632 to describe the Elzivir edition of 1624 - but nobody pretends that edition was perfect, nor was it used to work up the KJV. There were more than a hundred Greek NT editions published prior to 1611, the date of the KJV, but none matches the KJV 100%.
Interesting to me that there is NO TR that supports totally the Kjv text itself, and that there have been thousands of changes in Kjv since 1611!
 

Woody50

Active member
Yep. What I expected from a post started by the big "Y." Throw a bone and watch the fish fight about text and forget about the One Who wrote the Word...who IS the Word.

Kudos, Y. This thread...oy vey...

And yet, I laugh. Thanks!
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
Yep. What I expected from a post started by the big "Y." Throw a bone and watch the fish fight about text and forget about the One Who wrote the Word...who IS the Word.

Kudos, Y. This thread...oy vey...

And yet, I laugh. Thanks!
the best bible version is the one that you read, and that God speaks to you thru it and that you apply what you are finding in there!
 

robycop3

Well-known member
To this day, of the KJV, the TR, & the mss. from which the TR was last made, no two of them match in absolute meanings.
 

Shoonra

Member
The 1894 Scriveners -- which I assume means the second edition of his Greek NT ...Acccording to the text of the Authorised Version -- is a synthetic product, based mostly on Beza's edition with changes silently made from other pre-1611 Greek editions whenever required to conform to the KJV reading (and a good many places where the text is allowed to depart from the KJV simply because there was no Greek edition matching the words of the KJV). That edition is not, strictly speaking, a TR edition since it does not reproduce 100% any one pre-KJV edition.

But Scrivener did work up a Greek NT based squarely on the Stephanus 1550 edition, with notes showing variants in half a dozen other editions; this went through more than ten revisions.
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
The 1894 Scriveners -- which I assume means the second edition of his Greek NT ...Acccording to the text of the Authorised Version -- is a synthetic product, based mostly on Beza's edition with changes silently made from other pre-1611 Greek editions whenever required to conform to the KJV reading (and a good many places where the text is allowed to depart from the KJV simply because there was no Greek edition matching the words of the KJV). That edition is not, strictly speaking, a TR edition since it does not reproduce 100% any one pre-KJV edition.

But Scrivener did work up a Greek NT based squarely on the Stephanus 1550 edition, with notes showing variants in half a dozen other editions; this went through more than ten revisions.
The 1984 edition is the one that many seem to indicate would be the preferred Greek tgext choice for those holding to the KJVO
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
Well, actually, the AV1611 was printed for years by Robert Barker & Sons printers. Robt. Barker was the first such printer. He was fined 300 pounds in 1631, a substantial sum at the time,(equal to over $50,000 today) for two printing errors that produced the "Wicked Bible". It reads"Thou shalt commit adultery" in Ex. 20:14, & in Deut. 5:24, it reads “And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse,”. It's now suspected that Bonham Norton, a partner of Barker's, injected the errors to get Barker in trouble so Norton could replace him as royal printer. it didn't work, as Barker's sons kept the printing rights for the AV for many years later.

Now, I don't know if anyone will do a revision of the TR any time soon, which Burgon said it needed. (Burgon himself didn't do it; he said that was not his calling.)

While I don't use the KJV much, I'll agree the CE is the best, though it contains the same goofs & booboos found in virtually all KJV editions, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
Obvious the despot inhumane king banned printing anything else.
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
Its interesting to note those who believe English to be the superior language of choice among Bible editions.

Long live the English Empire?
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
Its interesting to note those who believe English to be the superior language of choice among Bible editions.

Long live the English Empire?
Those who are Kjvo hold that there cannot be salvation apart from using the Kjv to teach/witness/preach, so guess Viva la old Elizabeth English!
 

Shoonra

Member
The English Empire KJVOs apparently adhere to Ma Ferguson's opinion of foreign languages.

Carl McIntire once likened the KJV Bible to Shakespeare's work - in the sense that the Elizabethan language is the authentic and classic text.
What he didn't mention is that most editions of Shakespeare in the last century have to be chockablock with marginalia explaining the archaic language.
 

Woody50

Active member
*meekly raises hand*

God saved me through the NIV. Is it possible for anyone to be saved from another version than the NIV?
 

Shoonra

Member
The aforementioned "Scrivener 1894" Greek NT, namely the revised ed of The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in The Authorised Version" by F.H.A. Scrivener (Cambridge Univ. Press 1894), was republished ca. 1976 by the Trinitarian Bible Society in a new Greek typefont. This TBS edition was used in the Pocket Interlinear New Testament ed by Jay P. Green, Sr. (Baker Book House 1984). This Green ed is part of an interlinear Hebrew & Greek Bible published by Hendrickson.

Altho Scrivener was trying to establish the Greek text that underlay the KJV NT, his edition was limited to starting with Beza's Greek NT and then drawing on variants from about a dozen significant Textus Receptus Greek editions published before 1611 -- by his own account the KJV's text occasionally had readings that could not be traced to a Greek edition but might have come from non-Greek sources such as the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac, which he did not attempt to include in his Greek edition. The Scrivener edition, as can be shown by reading Green's interlinear translation, is, therefor, not 100% identical to the KJV English, nor is this edition 100% to a Textus Receptus Greek edition.

The TBS and Green reprints also omitted Scrivener's intro, his running notes of variants in the 1881 Revised Version, and his appendix on the major variants where TR editions disagreed.
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
The aforementioned "Scrivener 1894" Greek NT, namely the revised ed of The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in The Authorised Version" by F.H.A. Scrivener (Cambridge Univ. Press 1894), was republished ca. 1976 by the Trinitarian Bible Society in a new Greek typefont. This TBS edition was used in the Pocket Interlinear New Testament ed by Jay P. Green, Sr. (Baker Book House 1984). This Green ed is part of an interlinear Hebrew & Greek Bible published by Hendrickson.

Altho Scrivener was trying to establish the Greek text that underlay the KJV NT, his edition was limited to starting with Beza's Greek NT and then drawing on variants from about a dozen significant Textus Receptus Greek editions published before 1611 -- by his own account the KJV's text occasionally had readings that could not be traced to a Greek edition but might have come from non-Greek sources such as the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac, which he did not attempt to include in his Greek edition. The Scrivener edition, as can be shown by reading Green's interlinear translation, is, therefor, not 100% identical to the KJV English, nor is this edition 100% to a Textus Receptus Greek edition.

The TBS and Green reprints also omitted Scrivener's intro, his running notes of variants in the 1881 Revised Version, and his appendix on the major variants where TR editions disagreed.
so back to the 64.000 question for KJVO, which kjv translation and which TR would be the inspired perfect one?
 

Shoonra

Member
"Perfect one"? No; but I'll settle for the United Bible Society Greek NT and the Good News Bible version based on it (and on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) as the closest to the original text.
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
"Perfect one"? No; but I'll settle for the United Bible Society Greek NT and the Good News Bible version based on it (and on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) as the closest to the original text.
The 5th edition of the Ubs? I use the 3rd edition now, much change?
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
"Perfect one"? No; but I'll settle for the United Bible Society Greek NT and the Good News Bible version based on it (and on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) as the closest to the original text.
I also have the 28 edition of nestle Aland work with!
 

Shoonra

Member
The original question was about the "correct" Textus Receptus edition, now it's about a "perfect" edition. At the very least, no TR edition can qualify as perfect.

The 3rd, 4th, and 5th UBS editions are very close to each other; probably only a handful of readings changed and a dozen or so confidence ratings changed in each.
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
The original question was about the "correct" Textus Receptus edition, now it's about a "perfect" edition. At the very least, no TR edition can qualify as perfect.

The 3rd, 4th, and 5th UBS editions are very close to each other; probably only a handful of readings changed and a dozen or so confidence ratings changed in each.
Main thing notice in latest Aland text is that they finally recognized that the Bzt text had some correct variant readings!
 
Top