Beware of Scrivener's Greek Textus Receptus by TBS

F. H.A. Scrivener was a partner of Westcott and Hort on the Bible Revision Committee. He is a REAL wolf in sheep's clothing. His Greek Textus Receptus, used by the majority of Fundamentalists worldwide is a fabrication.
Scrivener wrote three booksattackng the King James Bible. Six Lectures on the ext of the New testament, A Plain introduction to the Criticism of the New testament and he Authorized Edition of the nglish Bible 1611 It's Subsequent reprints and Editions. All of which are available online at Google Books. Thank you. God Bless.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Scrivener;
• Greek;Textus
• Receptus;
• Revision
• Committee;
• King
• James
• Bible

[VegasKJV]

The Translators used the extant Greek manuscripts of the time to verify the text. The translators used all available PURE language manuscripts to produce the Bible. King James was wise enough, and his translators too, to recognize the many corruptions made by the apostate Greek Orthodox church (Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7) so they used other texts when the Greek was faulty. KJB's "Original Greeke" was a response to the confusion brought about by the proliferation of many conflicting Greek texts.

[sheepfax]

The Word of God is God, the words of God (UR Bible) say so. If you don't agree with that then you don't believe what you've read in the literature you claim has been so perfectly preserved. My point is, you're not going to get a correct interpretation without the Holy Spirit no matter what you read. In other words, where it says, "...the word was God" doesn't mean your bible is God. What it means is this, that the bible is a stack of paper, the Word is the living and true God, i.e. Jesus.

[AVPublicationsCorp]

@TextusReceptusBible With all due respect, how do you know (beyond the shadow of a doubt) that the KJB translators used the 1598 Beza text? To my knowledge, they never mentioned which text they used...so it would seem as if you are making a guess in that regard.

[RoaringTRex]

I hear you.

I will now go and try to find out whether the Strong's dictionary guy was a wolf.

Since some dude labeled his Bible-mod, "Textus Receptus," doesn't mean that God is no longer using /The/ true Textus Receptus. That's called the fallacy of equivocation.

These old forgeries being back in circulation, in other languages, is very disconcerting. I've seen people toss out difficult scripture instead of learning from them, with WHoNAUBS-type disclaimers as the justification. It's sad.

[IDH77]

@BURNINGRIOT That’s complete rubbish as the actual Greek word is ‘pascha’ and the Jewish Passover was in view!

Tyndale simply substituted the English tradition instead of the actual meaning!

The problem is that KJVO’s are devoted to the false idea of a perfect translation instead of a perfect Word of God!

[BURNINGRIOT]

@IDH77 Actually the KJV is the ONLY one that translated the Easter part right.

[IDH77]

The truth is that the TR is not just one text! It’s several but the differences are minor.

But the KJV has it’s own minor mistranslations and is not absolutely perfect in its translation into English. (E.g. Easter)

KJVO’s always ask me the same question. If you had several English Bibles all translated from various editions of the TR which would be the Word of God?

The answer would be simple. ALL of them! For some reason this seems to upset them.

[vudumojo]

@VegasKJV I didn't know any of this. I had always heard the KJB was translated exclusively from the "Textus Receptus" as if it was a complete manuscript.

Bottom line for me is, I started studying the Bible when I was drawn to do so in 1987 but the Bible I studied was the RSV and then the NIV a little and from there got my hands on a KJV. So the difference was evident immediately for me.

So many questions I had were immediately solved and I know the KJB is the one truth English translation.

[TextusReceptusBible]

For example: Scriveners first example is in Matthew 2:11 The Complutensian Polyglot, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza ALL translated εὗρον as Latin invenerunt which shows they are synonyms meaning to be to find/uncover or to see. But I agree that W&H text is a joke, and that most lexicons favour modern Greek texts over the Textus Receptus. Most of his modifications seem warranted on the surface, but when you look deeper, they were unnecessary. The 1598 text is enough.

[TextusReceptusBible]

The Translators used the 1598 of Beza. Most of Scriveners work is complient with it except in 191 places, where he felt that to bring about what the translators had, the text needed to be modified slightly. I don't believe any modification was needed. Sometimes he used a Greek word where the KJV has italics, which is just simply translators preferance, and not a textual issue.