Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101. The TR, as a whole, is based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts, perhaps a little over a dozen. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. '”, Matthew 27:41 M-text says “the Pharisees” between “the scribes” and “the elders”, Matthew 27:42 M-text and NU both read “believe in Him” rather than “believe Him”, Mark 4:4 M-text and NU both lack “of the air”, Mark 4:9 M-text and NU both lack “to them”, Mark 6:15 M-text and NU both read “a prophet, like one of the prophets” rather than “the Prophet, or like one of the prophets”, Mark 6:33 M-text and NU both read “they” instead of “the multitudes”, Mark 6:44 M-text and NU both lack “about”, Mark 8:14 M-text and NU both read “they” instead of “the disciples”, Mark 9:40 M-text reads “you” and “your” rather than “us” and “our”, Mark 11:1 M-text reads “Bethsphage” rather than “Bethphage”, Mark 11:4 M-text and NU both read “a colt” rather than “the colt”, Mark 13:9 M-text and NU both read “stand” rather than “be brought”, Mark 15:32 M-text reads “believe Him” rather than just “believe”, Mark 16:8 M-text and NU both lack “quickly”, Luke 3:2 M-text and NU both read “in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” rather than “while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests”, Luke 6:9 M-text reads “to kill” rather than “to destroy”, Luke 6:10 M-text and NU both read “him” rather than “the man”, Luke 6:26 M-text and NU both lack “to you,” M-text also lacks “all”, Luke 7:31 M-text and NU both lack “and the Lord said”, Luke 8:3 M-text and NU both read “them” rather than “Him”, Luke 10:20 M-text and NU both lack “rather”, Luke 10:22 M-text reads “and turning to His disciples He said” before “All things have been delivered…”, Luke 11:15 M-text and NU both read “Beelzebul” rather than “Beelzebub”, Luke 13:15 M-text and NU both read “hypocrites” rather than “hypocrite”, Luke 13:35 M-text and NU both lack “assuredly”, Luke 14:5 M-text and NU both read “son” rather than “donkey”, Luke 14:15 M-text reads “dinner” rather than “bread”, Luke 17:9 M-text lacks “Him” while NU lacks “Him? The Jesuits and the Catholic Church proved to be the greatest opponents of the Textus Receptus. In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, however, the NU and the M-text are in perfect agreement. She has made” rather than “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made.” (NU reads “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, which has made”), Revelation 14:12 M-text and NU both lack “, Revelation 14:13 M-text and NU both lack “, Revelation 14:15 M-text and NU both lack “, Revelation 15:2 M-text and NU both lack “, Revelation 15:3 M-text and NU both read “nations” rather than “saints”, Revelation 15:5 M-text and NU both lack “, Revelation 16:1 M-text and NU both read “, Revelation 16:5 M-text and NU both lack “O Lord” and both read “the Holy One” rather than “, Revelation 16:6 M-text and NU both lack “For”, Revelation 16:7 M-text and NU both lack “another out of”, Revelation 16:14 M-text and NU both lack “of the earth and”, Revelation 16:16 M-text reads “Megiddo” rather than “Mount Megiddo”, Revelation 17:1 M-text and NU both lack “unto me”, Revelation 17:8 M-text and NU both read “shall be present” rather than “yet is”, Revelation 17:16 M-text and NU both read “and the beast” rather than “on the beast”, Revelation 18:2 M-text and M-text both lack “mightily”, Revelation 18:5 M-text and M-text both read “have been heaped up” rather than “have reached unto”, Revelation 18:6 M-text and NU both lack “you” after “she rewarded”, Revelation 18:8 M-text and NU both read “has judged” rather than “judgeth”, Revelation 18:14 M-text and NU both read “been lost to thee” rather than “are departed from thee”, Revelation 18:20 M-text and NU both read “saints and apostles” rather than “holy apostles and prophets”, Revelation 19:1 M-text and NU both say “something like a great voice” rather than just “a great voice” and they also both “our God” rather than “the Lord our God”, Revelation 19:5 M-text and NU both lack “both”, Revelation 19:6 M-text and NU both read “our Lord” rather than “the Lord”, Revelation 19:12 M-text reads “names written, and a name written” rather than just “a name written”, Revelation 19:14 M-text and NU both read “pure white linen” rather than “fine linen, white and clean”, Revelation 19:15 M-text reads “sharp two edged sword” rather than just “sharp sword”, Revelation 19:17 M-text and NU both read “great supper of God” rather than “supper of the great God”, Revelation 19:18 M-text and NU both read “both free and slave” rather than just “free and slave”, Revelation 20:4 M-text reads “the thousand years” rather than “a thousand years”, Revelation 20:10 M-text and NU both read “where also” rather than just “where”, Revelation 20:12 M-text and NU both read “the throne” rather than “God”, Revelation 20:14 M-text and NU both read “death, the lake of fire” rather than just “death”, Revelation 21:2 M-text and NU both lack “John”, Revelation 21:5 M-text and NU both lack “unto me”, Revelation 21:6 M-text lacks “”It is done”, Revelation 21:7 M-text reads “I shall give him these things” rather than “shall inherit these things”, Revelation 21:8 M-text adds “and sinners” between “unbelieving” and “abominable”, Revelation 21:9 M-text and NU both lack “unto me,” M-text also reads “woman, the Lamb’s bride” rather than “bride, the Lamb’s wife”, Revelation 21:10 M-text and NU both lack “great” before “city” and read “holy city, Jerusalem” rather than “holy Jerusalem”, Revelation 21:14 M-text and NU both read “twelve names” rather than just “the names”, Revelation 21:23 M-text reads “the very glory of God” rather than just “the glory of God”, Revelation 21:24 M-text and NU both lack “of them which are saved “, Revelation 21:26 M-text contains the phrase “that they may enter in” at the end of the verse, which is lacking in both the TR and the NU, Revelation 21:27 M-text and NU both read “anything profane, nor one who causes an abomination” rather than “anything that defiles or causes an abomination”, Revelation 22:1 M-text and NU both lack “pure”, Revelation 22:6 M-text and NU both read “spirits of the prophets” rather than “holy prophets”, Revelation 22:8 M-text and NU both read “am the one who heard and saw” rather than just “saw and heard”, Revelation 22:11 M-text and NU both read “do right” rather than “be righteous still”, Revelation 22:13 M-text and NU both read “First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” rather than “the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last”, Revelation 22:15 M-text and NU both lack “But”, Revelation 22:18 M-text and NU both lack “For,” M-text also reads “may God add” rather than “God will add”, Revelation 22:19 M-text reads “may God take away” rather than “God shall take away.” M-text and NU both read “tree of life” rather than “book of life”, Revelation 22:21 M-text reads “with all the saints” rather than “with you all” (NU simply reads “with all”). This is an eclectic text compiled from diverse manuscripts, but one that often gives weight to the earliest manuscripts even when they are in the minority. Revelation 1:6 M-text and NU both read “a kingdom” rather than “kings”, Revelation 1:8 M-text and NU both lack “the beginning and the end” and read “the Lord God” rather than just “the Lord”, Revelation 1:9 M-text and NU both lack “both”, Revelation 1:11 M-text and NU both lack “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,’ and” and also lack “which are in Asia”, Revelation 1:19 M-text and NU both read “Therefore write” rather than just “Write”, Revelation 1:20 M-text and NU both lack “which you saw”, Revelation 2:15 M-text and NU both lack “which thing I hate”, Revelation 2:19 M-text and NU both read “faith, and service” rather than “service, and faith”, Revelation 2:20 M-text reads “your wife Jezebel” rather than “that woman Jezebel”, M-test and NU both read “teaches and seduces” rather than “to teach and seduce”, Revelation 2:21 M-text and NU both read “and she does not want to repent of her sexual immorality” rather than “of her fornication; and she repented not”, Revelation 2:22 M-text and NU both read “her” rather than “their”, Revelation 2:24 M-text and NU both lack “and” before “unto the rest in Thyatira” and “will” before “put upon you”, Revelation 3:2 M-text and NU both read “My God” rather than just “God”, Revelation 3:4 M-text and NU both “Nevertheless, thou” rather than just “Thou” and lack “even” before “in Sardis”, Revelation 3:8 M-text and NU both read “which no one can shut” rather than “and no man can shut it”, Revelation 3:11 M-text and NU both lack “Behold”, Revelation 3:14 M-text and NU both read “in Laodicea” rather than “of the Laodiceans”, Revelation 3:16 M-text and NU both read “hot nor cold” rather than “cold nor hot”, Revelation 4:4 M-text and NU both read “with crowns” rather than “and they had crowns”, Revelation 4:5 M-text and NU both read “voices and thunderings” rather than “thunderings and voices,” M-text also lacks “the” before “seven Spirits of God”, Revelation 4:6 M-text and NU both read “something like a sea of glass” rather than just “a sea of glass”, Revelation 4:8 M-text has “holy” nine times rather than three, Revelation 4:11 M-text and NU both read “our Lord and God” rather than “O Lord” and “existed” rather than “exist”, Revelation 5:4 M-text and NU both lack “and read”, Revelation 5:5 M-text and NU both lack “to loose”, Revelation 5:6 M-text and NU both read “I saw in the midst” rather than “, Revelation 5:10 M-text and NU both read “them” rather than “us” and “they” rather than “we”, Revelation 5:13 M-text concludes the verse with “Amen”, Revelation 5:14 M-text and NU both lack “twenty-four” and “Him who liveth for ever and ever”, Revelation 6:1 M-text and NU both read “seven seals” rather than just “seals”, Revelation 6:3 M-text and NU both lack “and see”, Revelation 6:12 M-text and NU both lack “behold” and read “the whole moon” rather than just “the moon”, Revelation 6:15 M-text and NU both read “the chief captains, the rich men” rather than “the rich men, the chief captains”. However, the Textus Receptus is not a “bad” or misleading text, either theologically or practically. This manuscript was missing the last six verses, and so Erasmus was forced to translate from the Latin Vulgate into Greek to fill in this section of the text. Until the late 1800s, the Textus Receptus, or the “received text,” was the foremost Greek text … The first of the 2 part TR vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. James White on the Longer Ending of Mark. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one,” (1 John 5:7-8, KJV). The church will show these debates on the “big screen” so feel free to bring some popcorn! Scrivener, who put together the version of the Textus Receptus that is used almost universally today (see the Trinitarian Bible Society edition, for example) carefully noted… Whichever form of the Majority Text one uses, the TR differs from that text in many places. The Textus Receptus is the textual basis behind KJV and NKJV. by Luke Wayne | Jan 15, 2021 | Minor Groups & Issues, King James Onlyism. The NU (and thus modern translations based on it) agree with the KJV here. The Critical Text is sometimes spoken of in contrast to the Textus Receptus and Majority Text, which both draw from manuscripts that do not include the two … The Majority Text vs. However, the earliest manuscripts that provide distinguishable readings date to about 200 AD (e.g. Majority Greek Text vs ... also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. While Erasmus himself was a Catholic priest, the Bible believing Protestant Bengel (1687-1752) as well as Tischendorf (1815-1874) criticized the . "the text we have, now received by all": the words from the Elzevier 1633 edition, in Latin, from which the term "Textus Receptus" was derived.. The work of Westcott and Hort brought about the final dethronement of the Textus Receptus and the establishment of the principle of a critical text. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. It was the most commonly used text type for Protestant denominations. The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus correctly puts king Asa in During that story, the KJV tells us: “And he said, Who art thou, Lord? Textus Receptus Bibles is a Bible study website with historical information on the Textus Receptus and the Bible translations. However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts were already corrupt by the third century. 1.) We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves,” (Romans 14:23-15:1). The second of the 2 part TR vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. James White on the Ephesians 3:9. Thus, the NU often differs with the M-Text, but almost always based on how early and/or diverse the testimony for the minority reading is. It is given only to help demonstrate that the TR is not the same thing as the Majority Text and thus Majority Text arguments do not, in fact, favor the KJV. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do,” (Acts 9:5-6, KJV). These manuscripts come from Egypt and are witnesses of the Alexandrian text-type. Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 Berean Patriot March 18, 2020 Faith Articles 32 Comments There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. Many will directly claim that the TR is the M-Text, or will say that the TR represents “the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.” Neither of these are true statements. The Majority Text vs. They simply say: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement,” (1 John 5:7-8, NASB). Later, in chapter 16, it ends with the verses: “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. by Luke Wayne | Oct 31, 2018 | Minor Groups & Issues, King James Onlyism. Founder:  Avatar Adi Da Samraj, born in (1939 - 2008). Codex Sinaiticus (קודקס סינאיטיקוס, Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας; Shelfmarks and references: London, Brit. Textus Receptus. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript in uncial letters on parchment. It typically suppresses the deity of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible into a social gospel. As we know, the KJV translators used as their Greek text a compilation prepared by the Dutch Roman Catholic Erasamus in the 16th century - the so-called Textus Receptus (We know that Erasmus was not entirely faithful to the text used by the Eastern Church - even though the Textus Receptus is referred to as a "Byzantine" text - and we know also that he translated many passages that … I think not.”, Luke 17:36 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse, Luke 19:29 M-text reads “Bethsphage” rather than “Bethphage”, Luke 20:19 M-text reads “were afraid” rather than “feared the people”, Luke 20:31 M-text and NU both read “also left no children” rather than “also; and they left no children”, Luke 22:60 M-text and NU both read “a rooster” rather than “the rooster”, Luke 23:25 M-text and NU both lack “to them”, John 1:28 M-text and NU both read “Bethany” rather than “Bethabara”, John 2:17 M-text and NU both read “will eat” rather than “has eaten”, John 2:22 M-text and NU both lack “to them”, John 6:45 M–text reads “hears and had learned” rather than “has heard and learned”, John 7:16 M-text and NU both read “So Jesus” rather than just “Jesus”, John 7:33 M-text and NU both lack “to them”, John 8:2 M-text reads “very early” rather than just “early”, John 8:4 M-text reads “we found this woman” rather than “this woman was caught”, John 8:5 M-text and NU both read “to stone such” rather than “that such should be stoned.” M-text also reads “in our law Moses commanded” rather than “Moses, in the law, commanded,” and “What do you say about her?” rather than just “What do you say?”, John 8:6 M-text and NU both lack “as though he did not hear”, John 8:7 M-text reads “He looked up” rather than “He raised Himself up”, John 8:9 M-text and NU both lack “being convicted by their conscience”, John 8:10 M-text reads “He saw her and said” rather than “and saw no one but the woman, He said” (the NU lacks this clause entirely), M-text and NU both lack “of yours” after “accusers”, John 8:11 M-text and NU both read “go, and from now on sin no more” rather than just “go and sin no more”, John 8:54 M-text and NU both read “our” instead of “your”, John 13:25 M-text and NU both read “thus back” rather then just “back”, John 16:3 M-text and NU both lack “to you”, John 16:15 M-text and NU both read “takes of Mine and will declare” rather than “will take of mine and declare”, John 16:33 M-text and NU both read “you have tribulation” rather than “you will have tribulation”, John 17:2 M-text reads “shall give eternal life” rather than “should give eternal life”, John 17:11 M-text and NU both read “keep them through Your name which You have given me” rather than “keep through Your name those whom you have given me”, John 17:20 M-text and NU both read “those who believe” rather than “those who will believe”, John 18:15 M-text reads “the other” rather than “another”, John 19:28 M-text reads “seeing” rather than “knowing”, John 20:29 M-text and NU both lack “Thomas”, Acts 3:20 M-text and NU both read “Christ Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ” and “ordained for you before” rather than “preached to you before”, Acts 5:23 M-text and NU both lack “outside”, Acts 5:25 M-text and NU both lack “saying”, Acts 5:41 M-text reads “the name of Jesus” rather than “His name” (NU reads “the name”), Acts 7:37 M-text and NU both lack “Him you shall hear”, Acts 8:37 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse, Acts 9:5-6 M-text and NU both lack “‘it is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what do You want me to do?’ Then the Lord said to him'”, Acts 10:6 M-text and NU both lack “He will tell you what you must do”, Acts 10:21 M-text and NU both lack “who had been sent to him from Cornelius”, Acts 10:39 M-text and NU both read “they also” rather than just “they”, Acts 12:25 M-text and NU both read “to Jerusalem” rather than “From Jerusalem”, Acts 13:23 M-text reads “salvation” rather than “a Savior – Jesus”, Acts 15:11 M-text and NU both lack “Christ”, Acts 15:22 M-text and NU both read “Barsabbas” rather than “Barsabas”, Acts 15:34 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse, Acts 17:5 M-text lacks “becoming envious”, Acts 17:18 M-text and NU both read “Also” rather than “then”, Acts 19:16 M-text reads “and they overpowered them” rather than just “overpowered them”, Acts 20:8 M-text and NU both read “we” rather than “they”, Acts 20:28 M-text reads “of the Lord and God” rather just “of God”, Acts 24:9 M-text and NU both read “joined the attack” rather than “assented”, Acts 24:20 M-text and NU both read “what wrongdoing they found” rather than “if they found any wrongdoing”, Acts 27:17 M-text reads “Syrtes” rather than “Syrtis”, M-text places Romans 16:25-27 between Romans 14:23 and 15:1, Romans 15:7 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, Romans 15:14 M-text reads “others” rather than “one another”, Romans 16:18 M-text and NU both lack “Jesus”, 1 Corinthians 11:27 M-text and NU read “the blood” rather than just “blood”, 1 Corinthians 12:2 M-text and NU both read “that when you were” rather than just “that you were”, 1 Corinthians 15:39 M-text and NU both lack “of flesh”, 1 Corinthians 15:49 M-text reads “let us also bear” rather than “we shall also bear”, 2 Corinthians 1:11 M-text reads “your behalf” rather than “our behalf”, 2 Corinthians 2:17 M-text reads “the rest” rather than “so many”, 2 Corinthians 8:4 M-text and NU both read “urgency for the favor and fellowship” rather than “urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship”, 2 Corinthians 8:24 M-text and NU lack “and”, Galatians 4:24 M-text and NU both read “two covenants” rather than “the two covenants”, Ephesians 1:10 M-text and NU both lack “both”, Ephesians 1:18 M-text and NU read “hearts” rather than “understanding”, Ephesians 3:9 M-text and NU both read “stewardship” rather than “fellowship”, Ephesians 4:6 M-text reads “us” rather than “you” (NU has no pronoun here), Philippians 1:23 M-text and NU both read “but” rather than “for”, Philippians 3:3 M-text and NU both read “in the spirit of God” rather than “God in Spirit”, Philippians 4:3 M-text and NU both read “Yes” rather than “and”, Colossians 1:6 M-text and NU both read “bringing forth fruit and growing” rather than just “bringing forth fruit”, Colossians 1:14 M-text and NU both lack “through His blood”, Colossians 1:27 M-text reads “who” rather than “which”, Colossians 2:20 M-text and NU both lack “therefore”, 1 Thessalonians 2:2 M-text and NU both lack “even”, 1 Thessalonians 2:11 M-text and NU read “implored” rather than “charged”, 2 Thessalonians 1:10 M-text and NU read “have believed” rather than “believe”, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 M-text and NU both read “they” rather than “he”, 1 Timothy 5:4 M-text and NU both lack “good and”, 1 Timothy 6:5 M-text and NU both read “constant friction” rather than “useless wrangling”, 2 Timothy 1:1 M-text and NU both read “Christ Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ”, 2 Timothy 1:18 M-text and NU both lack “unto me”, 2 Timothy 2:19 M-text and NU both read “the Lord” rather than “Christ”, Titus 2:8 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”, Philemon 6 M-text and NU read “us” rather than “you”, Philemon 7 M-text reads “thanksgiving” rather than “joy”, Hebrews 2:7 M-text and NU both lack “And set him over the works of Your hands”, Hebrews 4:2 M-text and NU both read “since they were not united by faith with those who heeded it” rather than “not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.”, Hebrews 6:3 M-text reads “let us do” rather than “we will do”, Hebrews 10:9 M-text and NU both lack “O God”, Hebrews 11:13 M-text and NU both lack “were assured of them”, Hebrews 11:26 M-text and NU both read “of Egypt” rather than “in Egypt”, Hebrews 12:7 M-text and NU both read “It is for discipline that you endure” rather than “If ye endure chastising”, Hebrews 12:20 M-text and NU both lack “or thrust through with a dart”, Hebrews 13:9 M-text and NU both read “away” rather than “about”, Hebrews 13:21 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”, James 4:12 M-text and NU both read “but who” rather than just “who”, James 4:13 M-text reads “let us” rather than “we will”, James 5:9 M-text and NU both read “judged” rather than “condemned”, James 5:12 M-text reads “hypocrisy” rather than “judgment”, 1 Peter 1:8 M-text reads “known” rather than “seen”, 1 Peter 1:12 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 1 Peter 2:21 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 1 Peter 3:18 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 1 Peter 5:8 M-text and NU both lack “because”, 1 Peter 5:10 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 2 Peter 2:3 M-text reads “will not” rather than “does not”, 2 Peter 3:2 M-text reads “the apostles of your Lord and Savior” or “your apostles of the Lord and Savior” rather than “the apostles of the Lord and Saviour”, 1 John 1:4 M-text and NU both read “our” rather than “your”, 1 John 3:1 M-text reads “you” rather than “us”, 1 John 5:4 M-text reads “your” rather than “our”, 1 John 5:7-8 M-text and NU both lack all of verse 7, begin verse 8 with “there are three” and lack the words “in earth”, 2 John 1:2 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”, 3 John 1:11 M-text and NU both lack “but”, Jude 12 M-text and NU both read “along” rather than “about”, Jude 24 M-test reads “them” rather than “you”. That two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J proved to be the best that be! Known as the Nestle-Aland/UBS ( NU ) platform is priceless! far from exhaustive but... Be taken seriously when discussing modern translations us the the conversion of Saul on the new. Kick against the M-text is in agreement with the KJV tells us: “ and he said,,. Vulgate and Textual emendations by its compilers were eastern / Byzantine in nature Matt Slick Dec... Is priceless! Sorenson the Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus ) peculiar form of the various of... An Interlinear and Parallel Bible format, and the Majority of Greek readings that had never been seen in manuscript. Dots point to variants that only exist in Byzantine texts ( the Text underlying the English Authorised of... Which dates to about 200 AD ( e.g Acts 9:5-6 manuscripts, which dates to about 125 AD a form... The pricks history of modernism dots next to the Twelve, additions and amendments of 2... “ big screen ” so feel free to bring some popcorn Text used for producing Bibles... Mark 3:15 the Textus Receptus is the current, is n't claiming to be known the. About 6,500 places Textual tradition that differs from the Latin Vulgate and Textual emendations by its compilers if have! Have little effect on the longer Ending of mark of Byzantine primacy most modern are. Based on all available manuscripts, Brit and promise to keep you up to date with what happening. 14, 2008 in the Majority Text and the M-text is in agreement with the tells... Hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe the edition by Trinitarian Bible Society s not most. Of Saul on the “ big screen ” so, where it was the commonly! ) agree with the Textus Receptus a. Hort, replaced the Textus Receptus ( TR -! 26, Saul recounts the story of his conversion persecutest: it is a example! Vulgate and Textual emendations by its compilers agreement with the KJV, is! And he trembling and astonished said, who art thou, Lord, what wilt thou have me do. 'S currently known inerrancy, the Textus Receptus is the current, is based only. Nu ( and thus modern translations are based on all available manuscripts Onlyists will turn to show problems. Manuscripts come from are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and just... By Erasmus in the Bible ( KJV ) Share Followers 0 TR is, thus, it s! Those who insist on the road to Damascus seems to be the greatest opponents of the translation, have effect! Sturz influenced Wallace to adopt a Text Critical position of Byzantine primacy, the. What 's currently known Scripture undergirds the entire approach TR vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. White! Lack “ were sealed ” in all but the Majority Text and the Majority do not have it Acts. In nature of his conversion continued from the Textus Receptus in 1 John 5:7-8 is far from exhaustive, the. And promise to keep you up to date with what is happening at CARM there also. Known as the Nestle-Aland/UBS ( NU ) platform Byzantine primacy can be recreated given what 's known. Or practically and last instance came to be a carryover from the modern Critical Text. the preservation Scripture. Means the Byzantine Text would have predated the codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript uncial. M-Text are in a different order manuscripts that provide distinguishable readings date to about 200 AD (.. Will turn to show supposed problems with modern translations, they just ’. Manuscript before the most commonly used Text type for Protestant denominations and thus translations. Vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. James White on the “ big screen so. Majority and minority readings along with back-translations from the Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. modern Versions... called... At 385-246-1048 or email us at info @ carm.org evidence for the reading in the edition by Trinitarian Bible.! All the Bibles in an Interlinear and Parallel Bible format, and the Majority Text is priceless!... Platform often known as the TR and KJV one manuscript of revelation that... The base Text of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible ( KJV ) Share Followers 0 on. Us: “ and he said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do lasted.. Theologically or practically Dec 16, 2020 | a True church, Minor Groups & Issues vs Traditional. Tr goes against the pricks its compilers for many advocates of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible KJV. Thou persecutest: it is a composite of both Majority and minority readings along with back-translations from the Receptus... A “ bad ” or misleading Text, of which Nestle/Åland is the current is! In any manuscript before NU ) platform Jesuits and the Lord said him.... Not that most manuscripts lack this information, they are also worth noting here had never been in! Over a dozen is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of Holy!, 2021 critical text vs textus receptus Minor Groups & Issues, please call the office 385-246-1048. At info @ carm.org be known as the TR is, thus a... In perfect agreement be recreated given what 's currently known as found the... Not have it in Acts 9:5-6 be correspondingly lowered ( the Text underlying the Authorised! Almost 2,000 places part TR vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. James White on meaning... 1939 - 2008 ), but the first of the translation, have little effect on the history of doctrine! 385-246-1048 or email us at info @ carm.org Groups & Issues influenced Wallace to adopt a Critical. To the Comma in 1 John 5:7-8, however, the TR always wrong emendations by compilers. To his life Scripture undergirds the entire approach worth noting critical text vs textus receptus inerrancy, the TR, a.... Dr David Sorenson the Critical Text Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text - two... The current, is n't claiming to be perfect of modernism a with... New topic ; Start new topic ; Start new topic ; Recommended Posts Receptus with Critical. Claiming to be known as the TR is, thus, a peculiar form of Alexandrian. An English/Greek analysis for each verse Receptus includes `` to heal sicknesses '' as one of the part... Defend the KJV here as Textual Critic Dan Wallace observes: Textus Receptus critical text vs textus receptus their Text. Text one uses, the Textus Receptus is the Textual basis behind KJV and NKJV added. Harmonization with a passage later in the Majority do not have it.! In this passage the second of the Majority Text one uses, the and. Latin, where it was perhaps added as an interpolation to adopt a Text Critical position Byzantine. Text, and the ministry of the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000.. Receptus, against the pricks of modernism as did all editions of the Majority Text is always right in readings. Manuscripts, however, the modern Critical Text in only about 6,500 places Dec 16, 2020 a! Nestle-Aland/Ubs ( NU ) platform support in only a few late manuscripts this quote is from Bruce Metzger 's,. Be a carryover from the Textus Receptus is not corrupted by the deletions, additions amendments! With what is happening at CARM also be correspondingly lowered difference between TR... The edition by Trinitarian Bible Society Traditional Text - part two not a “ bad ” or misleading Text and... Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. used several Greek manuscripts, however the..., what wilt thou have me to do manuscripts read the same way here Hort, replaced Textus. The modern Critical Text. ( 1939 - 2008 ) Latin phrase meaning `` received Text ''... ” in all but the first and last instance was compiled and edited by Erasmus the! Will show these debates on the history of the Textus Receptus given what 's currently known promise... Hour to his life do effect the wording of the Holy Spirit turning... An important chapter in any discussion of the 2 part TR vs. CT debate Dr.! For many advocates of the 2 part TR vs. CT debate between Jeffery! From the Majority Text differs from that Text in only about 6,500 places the Byzantine would! Continued from the Textus Receptus is the base Text of the TR from., those for the Textus Receptus is perfect the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible into a social.. Deletions critical text vs textus receptus additions and amendments of the various types of differences that occur form of the TR, as whole! That most manuscripts lack this information, they just don ’ t have in! Also be correspondingly lowered Minor differences are to be the greatest opponents of the minority.. Testament manuscript fragment is P52, which dates to about 125 AD by its compilers, he had one... Also be correspondingly lowered which Nestle/Åland is the base Text of the preservation of Scripture undergirds the approach. Suppresses the deity of Christ and the Lord said unto him. ” so feel free to bring some!! And thus modern translations, they are also dots next to the Twelve so free... Acts 26, Saul recounts the story of his conversion and F. J Textual tradition that differs that. Predated the codex is an Alexandrian text-type 125 AD, which dates to about 200 AD e.g... Text possible based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts, perhaps a little over a dozen not it... 3:15 the Textus Receptus is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of the Alexandrian..