[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

A couple of thoughts and comments here.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

a scholar named Erasmus, who had looked at many of these Greek manuscripts, edited and printed a Greek Bible that would be more accurate than the Latin Vulgate.

It is helpful to mention that Erasmus was also, at the same time, updating the Latin, in a dual edition. Thus he was collating all the salient available materials, it was not a Greek vs. Latin war, more an attempt simply to make an edition that is the pure word of God, in both languages, with the Greek being the fountainhead (a word from Jerome). That is why one of the key issues of analysis was any verses that were in one language but not in the other. (Most of the Latin Vulgate corruptions were not full verses, but words and phrases. e.g. the Vulgate had no question about the ending of Mark. The Vulgate did not have the abject corruption of the darlings of the textcrits today, the two alexandrian MSS.)

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Since he did not fully follow the Vulgate, some Catholics did not like it.

It is true that they put this work, with other works of Erasmus, on the Index of Forbidden Books. However there was more than just not following the Vulgate. The Complutensian Polyglot was an RCC text in the Greek, very similar to the Erasmus text, quite different from the Vulgate, since the Greek texts were homogeneous, and it did not engender such opposition. Erasmus and the Received Texts were connected with the Reformation and the victory over the Vulgate in the Battle of the Bible, so they became the focus of opposition.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

..through his life, he made five editions, each improving on the last. At first he did not include 1 John 5:7, but he was compelled for various reasons that it should belong, including because it was found in the Vulgate.

Yes, and there were other reasons as well, such as the reference by Jerome in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles in the Vulgate. And in that time they did not even know of the clear Cyprian early 3rd-century reference. And of course there is the discussion of the Irish MSS.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Each one of Erasmus' Greek New Testaments is called a "Textus Receptus edition", and all together, they are called "The Textus Receptus". As you should be able to tell, there is no one perfect form of the Textus Receptus, because every edition is different. There are other editions that came later too. Stephanus made four editions, and Beza made nine editions.

Just to add a bit, the term "Textus Receptus" itself came a century later, but it was properly retrofitted to apply to about 35 editions of the Greek Reformation NT.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.. The King James Bible .. the final form of the Received Text ..the Textus Receptus in English. And it is "the" Textus Receptus, or better, "The Received Text".

Amen

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.Other editions of the Textus Receptus in Greek were made after 1611, but the most important is Lloyd's, who made the Greek match up with the King James Bible.

Some sources indicate that this was a reprint of John Mill's Oxford edition (1707) which may be considered a late TR. I haven't seen any indication that Lloyd normalized the Gerek to the KJB, so if you have references and examples it would be helpful.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

according to Edward Hills, there are still some mistakes in the Greek in the book of Revelation.

However Hills is also claiming some errors in the English in Revelation, so his incorrect claims on this are not Greek-only.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Only the King James Bible is perfectly right and correct. God is all powerful, He was able to get the full Word out in 1611 in English. Going to the Greek always means questioning the wording, and always is able to change around the meanings of various words. Therefore the way Greek is being used now is wrong.

This view of Matthew I have discussed separately, especially on page 2 of the thread:

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264
Greek, Hebrew, Scholary Articles: To Use or Not to Use, That is the Question

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

These points are good.

Remember that Greek and Hebrew may be used as a secondary confirming witness subject to believing that the Word of God is fully and perfectly given in English.

The problem is that most people who go to the original languages, including some people who support the King James Bible, do so without accepting the King James Bible as the standard. They are putting the standard into their knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek (where there is no final copy). They are also thinking that the full meaning is there in the other language, not in English. And as long as they think they can have some other meaning, or some extra meaning than what is plainly in the King James Bible, they are in error.

Obviously, the proper view is that the translators of 1611 fully transferred the full meaning from the Hebrew and the Greek, and fully compiled from these sources the proper text, and since so many people have vindicated and studied the Greek and Hebrew in regards to the King James Bible since that time, we can accept that without a doubt.

For a good book which has this kind of research in it, see "Crowned with Glory" by Dr Thomas Holland.