O
Omyo12
Guest
Which did you choose and why?
- Status
C
Crumpy
Guest
“other” I guess. I haven’t even heard of the texts mentioned in the poll.
Why didn’t you answer your own question, about why you prefer the one that you chose?
Why didn’t you answer your own question, about why you prefer the one that you chose?
O
Omyo12
Guest
really??
Not even the Vulgate?!?!
Nestle Aland 27th Edition
Most modern English Bibles use this text. It is considered the most scholarly and closest to the original Greek NT. The texts it uses are of the “Alexandrian text-type” and called “critical texts” (usually abbreviated NA27)
United Bible Society 4th Edition
This is generally coupled with the NA27 (usually abbreviated USB4)
Westcott-Hort (1881)
This was a popular update to the majority text and the source of the Revised Version. It is also a precursor to the Nestle Aland
Majority Text
This is a scholarly version of the “majority” of Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts usually date as early as the middle ages since copies were harder to make before the printing press. These are known as the “Byzantine text-type”
Textus Receptus
The KJV and NKJV are based on this edition. It is also from the Byzantine text-type. It was put together by the Catholic theologian Erasmus in the 14th century.
Authorized Version of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
This is the official Greek Text of the Eastern Orthodox Church put together in 1912. It is also of the Byzantine text-type.
Stuttgart Vulgate
This is a scholarly attempt to recreated the original Latin Vulgate as translated by St. Jerome.
Clementine Vulgate
This is the text used by the Douay-Rheims and Confraternity New Testament. It was the official Roman Catholic Bible between 1592 and 1979. It was declared “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals” (Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), paragraph 21) by Pope Pius XII.
Nova Vulgata
This is the current official Roman Catholic Bible.
Hope this helped
I chose the NA27 for the reason stated above.
K
Kalos
Guest
I will alway prefer the textus receptus in spite of some small errors. I trust it because it was assembled by probably the top bible scholar of the day - Erasmus. He traveled all over to find the best bible texts. What is important here is that these texts had a known pedigree. They were in use for centuries by faithfull Christians. These other older texts that modern scholars have dug up in some dusty cave somewhere where used and written by whom? Some of them seem to have Nostic influence. They often come from offbeat branches of Christianity that died out long ago. Maybe a coptic group or what have you? Modern scholars absolutely revel in them because they can pick and choose from more and more variations to satisfy their own theology. Why is it that modern bibles are missing up to 50 references to the deity of Christ as compared to the KJV text? Why is mention of the blood of Christ reduced in modern translations. Could this have something to do with the fact that in all the great revivals and outpourings the KJV was the bible in use? I’m not saying that someone could not be saved using a modern text. the Gospel is clear in all bibles, but so many things are watered down and the impact is lost. Doctrines are compromised. Why would you want that? Except for a few errors the Douay Rheims Version is equivelent to the KJV as far as I know.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Could you give a few specific examples of where the KJV “out does” most modern translations please? Thank you!
O
Omyo12
Guest
Interesting, so what’s the history of the manuscripts Erasmus used?
I think he only used about six manuscripts…
I also know he was reluctant to use older manuscripts because he was afraid they were erratic.
Also, as far as I know, in regards to 1 John 5:7, he had trouble finding a manuscript containing it and he didn’t add it until the 3rd edition when he was found one manuscript supporting it… That manuscript itself dates to 1520 and was supposedly based on the Latin Vulgate… (based on the Old Latin manuscripts, 1 John 5:7 was originally a marginal note)
I’m all for traditional texts so I’m really interested in the Textus Receptus, and Clementine Vulgate New Testament
In regards to the Hebrew text, I like the Masoretic since the OT is mostly based on tradition anyways. Its rather impossible to have a true “critical” version since the oldest texts are loooong gone…
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Clementine Vulgate is the best choice because it was authentically translated from the original manuscripts, which have now weathered away. The Struttgart Vulgate is Protestant and I will not trust it. The Textus Receptus is just as flawed as the Westcott and Hort. The Nestle Aland 27th edition, it really pitiful and I would never trust the united bible society. Trust the work of St. Jerome and the Catholic Church. God saw something special in St. Jerome and Christ founded the Church. What more do you need.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I should have chose ‘other’ but I picked the UBS because that is what I read from most of the time, not because the Greek text itself but for the variant apparatus. But if it were up to me, I would be very eclectic if I put together a NT text. I would use the Peshitta for the Gospel of Matthew because I believe that it is the closest since Matthew wrote it in Aramaic. I would personally like to construct a Greek text for the NT based upon the ancient manucripts. I would also like to construct an OT text of the LXX. This would take me a few years to do, but I would love every minute of it!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Nestle-Aland, the UBS Greek NT, & the BFBS of 1954 (which you didn’t include). I also use
- Bover’s parallel edition of the Greek & Latin NT
- Wordsworth & White’s manual edition of the Vulgate NT - I use this all the time
- Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint
- the Beuron Vulgate published by (IIRC) the Wurttemberg Bible society.
I wish I knew Hebrew - it’s dreadful not knowing it
What I would like, is an edition of the books with all the variants
- Status