Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text

[JHüls]

I choose to only use translations based on the TR/MT family of manuscripts. This leaves me (in English) with basically the KJV and NKJV. I still use the KJV near exclusively other than referencing the NKJV for certain texts that are legitimately more difficult to understand by modern readers.

I’m wondering how many people in the broader Anabaptist family also stick to KJV or other TR/MT translations.

Most of the less conservative groups use Critical Text translations like the NIV or NLT. I do know that some have switched to the ESV.

The Amish congregations near me in Maine are somewhat unique in that they are mostly converts and don’t have a family connection. These congregations don’t widely speak German/P.D. and use the KJV.

[mike]

My conservative Mennonite conference uses the KJV only in public worship and speaking for primary readings, but it appears that one is welcome to reference other translations in those contexts. I think the reasons are a mix of the idea that the KJV is the "safe" version and simply the usefulness of everyone reading from the same translation. I don't prefer the KJV myself, but there is some value in everyone looking at the same text for public reading & discussion. However, I think that this value is a little overstated, and I enjoy public bible discussions where various translations are represented.

[Soloist]

I choose to only use translations based on the TR/MT family of manuscripts. This leaves me (in English) with basically the KJV and NKJV. I still use the KJV near exclusively other than referencing the NKJV for certain texts that are legitimately more difficult to understand by modern readers.

I’m wondering how many people in the broader Anabaptist family also stick to KJV or other TR/MT translations.

Most of the less conservative groups use Critical Text translations like the NIV or NLT. I do know that some have switched to the ESV.

The Amish congregations near me in Maine are somewhat unique in that they are mostly converts and don’t have a family connection. These congregations don’t widely speak German/P.D. and use the KJV.

For anything I desire the “best” proof of, I either use both the Septuagint and the Latin Old Testament. For anything New Testament I tend to use the Latin as well.
I fail to see any significant changes generally speaking between the translations and believe the intent is the important part and less so the exact word. It seems that the apostles used more then one version as did Jesus or a version lost to us. The early church fathers quoted loosely or again from a different text.

[MaxPC]

Presently, there are several English translations that are favored in Catholic World. The RSV-CE is preferred by the Magisterium as the reference translation used in study. There are is a New American Bible translation that individuals use for personal understanding. The Catholic traditionalists stand by the old Douay-Rheims, either Haydock or Challoner commentaries; less so the American translation.

For myself I use the RSV-CE.

[Heirbyadoption]

I choose to only use translations based on the TR/MT family of manuscripts.

Could you share with us why you make this choice?

[Bootstrap]

For anything I desire the “best” proof of, I either use both the Septuagint and the Latin Old Testament. For anything New Testament I tend to use the Latin as well.

Sure. I use the Greek New Testament, the Greek Septuagint, and the Hebrew Masoretic text. Where they disagree, I think the disagreement is interesting. I can also look at the Greek variants to see how much they differ and how if it's really important.

I don't know enough Latin to use the sources you use. I think it's fine for people to use different sources.

I fail to see any significant changes generally speaking between the translations and believe the intent is the important part and less so the exact word. It seems that the apostles used more then one version as did Jesus or a version lost to us. The early church fathers quoted loosely or again from a different text.

I agree.

And in fact, the early church had slightly different versions of these texts, and they did just fine. I don't think they fought about which variant was most accurate. You can see the differences in the earliest manuscripts for any passage here:

https://www.greekcntr.org/collation/index.htm

If you click through, you can also see images of many of the original manuscripts.

When we translate the Bible today, we have to first decide what Greek text to translate. Most translations do not simply translate a single set of manuscripts that existed 2,000 years ago. There are few English translations of the earliest manuscripts.

[Josh]

Most Anabaptists would have no idea what the “Textus Receptus” even is, nor would they care.

The majority of Anabaptists (at least plain / conservative ones) use the Lutherbibel, which predates the TR, although its source text was eventually developed into the TR.

[Bootstrap]

I choose to only use translations based on the TR/MT family of manuscripts. This leaves me (in English) with basically the KJV and NKJV.

Specifically Textus Receptus, or Byzantine in general? Is there a particular Textus Receptus you prefer? I think the term can be used to refer to:

Erasmus's Greek New Testament (1516)
Stephanus's Greek New Testament (1550)
Theodore Beza's Greek New Testament (1598)
Elzevir Brothers' Greek New Testament (1633)
Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894)

[joshuabgood]

I prefer the critical text approach, as it renders the most rigorous version of the original text in my view. Which is why I would suggest the ESV or NIV...

[Neto]

I prefer the critical text approach, as it renders the most rigorous version of the original text in my view. Which is why I would suggest the ESV or NIV...

There is no question that some (mostly minor) changes to the text have taken place over the centuries. I think that looking at these differences in consideration of the principles used in the critical analysis of the available texts is profitable, essential, really, at least for the Bible translator, whose sole aim is to get as close to the original reading as is humanly possible.

As concerns the available English translations, the meanings of words as they are used in daily life change over time, and if we want to reach people of our own era, we must speak their language. We can decry the dumbing down of the English language all we want, but that's what we have to work with, to bring the Truth of Scripture to those around us.