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.
Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
- JHüls
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:46 pm
- Location: Houlton, Maine
- Affiliation: Independent
- Contact:
Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
2 x
"It is love alone that is pleasing to God; he that cannot show love shall not stand in the sight of God."
Felix Manz
Felix Manz
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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.
2 x
Remember the prisoners, as though you were in prison with them, and the mistreated, as though you yourselves were suffering bodily. -Heb. 13:3
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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.JHüls wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 8:07 am 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.
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.
3 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
-
- Posts: 9132
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
- Location: Former full time RVers
- Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
- Contact:
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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.
For myself I use the RSV-CE.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
-
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
- Affiliation: Brethren
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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 agree.Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 8:18 amI 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.
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.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
- Josh
- Posts: 24279
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
- Location: 1000' ASL
- Affiliation: The church of God
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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.
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.
0 x
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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)
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
-
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
- Affiliation: BMA
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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...
2 x
-
- Posts: 4653
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
- Location: Holmes County, Ohio
- Affiliation: Gospel Haven
Re: Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text
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.joshuabgood wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 10:32 am 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...
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.
4 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.