Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text

[mike]

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.

And the extent to which English-speaking conservative Anabaptists have embraced the KJV/TR reflects their influence by Protestant fundamentalism in the 20th century.

[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...

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.

English itself was the "dumb language," at one time, it was inconceivable to the conservatives that the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 etc...would be translated to such a coarse and profane language of heathens.

[Soloist]

English itself was the "dumb language," at one time, it was inconceivable to the conservatives that the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 etc...would be translated to such a coarse and profane language of heathens.

As was Latin before. Thus we find similar language used about the KJV as the Latin, the Vulgar tongue.

[ohio jones]

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.

There is also the Byzantine Text Version recently translated by Adam Boyd, available online (with download options) or in printed form.

[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.

English itself was the "dumb language," at one time, it was inconceivable to the conservatives that the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 etc...would be translated to such a coarse and profane language of heathens.

What I meant by the phrase "dumbing down" was where a word that originally had a very specific meaning has become very generalized in meaning, to the extent that it has become a synonym for an already existing word that would have served just fine, w/o corrupting the other one. (An example: 'venue' now just means 'a place', without any of the courtroom or legal connotations that it used to entail.)

[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.

There is also the Byzantine Text Version recently translated by Adam Boyd, available online (with download options) or in printed form.

Well cool! I very much respect Adam.

Freely licensed, too.

[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.

And the extent to which English-speaking conservative Anabaptists have embraced the KJV/TR reflects their influence by Protestant fundamentalism in the 20th century.

Including dropping the apocrypha, I might add.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Majority Text for the Greek NT. Need to get my copy back from my former C&MA pastor.

[Heirbyadoption]

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.

If you're still around, I'd be really interested to hear why you make this choice, if you'd be willing to share.

[Heirbyadoption]

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

I'll try one last time. I was actually curious as I've been working on a translation history project for our congregation this winter and was tinkering with something things regarding the TR/MT group; was not looking to pick any fights. Maybe JHuls has come and gone, though...? JHuls, are you still present?