
	Where results make sense

Topic: Textus receptus

Related Topics

Majority Text

Textual criticism

Revised Version

King James Version

New International Version

Revised Standard Version

King James Version of the Bible

Vulgate

Bible translations

Greek Scriptures

New English Bible

Comma Johanneum

William Tyndale

Old English Bible translations

Erasmus of Rotterdam

In the News (Sun 29 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Textus Receptus
		Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament.
		The Stephanus edition became the standard Textus Receptus of Britain, although of course it was not yet known by that name.
		The first reason is the obvious textual one: It is translated from the Textus Receptus.
	www.skypoint.com /~waltzmn/TR.html (3105 words)

	BIBLE VERSIONS ... Textus Receptus
		Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence.
		Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
		This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs.
	atschool.eduweb.co.uk /sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-3.html (0 words)

	Spartanburg SC \| GoUpstate.com \| Spartanburg Herald-Journal
		The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings.
		No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism - as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions.
		He was an ardent advocate of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus over all other editions of the Greek New Testament, and argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.
	www.goupstate.com /apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Textus_Receptus (630 words)

	TEXTUS RECEPTUS...THE MAJORITY TEXT
		Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence.
		Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
		Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, his miracles, his bodily resurrection and literal return.
	www.angelfire.com /la2/prophet1/textusr1.html (1646 words)

	Facts About The Textus Receptus
		When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra words and phrases generally find their way into the text in the course of copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.
		The additions in the textus receptus do not contain any idea that is not taught elsewhere in the New Testament in parts that agree with the earlier manuscripts.
		But even those who believe the Textus Receptus is correct must choose among the many printed editions of the Greek NT or among the thousands of late Greek manuscripts, so they cannot be sure of the exact wording either.
	www.biblicist.org /bible/receptus.shtml (2790 words)

	TEXTUS RECEPTUS : Encyclopedia Entry
		Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the first Greek-language text of the New Testament to be printed on a printing press.
		He was an ardent advocate of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus over all other editions of the Greek New Testament, and argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.
		The majority of textual critical scholars have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament, with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts, which are mainly Alexandiran in character, thus breaking with the Textus Receptus in numerous places.
	www.bibleocean.com /OmniDefinition/Textus_Receptus (746 words)

	WHAT DID JOHN WILLIAM BURGON REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ... [PRINTER VERSION]
		Regarding the need to revise the Textus Receptus: "That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and had those necessary changes been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer." (p.
		Did the Revision, with all its variations from the KJV and the textus receptus corrupt or distort Bible doctrine?: "Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth;" (p.
		Therefore, on the basis of his own remarks, we can only honestly conclude that Burgon did not accept the textus receptus as pristine, nor did he believe the KJV was always correct, and he rejected the notion that God promised to infallibly preserve the Scriptures from scribal corruption in the copying process.
	www.kjvonly.org /doug/kutilek_burgon_textus.htm (870 words)

	Textus Receptus - SkepticWiki (Site not responding. Last check: )
		The Textus Receptus or Received Text is the name given to the various editions of the Greek New Testament published in the sixteenth century and onwards.
		The compilation of the Textus Receptus was in its age a daring act, which brought Erasmus under criticism for undermining the authority of the Vulgate and for "correcting the Gospels".
		In the first place, as Erasmus himself acknowledged, his work on the Textus Receptus was much too hastily done: the host of typographic errors in the first edition bear witness to the fact that, brilliant though Erasmus was, he simply did not have the diligence which is the sine qua non of the textual critic.
	www.skepticwiki.org /wiki/index.php?title=Textus_Receptus&redirect=no (583 words)

	The Majority Text
		The "majority text" position is a mediating position between the traditional view that embraces the Textus Receptus and the critical view that remains in search of the true text of the Greek New Testament, while confessing that it believes the search to be hopeless as to ever settling the issue with any finality.
		Since the vast majority of the texts are of the Byzantine family, of which the Textus Receptus is a particular example, they are therefore proposing a text that is very similar to the traditional or received text and are therefore allies against the critical text forces.
		In the reviewer's mind any faithful translation of the Textus Receptus is acceptable, all the while acknowledging that the beauty of the language, and the majesty of the style, of the Authorized Version remain unsurpassed.
	www.amprpress.com /the_majority_text.htm (490 words)

	The Received Text (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Today the term Textus Receptus is used generically to apply to all editions of the Greek New Testament which follow the early printed editions of Desiderius Erasmus.
		Numerous men during the past four centuries have produced editions of the Textus Receptus; these editions bear their names and the years in which they were published.
		As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense".
	www.preteristcentral.com /articles-textual-received-text.htm (1782 words)

	DEMYSTIFYING THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KJV OF THE BIBLE (Site not responding. Last check: )
		In the Greek, the inerrant manuscripts are those of the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine family, which underlie the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.
		This may be seen by examining the textual notes in the recent Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (1982) or the New King James Version (1982).
		When logical contradictions are pointed out to the others, they simply respond that it is their firm belief that the textual problems in the KJV will somehow eventually be resolved in favor of the KJV, even for the textual problem in Revelation 22:18-19.
	www.kjvonly.org /other/demystify.htm (10423 words)

	The Dispatch - Serving the Lexington, NC - News (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to a flurry of further authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century; almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.
		The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text tending to depart from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings.
		No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the superiority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism - as appplied to scripture - and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions.
	www.the-dispatch.com /apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Textus_Receptus (633 words)

	Textus Receptus (Received Text)
		The Textus Receptus, is Latin for "Received Text." It is the name given to the very first printed and published complete Greek New Testament.
		It is often claimed, that the Textus Receptus was both put together within a very short time, and also that it was put together from a very small source of manuscripts.
		Now, the claims that the Textus Receptus was very hastily put together, and put together only from a single Library's worth of information, can easily be found false, through looking at the life of Erasmus.
	www.workmenforchrist.org /Bible/History/TR.html (727 words)

	Quartz Hill School of Theology
		Origen, being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts.
		They are older and that much closer to the original; moreover, the methods of textual criticism -- the science of comparing the different and sometimes inconsistent manuscripts and determining which one is the closest to the original reading -- have advanced considerably since the 1600's.
		By means of textual criticism we attempt to find all the alterations that have occurred and then recover the earliest possible form of the text.
	www.theology.edu /journal/volume1/tr.htm (6123 words)

	What is the Textus Receptus? - Dr. Herbert Samworth
		When speaking of the Textus Receptus, one must remember that it is a printed text, not a hand-copied manuscript.
		Finally, the Textus Receptus is what is called a "text type." The text type of the Textus Receptus is known as the Byzantine because it came from the geographical area around Constantinople.
		One of the characteristics of the Textus Receptus is that it tended to add words that many people considered to be notes or glosses made by scribes.
	www.solagroup.org /articles/faqs/faq_0032.html (1362 words)

	Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Furthermore, a careful distinction must be made between the textus receptus (even in its broadest collective sense) on the one hand, and the majority text (also known as the Byzantine or Syrian text) on the other.
		What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries.
		And if one holds to the "nose count" theory of textual criticism, i.e., whatever the reading found in a numerical majority of surviving Greek manuscripts is to be accepted as original, then the textus receptus falls short in the 1,838 readings where it does not follow the majority text.
	www.bible-researcher.com /kutilek1.html (4278 words)

	Greek New Testament Received Text Stephanus 1550
		On the finer points of textual inerrancy it should be noted that the Biblical emphasis is on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Scriptural text.
		The true inspired verbally and literally inerrant text is the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus, which follows the 4th and 5th editions of Erasmus.
		For a collation of later and other forms of the Textus Receptus (Beza, Elzevir etc.) with Stephanus 1550, download here a copy of two of the many, superb, studies of H. Hoskier (these forming Appendix B and Appendix C of his "Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604" London, 1890).
	www.christianhospitality.org /greektr.htm (0 words)

	The Textus Receptus
		Today the term Textus Receptus is used generically to apply to all editions of the Greek New Testament which follow the early printed editions of Desiderius Erasmus.
		Numerous men during the past four centuries have produced editions of the Textus Receptus; these editions bear their names and the years in which they were published.
		As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense".
	www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org /site/articles/tr-art.asp (1903 words)

	[No title]
		The term "Textus Receptus" was first used in the cover leaf of the 1633 edition of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir's to identity their New Testament as that which was "universally received" by the world of Christendom.
		Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings taken from others to which he had access.
		Today, the Dean Burgon Society believes the Textus Receptus, as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, is the embodiment of the Providentially preserved word of God in Greek.
	members.tripod.com /~ThomasCassidy/dbs98.htm (2364 words)

	[No title]
		The Stephens 1550 edition of the so-called "Textus Receptus" (Received Text) reflects a general agreement with other early printed Greek texts also (erroneously) called by that name.
		However, all printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between those Receptus forms and the majority of all manuscripts.
		Some of these italicized places in fact reflect textual variants known to the Authorized Version translators; other places reflect words supplied by the AV translators where there was insufficient or no Greek manuscript evidence.
	www.iclnet.org /pub/resources/software/mac/online.bible/TR-BYZ-N26_TR_Intro.txt (1245 words)

	CHAPTER EIGHT - The King James Version Defended
		Naturalistic textual critics, of course, for years have not hesitated to say that the Protestant Reformers were badly mistaken in their reliance upon the Textus Receptus.
		The defense of the Textus Receptus, therefore, is a necessary part of the defense of Protestantism.
		In the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus it is placed at the end of chapter l6 and this is also the position it occupies in Aleph B C and D.
	www.biblebelievers.com /Hills_KJVD_Chapter8.htm (17177 words)

	The King James Version in Persective
		However, it was not until 1624 that the phrase, Received Text, or in the Latin, Textus Receptus, was actually coined, and then it was from the preface to the third edition of a Greek text published by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir.
		The vast majority of textual variations between the Textus Receptus and later texts (which are based to a large extent on older manuscripts that have been discovered or made available only in the last 150 years) are of no significance whatever.
		But as the Textus Receptus became stereotyped, even later editors who were more abundantly supplied with manuscripts, including some from the fourth or fifth century, dared not stray too far from the text of the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus.
	www.geocities.com /Athens/7939/kjvtext.html (2446 words)

	Textus Receptus
		We have the Bible as it was written in the Textus Receptus.
		We have the Bible in any other language as long as it is faithfully translated from the Textus Receptus.
		Textus Receptus is a Latin term meaning: "Text Received", or "Text Approved", or "Text Accepted".
	www.kjvuser.com /textusreceptus.htm (0 words)

	KJV and the Textus Receptus
		Textus Receptus, or Received Text, was derived from the self-proclaimed statement by the Elzevir printer family, in their preface to the 1633 edition of their Greek New Testament.
		The discovery of the Sinaitic MS, and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text.
		Textual criticism is the discipline that seeks to identify the original wording of an ancient document.
	www.bibletexts.com /kjv-tr.htm (0 words)

	bible.org: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today
		And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs.
		And in the context of Heb 4, Joshua is obviously meant.
		There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the KJV.
	www.bible.org /page.asp?page_id=665 (0 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)