# TR Research



## heartoflesh (Jan 24, 2005)

I'd like to research the view that says the Textus Receptus is superior to the CT. Where is a good place to start? Can anyone provide a link?


----------



## heartoflesh (Jan 24, 2005)

Come, come now. Do I need to say something like "I think the NIV uses the best all around text" to get a reply? 

(or maybe I need to pay 5$) ?

[Edited on 24-1-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 25, 2005)

Rick,

You should run a search - I think Greg (doulosChristou) has recommended some good books. There are books by DA Carson, Dean Burgeon, Jay Green and others. 

Theodore Letis also has an interesting book called "The Ecclesiastical Text"


----------



## sastark (Jan 25, 2005)

Theodore Letis......


----------



## heartoflesh (Jan 25, 2005)

Thanks for the recommendations. Here's a good link to Theodore Letis material: http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 26, 2005)

Time to bump an earlier question of mine from a different thread:



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Can anyone summarize the differences or areas of agreement between Theodore Letis and the Dean Burgon Society?



http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1222&page=3


----------



## larryjf (Feb 1, 2005)

Here's a pretty good TR link if i remember correctly
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/the_received_text.htm


----------



## RickyReformed (Feb 3, 2005)

http://www.oldpathspublications.org/textus.html

Joel Beeke, Robert Godfrey and David Engelsma are all on the board of advisors at this site.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Time to bump an earlier question of mine from a different thread:
> 
> 
> ...



I just e-mailed Jay Green to see what he says. Will get back to you later. Randy

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

Here is Jay's response... Sorry Andrew, I forgot all about this question. 



> Dear Brother, there is not corrspondence between Letis and the so-called Dean Burgon Society.
> The Dean Brurgon Soc, is a Front for D. A. Waite, who puts out very poor quality excerpts from Burgon. It is a closed Society. For Example, he knows that we have a very professional looking copy of Burgon's works, but Waite does not recommend it to members of his so-called society. Baisically, Letis believes in a majority text, but insists on keeping it framed in an Anglican church form. He has good information, and his book The Majority Text (out of print) was excellent. We intend to redo our publication, printing Burgon's two books verbatim, without my comments. I was trying to bring Burgon to the public without burying them in all his footnotes, for they are beyond all but scholars. Still the scholars are complaining that we have harmed Burgon by what we did. These scholars are content to write little articles to each other, and the public is kept in the dark as to the value of what they find. Our Unholy Hands 3 is ready to print when we get the funds. It will answer a lot of questions about the lack of foundation for today's critics and their translations.



[Edited on 5-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## larryjf (May 26, 2005)

http://www.scionofzion.com/rcvdtext.htm


----------



## DocCas (May 27, 2005)

You might also want to take a look at "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform," Â© 1991, Original Word Publishers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.

The Introduction contains some very good information and can be found on-line at http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html

Enjoy.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Here is Jay's response... Sorry Andrew, I forgot all about this question.
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, Randy!


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I'd like to research the view that says the Textus Receptus is superior to the CT. Where is a good place to start? Can anyone provide a link?



Your imagination?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



Yep. How could it be possible that the _Church_ of all things would actually better preserve the Bible than godless academics! What were we thinking?


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



If by the CHURCH, you mean Erasmus, then I guess I would have to agree with you.

You have such little faith in providence, Fred.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



No, I don't just mean Erasmus. Remind me when the critical text was first used by ANY church? Oh, yeah, that would be the late 19th century.

So.... Does that mean all the churches were without the Bible for the vast majority of history? And what about before Erasmus? Was he some kind of time traveller? You do know that the text in the 14th century was basically the TR, don't you. You do know that Vaticanus was still in a garbage bin, don't you?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (May 29, 2005)

*user believes the MT most closely resembles the original text*

*user still believes the ESV is a good translation, though*

I'd like to see an ESV2 based on the MT (not the TR).


----------



## fredtgreco (May 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> *user believes the MT most closely resembles the original text*
> 
> *user still believes the ESV is a good translation, though*
> ...



I hear ya!


----------

