Modern Version of the Textus Receptus?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kim G

Puritan Board Junior
I never read the King James Bible because I prefer reading the Bible in my own language (sorry for the jab . . . ). So I alternate between the NAS, the ESV, and the NIV.

I've never heard of a modern version of the Textus Receptus. For those who are advocates of the TR, do you know of any modern English versions?
 

Jimmy the Greek

Puritan Board Senior
The NKJV is based on the TR. It has marginal notes that indicate variant readings in both the Majority Text (MT) and the Critical Text (NA26).
 

Kim G

Puritan Board Junior
It has marginal notes that indicate variant readings in both the Majority Text (MT) and the Critical Text (NA26).

My NAS also notes the differences, but I like the way it reads better than the NKJV.

I'm talking about a version that goes strictly back to the TR manuscripts and translates without trying to feel like the KJV as much as possible.
 

Jimmy the Greek

Puritan Board Senior
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)

However, I believe these all relied on the KJV (to some extent) in the process.
 
Last edited:

Kim G

Puritan Board Junior
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)

:wow: I didn't even know those existed. Are they good (i.e., faithful translations)?
 

Jimmy the Greek

Puritan Board Senior
Sorry, I have not used them. I am merely passing on information. As I mentioned in my added note above, I believe these all relied on the KJV (to some extent). Webster refers to Noah Webster -- his revised translation is public domain and can be found online for free.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
KJVII is also based on the majority test.

Thanks for pointing out that Strongs was based on the majority test. I was not aware of that.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)

:wow: I didn't even know those existed. Are they good (i.e., faithful translations)?

Youngs in style is similar to the ASV. It is painfully literal at times.
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
Based on the Textus Receptus:

-Webster Bible (1833)
-Young's Literal Translation (1862/1898)
-New King James Version (1982)
-Revised Webster Bible (1998, with Strong's and other codes)

:wow: I didn't even know those existed. Are they good (i.e., faithful translations)?

Youngs in style is similar to the ASV. It is painfully literal at times.

Here is a painfully notable example:

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (NKJV)

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (Youngs)

Hmm. I sure do hope Heaven isn't of a limited duration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top