Timeline for Are there Bible translations that consistently include ALL meaning-altering Textus-Receptus variants in the footnotes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13 at 14:33 | history | edited | GratefulDisciple | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Nov 13 at 14:21 | history | edited | GratefulDisciple | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
emphasize that I focus only on meaning-altering variant
|
| Nov 13 at 14:09 | history | edited | GratefulDisciple | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarifies the question that I'm not interested in every minor & meaningless variant
|
| Nov 13 at 13:36 | answer | added | Andrew Shanks | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 13 at 9:12 | comment | added | Andrew Shanks | There are half a million Greek variations in/of the NT. The vast majority make no difference to the English meaning. Daniel Wallace gives a lecture on this on YouTube where "John loves Mary" can be the translation from thousands of Greek sentences. Not sure if anyone really wants all the Greek variants.. it would be a cumbersome, meaningless and useless addition. | |
| Nov 12 at 13:47 | comment | added | GratefulDisciple | @NigelJ "You seem to want to embrace everything, inclusively. ... one Rule and Authority. I don't need to guess at what Entity would be present, in spirit, in such a 'Bible Committee'" In our decade today, there are so many options; no single Bible Committee can rule. And if people remember that the Word is not the text, they wouldn't succumb to letting themselves be ruled by a Bible committee. Your insisting on a doctrine that there is a single privileged text tradition, is actually one step closer to making that possible. | |
| Nov 12 at 13:27 | comment | added | Anne | @Michael16 Yesterday I answered this Q, which contains some info on the NKJV re. its footnotes and marginal readings. If you obtain the two TBS documents I reference, you will get a scholarly answer to the Q in your comment. christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103613/… | |
| Nov 4 at 19:03 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 6 at 12:17 | comment | added | Michael16 | for detailed differences in the bible, you will have to know Greek. I dont think there is an English version that would be so detailed as the Greek. How is the detail of NKJV footnotes? | |
| Oct 6 at 9:05 | comment | added | Nigel J | You seem to want to embrace everything, inclusively. Which will merge all distinctions, hide that which would stand out as separate, and cover up all that should be revealed. This is a sign of the end times : the merging of everything into one, global 'utopia' under one Rule and Authority. I don't need to guess at what Entity would be present, in spirit, in such a 'Bible Committee'. | |
| Oct 6 at 1:45 | comment | added | GratefulDisciple | @NigelJ About my ideal system, the Bible committee would start with their assessment of the best original language variant possible for each verse, some agree with TR, some with NA, some SG, etc. All non-picked variants are in the footnotes. Then it's translated into the target language according to the translation philosophy; can be as literal as YLT, dynamic as NLT, or somewhere in between. The key thing is that it's the Bible committee making the choice from all available 3 text traditions while showing the choices to the reader. Isn't it a good combination of expertise and transparency? | |
| Oct 5 at 22:41 | comment | added | GratefulDisciple | @NigelJ My question has to do with non-English languages as well. Are there Textus Receptus non-English translations out there? Unlike you, I am personally not beholden to a text edition, so if the main text is Textus Receptus but has consistent Nestle-Aland text as footnotes, I would purchase it. The scenario I proposed simply reflects the market reality today. Similarly, if there are three text traditions represented (including the Septuagint), it's even better! Yes, strict adherence to a text edition IS a tradition, but at heart I'm a Protestant. | |
| Oct 5 at 20:36 | comment | added | Nigel J | The next thing for publishers to foist on the bible-reading public will be the 'AI' version. I just can't wait. | |
| Oct 5 at 20:33 | comment | added | Nigel J | I simply cannot comprehend why a person who embraced the Textus Receptus and rejected the Westcott & Hort/Nestle Aland 'Critical Text' would wish to read a modern translation with footnotes telling them when a TR 'variant' (as you term it) is available. (If indeed that is what you are advocating, for your system here is quite confusing.) Those of us who follow John Burgon and Hermon Hoskier are quite content with KJV/YLT/EGNT. Why on earth would we alter that for something so cumbersome ? The modern versions with their 'dynamic equivalence' are more paraphrases than translations. | |
| Oct 5 at 18:41 | answer | added | BCBSR | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 5 at 17:27 | history | edited | GratefulDisciple | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Oct 5 at 17:20 | history | asked | GratefulDisciple | CC BY-SA 4.0 |