Updated American Standard Version
Giving Bible readers what God said not what translators think God meant
Explore 'The Majority Text Theory: A Comprehensive Analysis and Critical Review,' an article that delves into the complexities of New Testament textual criticism. It examines the Majority Text Theory, contrasting the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts, and evaluates their impact on our understanding of the scriptural text.
Embark on a journey through 'Exploring the Lucian Recension: Revisiting Ancient Textual Traditions of the New Testament.' This article delves into the debated Lucian Recension theory, examining its potential impact on the Byzantine text-type and its implications for understanding the development of New Testament manuscripts.
Discover the remarkable story of Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanus, a printer who played a pivotal role in Bible study and the production of accurate Bibles during the Renaissance and Reformation. Learn about his innovative methods, critical editions, and impact on typography. Explore his conflicts with the Catholic Church, his move to Geneva, and his contributions to verse divisions and translations.
What is it that makes P66 P75 א B 'quality external evidence' or very weighty evidence over A* Θ Ψ 050 f1, Maj? Maj refers minuscules The Majority Text; that is, a group that is made up of thousands of minuscules that display a similar text. So, here we see that counting the manuscripts (the majority wins) does not mean that the majority is evidence for the preferred reading being original.
In the days of Westcott and Hort, the argument was that the Alexandrian scribes removed what we have in the Byzantine manuscripts, while the other argument was that the Byzantine scribes added and altered. How could we ever solve it once and for all?
The King James version Onlyist love to use a handful of men’s arguments to defend the corrupt Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Hills’ work The King James Version Defended is used to have some kind of modern-day scholarly work to give credibility to their tired, old theories about Bible translations.
In the earliest days of the Christian church, after an apostolic letter was sent to a congregation or an individual, or after a gospel was written to meet the needs of a particular reading public, copies would be made in order to extend its influence and to enable others to profit from it as well. It was inevitable that such handwritten copies would contain a greater or lesser number of differences in wording from the original. NOTE: This is an introductory article, but filled with links to more in-depth articles if one desires a deeper look.
The King James Version has reached the milestone of the 400th anniversary of its first publication. Academic and religious conferences, museum displays, books and articles, and commemorative editions of the KJV have exploded in such quantity that 2011 can confidently be declared the year of the King James Bible.
The Hebrew text was like the Greek NT; it had accumulated copyist errors, a few intentional, a good number accidental, between the Malachi days of 440 BCE and Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (135 to 217 CE). The same thing happened to the Greek New Testament from about 400 CE to 1550 CE, a period of copyist errors.
The King James Only movement asserts that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible.
