Lisa, you can find the textus receptus online. Here's one:
http://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/te ... /mat01.htm

The NKJV was translated directly from the textus receptus, from what I understand. I tho't they used the KJV and just made it more modern English but no, they translated it using the same philosophies as the KJV.

Oh, dear - sorry about the cold. That's miserable when you're pregnant and can't take anything for it : (

Yes, your post makes perfect sense!

Since DH is a native Greek speaker & we go to the Orthodox Church, it only makes sense that's the type of Bible he'd have. And, of course, when we go home to visit the bookshops have all those sorts of things.

*My* Greek NT I purchased while I was still Protestant, so it is not the Textus Receptus - sometimes DH is disturbed by the differences in it from the Textus Receptus.

The Textus Receptus is the the text handed down by the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church. The other Greek-language versions seek to find bits and pieces from "newly found" manuscripts and put them in. The problem with that is if the Church decided these newly-found manuscripts were NOT the *real* Bible 2000 years or so ago, why do we want to add bits and pieces in now?

It is all part of the revisionist history movement IMO. All the people & all the Christians of history have been clueless - till *US*!

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

Thanks, Sis!

If I remember right, most of the modern Bibles were translated from Westcott and Hort and I read horrible things about them, Satanic cults and such. That's one of the reasons I don't trust the new versions, but also the agendas of the translation teams. With homosexuals and feminists on the board, it's no surprise there is bias in the new versions, such as the New NIV, where God is not a "He" (Promoted by Rob Bell, need I say more?).

If I were to read anything but the KJV, it would be the NKJV, but there are still unnecessary changes in it that I don't like.

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).

Cold medicine usually doesn't work for me anyways, so I am used to suffering through them. I just hope dh and the kids don't get it. They're babies, lol!

I guess I didn't think you could just easily find the Textus Receptus, but that probably comes from my ignorance. I see it as something mysterious or something. Maybe it's that name!

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).

Yep, I think I would have to agree with this!

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).

Lisa, I think textus receptus is Latin for received text. Maybe we should just call it that and take some of the mystery out of it. I read a blog by a woman that said she does that with fancy recipes - "crepes" are just thin pancakes and "beef bourguignon" is just beef stew.

And, I agree with you both!

Back to the original issue. The word in Job 3:8 that is translated "mourning" is the same word that is translated "Leviathan" in Job 41:1, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:26, and Isaiah 27:1. The question should be "Why did the translators decide to use mourning instead of Leviathan?"

As far as the translation debate, the problem is that the KJV was done with political motivations just like any other translation. The word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the same word translated everywhere else in the NT as "Passover" but the King wanted Easter in there, so they added Easter. As for the Textus Receptus versus Majority Text debate, we have to realize that the underlying Greek is identical in 98-99% of instances and is so similar that the difference is inconsequential in > 99% of the text.

One interesting point is that the KJV translation occurred prior to the discovery of the provably earliest copies of most of the Scriptures in existence. The Dead Sea Scrolls (and other discoveries) contained copies of entire OT books dating to the first century, and this resource was unavailable and hence not incorporated n the KJV translation.

Make no mistake, the KJV is a better translation than many, but it is provably NOT 100% accurate (look at Acts 12:4, and then look at all the places the KJV says "God Forbid" when the Greek says no such thing - Luke 20:16, Romans 3:4, 3:6, 3:31, 6:2, 7:7, 7:13, 9:14, 11:1, 11:11, 1 Co 6:15, Gal 2:17, 3:21, 6:14). The phrase that some bright young translator in the 17th century wanted to translate this way is actually "may it never be" - the word for God is not present in any of those instances (nor is any word that is used for him).

DH says it reads something like "I can do all things through Him Who strengthens me Christ."

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

...and if you look at it, in Job 3:8 KJV ignores the plain translation (Leviathan) in favor of something else (mourning). In 14 places in the NT, it ignores the phrase "May it never be" in favor of the more dramatic but not present in any manuscript "God forbid!" and it goes with "Easter" instead of "Passover" because somebody wanted it to read one way. As I said, it's not bad (EVERY version of the NIV is bad, gender neutral or not), but it's not flawless. As far as it being the ONLY valid translation, I would say that any advocate of KJV only is clearly an advocate of accepting error. (the NKJV is better than the KJV, and the NASB is about as good)