Critical texts contradict majority text, but majority text is backed up by the teachings of the early church fathers, who came long before critical text.
https://truthwatchers.com/textus-receptus-in-the-early-church-fathers/
Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?
- Thread starter NTNT58
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
https://truthwatchers.com/textus-receptus-in-the-early-church-fathers/
Both names are translations of the same name. Both names are the same, so both can be used INTERCHANGEABLY.
Why they chose to divide by testaments, I don't know, but probably because the name became special.
this is hilarious.
the Majority Text has been around since first Century. 0 - 100 AD up to choosing the Canon Itself and beyond up to 1380s AD
Critical Text was created by Erasmus in 1516 AD
kjv comes out less than 100 hundred years later, using the Critical Text 1611 AD
you don't even know the true history and how the kjv and critical text are less than 100 years in age of each other and connected they are. and that they are barely 400 years old. only been around 400 years. but you're here debating as you do.
...and that is the point.
Consider this:
Num 26:65
For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
Who do you think "the LORD," or "Jehovah," or "Yahweh" is here?
It is the one we know as Jesus.
He is the Rock who was following the children of Israel in their wilderness journeys (1 Corinthians 10:4), and he is the one that the children of Israel were tempting (1 Corinthians 10:9).
In other words, Jesus spoke of Joshua because they are not the same person.
Seeing how they are two completely different people, the context determines which name should be used when translating from Greek to English, and the KJV translators completely blew it in the two passages of scripture which I previously cited from the New Testament.
This is reality...whether you will ever embrace it or not.
Consider:
In Numbers 26:65, the Strong's #H3901 ("Joshua") shows this at BlueLetterBible:
-- https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/num/26/65/t_conc_143065 - וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ יְהוֹשׁוּעַyᵊhôšûaʿ
-- https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3091/kjv/wlc/0-1/ - yᵊhôšûaʿ - Joshua or Jehoshua = "Jehovah is salvation"
[color and underline emphasis mine]
-- and where, under the heading Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, it says this:
"STRONGS H3091: [...] יְהוֺשׁוּעַ, יְהוֺשֻׁעַ and (later) [H3442 יֵשׁוּעַ], proper name, masculine (& location, see 9 below) (י׳ is salvation, or י׳ is opulence, compare אֱלִישָׁע, אֱלִישׁוּעַ, אֲבִישׁוּעַ & NesSK 1892, 573 f.; in any case it came to be associated with ישׁע, compare Matthew 1:21 [...]"
[end quoting from BlueLetterBible]
So... Matthew 1:21 says, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
-- H3901 - Joshua - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/num/26/65/ss1/s_143065 [from Numbers 26:65]
^ Forgot to add this link, from BlueLetterBible -
-- Strong's G2424 ("Jesus") Greek - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2424/kjv/tr/0-1/ [see top box at LINK], where it says, "Of Hebrew origin יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (H3091) "
-- Strong's G2424 ("Jesus") Greek - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2424/kjv/tr/0-1/ [see top box at LINK], where it says, "Of Hebrew origin יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (H3091) "
TYPOS - should read "H3091" ... as elsewhere in my post
[ugh]
No, they chose to use Joshua for all of the old testament and Jesus for all of the new testament. Obviously on purpose, but either way the name is the same. KJV is very confusing at times, but that doesn't make it incorrect.
I agree it's confusing and they should not have divided those names by the testaments, however, the names are 2 translations of the same exact name, making it interchangeable. KJV is confusing, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.