No, just for doing such a lousy job.
Where in God's name was your Greek/English or Greek/German or Greek/anything translation for all those and these years?
Why would Greeks make translations for others?
And now today the Greek Orthodox Church has abandoned that very Greek Text that they gave to the West and that was read in all their Greek lectionaries in all their Greek churches for all those centuries
What a crock! What went into Textus Receptus were two 12th century unreliable Byzantine text-type copies of clopies of copies. only an idiot can consider that reliable. besides, Erasmus used the unreliable Vulgate for those parts of the Bible he couldn't find in Greek. And in one instance he even retro-translated a whole section from Vuglate Latin into his (lousy) Greek and passed it on as the "ancient" Received Text!
the two most corrupt manuscripts in history -- Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus
The Greek Orthodox Church uses Codex Alexandrinus, which is the same text trecived by Erasmus and which is a lot more corrupt than the older 4th century Codices Vaticanus and Sinaitcus, the least "polished" and altered and the oldest, of all other manuscripts. In fact the Received Text are copies of the 12th century copies of the highly "harmonzied" and choregraphed end of 5th century C. Alexandrinus, which has been throughly "Christianized."
What exactly is "corrupt" about the oldest Bibles that's not found in those produced on later versions of "received text?" The whole Bible is one big human corruption—additins, delitions, word swapapings, erasures, changes, scribal errors, you name it.
We are not even close to anything that resembles a "received text," and the Erasmus's book by that name and its KJV deirvative are about as far out on the periphery as it gets.
The Christian world has appreciated the "lousy" job that they did for the last 400 years than the job that the Greeks didn't do at all ---
What a crock! What went into Textus Receptus were two 12th century unreliable Byzantine text-type copies of clopies of copies, only an idiot can consider that reliable.
He lived by that ancient code: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"????
He received a lot of manuscripts from the Greeks but chose only the two most reliable and representative.
besides, Erasmus used the unreliable Vulgate for those parts of the Bible he couldn't find in Greek.
Oh no -- don't tell us that the Greeks actually left words out of their own manuscrripts. God Forbid. Thank God that the Latin retained them.
And in one instance he even retro-translated a whole section from Vuglate Latin into his (lousy) Greek and passed it on as the "ancient" Received Text!
And since he knew Greek and Latin so well, he probably fixed the text for you guys --
Why would Greeks make translations for others?
Why indeed??? They may know Greek, but they sure don't know English. So why are you complaining about an English translation????
The Greek Orthodox Church uses Codex Alexandrinus, which is the same text trecived by Erasmus and which is a lot more corrupt than the older 4th century Codices Vaticanus and Sinaitcus, the least "polished" and altered and the oldest, of all other manuscripts. In fact the Received Text are copies of the 12th century copies of the highly "harmonzied" and choregraphed end of 5th century C. Alexandrinus, which has been throughly "Christianized."
Codex Alexandrinus is a hybrid -- Siniaticus/Vaticanus B [Origen's Hexapla] for the OT, Sinaiticus/Vaticanus B for the Epistles and Acts, but the same as Erasmus' Received Greek Text in the Gospels. And even with that you are not happy!!!!
LOL! "Least altered???"
I guess that might be true. Who needs to "alter" a forgery?
Amazing, isn't it, to think there are some people who actually believe some questionable fragments (still in good shape and thus obviously not widely used or accepted) were "discovered" only a few hundred years ago, and were judged as authentic by the RCC, when they are actually just more intrigue and diversion from Rome.
The Vaticanus and Sinaitcus disagree with each other over 3,000 in the Gospels alone, while all manuscripts of the Textus Receptus agree with each other over 95%!
From the following excellent site...
The Vaticanus was found... in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held..." ""The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament...
And where no man can view the "original," but only "copies" of it distributed by Rome.
You can fool some people some of the time...
A fact Rome has counted on for quite a while.