“Next, what is meant by the term, “Received Text”? This name was first applied to a printed Greek text only as late as 1633, or almost 120 years after the first published Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. In 1633, the Elzevirs of Leyden published the second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher’s “blurb”: textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, or, “therefore you have the text now received by all,” from which the term textus receptus, or received text was taken, and applied collectively and retroactively to the series of published Greek New Testaments extending from 1516 to 1633 and beyond.
Most notable among the many editors of Greek New Testaments in this period were Erasmus (5 editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), Robert Estienne a.k.a. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624,1633, 1641).
These many Greek texts display a rather close general uniformity, a uniformity based on the fact that all these texts are more or less reprints of the text(s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations. These texts were not independently compiled by the many different editors on the basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are genealogically-related.
Proof of this is to be found in a number of “unique” readings in Erasmus’ texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. One of these is the reading “book of life” in Revelation 22:19. All known Greek manuscripts here read “tree of life” instead of “book of life” as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading “book of life” come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read “book of life,” unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a “unique” Greek reading into his text.
Since the first and only “source” for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any Greek New Testament that agrees with Erasmus here must have been simply copied from his text. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus’ text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read “tree of life.” Numerous other unique or extremely rare readings in the textus receptus editions could be referenced...
...None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In a very real sense, the very question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the textus receptus, is passe, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text...”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html
What does the NASB use?
“GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.”
“In most instances”
What about the ESV?
“The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.”
Please notice both of them know the difference between “kill” and “murder”, and neither uses “the deliberately corrupt Hort-Westcott Greek manipulation”.
And if I need to choose between the integrity and scholarship of the folks who made the NASB and ESV translations, and the Internet posters editor-surveyor & af_vet_1981...well, guess who I think is better qualified?
I conclude from these comments that modern Baptists do not believe the same doctrine of Inerrancy of the Scriptures as their Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren. Given the doctrine of Sola Scriptura I think they have irreconcilable differences. Those who believe in the holy catholic apostolic church do not have this problem.
I’m well aware of the manipulation that has gone on, starting mostly with Eusebius adding verse 4 to John ch 6, and moving on from there.
But the real manipulation was when the NT writings were translated from Hebrew, to Aramaic, and then centuries later, to Greek.
It is abundantly obvious that the translators that gave us the Greek MS had no knowledge of the traditions that Yeshua and his apostles lived by, and had mostly used the LXX as a translation “Rosetta Stone” to achieve their wobbly texts’ translations. This process is what gave us the Koine style that all Greeks swear is not Greek, and barely understandable ‘babblefish’ gobledygook.
Trying to assume that the Greek mess was the original language is the source of much of the confusion we see today. This is why it can look like Paul contradicts himself from chapter to chapter in Romans. To the Greek translators, one Hebrew feast is the same as another, and so it was of no importance to correctly identify them in the texts.
They also constantly conflated Hebrews with Jews, not having the slightest realization that they are two separate halves of the original nation of Israel.
Prayer is the only way through any version of the NT that will bring understanding.