18 replies to this topic

[APsit190]

The KJC has only the English with one Greek word

 

the one above splits up the English under the Greek word used 

 

DSaw,

I can see what you are getting at, And I think your idea deserves merit and is a good one.

 

That said, the one thing the official e-Sword edition does, and of which yours does not, is it gives the transliteration of the Greek and Hebrew word. Therefore if you intend to go down this road, then my advise is that also include the transliterated Greek/Hebrew word.

 

Blessings,

[Katoog]

The Beza is said to mach the 1611 KJV  more than any other Greek NT the TR is a good match but the Beze is said to have the least differences

The 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus(TR1894) is closer because it is an attempt to reconstruct the Greek Vorlage for the KJV NT,

Follow by the "Restored Textus Receptus beta" (if you don't count the spelling of David as 59 differences).

 

(There are in 225 verses differences between Stefanus' TR1550 and the TR1894)

http://rhb.altervist...eceptusbeta.zip

see the TR1894VS1550.txt file

 

 

 

Edward F. Hills wrote: "The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9).

But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884),

out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate aginst Beza and Stephanus.

Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also an independent variety of the Textus Receptus" (KJV Defended, p. 220).

Edited by Katoog, 22 October 2014 - 01:49 PM.

[DSaw]

DSaw,

I can see what you are getting at, And I think your idea deserves merit and is a good one.

 

That said, the one thing the official e-Sword edition does, and of which yours does not, is it gives the transliteration of the Greek and Hebrew word. Therefore if you intend to go down this road, then my advise is that also include the transliterated Greek/Hebrew word.

 

Blessings,

 

 

I personally don't see a big need for transliterated Greek 

 

?? why would it be needed

 

The 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus(TR1894) is closer because it is an attempt to reconstruct the Greek Vorlage for the KJV NT,

Follow by the "Restored Textus Receptus beta" (if you don't count the spelling of David as 59 differences).

 

(There are in 225 verses differences between Stefanus' TR1550 and the TR1894)

http://rhb.altervist...eceptusbeta.zip

see the TR1894VS1550.txt file

 

 

 

Edward F. Hills wrote: "The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9).

But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884),

out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate aginst Beza and Stephanus.

Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also an independent variety of the Textus Receptus" (KJV Defended, p. 220).

I highlighted in Blue

 

this is why i used the term "is said to be" Even hill said "it seems"

 

I do not want to study a Greek text that was made to match the KJV I want the text that the KJV was translated from

 

Looking on the web you can find sights that say Beza, some say erasmus one even said LOL westcott hort

 

 

I'm positive that any Greek text published after 1611 definitely not what was used in the translation of the KJV

[DSaw]

The center for the study of Greek new testaments here

 

That is incorrect its

The center for the study of new testament manuscripts

 

 

http://www.csntm.org...estamentumnovum

 

Says this

Testamentum Novum

Publisher: Geneva: Henri Estienne, 1588

Author: Theodore Beza

Theodore Beza (1519–1605), the great French Reformer who succeeded Calvin in Geneva, was an intellectual who produced many literary works. Among his many achievements were his eleven editions of the Greek New Testament. Beza’s text was largely that of Stephanus’ 1551 edition, but he also utilized, though to a very limited degree, both Codex Cantabrigiensis (aka Codex Bezae) and Codex Claromontanus. The first he donated to Cambridge University in 1581, with an accompanying letter that noted that the University would know what to do with such an eccentric manuscript! The second, which he discovered, is now housed at the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris. Beza’s 1598 edition of his Greek New Testament was especially used by the King James translators.

I highlighted blue

Edited by DSaw, 22 October 2014 - 03:00 PM.

[APsit190]

I personally don't see a big need for transliterated Greek 

 

?? why would it be needed

 

 

Hi DSaw,

Most Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries have transliterated text in them, and as seen in e-Sword's official edition, you will see it there. But that is not the actual real reason of why it really is needed. The real reason of why it would be needed is that the overwhelming amount of users are unable to read Greek and Hebrew characters, and as such I believe, its for this reason to be able to read the word, makes it easier to see what that Greek and/or Hebrew word is. Moreover, when it comes to the pronunciation, to be able to see how that Greek/Hebrew word is pronounced, the transliterated form would show that.

 

Of course if most people are able to read and speak Hebrew and Greek, then it be superfluous to include the transliterated form, but as you know and aware, that just isn't the case, and so what you will be doing, is helping them in their road to learning the Hebrew/Greek Text.

 

Another way to put this, if just your average Brother/Sister in Christ see (using your example) this word, πληρωμα, what does it say? It doesn't mean any thing, and not many can read this and etc, and the attitude would come across as, this is as useful as hip-pockets on a t-shirt kind of thing. So, by adding in that extra bit, you are helping to make sense of what is there for your average Brother/Sister in Christ who doesn't read and speak Hebrew or Greek. Moreover, to leave out the Transliterated word, you then narrow and limit the usage of the Dictionary (or in this case, the concordance) only to those who are able to read and speak Greek.

 

Blessings,

Edited by APsit190, 22 October 2014 - 03:01 PM.

[patchworkid]

http://www.biblesupp...tool-nt/page-66
#654 DSaw quoted:
BesT2 does this but this function does not seem to work in Win 8

Hi

have you tried installing BeST2 Premium on Win8?

Thanks

[DSaw]

http://www.biblesupp...tool-nt/page-66
#654 DSaw quoted:
BesT2 does this but this function does not seem to work in Win 8

Hi

have you tried installing BeST2 Premium on Win8?

Thanks

 

Yes I choose the concordance option click on the file icon to load the file but nothing happens

[patchworkid]

Hi DSaw,

does BeST2 Premium install on win 8?
If so, does it open?
Try - convert a module to another type of module . Use version 10x . Drag and drop ... to make version 7.

If you can let me know.

Thanks

[DSaw]

Hi DSaw,

does BeST2 Premium install on win 8?
If so, does it open?
Try - convert a module to another type of module . Use version 10x . Drag and drop ... to make version 7.

If you can let me know.

Thanks

Yes it installs

Yes it opens

 

I tried to convert thinking that the concordance creator needed under 9 gives me a generic window telling all the reason why the file failed 

 

so for me it will not convert, and will not create a concordance