Search Results
6/20/2025, 5:56:00 AM
>>17777786
The Bomberg text is more accurate than the Ben Asher Masoretic text in a number of places in the Old Testament. For example, in Malachi 1:12, the Bomberg text (used by the KJV) has the Tetragrammaton, which is translated LORD in English. The Masoretic text (used by modern versions) from something like Biblia Hebraica and based on Codex Leningradensis, instead has "Adonai" in this verse, which would be translated "Lord."
Another example is Zephaniah 3:15. The KJV's source text is accurate in that it says, "thou shalt not see evil any more." In this verse, modern translations based on the actual Masoretic replace the word "see evil" with "fear evil." That is a completely different meaning and based on different words in Hebrew.
For the New Testament, it is simply true that the KJV is based on better sources of the Received Text. They used Stephanus' text of 1550 and Beza's text of 1598 in almost every place, and other Greek received text editions in a handful of places. They never used the Textus Receptus of 1516, they would never need to.
The Bomberg text is more accurate than the Ben Asher Masoretic text in a number of places in the Old Testament. For example, in Malachi 1:12, the Bomberg text (used by the KJV) has the Tetragrammaton, which is translated LORD in English. The Masoretic text (used by modern versions) from something like Biblia Hebraica and based on Codex Leningradensis, instead has "Adonai" in this verse, which would be translated "Lord."
Another example is Zephaniah 3:15. The KJV's source text is accurate in that it says, "thou shalt not see evil any more." In this verse, modern translations based on the actual Masoretic replace the word "see evil" with "fear evil." That is a completely different meaning and based on different words in Hebrew.
For the New Testament, it is simply true that the KJV is based on better sources of the Received Text. They used Stephanus' text of 1550 and Beza's text of 1598 in almost every place, and other Greek received text editions in a handful of places. They never used the Textus Receptus of 1516, they would never need to.
Page 1