Doc Savage
New member
bumpity-bump-bump
In regards to the Textus Receptus vs. the Alexandrian/Sinaitic texts, I believe one of the arguments was the age of extant copies of considerable antiquity. Specifically, that the Alexandrian texts were older and should therefore be held as more reliable. The most persuasive argument I heard waas that they still existed because they were so seldom used. Either way, I know the KJV uses Masoretic texts for the OT rather than the Septuagint, which is sometimes used in newer versions. Being a Genesis purist, and seeing how the Septuagint inflates some of the ages in the geneaologies, I use the KJV as my main source and anything else as a reference.
(NOTE: we know the Septuagint ages are inflated simply because they have Methuselah living past the flood date.)
In regards to the Textus Receptus vs. the Alexandrian/Sinaitic texts, I believe one of the arguments was the age of extant copies of considerable antiquity. Specifically, that the Alexandrian texts were older and should therefore be held as more reliable. The most persuasive argument I heard waas that they still existed because they were so seldom used. Either way, I know the KJV uses Masoretic texts for the OT rather than the Septuagint, which is sometimes used in newer versions. Being a Genesis purist, and seeing how the Septuagint inflates some of the ages in the geneaologies, I use the KJV as my main source and anything else as a reference.
(NOTE: we know the Septuagint ages are inflated simply because they have Methuselah living past the flood date.)