Loading...

Textus Receptus Bibles

Interlinear Bibles

<

Hebrews 7:11

>
 

Greek

Textus Receptus (Scrivener 1894)

ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

Textus Receptus (Elzevir 1624)

ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

Textus Receptus (Beza 1598)

ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550)

ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

Byzantine Majority Text 2000

ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

Byzantine Majority Text (Family 35)

ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

Textus Receptus New Testament Variants

Textus Receptus (TR),
Byzantine Majority Text (BM),
Alexandrian Text (Ax)

ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ Ax αυτης TR/BM αυτη Ax νενομοθετηται TR/BM νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

 

Spanish

Reina Valera 1909

Si pues la perfección era por el sacerdocio Levítico (porque debajo de él recibio el pueblo la ley) ¿qué necesidad había aún de que se levantase otro sacerdote según el orden de Melchîsedec, y que no fuese llamado según el orden de Aarón?

 

English

King James Bible 2016

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (because under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

King James Bible 1769

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

King James Bible 1611

If therefore perfection were by the Leuiticall Priesthood (for vnder it the people receiued the Law) what further neede was there, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not bee called after the order of Aaron?

Green's Literal Translation 1993

Truly, then, if perfection was through the Levitical priestly office (for the people had been given Law under it), why yet need for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

Julia E. Smith Translation 1876

If truly therefore completion were by the Levitical priesthood, (for the people received legislation by it,) what further need according to the order of Melchisedec for another priest to be raised, and not according to the order of Aaron?

Young's Literal Translation 1862

If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood -- for the people under it had received law -- what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

Revised Young's Literal NT 2000

Webster's Bible 1833

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Bishops Bible 1568

If therefore perfection was by the priesthood of ye Leuites (For vnder that priesthood the people receaued the law) what neded it furthermore that another priest shoulde rise after the order of Melchisedech, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?

Geneva Bible 1560/1599

If therefore perfection had bene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites (for vnder it the Lawe was established to the people) what needed it furthermore, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchi-sedec, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?

The Great Bible 1539

If now therfore perfeccion came by the presthod of the Leuytes (for vnder that presthod the people receaued the lawe) what neded it furthermore, that another prest shuld ryse to be called after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aaron?

Matthew's Bible 1537

Yf nowe therfore perfeccyon came by the priesthode of the Leuytes (for vnder that presthode the people receyueth the lawe) what nedeth furthermore that another prieste shoulde aryse after the ordre of Melchisedech, and not after the ordre of Aaron?

Coverdale Bible 1535

Yf now therfore perfeccion came by the presthode of the Leuites (for vnder the same (presthode) the people receaued the lawe) what neded it then furthurmore, that another prest shulde ryse after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aar

Tyndale Bible 1534

Yf now therfore perfeccion came by the presthod of the levites (for vnder that presthod the people recaved the lawe) what neded it furthermore that an other prest shuld ryse after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron?

Wycliffe Bible 1382

Therfor if perfeccioun was bi the preesthood of Leuy, for vndur hym the puple took the lawe, what yit was it nedeful, another preest to rise, bi the ordre of Melchisedech, and not to be seid bi the ordre of Aaron?

English Majority Text Version 2009

Therefore, if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), why is there yet a need [for] another priest to rise, according to the order of Melchizedek, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

 

The King James Version 2016 Edition is copyright © 2016 by Textus Receptus PTY. LTD.
Used by permission. All rights reserved. Further details

Green's Literal Translation (LITV). Copyright 1993 by Jay P. Green Sr.
All rights reserved. Jay P. Green Sr., Lafayette, IN. U.S.A. 47903.
Permission to non-commercially distribute freely