Then what lies between fragment and manuscript?
My I suggest a fragment is
one leaf or less and a manuscript is more than one leaf?

I consider that too generous, but then that's just my opinion.
Does the scholarly community have a standard or is the whole
appelation pretty loose?

I think Kurt Aland used 10 folios or less as a fragment,

and Anything larger
than 10 folios to be a manuscripts. But I don't know if there is a universal
standard.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:11:44 -0500, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
yodeled:

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:85r2n0hi5dgg3jchhe1fmadi0oamodu3kt@4ax.com...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:28:27 -0500, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

If one is going to compare Greek manuscripts ,

That isn't the exercise.

Perhaps so, but it should be the exercise. Comparing the English

of the King James of 1611 with the English New King James of the late

century if fatuous and futile because they are translations of more or

common sources. Obviously (or at least it should be) one must compare

texts from which these two translations were made.

Isn't this your assertion? "Then why doesn't the KJV follow the majority
texts? The KJV differs from the majority texts in more than 300 places."

believe those are your words. Or do you allege someone else is using

identity to post? My reply is contingent upon the supposition that those
are your words. If they are not your words, I apologize and retract my
statements.

Obviously, since the Majority texts you allude to are in Greek and the

and NKJV are in English, a comparison between the two English

is impossible unless one first knows what texts or manuscripts are being
translated from. Were the KJV and NKJV translated from common Greek

and manuscripts? You might exercise some care in your answer, because
despite searching for some years, I have never found a list of the Greek
sources for the KJV of 1611. If you know of such a list, please post it

a reference to it. Generalities such as the KJV was translated from

Receptus or the Majority text are meaningless, because there is no set

for Textus Receptus. If you believe there is such a standard text,

inform me where I may obtain a copy, can you? I own a Stephanus text of
1550, an Elzevir text of 1624, and a Byzantine Greek Orthodox text of

and I can find slight differences among these on nearly every page.

I believe the KJV used the Scrivener's.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury/


"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17


/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17


"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation. Both are concepts
which believers know to be true, but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.
- L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life

I see, circular arguments,

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:44:38 -0400, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, "chaz" <chaznsc@yahoo.com>
yodeled:

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:82jvm05tr6jisosnsh5ltqi71r8lv3rjra@4ax.com...

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:39:08 -0400, "chaz" <chaznsc@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes, all 300 of them. I am a firm beleiver when you say something,

back

it up, not just, well I heard this or I think that. I would like to

see

the

300 references. It was my understanding (which may be shallow) that

the

KJV

was translated using the TR.

So go buy a NKJV
If you think I'm going to spend my time hunting down and typing in
over 300 footnotes to satisfy your suspicions, you're wrong.

It doesnt sound like you actually "know" there are 300, you perhaps

that.

Perhaps I own a NKJV. Did you think of that?

My buying a NKJV doesnt prove a thing.

Howso? That's the reference.

You said there are 300, all I wanted
to know was where they are.

In the NKJV dolt!

Why am I a dolt? I have asked a question based on your claim. My reading

NKJV isnt going to answer my question. Do you specifically know the 300
instances or is it something you believe?

curios minds want to know :)

Well that's the problem. John thinks he can judge who
understands theology, who is a real pastor (he
continually accuses me of being a fake), etc.. He also
claim to know things that went on in Jesus' head. He
has shown his ignorance here, by thinking that the
footnotes in an NKJV is somehow the leading edge of
scholarly work. He doesn't know where these 300
examples are.

He just read it on some atheist web
page, or in some book that trashes the Bible, but never
backs up it's claims and then saw a couple of footnotes
in the NKJV

and now thinks he is a great scholar of our
day.
He determines who in the world is a real
Christian and who isn't and which texts are valid and
which aren't, all the way, hand waving away any proof
you provide and/or any refutation of his claims and
then begins a personal attack. He admits to doing it
and claims it's part of debates, such as what one might
watch. You'll never get a straight answer, nor an
admission out of him.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury/


"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17


/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17


"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation. Both are concepts
which believers know to be true, but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.
- L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life

Well that's the problem. John thinks he can judge who
understands theology,

who is a real pastor (he
continually accuses me of being a fake),

etc.. He also claim to know things that went on in Jesus' head.

He
has shown his ignorance here, by thinking that the
footnotes in an NKJV is somehow the leading edge of
scholarly work.

He doesn't know where these 300 examples are.

He just read it on some atheist web
page, or in some book that trashes the Bible, but never
backs up it's claims and then saw a couple of footnotes
in the NKJV and now thinks he is a great scholar of our
day.

He determines who in the world is a real
Christian and who isn't

and which texts are valid and
which aren't, all the way, hand waving away any proof
you provide

and/or any refutation of his claims and
then begins a personal attack. He admits to doing it
and claims it's part of debates, such as what one might
watch.

You'll never get a straight answer, nor an
admission out of him.

This is why I trust the KJV . It was a translation
done from the Majority Texts

Then why doesn't the KJV follow the majority texts? The KJV differs
from the majority texts in more than 300 places. For instance Acts
9:5-6, Luke 17:36 , Acts 8:37 and Acts 15:34 would not appear if the
KJV agreed with the majority. Nor would a good part of your John 5:7-8

It depends on which Majority Texts you are discussing.

Pastor, you are a hoot! You really are! There can only be one
majority! That's what makes it the majority!

I thought you were smarter than that. Here you go...

"which OF the Majority Texts..."

There are some differences, although they don't amount
to any doctrinal changes. Usually the spelling of a
town, etc.. No big deal. The TR is part of the
Majority Texts. It is the Received Text.

And the KJV differs from it in more than 300 places.

You are making a ridiculous claim. Differs from what?
The TR is part of the Majority Texts.

The reality is, you promote these newer texts, which
should be all the indication we need, to know that they
are not of God.

"not of God" being fundy talk for "doesn't agree with our theology".

Your theology is to hate God.