Religions > Bible > Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"chaz" |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2004 11:22:31 AM |
| Object: |
Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
Can someone point me to a resource that lists the major bible versions, and
the original "texts" they are derived from? For instance, i know that the
KJV is based on the texus receptus (sp)
Thanks
chaz
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
14 Oct 2004 03:14:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:22:31 -0400, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, "chaz" <chaznsc@yahoo.com>
yodeled:
Can someone point me to a resource that lists the major bible versions, and
the original "texts" they are derived from? For instance, i know that the
KJV is based on the texus receptus (sp)
Links after message.
Almost all modern versions of the Bible are based on
the Alexandrian Texts and they are worthy of your time
and research, if you're going to read a version based
on them. And modern English versions are NOT based on
the same texts as the KJV and a few others (which is
based on the Majority Texts), so don't let anyone tell
you that they are. I would suggest that you carefully
investigate these texts for yourself.
The biggest argument that these "pro-Alexandrian"
people use, is that they are older. Their next
statement (and you have to watch carefully), is that
they are "more reliable". Why? They answer, "because
they are older". That's right, that's all there is to
the "older and more reliable" argument that they use.
There is NO other basis for their "more reliable"
statement. None. It is a circular argument.
The fact remains, that in the way old days, copies were
made by hand (quite a process of copy and error
checking, which took years) and you had some "master
copies", for lack of a better term. More copies were
made off of these, etc., etc., until you had many
copies floating around. The problem is, that you can
only roll and unroll a scroll just so many times,
before it wears out and you can't use it anymore. But
that's ok, because you have EXACT copies. But even
these wear out, after a while, due to being opened and
read, or more copies being made from them.
Now while people like to make the claim that textual
errors crept into these copies, the fact is, that they
were checked by many and if even one little error was
found, the whole thing was thrown away and they would
have to start again. Once again, you should really
look into this process and how careful they actually
were. I'm not saying every scribe was perfect, but the
fact remains, that the Majority Texts have over 5,000
copies in existence and all agree 98% of the time and
as for the other two percent, it is a matter of the
spelling of a word, or the name of a town changed,
etc.. No doctrinal changes.
Anyway, it is the texts that were used, that would keep
wearing out and therefore, you would have newer copies
in existence, not way ancient ones. If you have a very
old copy, such as the Alexandrian Texts, that doesn't
tell you that it is a more reliable set of texts, but
rather, that they weren't being used. Therefore, they
still exist. Bear in mind, at that point in history,
they did not have the same excitement about
"originals", as we do today (probably because they had
no way to mass produce and retain them). Scribes were
so meticulous, that a certified copy was considered the
same as the original. When an original would wear out,
it was destroyed. Is it a surprise then, that the most
used texts would have copies that are for the most part
newer (although there are a few very ancient fragments
around and they do agree with the Majority Texts).
As for the Alexandrian Texts in question, they are NOT
many, but ONLY TWO texts.
The Vaticanus: Found in the Vatican Library, in 1481.
Omits Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106
through 138; Matthew 16:2-3; the Pauline Pastoral
Epistles, Hebrews 9:14 through 13:35 and the whole book
of Revelation. The Vaticanus does contain the
Apocrypha (red flag).
The Sinaiticus: This manuscript from which your NIV,
NASB, PHILLIPS, and almost every other modern version
you can think of besides the King James, the New King
James (for the most part), the LITV, the MKJV and the
ALT Bibles, was found in St. Catherine's Monastery near
Mt. Sinai in 1844 by Tischendorf. It was in a trash
pile and was about to be used to light the fireplace.
It contained nearly all the New Testament plus the
"Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas".
Red flag! Hello? :)
I won't even get into the erasure marks and changes
over the years, by different hands, even as late as the
12th century. Let us remember though, that these two
texts differ from each other in about 3,000 places in
the Gospels alone and I am not discussing spelling
errors and one of them (the Vaticanus) agrees with the
Majority Texts, instead of the other text (the
Sinaiticus), yet they use the Sinaiticus text.
The reality is, out of the available texts, almost all
modern versions are based almost completely on one
text, which is the one that disagrees most with the
Majority Texts and even other Alexandrian Texts.
Wescott and Hort promoted these Alexandrian Texts and
Hort worked on them. It is wise to examine what they
believed.
Hort:
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.
There are, I fear, still more serious differences
between us on the subject of authority, and especially
the authority of the Bible."
"But the book that has most engaged me is Darwin. My
feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship
and Jesus-worship have very much in common."
"But you know that I am a staunch sacerdotalist."
"I am inclined to think that such a state as Eden (I
mean the popular notion) never existed."
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and
material counterfeit."
"The Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to
lead to the truth than the Evangelical. We dare not
forsake the sacraments, or God will forsake us."
Wescott:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry
bears witness."
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three
chapters of Genesis, for example, gives a literal
history."
Hmmmm.... Interesting comments, huh?
So, I guess it all comes down to asking when God told
us to go to Egypt for His word. Egypt has always been
represented in Scripture as being evil, never of God.
Yes folks, the people have been deceived by these
texts, but it is no wonder. After all.....
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into
an angel of light." - 2 Corinthians 11:14
The argument of many people translating from them into
Bibles today, isn't valid at all. Many churches teach
false doctrine. Should we imitate them?
Now some may not agree with the Bible. But you must
admit that those who claim to be Christian should agree
with the Bible and therefore, when someone who
disagrees strongly with the Bible and is obviously
biased, is doing the translation, that should send up a
red flag. And when those who are biased against the
Bible and disagree with it, are actually promoting a
set of texts, that should send up a huge red flag. I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
This is why I trust the KJV . It was a translation
done from the Majority Texts ((there are other good
ones based on the Majority Texts) and accomplished by
47 scholars, who fluently spoke, read and wrote an
average of 11 languages each. Remember, they didn't
have a TV in those days, to take up their time and warp
their minds. :) They actually spent their time
studying and learning. And their work is impeachable
to this day. Even though many attack it, they do so
using the corrupt Alexandrian Texts and I'm sorry, but
that just doesn't cut it.
What you must do, is stop looking at this issue as
someone who understands the doctrines of Christianity
and imagine that you had never read the Bible at all
and were by yourself, reading it. What would your
image of Jesus be, considering that many of these
modern translations, based on the Alexandrian Texts,
omit words. For example, where the KJV used, "Lord
Jesus Christ" (which is in the Majority Texts, which
are over 5,000 copies strong), the Alexandrian version
will just say, "Jesus". Now that could change the
picture in the person's mind from the Lord which we
worship, to just a way cool teacher, could it not?
Look at the following example, in Matthew 1:25:
The KJV states that Mary gave birth to "her firstborn",
which tells you that she had other children.
The NIV simply says that she gave birth to "a son".
There's quite a difference there, since that leaves the
door open to a different belief regarding what the
Catholics call the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and
you might be influenced by a Roman Catholic priest
telling you that Mary was a "perpetual virgin". Again,
don't consider what you already know, but rather,
pretend that you don't know anything yet and are just
learning.
Remember, that if someone wants to make a counterfeit
copy of the texts, it has to be very close to the
original, or everyone will know right away that it is a
counterfeit. Why the omissions of the words, "Lord"
and "Christ" in many of these versions?
Remember, rat poison isn't all poison. It's mostly
good food (99% or more), with a very small percentage
of poison. Otherwise, the rat wouldn't eat it. Think
about that.
I guess what it boils down to for me, is that I would
rather take the time to learn the Elizabethan English
and go with what I know is a trustworthy version, based
on trustworthy texts and raise my level of education,
than to dumb down the Bible, to my current level of
education. After all, don't we applaud our children,
if they learn Shakespeare, saying it is a beautiful
English? Yet, when it comes to the Bible, older
English is a bad thing? That's hypocrisy.
Also, let us understand that with Elizabethan English,
the text of the original is more clear for us. For
example, in the KJV, you know when someone is speaking
to one person, or more than one. If it starts with a
"T" (thee, thou, thine), they are speaking to one
person. A "Y" means that more than one person is being
addressed (ye). Also, modern English can't carry over
the inflections in the original language, as well as
the Elizabethan English can.
There are other options though. I would research
different modern English translations and see what
they're based on, if a modern English version is what I
wanted.
I am not a "KJV only" person. I just haven't found
many modern English versions that I would consider
trustworthy and when dealing with God's word, I think
we had all better be very careful about which version
we choose to read. After all, this is God's written
word to mankind we are dealing with. It is of the
utmost importance!
I'm also not into beating anyone over the head, to try
to force them to see it as I do. But I do provide the
information, when someone discusses Bible versions.
You know what amazes me? We wouldn't let a preacher
get up and preach, who doesn't believe the Bible, or
teaches that evolution, as Darwin stated it, is how we
got here, or teaches against the deity of Christ, yet,
we line up and can't wait to get our copy of the Bible,
that was translated by Wescott and Hort, or from the
Nestle/Aland Greek Texts (which are based on the
Alexandrian Texts), or the UBS texts, or other people
and texts of this type and many words are left out,
including references to the deity of Christ and the
translators even reword the Creation account, to say,
"a day", instead of "the first day", or put notes at
the bottom, claiming it doesn't mean an actual day and
claim that it actually means "a span of time". Since
when is it a good thing to promote anti-Biblical
philosophy, within the Bible itself and reword it to
suit our own purposes? The fact that this is done, is
exactly that... a fact and yet, not only do these
Bibles sell like crazy, but Christians actually defend
them.
The fact that most people use them, these days, is
irrelevant. After all, look at how many were deceived
by Satan, even in the first century church. Most
people follow him. According to the logic of most
people being supportive of these texts (or supporting
the modern English versions translated from them), if I
were to follow him, I should be able to ask you why
you're not, since most people are.
Now, if you want proof of the influence of these
"modern day" Bibles, then start to question people on
what they believe (not stemming from this topic, so
you'll get an honest and unguarded response). I think
you will find that the majority of KJV users believe in
a literal Creation and believe the Bible to be the word
of God. I think you'll also find that most of the
"modern day" Bible users, question the Creation account
and hold a belief in evolution and that it was started
by God and don't think of a number of things in the
Bible as literally true. You see, the word of God has
been watered down enough, to where you could come to
that conclusion, in those versions. Now if that
doesn't tell you what you need to know, then what will?
As for me, I'll stick with what I know I can trust.
To put a final nail in the coffin of these modern
translations, let us have a look see at a couple of
verses that have been claimed to be contradictions by
many, using the KJV and the NIV as an example for
comparison. The argument is over whether Solomon had
forty thousands stalls, or four thousand stalls. You
see, the editors of the NIV decided that since they
believed that there was a scribal error there, that the
wording should be changed and so they "corrected" and
reworded it (as many modern translations have done).
They admitted this, so there is no dispute about that.
The reality is, that there was no contradiction to
begin with and careful reading of the KJV shows that to
be the case.
While at first it does appear to be a contradiction, it
isn't and the KJV is an accurate, literal translation
from the original Hebrew and not a "correct the Hebrew
version", in which translators sought to correct the
supposed scribal errors for them, as did the NIV.
Let's look at the relevant verses first, in the KJV.
"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for
his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
- 1 Kings 4:26 KJV
"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he
bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at
Jerusalem." - 2 Chronicles 9:25 KJV
Note the wording of 1 Kings 4:26. It says that Solomon
had (read carefully now and pay attention to the caps),
"forty thousand stalls of horses FOR his chariots".
Now, that means that he had forty thousand stalls that
would each hold one horse. It doesn't say how many
stalls he had total, nor does it say how many chariots
he had. He did have for each horse a stall though.
And he had forty thousand horses, it appears. Okay,
let's move on.
Now we read 2 Chronicles 9:25. It says that Solomon
had, "four thousands stalls for horses AND chariots".
Note that this is an entirely different statement. It
doesn't talk about stalls for his horses, but rather,
stalls for his horses when tied to a chariot.
Now when we think of a chariot, we think of one horse,
one chariot. In reality, larger chariots were used to
go into battle, each of which held ten men and was
pulled by ten horses. That means that four thousand
chariots had ten horses each, which is forty thousand
horses tied to four thousand chariots, requiring four
thousand stalls for the time in which the horses were
connected to the chariots. Since you have forty
thousand horses, when they were not connected to the
chariots, you would need forty thousand smaller stalls
for them, which would mean "forty thousand stalls of
horses FOR his chariots". That is a total of forty
four thousand stalls (forty thousand smaller stalls for
just horses and four thousand larger stalls for when
his horses were tied to his chariots), not a total of
forty thousand and not a total of four thousand and it
makes perfect sense, is logical and no contradiction is
found in the text.
Now let's read the "corrected" version in the NIV.
"Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses,
and twelve thousand horses." - 1 Kings 4:26 NIV
"Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in
the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem."
- 2 Chronicles 9:25 NIV
Now take careful note of the wording. First of all,
they changed it so both (1 Kings 4:26 & 2 Chr 9:25)
read, "four thousand", calling it a scribal error.
That change is the due to the translators of the NIV.
And notice that it reads, "twelve thousand horses",
instead of, "twelve thousand horsemen". That item is
due to the corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.
Also note that the word in 2 Chr 9:25 was changed from
"horsemen", to "horses". Also, the part about, "and
with the king" is omitted. These items are due to the
corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.
In the NIV, for example, it is obvious that there are
indeed contradictions and when you have people reading
a Bible with contradictions, due to corruption and
intentional word changing on the part of the
translators, it is no surprise that they would begin to
doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible and we all know
where that eventually leads. They are forced to make
excuses for the text and come up with crazy
explanations, that atheists know better than to accept
and it eats away at the believer, little by little.
Doubt festers, unless PROPERLY dealt with and that can
only be done with truth and not with crazy
explanations, or by stating that there are "scribal
errors", etc. If there's a scribal error there, where
else is there one?
So as you can see, it is versions like this (along with
translators who don't believe in the faithfulness of
the word of God and who think that somehow, for the
almost two thousand years before the discovery of these
Alexandrian Texts, that man did not have the true word
of God), that cause much of the divisions that you hear
of and see today.
Ever notice that now, instead of hearing, "Well, my
understanding of this passage is as follows...", that
instead, what you hear is...
"Well, my Bible says..."
"Oh really? Well, my Bible says..."
"Oh, really? Gee, my Bible doesn't say that at all."
"Hey, my Bible doesn't even have that verse."
How are Christian Bible students supposed to deal with
different Bibles, in the same Bible study,
contradicting each other? Maybe this doesn't seem like
a big deal to you, but who is to decide what is
important and what is not? How much corruption and
contradiction is okay with you, if any is? Let me tell
you something, if there is even one error in the Bible,
then I give up. I'm throwing it away. A God who
cannot keep His word straight and is subject to the
whimsies of man, is no God at all. He can create the
heaven and the Earth and raise His Son from the dead
and cannot keep His word straight? Please! Think
about it. I, for one, cannot believe in a set of
texts, calling them God's word, while they contradict
themselves. Either His word is true, period, or it is
not, period. I believe it is pure and using the KJV, I
have not run across one single supposed contradiction
that I have not been able to resolve, with proper
study. In the example I gave above, from the NIV,
there is an unresolvable contradiction.
And do you now think that no corruption of God's word
is contained in these modern versions? If you still
do, go into your NIV (if you use one, or have one) and
post here for me, Acts 8:37. Go ahead, I dare ya. :)
These are but a couple of examples. The list goes on
and on, believe me. And it isn't just the NIV, it's
many. I use the NIV as an example, because it is
probably the most popular of the modern English
versions.
So there are my arguments, based both on scientific
data and on theological thought. Hope this helps. As
for me, I'll stick with my trustworthy KJV, which has
always served me well and has never contradicted
itself, nor left out a verse. As I said, there are
modern English versions based on the Majority Texts. I
simply have not read those versions cover to cover and
can't speak for every verse, but they appear to be very
well done.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/aremodern.htm
http://thelordjesus.com/Majority%20Text/Translations.htm
http://thelordjesus.com/Majority%20Text/Alexandrian%20Texts.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04085a.htm
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/corrupt.htm
http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
--
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
14 Oct 2004 04:54:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:14:10 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
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
The real objection folks like our phony pastor have to the new
translations is that the texts they treasure were the basis of the
only Bibles there were in translation for many decades, and a lot of
theology has grown up around those translations. The mistranslation of
the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning 'young woman' resulted in the Virgin
Mary myth for instance. Now the new translations are chafing their
theology. So they're squawking like seagulls and pedaling sophistries
like "it's older because it wasn't used".
## Remember, history is written by the victors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
14 Oct 2004 05:01:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:54:31 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John Ings
<nodamned@spam.org> yodeled:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:14:10 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
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.
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.
The real objection folks like our phony pastor have to the new
translations is that the texts they treasure were the basis of the
only Bibles there were in translation for many decades, and a lot of
theology has grown up around those translations. The mistranslation of
the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning 'young woman' resulted in the Virgin
Mary myth for instance. Now the new translations are chafing their
theology. So they're squawking like seagulls and pedaling sophistries
like "it's older because it wasn't used".
The reality is, you promote these newer texts, which
should be all the indication we need, to know that they
are not of God.
--
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
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
16 Oct 2004 12:58:06 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emttm0ppu6jnig7rr8o71jm85pcpg1hd8j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:54:31 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John Ings
<nodamned@spam.org> yodeled:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:14:10 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
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.
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.
Textus Receptus is not a manuscript at all, but rather the earliest printed
Greek texts. Manuscripts by definition are hand written, not printed on
presses. And even though the various editions of Textus Receptus were
printed, these contain thousands of minor differences. If indeed Textus
Recptus is so authoritative, why did Erasmus, for example, feel the need to
produce five separate editions of his Greek New Testament? Why did
Stephanus produce multiple, slightly differing editions? If Textus Receptus
is so theologically perfect, why are there so many imperfect variants?
Compare any edition by Erasmus, any edition by Stephanus, and any edition by
the Elzevirs, and see for yourself.
The real objection folks like our phony pastor have to the new
translations is that the texts they treasure were the basis of the
only Bibles there were in translation for many decades, and a lot of
theology has grown up around those translations. The mistranslation of
the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning 'young woman' resulted in the Virgin
Mary myth for instance. Now the new translations are chafing their
theology. So they're squawking like seagulls and pedaling sophistries
like "it's older because it wasn't used".
The reality is, you promote these newer texts,
"[N]ewer texts"? Don't you mean the oldest manuscripts? What is the oldest
manuscript containing any reading unique to the Byzantine family of
manuscripts? Kindly provide a manuscript and verse as evidence, as that is
the only meaningful authoritative source.
which
should be all the indication we need, to know that they
are not of God.
Which edition of Textus Receptus is "of God"? Was it the first edition of
Erasmus? How about the fourth? Was it the first or second by Stephanus?
Since they all contain differences, either the word of God must be imperfect
or only one edition of Textus Receptus can possibly be "of God."
You King James only guys are an endless source of entertainment and illogic.
Please, never stop posting.
--
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
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
17 Oct 2004 09:11:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:58:06 -0500, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
yodeled:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emttm0ppu6jnig7rr8o71jm85pcpg1hd8j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:54:31 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John Ings
<nodamned@spam.org> yodeled:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:14:10 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
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.
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.
Textus Receptus is not a manuscript at all, but rather the earliest printed
Greek texts.
I didn't say it was *A* text. You are making an
argument against a position I do not hold.
Manuscripts by definition are hand written, not printed on
presses. And even though the various editions of Textus Receptus were
printed, these contain thousands of minor differences. If indeed Textus
Recptus is so authoritative, why did Erasmus, for example, feel the need to
produce five separate editions of his Greek New Testament? Why did
Stephanus produce multiple, slightly differing editions? If Textus Receptus
is so theologically perfect, why are there so many imperfect variants?
Compare any edition by Erasmus, any edition by Stephanus, and any edition by
the Elzevirs, and see for yourself.
You are trying to make the TR sound bad, so that the
corrupt Alexandrian Texts you like so much will sound
good.
The fact is, that revisions are made, because people
after the original writers can make mistakes,
especially considering we do not have scribes today,
who viewed the work as a sacred thing, counting
letters, forward and backward and scrapping entire
works over a single mistake anymore.
The fact is, that in the Majority Texts, there are
differences, but none that affect doctrine. Sometimes
something is spelled differently, the name of a town is
different, because the name had changed between copies,
etc.. It isn't a big deal. You are trying to compare
that with text that has many, many differences and does
change doctrine and includes heretical and gnostic
works and you want us to favor that. Sorry, no dice.
The real objection folks like our phony pastor have to the new
translations is that the texts they treasure were the basis of the
only Bibles there were in translation for many decades, and a lot of
theology has grown up around those translations. The mistranslation of
the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning 'young woman' resulted in the Virgin
Mary myth for instance. Now the new translations are chafing their
theology. So they're squawking like seagulls and pedaling sophistries
like "it's older because it wasn't used".
The reality is, you promote these newer texts,
"[N]ewer texts"? Don't you mean the oldest manuscripts? What is the oldest
manuscript containing any reading unique to the Byzantine family of
manuscripts? Kindly provide a manuscript and verse as evidence, as that is
the only meaningful authoritative source.
You do not have a complete New Testament that dates
back that far and we both know it. The fact is, the
Greek texts you love so much, are based on a finds made
recently in history, that have some serious problems
and were promoted by Wescott and Hort, who held
heretical beliefs. The works today are based on these
texts and on Hort's work. That is a fact.
which
should be all the indication we need, to know that they
are not of God.
Which edition of Textus Receptus is "of God"? Was it the first edition of
Erasmus? How about the fourth? Was it the first or second by Stephanus?
Since they all contain differences, either the word of God must be imperfect
or only one edition of Textus Receptus can possibly be "of God."
You King James only guys are an endless source of entertainment and illogic.
Please, never stop posting.
Again, you argue against something I never said. Quote
me saying that I'm KJV only.
The problem here, is that you hold up a phantom and
argue against that, to try to trash me and then attempt
to get people to ignore the solid facts in my argument,
based on your attempt to make them think that I'm
attacking them, because they don't use the KJV only.
--
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
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
17 Oct 2004 10:35:47 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vu4n017ac53est96vo88pcjlfh07ocllc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:58:06 -0500, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
yodeled:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emttm0ppu6jnig7rr8o71jm85pcpg1hd8j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:54:31 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John Ings
<nodamned@spam.org> yodeled:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:14:10 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
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.
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.
Textus Receptus is not a manuscript at all, but rather the earliest
printed
Greek texts.
I didn't say it was *A* text. You are making an
argument against a position I do not hold.
Then who wrote these words? "The TR is part of the Majority Texts. It is
the Received Text."
Manuscripts by definition are hand written, not printed on
presses. And even though the various editions of Textus Receptus were
printed, these contain thousands of minor differences. If indeed Textus
Recptus is so authoritative, why did Erasmus, for example, feel the need
to
produce five separate editions of his Greek New Testament? Why did
Stephanus produce multiple, slightly differing editions? If Textus
Receptus
is so theologically perfect, why are there so many imperfect variants?
Compare any edition by Erasmus, any edition by Stephanus, and any edition
by
the Elzevirs, and see for yourself.
You are trying to make the TR sound bad, so that the
corrupt Alexandrian Texts you like so much will sound
good.
Not at all. The variant and different Greek words in the various texts that
all tend to go by the name Textus Receptus hereabouts are either in the
various texts or they are not. I compared certain of these various texts
that go by the nomen Textus Receptus. The differences are there. If you
don't care to believe me, go and look for yourself. It so happens that
there are many differences or errors or mistakes between various exemplars
and editions of Textus Receptus, and that is irrefutable fact.
These variations were present centuries before I was born, so I can hardly
be held responsible for the many differences or errors or mistakes in those
texts. It does not matter what I do or do not do, or whether I do or do not
make "the TR sound bad." The evidence is on the pages. I have no control
over what Eramus or Stephanus or Elzevir or the other men who produced
variations of Textus Receptus printed.
The fact is that there are variants among the various versions of Textus
Receptus. Can you refute that factual and true statement using textual
evidence?
The fact is that there are variants among every member of the Byzantine
family of manuscripts. Can you refute that factual and true statement using
manuscript evidence?
I neither like nor dislike any family of manuscripts. I merely study them
from time to time.
The fact is, that revisions are made, because people
after the original writers can make mistakes,
especially considering we do not have scribes today,
who viewed the work as a sacred thing, counting
letters, forward and backward and scrapping entire
works over a single mistake anymore.
I did not refer to any manuscripts of "today." The most recent I mentioned
was the Elzevir of 1624. Besides, modern computerized printing plants make
far more reliable and accurate copies than any scribe.
And you cannot produce a single source from either antiquity or the Medieval
period that describes any manuscript being destroyed because of a single
error. I invite you to do so.
The fact is, that in the Majority Texts, there are
differences, but none that affect doctrine. Sometimes
something is spelled differently, the name of a town is
different, because the name had changed between copies,
etc.. It isn't a big deal. You are trying to compare
that with text that has many, many differences and does
change doctrine and includes heretical and gnostic
works and you want us to favor that. Sorry, no dice.
I merely provided irrefutable evidence from within two differing versions of
Textus Receptus. And I can provide hundreds more from within just the 1550
Stephanus and 1624 Elzevir texts. I never so much as mentioned any other
manuscripts, nor did I compare Textus Receptus with any ancient manuscripts.
Stop your vague assertions concerning "many, many differences." Let's
compare various versions of Textus Receptus, count the differences, and then
post them here. Then if you wish to compare those results from the variants
of Textus Receptus with another group or sub group of manuscripts within
other manuscript families, I am more than happy to do so.
I don't care at all what does or does not impact doctrine, as there are
thousands of variants of doctrine within Christianity. So manuscript
variations that fit one doctrine are sometimes heresy to another. Specific
Greek words are on the pages of these texts and manuscripts in a certain
order or they are not. That has nothing to do with doctrine. In fact, one
may spend many profitable hours examining and comparing manuscripts
blissfully unconcerned with doctrinal variants.
The real objection folks like our phony pastor have to the new
translations is that the texts they treasure were the basis of the
only Bibles there were in translation for many decades, and a lot of
theology has grown up around those translations. The mistranslation of
the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning 'young woman' resulted in the Virgin
Mary myth for instance. Now the new translations are chafing their
theology. So they're squawking like seagulls and pedaling sophistries
like "it's older because it wasn't used".
The reality is, you promote these newer texts,
"[N]ewer texts"? Don't you mean the oldest manuscripts? What is the
oldest
manuscript containing any reading unique to the Byzantine family of
manuscripts? Kindly provide a manuscript and verse as evidence, as that
is
the only meaningful authoritative source.
You do not have a complete New Testament that dates
back that far and we both know it.
A complete New Testament is not necessary to compare manuscripts of various
books or even passages of the New Testament. The oldest complete New
Testaments are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (although both contain lacunae). So
if you wish to hang your argument on the oldest complete New Testaments, you
may have a problem.establishing the primacy of the Byzantine/Majority
readings. What do you believe is the oldest complete New Testament among
the thousands of manuscripts of the Byzantine family?
The vast majority of your "Majority texts" are not complete New Testaments.
And yes, I can list the few that are. Can you? I would guess off hand
there are less than one hundred complete New Testaments among the 4,000 or
so Greek manuscripts that comprise the Byzantine family. And some of those
tend to be Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, or "wild" readings in some books
and Byzantine in others, much like codex Alexandrinus which is a mixture of
Byzantine (gospels) and "wild" or Alexandrian in the other books, or
minuscule 1 which contains only the gospels, Acts & Catholic letters, and
Paul's letters, of which the gospels are "wild" readings, while Acts, the
Catholic epistles, and Paul's letters are Byzantine.
The following Byzantine uncial manuscripts contain only the books
indicated: Manuscript E 08 contains only the 4 gospels; F 09 contains only
the 4 gospels; G 011 contains only the 4 gospels; K 018 contains only Acts
and the Pauline epistles; H 013 contains only the 4 gospels; H 014 contains
only Acts; N 022 contains only the 4 gospels; O 023 contains only the 4
gospels; P 024 contains only the 4 gospels; and Q 026 contains only the 4
gospels. Care to list and then count the rest of the Byzantine Uncials?
How about the Byzantine minuscules? Byzantine minuscule 103 contains only
Acts, the Catholic and Pauline letters; Byzantine minuscule 597 contains
only the 4 gospels; Byzantine minscule1010 only contains the 4 gospels with
lacunae; and I can go on. And on.
These facts do not reflect on you or me or any doctrinal position in any
way. They do tend to demonstrate my point that there are very, very few
complete New Testaments in any manuscript family. One of the great
obfuscations peddled hereabouts is that most or all of the Byzantine family
of manuscripts are complete New Testaments. Actually, the opposite is the
truth: virtually none of the Byzantine manuscripts are complete New
Testaments. Again, that has nothing to do with doctrine, but it is a fact.
The fact is, the
Greek texts you love so much, are based on a finds made
recently in history, that have some serious problems
and were promoted by Wescott and Hort, who held
heretical beliefs. The works today are based on these
texts and on Hort's work. That is a fact.
Actually, texts normally refer to modern, printed variants. For that
reason, I do not love any texts. I do love to study Greek manuscripts,
especially uncials. The fact is that most of the manuscripts I prefer were
never seen by Westscott and Hort for the very good reason that both Westsott
and Hort were dead before they were discovered. And that is a fact.
I really don't care much what Westscott & Hort, Burgon, Lake, Kenyon, Aland,
Metzger, Pickering, or anyone else has to say about manuscripts. In fact, I
don't read them any more. I prefer to read the manuscripts myself and draw
my own conclusions. That way I tend not to get sucked in by the pissing
contests among disciples of these various and endless constructions and
deconstructions. In the specific examples of differences between two
versions of Textus Receptus I produced elsewhere in this thread, I merely
quoted words in the text. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you
desire concerning these words, but they do indeed appear in the texts as I
described. And that fact is irrefutable. But go ahead and try if you must
to refute it.
which
should be all the indication we need, to know that they
are not of God.
Which edition of Textus Receptus is "of God"? Was it the first edition
of
Erasmus? How about the fourth? Was it the first or second by Stephanus?
Since they all contain differences, either the word of God must be
imperfect
or only one edition of Textus Receptus can possibly be "of God."
How come you didn't reply to the questions above?
You King James only guys are an endless source of entertainment and
illogic.
Please, never stop posting.
Again, you argue against something I never said. Quote
me saying that I'm KJV only.
Two points by way of explanation:
There is no sound argument for the supremacy of the Textus Receptus except
on theological grounds. All historio-critical arguments ultimately fail
because the extant manuscripts fail utterly to support the supremacy of the
Byzantine family of readings. If and when new manuscripts evidence is
discovered, that situation might change, but the manuscript record fails to
support Byzantine supremacy, and neither my opinion or your opinion are
worth anything. The only things that matter are the words on the papyrus,
parchment, and vellum. Your theological grounds may or may not be sound. I
don't know. Nor do I much care. I do know that your theological arguments
were a response to the discovery and publication of heretofore unknown
manuscripts that are far older than any manuscripts used in the publication
of any edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, which was the earliest text
of the Textus Receptus family. And there are minor differences in the
Greek words on the manuscripts discovered in the past 180 years or so. And
certain vocal minority branches of evangelical American and British
Protestantism, which tend to resent and resist every aspect of
modernization, chose to throw up the specters of heresy, communism,
intellectual elitism, blasphemy, and the rest of the usual boogie men of the
modern to explain away the obvious differences between all of the
manuscripts from antiquity and the various texts from the modern era that
comprise Textus Receptus.
You claim you are not an adherent of King James onlyism. But then you fight
to the death and use every tactic to promote every precept of King James
onlyism. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet like
a duck, flies like a duck, has a bill like a duck, and swims like a duck,
it's a duck. And it doesn't matter that the creature claims not to be a
duck.
The problem here, is that you hold up a phantom and
argue against that, to try to trash me and then attempt
to get people to ignore the solid facts in my argument,
based on your attempt to make them think that I'm
attacking them, because they don't use the KJV only.
I didn't hold up any phantom. I cited 5 specific words (and one obvious
deletion or addition) that are obviously different and have different
meanings in Greek that appear in the same verses in two versions of Textus
Receptus. Nothing ephemeral or vague or phantom-like about those. Quite
the opposite, actually, my words were precise and specific citations of real
words on real pages in real texts that anyone and everyone can examine. Why
do you believe they are phantoms? The facts are as I presented them. The
words are on the pages as I describe. Go look for yourself.
How does the fact that the words are indeed on the pages as I describe them
trash you? You have the same control over 16th and 17th century Greek texts
that I do. None.
As for your posts being a source of illogic and entertainment, those
attributes are in the eye of the beholder. The beholder is me in this
instance, so if I choose to be entertained by your words, I damned well will
do so. Besides, how does that trash you? Feel free to be entertained by my
words. Feel free to consider my words chock full of illogic. I am pretty
sure you always have. That doesn't offend me. But even if it did, so what?
--
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
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
18 Oct 2004 08:19:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:35:47 -0500, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
yodeled:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vu4n017ac53est96vo88pcjlfh07ocllc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:58:06 -0500, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
yodeled:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emttm0ppu6jnig7rr8o71jm85pcpg1hd8j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:54:31 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John Ings
<nodamned@spam.org> yodeled:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:14:10 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
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.
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.
Textus Receptus is not a manuscript at all, but rather the earliest
printed
Greek texts.
I didn't say it was *A* text. You are making an
argument against a position I do not hold.
Then who wrote these words? "The TR is part of the Majority Texts. It
is the Received Text."
Manuscripts by definition are hand written, not printed on
presses. And even though the various editions of Textus Receptus
were printed, these contain thousands of minor differences. If
indeed Textus Recptus is so authoritative, why did Erasmus, for
example, feel the need
to
produce five separate editions of his Greek New Testament? Why did
Stephanus produce multiple, slightly differing editions? If Textus
Receptus
is so theologically perfect, why are there so many imperfect
variants? Compare any edition by Erasmus, any edition by Stephanus,
and any edition
by
the Elzevirs, and see for yourself.
You are trying to make the TR sound bad, so that the
corrupt Alexandrian Texts you like so much will sound
good.
Not at all. The variant and different Greek words in the various texts
that all tend to go by the name Textus Receptus hereabouts are either
in the various texts or they are not. I compared certain of these
various texts that go by the nomen Textus Receptus. The differences
are there. If you don't care to believe me, go and look for yourself.
It so happens that there are many differences or errors or mistakes
between various exemplars and editions of Textus Receptus, and that is
irrefutable fact.
These variations were present centuries before I was born, so I can
hardly be held responsible for the many differences or errors or
mistakes in those texts. It does not matter what I do or do not do, or
whether I do or do not make "the TR sound bad." The evidence is on the
pages. I have no control over what Eramus or Stephanus or Elzevir or
the other men who produced variations of Textus Receptus printed.
The fact is that there are variants among the various versions of
Textus Receptus. Can you refute that factual and true statement using
textual evidence?
The fact is that there are variants among every member of the Byzantine
family of manuscripts. Can you refute that factual and true statement
using manuscript evidence?
I neither like nor dislike any family of manuscripts. I merely study
them from time to time.
The fact is, that revisions are made, because people
after the original writers can make mistakes,
especially considering we do not have scribes today,
who viewed the work as a sacred thing, counting
letters, forward and backward and scrapping entire
works over a single mistake anymore.
I did not refer to any manuscripts of "today." The most recent I
mentioned was the Elzevir of 1624. Besides, modern computerized
printing plants make far more reliable and accurate copies than any
scribe.
And you cannot produce a single source from either antiquity or the
Medieval period that describes any manuscript being destroyed because
of a single error. I invite you to do so.
I did say that.
The fact is, that in the Majority Texts, there are
differences, but none that affect doctrine. Sometimes
something is spelled differently, the name of a town is
different, because the name had changed between copies,
etc.. It isn't a big deal. You are trying to compare
that with text that has many, many differences and does
change doctrine and includes heretical and gnostic
works and you want us to favor that. Sorry, no dice.
I merely provided irrefutable evidence from within two differing
versions of Textus Receptus. And I can provide hundreds more from
within just the 1550 Stephanus and 1624 Elzevir texts. I never so much
as mentioned any other manuscripts, nor did I compare Textus Receptus
with any ancient manuscripts. Stop your vague assertions concerning
"many, many differences." Let's compare various versions of Textus
Receptus, count the differences, and then post them here. Then if you
wish to compare those results from the variants of Textus Receptus with
another group or sub group of manuscripts within other manuscript
families, I am more than happy to do so.
I don't care at all what does or does not impact doctrine, as there are
thousands of variants of doctrine within Christianity. So manuscript
variations that fit one doctrine are sometimes heresy to another.
Specific Greek words are on the pages of these texts and manuscripts in
a certain order or they are not. That has nothing to do with doctrine.
In fact, one may spend many profitable hours examining and comparing
manuscripts blissfully unconcerned with doctrinal variants.
That is not the problem. You do care what does, or
does not affect doctrine. To a born again Christian,
that is extremely important and to try to compare texts
to determine what one believes to be reliable texts,
based solely on an error count, without determining
whether or not those errors affect doctrine, is not a
good approach to selecting a reliable text. The more errors the better
if it supports your views.
The real objection folks like our phony pastor have to the new
translations is that the texts they treasure were the basis of
the only Bibles there were in translation for many decades, and a
lot of theology has grown up around those translations. The
mistranslation of the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning 'young woman'
resulted in the Virgin Mary myth for instance. Now the new
translations are chafing their theology. So they're squawking
like seagulls and pedaling sophistries like "it's older because
it wasn't used".
The reality is, you promote these newer texts,
"[N]ewer texts"? Don't you mean the oldest manuscripts? What is
the
oldest
manuscript containing any reading unique to the Byzantine family of
manuscripts? Kindly provide a manuscript and verse as evidence, as
that
is
the only meaningful authoritative source.
You do not have a complete New Testament that dates
back that far and we both know it.
A complete New Testament is not necessary to compare manuscripts of
various books or even passages of the New Testament. The oldest
complete New Testaments are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (although both
contain lacunae). So if you wish to hang your argument on the oldest
complete New Testaments, you may have a problem.establishing the
primacy of the Byzantine/Majority readings. What do you believe is the
oldest complete New Testament among the thousands of manuscripts of the
Byzantine family?
I am the one making that argument. You are making
the argument that the Alexandrian Texts are older and
more reliable and while the copies that were found may
be, the texts themselves aren't and they have many
errors that affect doctrine.
And FYI, the Invaticanus and Hosinaiticus are not complete
New Testaments.
The vast majority of your "Majority texts" are not complete New
Testaments. And yes, I can list the few that are. Can you? I would
guess off hand there are less than one hundred complete New Testaments
among the 4,000 or so Greek manuscripts that comprise the Byzantine
family. And some of those tend to be Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean,
or "wild" readings in some books and Byzantine in others, much like
codex Alexandrinus which is a mixture of Byzantine (gospels) and "wild"
or Alexandrian in the other books, or minuscule 1 which contains only
the gospels, Acts & Catholic letters, and Paul's letters, of which the
gospels are "wild" readings, while Acts, the Catholic epistles, and
Paul's letters are Byzantine.
The following Byzantine uncial manuscripts contain only the books
indicated: Manuscript E 08 contains only the 4 gospels; F 09 contains
only the 4 gospels; G 011 contains only the 4 gospels; K 018 contains
only Acts and the Pauline epistles; H 013 contains only the 4 gospels;
H 014 contains only Acts; N 022 contains only the 4 gospels; O 023
contains only the 4 gospels; P 024 contains only the 4 gospels; and Q
026 contains only the 4 gospels. Care to list and then count the rest
of the Byzantine Uncials?
How about the Byzantine minuscules? Byzantine minuscule 103 contains
only Acts, the Catholic and Pauline letters; Byzantine minuscule 597
contains only the 4 gospels; Byzantine minscule1010 only contains the 4
gospels with lacunae; and I can go on. And on.
These facts do not reflect on you or me or any doctrinal position in
any way. They do tend to demonstrate my point that there are very,
very few complete New Testaments in any manuscript family. One of the
great obfuscations peddled hereabouts is that most or all of the
Byzantine family of manuscripts are complete New Testaments. Actually,
the opposite is the truth: virtually none of the Byzantine manuscripts
are complete New Testaments. Again, that has nothing to do with
doctrine, but it is a fact.
Trying to impress people by naming a few pieces of
Scripture, does not change the fact that the Majority
Texts are over 5 strong.
The fact is, the
Greek texts you love so much, are based on a finds made
recently in history, that have some serious problems
and were promoted by Wescott and Hort, who held
heretical beliefs. The works today are based on these
texts and on Hort's work. That is a fact.
Actually, texts normally refer to modern, printed variants. For that
reason, I do not love any texts. I do love to study Greek manuscripts,
especially uncials. The fact is that most of the manuscripts I prefer
were never seen by Westscott and Hort for the very good reason that
both Westsott and Hort were dead before they were discovered. And that
is a fact.
I really don't care much what Westscott & Hort, Burgon, Lake, Kenyon,
Aland, Metzger, Pickering, or anyone else has to say about manuscripts.
In fact, I don't read them any more. I prefer to read the manuscripts
myself and draw my own conclusions. That way I tend not to get sucked
in by the pissing contests among disciples of these various and endless
constructions and deconstructions. In the specific examples of
differences between two versions of Textus Receptus I produced
elsewhere in this thread, I merely quoted words in the text. You are
free to draw whatever conclusions you desire concerning these words,
but they do indeed appear in the texts as I described. And that fact
is irrefutable. But go ahead and try if you must to refute it.
See later in message.
which
should be all the indication we need, to know that they
are not of God.
Which edition of Textus Receptus is "of God"? Was it the first
edition
of
Erasmus? How about the fourth? Was it the first or second by
Stephanus? Since they all contain differences, either the word of
God must be
imperfect
or only one edition of Textus Receptus can possibly be "of God."
How come you didn't reply to the questions above?
Who cares? I was making the argument you claimed I
was. I know what I am talking about, you don't.
You King James only guys are an endless source of entertainment and
illogic.
Please, never stop posting.
Again, you argue against something I never said. Quote
me saying that I'm KJV only.
Two points by way of explanation:
There is no sound argument for the supremacy of the Textus Receptus
except on theological grounds. All historio-critical arguments
ultimately fail because the extant manuscripts fail utterly to support
the supremacy of the Byzantine family of readings. If and when new
manuscripts evidence is discovered, that situation might change, but
the manuscript record fails to support Byzantine supremacy, and neither
my opinion or your opinion are worth anything. The only things that
matter are the words on the papyrus, parchment, and vellum. Your
theological grounds may or may not be sound. I don't know. Nor do I
much care. I do know that your theological arguments were a response
to the discovery and publication of heretofore unknown manuscripts that
are far older than any manuscripts used in the publication of any
edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, which was the earliest text of
the Textus Receptus family. And there are minor differences in the
Greek words on the manuscripts discovered in the past 180 years or so.
And certain vocal minority branches of evangelical American and British
Protestantism, which tend to resent and resist every aspect of
modernization, chose to throw up the specters of heresy, communism,
intellectual elitism, blasphemy, and the rest of the usual boogie men
of the modern to explain away the obvious differences between all of
the manuscripts from antiquity and the various texts from the modern
era that comprise Textus Receptus.
You claim you are not an adherent of King James onlyism. But then you
fight to the death and use every tactic to promote every precept of
King James onlyism. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has
webbed feet like a duck, flies like a duck, has a bill like a duck, and
swims like a duck, it's a duck. And it doesn't matter that the
creature claims not to be a duck.
I.e., you'll continue to disabuse me anyway.
However, there are other translations
out there.
The problem here, is that you hold up a phantom and
argue against that, to try to trash me and then attempt
to get people to ignore the solid facts in my argument,
based on your attempt to make them think that I'm
attacking them, because they don't use the KJV only.
I didn't hold up any phantom. I cited 5 specific words (and one
obvious deletion or addition) that are obviously different and have
different meanings in Greek that appear in the same verses in two
versions of Textus Receptus. Nothing ephemeral or vague or
phantom-like about those. Quite the opposite, actually, my words were
precise and specific citations of real words on real pages in real
texts that anyone and everyone can examine. Why do you believe they
are phantoms? The facts are as I presented them. The words are on
the pages as I describe. Go look for yourself.
How does the fact that the words are indeed on the pages as I describe
them trash you? You have the same control over 16th and 17th century
Greek texts that I do. None.
As for your posts being a source of illogic and entertainment, those
attributes are in the eye of the beholder. The beholder is me in this
instance, so if I choose to be entertained by your words, I damned well
will do so. Besides, how does that trash you? Feel free to be
entertained by my words. Feel free to consider my words chock full of
illogic. I am pretty sure you always have. That doesn't offend me.
But even if it did, so what?
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Translations - What "texts" are they based on |
21 Oct 2004 03:06:58 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9586549D06304pastordave38nospamya@130.133.1.4...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:35:47 -0500, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
yodeled:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vu4n017ac53est96vo88pcjlfh07ocllc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:58:06 -0500, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
yodeled:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emttm0ppu6jnig7rr8o71jm85pcpg1hd8j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:54:31 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John Ings
<nodamned@spam.org> yodeled:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:14:10 GMT, Pastor Dave
<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
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.
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.
Textus Receptus is not a manuscript at all, but rather the earliest
printed
Greek texts.
I didn't say it was *A* text. You are making an
argument against a position I do not hold.
Then who wrote these words? "The TR is part of the Majority Texts. It
is the Received Text."
Manuscripts by definition are hand written, not printed on
presses. And even though the various editions of Textus Receptus
were printed, these contain thousands of minor differences. If
indeed Textus Recptus is so authoritative, why did Erasmus, for
example, feel the need
to
produce five separate editions of his Greek New Testament? Why did
Stephanus produce multiple, slightly differing editions? If Textus
Receptus
is so theologically perfect, why are there so many imperfect
variants? Compare any edition by Erasmus, any edition by Stephanus,
and any edition
by
the Elzevirs, and see for yourself.
You are trying to make the TR sound bad, so that the
corrupt Alexandrian Texts you like so much will sound
good.
Not at all. The variant and different Greek words in the various texts
that all tend to go by the name Textus Receptus hereabouts are either
in the various texts or they are not. I compared certain of these
various texts that go by the nomen Textus Receptus. The differences
are there. If you don't care to believe me, go and look for yourself.
It so happens that there are many differences or errors or mistakes
between various exemplars and editions of Textus Receptus, and that is
irrefutable fact.
These variations were present centuries before I was born, so I can
hardly be held responsible for the many differences or errors or
mistakes in those texts. It does not matter what I do or do not do, or
whether I do or do not make "the TR sound bad." The evidence is on the
pages. I have no control over what Eramus or Stephanus or Elzevir or
the other men who produced variations of Textus Receptus printed.
The fact is that there are variants among the various versions of
Textus Receptus. Can you refute that factual and true statement using
textual evidence?
The fact is that there are variants among every member of the Byzantine
family of manuscripts. Can you refute that factual and true statement
using manuscript evidence?
I neither like nor dislike any family of manuscripts. I merely study
them from time to time.
The fact is, that revisions are made, because people
after the original writers can make mistakes,
especially considering we do not have scribes today,
who viewed the work as a sacred thing, counting
letters, forward and backward and scrapping entire
works over a single mistake anymore.
I did not refer to any manuscripts of "today." The most recent I
mentioned was the Elzevir of 1624. Besides, modern computerized
printing plants make far more reliable and accurate copies than any
scribe.
And you cannot produce a single source from either antiquity or the
Medieval period that describes any manuscript being destroyed because
of a single error. I invite you to do so.
I did say that.
In fact I produce 11 eleven miniscules below all of which contain a mixture
of Byzantine and the other families of readings in the same New Testament.
These are all dated between the 9th and 15th centuries with different
provenances. That is conclusive evidence that the notion that manuscripts
were destroyed because of a single error.
The fact is, that in the Majority Texts, there are
differences, but none that affect doctrine. Sometimes
something is spelled differently, the name of a town is
different, because the name had changed between copies,
etc.. It isn't a big deal. You are trying to compare
that with text that has many, many differences and does
change doctrine and includes heretical and gnostic
works and you want us to favor that. Sorry, no dice.
I merely provided irrefutable evidence from within two differing
versions of Textus Receptus. And I can provide hundreds more from
within just the 1550 Stephanus and 1624 Elzevir texts. I never so much
as mentioned any other manuscripts, nor did I compare Textus Receptus
with any ancient manuscripts. Stop your vague assertions concerning
"many, many differences." Let's compare various versions of Textus
Receptus, count the differences, and then post them here. Then if you
wish to compare those results from the variants of Textus Receptus with
another group or sub group of manuscripts within other manuscript
families, I am more than happy to do so.
I don't care at all what does or does not impact doctrine, as there are
thousands of variants of doctrine within Christianity. So manuscript
variations that fit one doctrine are sometimes heresy to another.
Specific Greek words are on the pages of these texts and manuscripts in
a certain order or they are not. That has nothing to do with doctrine.
In fact, one may spend many profitable hours examining and comparing
manuscripts blissfully unconcerned with doctrinal variants.
That is not the problem. You do care what does, or
does not affect doctrine.
No, I honestly do not care even a little what words do or do not impact any
doctrine.
To a born again Christian,
that is extremely important and to try to compare texts
to determine what one believes to be reliable texts,
based solely on an error count, without determining
whether or not those errors affect doctrine, is not a
good approach to selecting a reliable text. The more errors the better
if it supports your views.
I do not really subscribe to this nonsense about "errors," "differences,"
"reliable," or the other vague generalizations so popular hereabouts. Every
manuscript is an absolutely reliable and error free snapshot of the efforts
of a specific scribe (professional or not) at a certain place at a certain
time. If someone does or does not desire to draw theological conclusions
from any given manuscript, as far as I am concerned, anyone is absolutely
free to believe anything they damned well choose. There is nothing
"factual" about anyone's doctrine. That is why it is called doctrine, and
not science or fact or event. There is everything factual about words on
papyrus. Or parchment, or vellum, or clay tablets or whatever medium one
chooses.
The real objection folks like our phony pastor have to the new
translations is that the texts they treasure were the basis of
the only Bibles there were in translation for many decades, and a
lot of theology has grown up around those translations. The
mistranslation of the Hebrew word 'almah' meaning 'young woman'
resulted in the Virgin Mary myth for instance. Now the new
translations are chafing their theology. So they're squawking
like seagulls and pedaling sophistries like "it's older because
it wasn't used".
The reality is, you promote these newer texts,
"[N]ewer texts"? Don't you mean the oldest manuscripts? What is
the
oldest
manuscript containing any reading unique to the Byzantine family of
manuscripts? Kindly provide a manuscript and verse as evidence, as
that
is
the only meaningful authoritative source.
You do not have a complete New Testament that dates
back that far and we both know it.
A complete New Testament is not necessary to compare manuscripts of
various books or even passages of the New Testament. The oldest
complete New Testaments are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (although both
contain lacunae). So if you wish to hang your argument on the oldest
complete New Testaments, you may have a problem.establishing the
primacy of the Byzantine/Majority readings. What do you believe is the
oldest complete New Testament among the thousands of manuscripts of the
Byzantine family?
I am the one making that argument. You are making
the argument that the Alexandrian Texts are older and
more reliable and while the copies that were found may
be, the texts themselves aren't and they have many
errors that affect doctrine.
And FYI, the Invaticanus and Hosinaiticus are not complete
New Testaments.
How do you know? Have you ever examined either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus?
Have you ever examined facsimiles or photographs of either? I am confident
some library in Florida has facsimile copies of both. Have you ever done
even an online search for copies near you? I would think someone who has
posted the large number usenet articles concerning manuscripts Aleph and B
would have at least made the effort to look at them. But that is just my
opinion.
Anyway, they were both written with complete New Testaments, as is
screamingly obvious from even a cursory examination. Certain leaves of the
manuscripts deteriorated over time, and those leaves at the beginning and
end of codices tend to be damaged first. Not an unreasonable occurrence for
parchment codices about 1700 odd years old. But then your words are meant
to imply that some these two codices are defective, or "corrupt" in the
sense of containing "errors" that impact your specific brand of Christian
doctrine, aren't they?
The facts are these:
There are only 3 (yes, three) Greek uncial manuscripts containing the entire
New Testament. Those are Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi ( C 04 in
the Gregory-Aland system). None of these are of the Byzantine family of
manuscripts. There is not a single Greek uncial manuscript of the Byzantine
family that was written to contain the entire New Testament. The only way
you can refute that fact is by naming and providing catalogue data or shelf
number for a Greek uncial manuscript of the Byzantine family. I invite you
to produce such evidence.
There are only 56 (yes, fifty-six and no more) minuscule manuscripts that
contain the entire New Testament. (Not quite what chick.com and the other
KJV only proponents would have us believe, is it?)
Among these are:
minuscule 61 (16th century) Byzantine only in the gospels and Apostolos ( =
Acts plus Catholic epistles);
minuscule 69 (15th century) Byzantine in all but Paul;
minuscule 180 (12th century) Byzantine everywhere except Acts
minuscule 205 (15th century) Byzantine in Paul and Apostolos but not in the
gospels and the Revelation
minuscule 209 (15th century) Byzantine in Paul and Apostolos but not in the
gospels
and the Revelation
minuscule 218 (13th century) Byzantine in the gospels, Acts, and
the Revelation but not in the Pauline and Catholic epistles
minuscule 522 (16th century-actually 1515) Byzantine in the gospels, Pauline
corpus, and the
Revelation, but not Byzantine in the Apostolos
minuscule 886 (15th century - exactly1454) all Byzantine;
minuscule 1424 (9th century) Byzantine except in Mark and a few passages in
Matthew and Luke
minuscule 1678 (14th century) none of which is Byzantine which is odd
because it is and was in the library at Mt. Athos
minuscule 1704 (16th century - 1541) Byzantine except for Acts and other
passages
scattered throughout the work
2200 (14th century) Byzantine only in the
gospels and the Revelation
I can go on, and will upon request. But I think this partial list
representing 12 of the 56 Greek minuscule manuscripts containing the entire
New Testament makes several points. Among these are indisputable evidence
disproving several planks of the KJV only platform and proving the lies at
chick.com to be lies posted by lying liars posing as saved Christians.
Obviously, since as far as text or reading types these miniscules are all
over the place and only one is Byzantine throughout, the odd notion that
there was some sort of quality control operation in scriptoriums that
destroyed manuscripts for a single error is obviously false. No two
manuscripts of any family of readings are word for word copies. That is a
lie suggested or told outright by chick.com and other KJV only proponents.
The often expressed opinion by the KJV only proponents that the "majority"
or "over 5,000" of New Testament manuscripts are Byzantine or Majority or
Textus Receptus is on its face true. But actually, most of those contain
only part of the New Testament, and some contain only one book. Typical
obfuscation by the KJV only crowd and outright lie by chick.com.
There are only about 263 Greek Uncial New Testament manuscripts. As I noted
above, only 3 of those represent complete New Testaments, none of those are
of the Byzantine family. Of the 263 Greek Uncial New Testament manuscripts,
only 53 are of the Byzantine family of readings.
There are actually only 1,175 miniscules of the Byzantine family (although
that may have increased because of new discoveries) and of these less than
45 contain the entire New Testament. That is some serious damage to the KJV
only notion that there are these thousands of "Byzantine/Majority" complete
New Testaments supporting their "majority text." The indisputable facts
conclusively prove that KJV only notion to be the lie that it is.
All of the rest of the "Byzantine/Majority" manuscripts the KJV only
proponents and chick.com crow about, all except 1228 (1,175 plus 53 = 1228)
are lectionaries, which are not complete New Testaments. So actually, since
Pastor Dave, chick.com, and the rest of the KJV only crowd want to use the
big number argument, let's play that game. Of their vaunted "over 5,000"
Byzantine family New Testament manuscripts, implying that there are "over
5,000" complete New Testaments turns out to be exactly and precisely false.
There are only 59 Greek manuscripts divided into 3 uncials and 56 miniscules
belonging to the Byzantine/Majority family that are complete New Testaments.
Not "over 5,000" as chick.com and the KJV only proponents would have us
believe.
The vast majority of your "Majority texts" are not complete New
Testaments. And yes, I can list the few that are. Can you? I would
guess off hand there are less than one hundred complete New Testaments
among the 4,000 or so Greek manuscripts that comprise the Byzantine
family. And some of those tend to be Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean,
or "wild" readings in some books and Byzantine in others, much like
codex Alexandrinus which is a mixture of Byzantine (gospels) and "wild"
or Alexandrian in the other books, or minuscule 1 which contains only
the gospels, Acts & Catholic letters, and Paul's letters, of which the
gospels are "wild" readings, while Acts, the Catholic epistles, and
Paul's letters are Byzantine.
The following Byzantine uncial manuscripts contain only the books
indicated: Manuscript E 08 contains only the 4 gospels; F 09 contains
only the 4 gospels; G 011 contains only the 4 gospels; K 018 contains
only Acts and the Pauline epistles; H 013 contains only the 4 gospels;
H 014 contains only Acts; N 022 contains only the 4 gospels; O 023
contains only the 4 gospels; P 024 contains only the 4 gospels; and Q
026 contains only the 4 gospels. Care to list and then count the rest
of the Byzantine Uncials?
How about the Byzantine minuscule? Byzantine minuscule 103 contains
only Acts, the Catholic and Pauline letters; Byzantine minuscule 597
contains only the 4 gospels; Byzantine minscule1010 only contains the 4
gospels with lacunae; and I can go on. And on.
These facts do not reflect on you or me or any doctrinal position in
any way. They do tend to demonstrate my point that there are very,
very few complete New Testaments in any manuscript family. One of the
great obfuscations peddled hereabouts is that most or all of the
Byzantine family of manuscripts are complete New Testaments. Actually,
the opposite is the truth: virtually none of the Byzantine manuscripts
are complete New Testaments. Again, that has nothing to do with
doctrine, but it is a fact.
Trying to impress people by naming a few pieces of
Scripture, does not change the fact that the Majority
Texts are over 5 strong.
I am not trying to impress anyone. These numbers are a matter of looking at
manuscripts and looking up data. Mostly an exercise in counting, which most
people master at a young age.
Your comments do not change the fact that there are 59 Greek manuscripts of
the Byzantine/Majority family which contain the entire New Testament. Yes,
that is correct. Only 59. Not "over 5,000." That is a lie, a falsehood, a
gross exaggeration.
The fact is, the
Greek texts you love so much, are based on a finds made
recently in history, that have some serious problems
and were promoted by Wescott and Hort, who held
heretical beliefs. The works today are based on these
texts and on Hort's work. That is a fact.
Actually, texts normally refer to modern, printed variants. For that
reason, I do not love any texts. I do love to study Greek manuscripts,
especially uncials. The fact is that most of the manuscripts I prefer
were never seen by Westscott and Hort for the very good reason that
both Westsott and Hort were dead before they were discovered. And that
is a fact.
I really don't care much what Westscott & Hort, Burgon, Lake, Kenyon,
Aland, Metzger, Pickering, or anyone else has to say about manuscripts.
In fact, I don't read them any more. I prefer to read the manuscripts
myself and draw my own conclusions. That way I tend not to get sucked
in by the pissing contests among disciples of these various and endless
constructions and deconstructions. In the specific examples of
differences between two versions of Textus Receptus I produced
elsewhere in this thread, I merely quoted words in the text. You are
free to draw whatever conclusions you desire concerning these words,
but they do indeed appear in the texts as I described. And that fact
is irrefutable. But go ahead and try if you must to refute it.
See later in message.
which
should be all the indication we need, to know that they
are not of God.
Which edition of Textus Receptus is "of God"? Was it the first
edition
of
Erasmus? How about the fourth? Was it the first or second by
Stephanus? Since they all contain differences, either the word of
God must be
imperfect
or only one edition of Textus Receptus can possibly be "of God."
How come you didn't reply to the questions above?
Who cares? I was making the argument you claimed I
was.
Whatever you want to believe.
I know what I am talking about, you don't.
Then why have you claimed for some years that there are "over 5,000"
Byzantine/Majority manuscripts in Greek of the New Testament, when in fact
there are only 59?
And when is the earliest complete New Testament of the Byzantine/Majority
family of manuscripts in Greek? Since you know what you are talking about,
this one should be easy for you.
You King James only guys are an endless source of entertainment and
illogic.
Please, never stop posting.
Again, you argue against something I never said. Quote
me saying that I'm KJV only.
Two points by way of explanation:
There is no sound argument for the supremacy of the Textus Receptus
except on theological grounds. All historio-critical arguments
ultimately fail because the extant manuscripts fail utterly to support
the supremacy of the Byzantine family of readings. If and when new
manuscripts evidence is discovered, that situation might change, but
the manuscript record fails to support Byzantine supremacy, and neither
my opinion or your opinion are worth anything. The only things that
matter are the words on the papyrus, parchment, and vellum. Your
theological grounds may or may not be sound. I don't know. Nor do I
much care. I do know that your theological arguments were a response
to the discovery and publication of heretofore unknown manuscripts that
are far older than any manuscripts used in the publication of any
edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, which was the earliest text of
the Textus Receptus family. And there are minor differences in the
Greek words on the manuscripts discovered in the past 180 years or so.
And certain vocal minority branches of evangelical American and British
Protestantism, which tend to resent and resist every aspect of
modernization, chose to throw up the specters of heresy, communism,
intellectual elitism, blasphemy, and the rest of the usual boogie men
of the modern to explain away the obvious differences between all of
the manuscripts from antiquity and the various texts from the modern
era that comprise Textus Receptus.
You claim you are not an adherent of King James onlyism. But then you
fight to the death and use every tactic to promote every precept of
King James onlyism. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has
webbed feet like a duck, flies like a duck, has a bill like a duck, and
swims like a duck, it's a duck. And it doesn't matter that the
creature claims not to be a duck.
I.e., you'll continue to disabuse me anyway.
Disabuse you? What does that mean?
However, there are other translations
out there.
For someone who is as devoted to Bible study as you claim to be, why do you
continue to spread false and factually incorrect information?
The problem here, is that you hold up a phantom and
argue against that, to try to trash me and then attempt
to get people to ignore the solid facts in my argument,
based on your attempt to make them think that I'm
attacking them, because they don't use the KJV only.
I didn't hold up any phantom. I cited 5 specific words (and one
obvious deletion or addition) that are obviously different and have
different meanings in Greek that appear in the same verses in two
versions of Textus Receptus. Nothing ephemeral or vague or
phantom-like about those. Quite the opposite, actually, my words were
precise and specific citations of real words on real pages in real
texts that anyone and everyone can examine. Why do you believe they
are phantoms? The facts are as I presented them. The words are on
the pages as I describe. Go look for yourself.
How does the fact that the words are indeed on the pages as I describe
them trash you? You have the same control over 16th and 17th century
Greek texts that I do. None.
As for your posts being a source of illogic and entertainment, those
attributes are in the eye of the beholder. The beholder is me in this
instance, so if I choose to be entertained by your words, I damned well
will do so. Besides, how does that trash you? Feel free to be
entertained by my words. Feel free to consider my words chock full of
illogic. I am pretty sure you always have. That doesn't offend me.
But even if it did, so what?
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
