Religions > Bible > Re: Critical Text Did Use Byzantine/Majority Texts
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Didymos" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2003 10:37:06 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Critical Text Did Use Byzantine/Majority Texts |
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:g7culvslhsd5715q3ec5e44f1anj1c3bv6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:54:49 GMT, "Vicki"
<vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%Ja7b.4066$PE6.3763@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Vicki" <vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kY97b.717$8o3.56@news2.central.cox.net...
Byzantine (what paster dave really means when he uses the term
"Majority")
manuscripts were indeed used in the preparation of the
Vicki replies,
They could be called Erasmian, or Complutensian, the Text of
Stephens,
or
of
Beza, or of Elizevirs,
call it the Received or the Traditional Greek text,
or whatever other name you please, the fact remains, that a text has
come
down to us as is attested by general consensus of ancient copies,
ancient
versions, ancient
fathers.
Didymos writes,
They could be called lots of things. But we try to avoid sweeping
genralizations like that. Can we please refer to specific texts?
Please?
:-) OK, it just seems to me you don't like him using
the Majority texts because they are, what is called,
"the bulk of the witnesses." which give support
to the KJV.
He doesn't like the KJV, nor the Majority Texts,
period.
Ever compared the "Majority texts" to Receptus? They are not the same. And
how do these "give support to the KJV"?
Didymos writes,
Besides, the issue here is that paster dave made the false and stupid
statement that the "Majority" texts were not used in the preparation of
the
critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Paster dave is mistaken
and/or blatantly lying, as usual.
Vicki writes,
I understand, I am not up on this thread, however, since I am in the
midst
of reading of the subject I jumped in with my new found knowledge
of things.
This is another lie by Didymos and he cannot quote me
saying that they were not used in the preparation of
the Critical Text. I said that the Critical Text is
not "based on" the Majority Text and that is true. For
example, if I consult the MT, but tend to reject it in
favor of the Alexandrian Texts, whenever there is a
discrepancy, am I not correct in stating that the
Critical Text is not based on the Majority Text?
No, you are not correct. As usual. Go read a real book instead of your
weird King James only nuttiness.
Of
course. And that does not mean that I am claiming that
they played no part in the process.
You have no idea what the process is or what played any part in the process.
Didymos is just so eager to jump on me, whenever I post
and make false claims about me,
Do you really? Better read that sentence again, paster dave. Or do you
really mean to say that you post and make false claims about yourself? I
mean, geez, you make false claims in virtually every post, so I guess we
shouldn't be surpised if you now make false claims about yourself. I have
maintained for some time you are an inveterate liar who really can't control
your venomous falsehoods.
because I nailed him
more than once, for spreading false information and for
making accusations against me that he could not back
up. He is angry. He hates me, period.
Nah, paster dave, you flatter yourself. And you are awful whiny today.
Send invitiations to your pity party, did you? Hating you would take too
much energy. Sometimes I pity your blind ignorance; manifest, thoroughgoing
dishonesty, and foolish obstinacy. But not very often. I just don't want
some poor soul actually believing in your brand of *****, so I merely
identify your words for the bilious blather and total absurdities that they
are.
His tactic is
to follow any refutation I make on a single point of
his,
You have never refuted anything, paster dave. Are you taking hallucinigenic
drugs? Should you be? Please do post a single refutation of anything. Oh,
"I disagree" is not a refutation, paster dave. Neither is snipping most of
a post. Nor is changing the header.
with page after page of information that does not
directly respond to what has been said and then pretend
that I am ignorant,
But you are indeed ignorant. You prove that beyond any reasonable doubt
with virtually every post.
because I did not deal with every
single word he wrote and that I'm running away from the
debate.
You always do run away.
He will never back up his accusations against
me, because he can't. I have asked him to many times
and he just does exactly what I just stated.
Are you sure you have the pronouns correct here, paster dave?
This is
the man who claims to be able to correct scholars and
also states that he is not a scholar, but he has "a few
months" of study. He feels that this puts him in a
position to correct scholars and to make accusations
that he has no foundation for making.
Nah, paster dave, not "in a position to correct scholars," just to point
out your blatant lies and utter foolishness.
Vicki writes
Yes, it does. However, which do they actually use
to base their decision on? Do they consult the manuscripts yet end up
using
the Westhort and Holt texts?
You're getting the picture of the example I stated
above.
Nestle-Aland, actually, not Westcott and Hort. Why don't you get the
loonies who operate those King James only sites to update and get at least
something right. But every word in Textus Receptus is in the critical
edition. So is every word of the Pehsitta. If paster dave had ever, even
one time, looked in this book he castigates so readily and frequently, he
would know this.
Please, take my word for nothing. What I say is not important. Go and
check the evidence for yourself.
I will do that. I appreciate you telling me to
check for myself.
Which is the same thing that I told folks to do and he
attacked me for it.
Can't take the heat, paster dave? Or are you just whining? The difference
is that when I refer anyone to a manuscript, it really exists. When you
refer someone to "evidence" it is normally the opinion of some kook who
thinks just like you and is not evidence of anything except a kook's
opinion.
Oh yes, and how are you doing on your explanation for who added John
7:53-8:11 and Matthew 21:44 after the third century? We have been waiting
almost a month, paster dave. You never have refuted or falsified the
manuscript evidence I referred you to. Why not? The papyri exist or they do
not. The Greek letters are there or they are not. Faith and belief have
nothing to do with it.
How are you doing on that word for word agreement between Receptus and the
Peshitta, paster dave? Do you have Revelation all matched up yet? How
about 2 and 3 John? And 2 Peter? And then of course there is Jude. How
are you doing matching up Jude between Receptus and Peshitta, paster dave?
Care to share your technique with us dunderheads? How exactly do you make a
word for word comparison between books in Receptus, in Greek which you
cannot read, and the Pehitta, which is in Syrian, which you cannot read?
And then there is the minor detail that Pehsitta only contains 22 books in
its New Testament. And how many books are in Receptus, paster dave? How do
you compare something with nothing? Do you use the "consistently Christian
method"? Do tell us how that works, paster dave . . . .
And you are still not a pastor. How are you doing on all those other items
you have never quite been able to prove? Like all those sources for Jesus
since he was the most documented figure in ancient history? How about that
"mood tense" definition? I mean, geez, since you made it up, you could at
least make up a definiton and post it. You should write down your lies in a
spreadsheet, so you can sort them by date, subject, or whatever you need.
That way they would be easily referred to and you won't make a complete *****
out of yet yourself again. Oh yes, and what is that Greek word the King
James scholars translated as "wine bottle"?
Pastor Dave Raymond -- No, he is not a pastor.
--
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
As for atheism...
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
.
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Paster dave runs away in disgrace . . . yet again |
17 Sep 2003 11:37:34 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:qgpgmvoetpo3o0bfbgvmohoooptjsvgc50@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:37:06 GMT, "Didymos"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
Quite naturally, paster dave snipped most of the conversation. In honor of
his stated intent to killfile me, I thought it only just to preserve the
entirety of my last conversation with this great intellect, paster dave. So
I have restored the huge, unattributed snip paster dave made. You will, of
course, note that he met not a single challenge. Evidence was presented.
Paster dave neither refuted nor challenged nor falsified a single item. Are
we to presume he cannot hold up his end of the debate and has scuttled for
shelter? I think we can safely presume that to be the case absent evidence
to the contrary.
HUGE SNIP RESTORED
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:g7culvslhsd5715q3ec5e44f1anj1c3bv6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:54:49 GMT, "Vicki"
<vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%Ja7b.4066$PE6.3763@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Vicki" <vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kY97b.717$8o3.56@news2.central.cox.net...
Byzantine (what paster dave really means when he uses the term
"Majority")
manuscripts were indeed used in the preparation of the
Vicki replies,
They could be called Erasmian, or Complutensian, the Text of
Stephens,
or
of
Beza, or of Elizevirs,
call it the Received or the Traditional Greek text,
or whatever other name you please, the fact remains, that a text has
come
down to us as is attested by general consensus of ancient copies,
ancient
versions, ancient
fathers.
Didymos writes,
They could be called lots of things. But we try to avoid sweeping
genralizations like that. Can we please refer to specific texts?
Please?
:-) OK, it just seems to me you don't like him using
the Majority texts because they are, what is called,
"the bulk of the witnesses." which give support
to the KJV.
He doesn't like the KJV, nor the Majority Texts,
period.
Ever compared the "Majority texts" to Receptus? They are not the same. And
how do these "give support to the KJV"?
Didymos writes,
Besides, the issue here is that paster dave made the false and stupid
statement that the "Majority" texts were not used in the preparation of
the
critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Paster dave is mistaken
and/or blatantly lying, as usual.
Vicki writes,
I understand, I am not up on this thread, however, since I am in the
midst
of reading of the subject I jumped in with my new found knowledge
of things.
This is another lie by Didymos and he cannot quote me
saying that they were not used in the preparation of
the Critical Text. I said that the Critical Text is
not "based on" the Majority Text and that is true. For
example, if I consult the MT, but tend to reject it in
favor of the Alexandrian Texts, whenever there is a
discrepancy, am I not correct in stating that the
Critical Text is not based on the Majority Text?
No, you are not correct. As usual. Go read a real book instead of your
weird King James only nuttiness.
Of
course. And that does not mean that I am claiming that
they played no part in the process.
You have no idea what the process is or what played any part in the process.
Didymos is just so eager to jump on me, whenever I post
and make false claims about me,
Do you really? Better read that sentence again, paster dave. Or do you
really mean to say that you post and make false claims about yourself? I
mean, geez, you make false claims in virtually every post, so I guess we
shouldn't be surpised if you now make false claims about yourself. I have
maintained for some time you are an inveterate liar who really can't control
your venomous falsehoods.
because I nailed him
more than once, for spreading false information and for
making accusations against me that he could not back
up. He is angry. He hates me, period.
Nah, paster dave, you flatter yourself. And you are awful whiny today.
Send invitiations to your pity party, did you? Hating you would take too
much energy. Sometimes I pity your blind ignorance; manifest, thoroughgoing
dishonesty, and foolish obstinacy. But not very often. I just don't want
some poor soul actually believing in your brand of *****, so I merely
identify your words for the bilious blather and total absurdities that they
are.
His tactic is
to follow any refutation I make on a single point of
his,
You have never refuted anything, paster dave. Are you taking hallucinigenic
drugs? Should you be? Please do post a single refutation of anything. Oh,
"I disagree" is not a refutation, paster dave. Neither is snipping most of
a post. Nor is changing the header.
with page after page of information that does not
directly respond to what has been said and then pretend
that I am ignorant,
But you are indeed ignorant. You prove that beyond any reasonable doubt
with virtually every post.
because I did not deal with every
single word he wrote and that I'm running away from the
debate.
You always do run away.
He will never back up his accusations against
me, because he can't. I have asked him to many times
and he just does exactly what I just stated.
Are you sure you have the pronouns correct here, paster dave?
This is
the man who claims to be able to correct scholars and
also states that he is not a scholar, but he has "a few
months" of study. He feels that this puts him in a
position to correct scholars and to make accusations
that he has no foundation for making.
Nah, paster dave, not "in a position to correct scholars," just to point
out your blatant lies and utter foolishness.
Vicki writes
Yes, it does. However, which do they actually use
to base their decision on? Do they consult the manuscripts yet end up
using
the Westhort and Holt texts?
You're getting the picture of the example I stated
above.
Nestle-Aland, actually, not Westcott and Hort. Why don't you get the
loonies who operate those King James only sites to update and get at least
something right. But every word in Textus Receptus is in the critical
edition. So is every word of the Pehsitta. If paster dave had ever, even
one time, looked in this book he castigates so readily and frequently, he
would know this.
Please, take my word for nothing. What I say is not important. Go and
check the evidence for yourself.
I will do that. I appreciate you telling me to
check for myself.
Which is the same thing that I told folks to do and he
attacked me for it.
Can't take the heat, paster dave? Or are you just whining? The difference
is that when I refer anyone to a manuscript, it really exists. When you
refer someone to "evidence" it is normally the opinion of some kook who
thinks just like you and is not evidence of anything except a kook's
opinion.
Oh yes, and how are you doing on your explanation for who added John
7:53-8:11 and Matthew 21:44 after the third century? We have been waiting
almost a month, paster dave. You never have refuted or falsified the
manuscript evidence I referred you to. Why not? The papyri exist or they do
not. The Greek letters are there or they are not. Faith and belief have
nothing to do with it.
How are you doing on that word for word agreement between Receptus and the
Peshitta, paster dave? Do you have Revelation all matched up yet? How
about 2 and 3 John? And 2 Peter? And then of course there is Jude. How
are you doing matching up Jude between Receptus and Peshitta, paster dave?
Care to share your technique with us dunderheads? How exactly do you make a
word for word comparison between books in Receptus, in Greek which you
cannot read, and the Pehitta, which is in Syrian, which you cannot read?
And then there is the minor detail that Pehsitta only contains 22 books in
its New Testament. And how many books are in Receptus, paster dave? How do
you compare something with nothing? Do you use the "consistently Christian
method"? Do tell us how that works, paster dave . . . .
And you are still not a pastor. How are you doing on all those other items
you have never quite been able to prove? Like all those sources for Jesus
since he was the most documented figure in ancient history? How about that
"mood tense" definition? I mean, geez, since you made it up, you could at
least make up a definiton and post it. You should write down your lies in a
spreadsheet, so you can sort them by date, subject, or whatever you need.
That way they would be easily referred to and you won't make a complete *****
out of yet yourself again. Oh yes, and what is that Greek word the King
James scholars translated as "wine bottle"?
Pastor Dave Raymond -- No, he is not a pastor.
--
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
As for atheism...
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
END OF RESTORED SNIP
This is another lie by Didymos and he cannot quote me
saying that they were not used in the preparation of
the Critical Text. I said that the Critical Text is
not "based on" the Majority Text and that is true. For
example, if I consult the MT, but tend to reject it in
favor of the Alexandrian Texts, whenever there is a
discrepancy, am I not correct in stating that the
Critical Text is not based on the Majority Text?
No, you are not correct. As usual. Go read a real book instead of your
weird King James only nuttiness.
I've had enough of your lies about me and the false
information that you post here. Goodbye. <plonck!>
And paster dave flees, tail between his legs, yet again into the sewers of
his personal radical fundamentalist ignorance and bigotry. Paster dave
refuted nothing, proved nothing, falsified not a single pebble in the
mountain of evidence demonstrating his profound dishonesty, flawed dogma,
false history, and pseudo-science.
Oh, paster dave, I am still going to challenge your blatant falsehoods and
malicious lies and bilious blather. Whether or not you read it does not
make a tinker's damn to me.
And you have never provided a shard or shred of evidence you are a pastor of
anything.
Pastor Dave Raymond -- No, he is not a pastor
"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
"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
