| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Yuri Kuchinsky" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2004 11:56:05 AM |
| Object: |
two radically different Greek texts |
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
Many Christians do not know that there exist two radically
different Greek texts based on different families of
manuscripts and displaying over 6,000 variations, many of
these in verses containing doctrine.
The New Greek Text edited by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
in 1881 may be the culprit in this quagmire of deception and
the cause of many liberal scholars' rejection of the Divine
inspiration of the New Testament. ...
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical
occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text
(Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic
manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief
system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations
and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars
can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival.
http://watch.pair.com/occult.html
The Life and Letters of Westcott and Hort reveal the mindset
and mischief of the two Anglican Spiritualists who despised
the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture.
http://watch.pair.com/another.html
There is, however, no evidence of an attempt to corrupt the
Scriptures on the part of Erasmus, whose 2nd edition of the
Greek New Testament laid the foundation for the Protestant
Reformation (as opposed to the W-H New Greek Text which
launched the Anglican Apostasy).
[unquote]
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it
(Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
15 Jul 2004 12:02:29 PM |
|
|
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:40F565A5.2BA7B53B@trends.ca...
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
How did Westscott & Hort "cook up" the manuscripts that were found years
after their deaths?
And what is so "radically different" about the different families of New
Testament manuscripts?
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
Many Christians do not know that there exist two radically
different Greek texts based on different families of
manuscripts and displaying over 6,000 variations, many of
these in verses containing doctrine.
The New Greek Text edited by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
in 1881 may be the culprit in this quagmire of deception and
the cause of many liberal scholars' rejection of the Divine
inspiration of the New Testament. ...
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical
occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text
(Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic
manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief
system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations
and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars
can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival.
http://watch.pair.com/occult.html
The Life and Letters of Westcott and Hort reveal the mindset
and mischief of the two Anglican Spiritualists who despised
the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture.
http://watch.pair.com/another.html
There is, however, no evidence of an attempt to corrupt the
Scriptures on the part of Erasmus, whose 2nd edition of the
Greek New Testament laid the foundation for the Protestant
Reformation (as opposed to the W-H New Greek Text which
launched the Anglican Apostasy).
[unquote]
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it
(Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
16 Jul 2004 04:50:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:56:05 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca>
wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
Many Christians do not know that there exist two radically
different Greek texts based on different families of
manuscripts and displaying over 6,000 variations, many of
these in verses containing doctrine.
The New Greek Text edited by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
in 1881 may be the culprit in this quagmire of deception and
the cause of many liberal scholars' rejection of the Divine
inspiration of the New Testament. ...
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical
occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text
(Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic
manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief
system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations
and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars
can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival.
http://watch.pair.com/occult.html
The Life and Letters of Westcott and Hort reveal the mindset
and mischief of the two Anglican Spiritualists who despised
the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture.
http://watch.pair.com/another.html
There is, however, no evidence of an attempt to corrupt the
Scriptures on the part of Erasmus, whose 2nd edition of the
Greek New Testament laid the foundation for the Protestant
Reformation (as opposed to the W-H New Greek Text which
launched the Anglican Apostasy).
Erasmus used Later Cursive Text, which contained both Capital greek
Letters and Small letters, and the words were seperated, while
Wescotte & Horte refered to these the went to earlier Cursive text
(All Caps with no word seperation.
25 Charictors per line, 25 lines per page.
in other words W&H could see if the seperation of words were done
Corectly or not.
Many of the Cursive Texts have Major flaws in them as the words
were seperated Incorectly, by Comparison to the uncial texts.
such as the alexandrinus, the syriatic, and The synaticus
texts.
One could translate those 25 charictors, 25 Lines in a way to
1 Prove themselves right, 2 prove another wrong, and or 3
to gain Information, but only number 3 would be proper
Erasmus's bias is very apperant, in his Various Texts.
[unquote]
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it
(Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
16 Jul 2004 11:46:51 AM |
|
|
Sam Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:56:05 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca>
wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
Many Christians do not know that there exist two radically
different Greek texts based on different families of
manuscripts and displaying over 6,000 variations, many of
these in verses containing doctrine.
The New Greek Text edited by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
in 1881 may be the culprit in this quagmire of deception and
the cause of many liberal scholars' rejection of the Divine
inspiration of the New Testament. ...
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical
occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text
(Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic
manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief
system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations
and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars
can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival.
http://watch.pair.com/occult.html
The Life and Letters of Westcott and Hort reveal the mindset
and mischief of the two Anglican Spiritualists who despised
the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture.
http://watch.pair.com/another.html
There is, however, no evidence of an attempt to corrupt the
Scriptures on the part of Erasmus, whose 2nd edition of the
Greek New Testament laid the foundation for the Protestant
Reformation (as opposed to the W-H New Greek Text which
launched the Anglican Apostasy).
Erasmus used Later Cursive Text, which contained both Capital greek
Letters and Small letters, and the words were seperated, while
Wescotte & Horte refered to these the went to earlier Cursive text
(All Caps with no word seperation.
25 Charictors per line, 25 lines per page.
in other words W&H could see if the seperation of words were done
Corectly or not.
Many of the Cursive Texts have Major flaws in them as the words
were seperated Incorectly, by Comparison to the uncial texts.
such as the alexandrinus, the syriatic, and The synaticus
texts.
One could translate those 25 charictors, 25 Lines in a way to
1 Prove themselves right, 2 prove another wrong, and or 3
to gain Information, but only number 3 would be proper
Erasmus's bias is very apperant, in his Various Texts.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Sam. I
don't think that "the seperation of words" was a problem for
anyone...
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it
(Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
17 Jul 2004 05:49:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:46:51 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca>
wrote:
Sam Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:56:05 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca>
wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
Many Christians do not know that there exist two radically
different Greek texts based on different families of
manuscripts and displaying over 6,000 variations, many of
these in verses containing doctrine.
The New Greek Text edited by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
in 1881 may be the culprit in this quagmire of deception and
the cause of many liberal scholars' rejection of the Divine
inspiration of the New Testament. ...
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical
occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text
(Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic
manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief
system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations
and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars
can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival.
http://watch.pair.com/occult.html
The Life and Letters of Westcott and Hort reveal the mindset
and mischief of the two Anglican Spiritualists who despised
the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture.
http://watch.pair.com/another.html
There is, however, no evidence of an attempt to corrupt the
Scriptures on the part of Erasmus, whose 2nd edition of the
Greek New Testament laid the foundation for the Protestant
Reformation (as opposed to the W-H New Greek Text which
launched the Anglican Apostasy).
Erasmus used Later Cursive Text, which contained both Capital greek
Letters and Small letters, and the words were seperated, while
Wescotte & Horte refered to these the went to earlier Cursive text
(All Caps with no word seperation.
25 Charictors per line, 25 lines per page.
in other words W&H could see if the seperation of words were done
Corectly or not.
Many of the Cursive Texts have Major flaws in them as the words
were seperated Incorectly, by Comparison to the uncial texts.
such as the alexandrinus, the syriatic, and The synaticus
texts.
One could translate those 25 charictors, 25 Lines in a way to
1 Prove themselves right, 2 prove another wrong, and or 3
to gain Information, but only number 3 would be proper
Erasmus's bias is very apperant, in his Various Texts.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Sam. I
don't think that "the seperation of words" was a problem for
anyone...
If I typed
in Grteek
^DETHFIONTTHFKLLITM^
In a Language
Would I Be Saying
Det Hfi ontth HFK llitm?
or
Deth fion thfk l litm?
But if one was inclined to belive in a certain
Doctorine which would He belive was said?
as both are saying Different things
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it
(Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
19 Jul 2004 01:20:09 PM |
|
|
"Sam Taylor" <cygnet@cncnet.com> wrote in message
news:40f9aa34.22635898@news.quiknet.com...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:46:51 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca>
wrote:
Sam Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:56:05 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca>
wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
Many Christians do not know that there exist two radically
different Greek texts based on different families of
manuscripts and displaying over 6,000 variations, many of
these in verses containing doctrine.
The New Greek Text edited by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
in 1881 may be the culprit in this quagmire of deception and
the cause of many liberal scholars' rejection of the Divine
inspiration of the New Testament. ...
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical
occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text
(Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic
manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief
system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations
and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars
can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival.
http://watch.pair.com/occult.html
The Life and Letters of Westcott and Hort reveal the mindset
and mischief of the two Anglican Spiritualists who despised
the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture.
http://watch.pair.com/another.html
There is, however, no evidence of an attempt to corrupt the
Scriptures on the part of Erasmus, whose 2nd edition of the
Greek New Testament laid the foundation for the Protestant
Reformation (as opposed to the W-H New Greek Text which
launched the Anglican Apostasy).
Erasmus used Later Cursive Text, which contained both Capital greek
Letters and Small letters, and the words were seperated, while
Wescotte & Horte refered to these the went to earlier Cursive text
(All Caps with no word seperation.
25 Charictors per line, 25 lines per page.
in other words W&H could see if the seperation of words were done
Corectly or not.
Many of the Cursive Texts have Major flaws in them as the words
were seperated Incorectly, by Comparison to the uncial texts.
such as the alexandrinus, the syriatic, and The synaticus
texts.
One could translate those 25 charictors, 25 Lines in a way to
1 Prove themselves right, 2 prove another wrong, and or 3
to gain Information, but only number 3 would be proper
Erasmus's bias is very apperant, in his Various Texts.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Sam. I
don't think that "the seperation of words" was a problem for
anyone...
Does everyone realize that in writing the above Mr Kuchinsky confessed
his nearly total ignorance of the handwriting styles used in the
earliest Greek and Latin manuscripts? The separation of words when
studying uncial manuscripts is always an issue -- and sometimes THE
issue, because of the nature of Greek and Latin grammar and spelling.
But then one must have some minimal knowledge of the language to know
that, mustn't one?
If I typed
in Grteek
^DETHFIONTTHFKLLITM^
In a Language
Would I Be Saying
Det Hfi ontth HFK llitm?
or
Deth fion thfk l litm?
But if one was inclined to belive in a certain
Doctorine which would He belive was said?
as both are saying Different things
Precisely . . . .and the other examples are legion.
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it
(Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
19 Jul 2004 01:51:42 PM |
|
|
(Sam Taylor) wrote in message news:<40f9aa34.22635898@news.quiknet.com>...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:46:51 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca>
wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Sam. I
don't think that "the seperation of words" was a problem for
anyone...
If I typed
in Grteek
^DETHFIONTTHFKLLITM^
In a Language
Would I Be Saying
Det Hfi ontth HFK llitm?
or
Deth fion thfk l litm?
But if one was inclined to belive in a certain
Doctorine which would He belive was said?
as both are saying Different things
Sam,
At that time, it was a common convention to write like that. So
obviously they didn't see any big problem with writing like that.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The distressing realization is forced upon us that
the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
and critical texts are several times farther removed
from the original than are the Authorised Version
(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
21 Jul 2004 02:53:03 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2004 11:51:42 -0700, (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
cygnet@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor) wrote in message news:<40f9aa34.22635898@news.quiknet.com>...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:46:51 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky < >
wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Sam. I
don't think that "the seperation of words" was a problem for
anyone...
If I typed
in Grteek
^DETHFIONTTHFKLLITM^
In a Language
Would I Be Saying
Det Hfi ontth HFK llitm?
or
Deth fion thfk l litm?
But if one was inclined to belive in a certain
Doctorine which would He belive was said?
as both are saying Different things
Sam,
At that time, it was a common convention to write like that. So
obviously they didn't see any big problem with writing like that.
Best,
Yuri.
If i wrote
STOPAHEADINTHEROAD
am I Saying
Stop Ahead in the Road
or
Stop a Head in the Road
or
CROSSTRAFFICAHEAD
am i Talking about Angered Traffic?
or traffic Crossing the Road?
or
SLOWCHILDRENATPLAY
am I talking about backwords
Children, or asking traffic to slow down,
because of children?
to say this has no concern, is folly
as the Uncial texts have shown us over 1537
factual changes from the later Cursives
excluding texts that were inserted into the later
texts that you rely upon
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The distressing realization is forced upon us that
the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
and critical texts are several times farther removed
from the original than are the Authorised Version
(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
21 Jul 2004 02:56:22 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2004 11:51:42 -0700, (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
cygnet@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor) wrote in message news:<40f9aa34.22635898@news.quiknet.com>...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:46:51 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky < >
wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Sam. I
don't think that "the seperation of words" was a problem for
anyone...
If I typed
in Grteek
^DETHFIONTTHFKLLITM^
In a Language
Would I Be Saying
Det Hfi ontth HFK llitm?
or
Deth fion thfk l litm?
But if one was inclined to belive in a certain
Doctorine which would He belive was said?
as both are saying Different things
Sam,
At that time, it was a common convention to write like that. So
obviously they didn't see any big problem with writing like that.
Best,
Yuri.
how about
SLOWCHILDRENATPLAY
am I saying the Children aren't too bright?
or Slow down because of the Kids?
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The distressing realization is forced upon us that
the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
and critical texts are several times farther removed
from the original than are the Authorised Version
(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hieron" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
14 Jul 2004 08:27:31 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
--
Hieron
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
15 Jul 2004 12:02:01 PM |
|
|
"Hieron" <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
--
Hieron
You put that so politely . . . . Mr Kuchinsky is little more than a
King-James-is-the-only-English-scripture adherent masquerading as some
sort of self-proclaimed internet "scholar." The production of these nut
case web sites Kuchinsky cited above again prove his true allegience.
How did Westscott & Hort "cook up" the manuscripts that were found years
after their deaths?
And what is so "radically different" about the different families of New
Testament manuscripts?
Bet Mr Kuchinsky is not capable of pointing out a single such "radical
difference" . . . but Mr Kuchinsky generally is real long on his opinion
and real short on evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hieron" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
15 Jul 2004 06:33:50 PM |
|
|
Didymos wrote:
"Hieron" <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
--
Hieron
You put that so politely . . . . Mr Kuchinsky is little more than a
King-James-is-the-only-English-scripture adherent masquerading as some
sort of self-proclaimed internet "scholar." The production of these nut
case web sites Kuchinsky cited above again prove his true allegience.
How did Westscott & Hort "cook up" the manuscripts that were found years
after their deaths?
And what is so "radically different" about the different families of New
Testament manuscripts?
Bet Mr Kuchinsky is not capable of pointing out a single such "radical
difference" . . . but Mr Kuchinsky generally is real long on his opinion
and real short on evidence.
The text is not an issue to me anymore. It was once. But when one argues
about a certain verse, he should be aware that the reading is not generally
accepted. For example the so-called "Joannine Comma" is not found in any
known Greek manuscript, yet, it is in the hypothetical TR.
Personally I don't think the NA26 is perfect, but a lot better than the MT
or TR.
That's just my opinion.
--
Hieron
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
19 Jul 2004 12:50:20 PM |
|
|
"Hieron" <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:2loiiuFfa08rU2@uni-berlin.de...
Didymos wrote:
"Hieron" <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
--
Hieron
You put that so politely . . . . Mr Kuchinsky is little more than a
King-James-is-the-only-English-scripture adherent masquerading as
some
sort of self-proclaimed internet "scholar." The production of these
nut
case web sites Kuchinsky cited above again prove his true
allegience.
How did Westscott & Hort "cook up" the manuscripts that were found
years
after their deaths?
And what is so "radically different" about the different families of
New
Testament manuscripts?
Bet Mr Kuchinsky is not capable of pointing out a single such
"radical
difference" . . . but Mr Kuchinsky generally is real long on his
opinion
and real short on evidence.
The text is not an issue to me anymore. It was once. But when one
argues
about a certain verse, he should be aware that the reading is not
generally
accepted. For example the so-called "Joannine Comma" is not found in
any
known Greek manuscript, yet, it is in the hypothetical TR.
Personally I don't think the NA26 is perfect, but a lot better than
the MT
or TR.
That's just my opinion.
--
Hieron
Sorry it took so longto get back . . .
It (the text) really never was an issue with me. I just find the
silliness of the King-James-is-the-only-scripture and "Byzantine
Superiority" arguments so preposterous I can't let them go unchallenged.
People such as Mr Kuchinsky try to wrap that set of silly beliefs in
historical, archaeological and text critical arguments, when they have
utterly no basis in any known historical, text critical or
archaeological method. In short, it is absurd from every viewpoint
except theological, and there is not terribly much support for those
positions there. And obviously the Johannine Comma is a late addition.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "moshe" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
22 Jul 2004 01:37:00 AM |
|
|
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of manuscripts and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable, since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects one's
salvation.
BTW, the "KIng James Only" people that you have repeatedly criticized
in the past are not the only ones who display such attitudes.
See Rob Strom's insistence that the Revised Standard Version is *the*
version that can be trusted, a version which is apparently based on
the Alexandrian Text considering the passages that he says are missing
from it.
So that would make Strom a "King James Never" person.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
22 Jul 2004 01:23:12 PM |
|
|
"moshe" <joesterl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
Where did you get that idea? What is "NU / Alexandrian Greek Text "?
Is there such a thing?
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of manuscripts and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable, since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects one's
salvation.
BTW, the "KIng James Only" people that you have repeatedly criticized
in the past are not the only ones who display such attitudes.
See Rob Strom's insistence that the Revised Standard Version is *the*
version that can be trusted, a version which is apparently based on
the Alexandrian Text considering the passages that he says are missing
from it.
So that would make Strom a "King James Never" person.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: "moshe" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
23 Jul 2004 06:01:50 AM |
|
|
" Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<41000299_5@127.0.0.1>...
...
Where did you get that idea? What is "NU / Alexandrian Greek Text "?
Is there such a thing?
**********
N = Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
U = United Bible Society Greek New Testament
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
23 Jul 2004 04:22:42 PM |
|
|
"moshe" <joesterl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f21e75.0407230301.7396fc77@posting.google.com...
" Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<41000299_5@127.0.0.1>...
..
Where did you get that idea? What is "NU / Alexandrian Greek Text
"?
Is there such a thing?
**********
N = Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
U = United Bible Society Greek New Testament
Those were joined into a single Greek text in the UBS 4th edition of
1993, weren't they? At least the edition I have says so. So did Kurt
Aland in the 2nd edition of he and his wife Barbara's "The Text of the
New Testament."
What makes this an "Alexandrian Greek Text"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Strom" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
22 Jul 2004 01:03:13 PM |
|
|
(moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
....
BTW, the "KIng James Only" people that you have repeatedly criticized
in the past are not the only ones who display such attitudes.
See Rob Strom's insistence that the Revised Standard Version is *the*
version that can be trusted, a version which is apparently based on
the Alexandrian Text considering the passages that he says are missing
from it.
So that would make Strom a "King James Never" person.
Except I never insisted on anything of the kind.
--
Rob Strom
.
|
|
|
| User: "moshe" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
24 Jul 2004 10:36:10 AM |
|
|
(Rob Strom) wrote in message news:<abea7612.0407221003.913780d@posting.google.com>...
joesterl@hotmail.com (moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
...
BTW, the "KIng James Only" people that you have repeatedly criticized
in the past are not the only ones who display such attitudes.
See Rob Strom's insistence that the Revised Standard Version is *the*
version that can be trusted, a version which is apparently based on
the Alexandrian Text considering the passages that he says are missing
from it.
So that would make Strom a "King James Never" person.
Except I never insisted on anything of the kind.
*********
You said that you trusted the Revised Standard Version because you
knew the scholarship of the men behind that version.
You said that you did not know the scholarship of the men behind the
other versions,
thereforefore you did not trust the scholarship of the men behind the
other versions,
and that you had no intention of bothering to investigate the
scholarship of the men behind the other versions to see if you might
come to trust them in the future.
That would be "KIng James Never" and "New KIng James Never" and
"Majority Text Never" and "Textus Receptus Never".
Because you consider their scholarship suspect and you have no
intention of investigating in order to clear them of suspicion.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Strom" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
24 Jul 2004 10:15:09 PM |
|
|
(moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407240736.66aa80ce@posting.google.com>...
strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) wrote in message news:<abea7612.0407221003.913780d@posting.google.com>...
(moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
...
BTW, the "KIng James Only" people that you have repeatedly criticized
in the past are not the only ones who display such attitudes.
See Rob Strom's insistence that the Revised Standard Version is *the*
version that can be trusted, a version which is apparently based on
the Alexandrian Text considering the passages that he says are missing
from it.
So that would make Strom a "King James Never" person.
Except I never insisted on anything of the kind.
*********
You said that you trusted the Revised Standard Version because you
knew the scholarship of the men behind that version.
You said that you did not know the scholarship of the men behind the
other versions,
thereforefore you did not trust the scholarship of the men behind the
other versions,
and that you had no intention of bothering to investigate the
scholarship of the men behind the other versions to see if you might
come to trust them in the future.
Really???? I said that????
Or did I say let's not make *this* argument depend upon the
details of which translation you use, since the one I'm using
is written by mainstream educated people.
("This argument" meant one from alt.messianic. Why my
position about this was firehosed to a zillion different additional
newsgroups that I never even read is beyond me.)
That would be "KIng James Never" and "New KIng James Never" and
"Majority Text Never" and "Textus Receptus Never".
Because you consider their scholarship suspect and you have no
intention of investigating in order to clear them of suspicion.
I have no intention of derailing the discussion to explore
versions of the Bible I've never even heard of, if they don't
relate to the issue being discussed.
I don't derail arguments in order to discuss fine points of
computer science, and you shouldn't stop arguments in order
to discuss fine points of Bible translation. I would
hope that the differences between these translations are
subtle, and don't affect the core messages that distinguish
Christianity from Judaism.
If you
really think that the meaning of Mark's synopsis of
Jesus' so-called "Olivet" speech depends upon having
a Textus Receptus Bible rather than an RJV Bible, then
you also would have to think that mainstream Protestants
in the English speaking world actually practice a false
religion. Is that what you really think???
--
Rob Strom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
25 Jul 2004 01:32:24 PM |
|
|
Rob Strom wrote:
....
I would
hope that the differences between these translations are
subtle, and don't affect the core messages that distinguish
Christianity from Judaism.
The differences between these Greek texts (rather than
translations) are massive, and they often affect the core
messages of Christianity.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The distressing realization is forced upon us that
the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
and critical texts are several times farther removed
from the original than are the Authorised Version
(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
22 Jul 2004 01:40:48 PM |
|
|
(moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of manuscripts and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable, since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects one's
salvation.
Really, moshe?
So how about Jesus being a liar? Do you see this as a minor difference?
Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm
BTW, the "KIng James Only" people that you have repeatedly criticized
in the past are not the only ones who display such attitudes.
See Rob Strom's insistence that the Revised Standard Version is *the*
version that can be trusted, a version which is apparently based on
the Alexandrian Text considering the passages that he says are missing
from it.
So that would make Strom a "King James Never" person.
- moshe
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely
to be accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open
mindedness; whereas ability to repeat catch-phrases,
cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the conceit of
learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof
to new ideas" -- John Dewey
.
|
|
|
| User: "moshe" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
23 Jul 2004 06:19:39 AM |
|
|
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message news:<2b61489c.0407221040.6426808@posting.google.com>...
joesterl@hotmail.com (moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of manuscripts and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable, since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects one's
salvation.
Really, moshe?
So how about Jesus being a liar? Do you see this as a minor difference?
Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm
***********
Whether the word "yet" should appear in John 7:8 does not affect any
of the doctrines which relate to our salvation.
Verb tenses are important.
There are people in this newsgroup who have accused me of being a liar
because they either ignore or deliberatelly misrepresent my verb
tenses.
Suppose that the word "yet" is removed from John 7:8.
Can the remaining verse still contain the meaning of yet?
Yes (if that verb is being correctly translated from the Greek in my
Bible).
"I am not going" is present tense and refers to today, now.
"I will not be going" refers to the future.
If Jesus said "I am not going", that technically only refers to today
and leaves open the possibility of his going tomorrow.
Verse 10 says that *after* the brothers went to the feast *then* Jesus
went also, showing that Jesus went not "now" but "future".
And since verse 10 shows that Jesus wanted to go secretly, I suspect
that he worded verse 8 very carefully so that he was saying "I am not
going" knowing that they would *think* that he meant "I will not be
going".
That does not show Jesus lying.
It shows Jesus being very clever in his wording so as to enable him to
go to the festival in secret.
So the Textus Receptus and Majority Text show Jesus openly saying
"yet", while the Alexandrian shows Jesus carefully wording his
statement so as to hide his intention of going to the festival the
next day.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
23 Jul 2004 04:24:44 PM |
|
|
"moshe" <joesterl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f21e75.0407230319.1d06678d@posting.google.com...
yuku@trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message
news:<2b61489c.0407221040.6426808@posting.google.com>...
joesterl@hotmail.com (moshe) wrote in message
news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist
views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of manuscripts
and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable,
since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus
Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the
Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects
one's
salvation.
Really, moshe?
So how about Jesus being a liar? Do you see this as a minor
difference?
Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm
***********
Whether the word "yet" should appear in John 7:8 does not affect any
of the doctrines which relate to our salvation.
Verb tenses are important.
There are people in this newsgroup who have accused me of being a liar
because they either ignore or deliberatelly misrepresent my verb
tenses.
Suppose that the word "yet" is removed from John 7:8.
Can the remaining verse still contain the meaning of yet?
Yes (if that verb is being correctly translated from the Greek in my
Bible).
"I am not going" is present tense and refers to today, now.
"I will not be going" refers to the future.
If Jesus said "I am not going", that technically only refers to today
and leaves open the possibility of his going tomorrow.
Verse 10 says that *after* the brothers went to the feast *then* Jesus
went also, showing that Jesus went not "now" but "future".
And since verse 10 shows that Jesus wanted to go secretly, I suspect
that he worded verse 8 very carefully so that he was saying "I am not
going" knowing that they would *think* that he meant "I will not be
going".
That does not show Jesus lying.
It shows Jesus being very clever in his wording so as to enable him to
go to the festival in secret.
So the Textus Receptus and Majority Text show Jesus openly saying
"yet", while the Alexandrian shows Jesus carefully wording his
statement so as to hide his intention of going to the festival the
next day.
- moshe
Astounding how Mr Kuchinsky consistently and persistently fails to grasp
the rudiments of Greek grammar, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
25 Jul 2004 01:42:58 PM |
|
|
(moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407230319.1d06678d@posting.google.com>...
yuku@trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message news:<2b61489c.0407221040.6426808@posting.google.com>...
(moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects one's
salvation.
Really, moshe?
So how about Jesus being a liar? Do you see this as a minor difference?
Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm
***********
Whether the word "yet" should appear in John 7:8 does not affect any
of the doctrines which relate to our salvation.
Verb tenses are important.
There are people in this newsgroup who have accused me of being a liar
because they either ignore or deliberatelly misrepresent my verb
tenses.
Suppose that the word "yet" is removed from John 7:8.
Can the remaining verse still contain the meaning of yet?
Yes (if that verb is being correctly translated from the Greek in my
Bible).
"I am not going" is present tense and refers to today, now.
"I will not be going" refers to the future.
If Jesus said "I am not going", that technically only refers to today
and leaves open the possibility of his going tomorrow.
Verse 10 says that *after* the brothers went to the feast *then* Jesus
went also, showing that Jesus went not "now" but "future".
And since verse 10 shows that Jesus wanted to go secretly, I suspect
that he worded verse 8 very carefully so that he was saying "I am not
going" knowing that they would *think* that he meant "I will not be
going".
That does not show Jesus lying.
It shows Jesus being very clever in his wording so as to enable him to
go to the festival in secret.
So the Textus Receptus and Majority Text show Jesus openly saying
"yet", while the Alexandrian shows Jesus carefully wording his
statement so as to hide his intention of going to the festival the
next day.
- moshe
Hi, moshe,
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
Are you saying that there's no difficulty here at all? There sure
seems to be some sort of a contradiction there between verse 8 and
verse 10...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The distressing realization is forced upon us that
the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
and critical texts are several times farther removed
from the original than are the Authorised Version
(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
23 Jul 2004 11:57:49 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2004 04:19:39 -0700, (moshe) wrote:
yuku@trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message news:<2b61489c.0407221040.6426808@posting.google.com>...
(moshe) wrote in message news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of manuscripts and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable, since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects one's
salvation.
Really, moshe?
So how about Jesus being a liar? Do you see this as a minor difference?
Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm
***********
Whether the word "yet" should appear in John 7:8 does not affect any
of the doctrines which relate to our salvation.
Verb tenses are important.
There are people in this newsgroup who have accused me of being a liar
because they either ignore or deliberatelly misrepresent my verb
tenses.
Suppose that the word "yet" is removed from John 7:8.
Can the remaining verse still contain the meaning of yet?
Yes (if that verb is being correctly translated from the Greek in my
Bible).
"I am not going" is present tense and refers to today, now.
"I will not be going" refers to the future.
If Jesus said "I am not going", that technically only refers to today
and leaves open the possibility of his going tomorrow.
Verse 10 says that *after* the brothers went to the feast *then* Jesus
went also, showing that Jesus went not "now" but "future".
And since verse 10 shows that Jesus wanted to go secretly, I suspect
that he worded verse 8 very carefully so that he was saying "I am not
going" knowing that they would *think* that he meant "I will not be
going".
That does not show Jesus lying.
It shows Jesus being very clever in his wording so as to enable him to
go to the festival in secret.
So the Textus Receptus and Majority Text show Jesus openly saying
"yet", while the Alexandrian shows Jesus carefully wording his
statement so as to hide his intention of going to the festival the
next day.
Could that be that Past/present/and future tenses were not part
of the Original greek of the Uncials, as they came into being around
the 8th Century
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
23 Jul 2004 04:29:25 PM |
|
|
"Sam Taylor" <cygnet@cncnet.com> wrote in message
news:41014304.3089500@news.quiknet.com...
On 23 Jul 2004 04:19:39 -0700, (moshe) wrote:
yuku@trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message
news:<2b61489c.0407221040.6426808@posting.google.com>...
(moshe) wrote in message
news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist
views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered
more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of
manuscripts and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were
eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable,
since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus
Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the
Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects
one's
salvation.
Really, moshe?
So how about Jesus being a liar? Do you see this as a minor
difference?
Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm
***********
Whether the word "yet" should appear in John 7:8 does not affect any
of the doctrines which relate to our salvation.
Verb tenses are important.
There are people in this newsgroup who have accused me of being a
liar
because they either ignore or deliberatelly misrepresent my verb
tenses.
Suppose that the word "yet" is removed from John 7:8.
Can the remaining verse still contain the meaning of yet?
Yes (if that verb is being correctly translated from the Greek in my
Bible).
"I am not going" is present tense and refers to today, now.
"I will not be going" refers to the future.
If Jesus said "I am not going", that technically only refers to today
and leaves open the possibility of his going tomorrow.
Verse 10 says that *after* the brothers went to the feast *then*
Jesus
went also, showing that Jesus went not "now" but "future".
And since verse 10 shows that Jesus wanted to go secretly, I suspect
that he worded verse 8 very carefully so that he was saying "I am not
going" knowing that they would *think* that he meant "I will not be
going".
That does not show Jesus lying.
It shows Jesus being very clever in his wording so as to enable him
to
go to the festival in secret.
So the Textus Receptus and Majority Text show Jesus openly saying
"yet", while the Alexandrian shows Jesus carefully wording his
statement so as to hide his intention of going to the festival the
next day.
Could that be that Past/present/and future tenses were not part
of the Original greek of the Uncials, as they came into being around
the 8th Century
No. There are distinct tenses in the earliest Greek of the Homeric
epics and the earliest Greek writings. Koine was a Hellenistic
development from the Attic family of Greek and verbs had been parsed in
detail by the late date of the uncial New Testament manuscripts, and
some centuries before.
What uncials came into being around the 8th century?
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
25 Jul 2004 03:26:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:25 -0500, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
"Sam Taylor" <cygnet@cncnet.com> wrote in message
news:41014304.3089500@news.quiknet.com...
On 23 Jul 2004 04:19:39 -0700, (moshe) wrote:
yuku@trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message
news:<2b61489c.0407221040.6426808@posting.google.com>...
(moshe) wrote in message
news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
summary is generally quite valid, I think.
And there are also some links supplied there for further
info.
While, myself, I'm a supporter of the Semitic textual
tradition of the gospels, I still think that the traditional
Byzantine Greek text is far superior to what Westcott and
Hort cooked up for us back in 1881. (Which, of course, still
remains nearly identical to what Metzger/ Aland and the UBS
are currently peddling, i.e. the basis of all modern English
translation of the New Testament.)
Shalom,
Yuri.
[quote]
http://watch.pair.com/HRM.html
These articles represent traditional KJV Only fundamentalist
views.
************
Since the NU / Alexandrian Greek Text is mostly based on only a a
couple of manuscripts I don't see why it should be considered
more
reliable, regardless of the age of those 2 manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is based on a much larger group of
manuscripts and
should probably be considered more reliable.
100 witnesses out-weigh 2 witnesses where none were
eye-witnesses.
But I would expect the Majority Text to be the most reliable,
since it
is based on the most texts.
But the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus
Receptus
are extremely minor.
And even the differences between the Majority Text and the
Alexandrian
Text are relatively minor, since I have never seen any difference
between the two which would relate to a doctrine which affects
one's
salvation.
Really, moshe?
So how about Jesus being a liar? Do you see this as a minor
difference?
Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm
***********
Whether the word "yet" should appear in John 7:8 does not affect any
of the doctrines which relate to our salvation.
Verb tenses are important.
There are people in this newsgroup who have accused me of being a
liar
because they either ignore or deliberatelly misrepresent my verb
tenses.
Suppose that the word "yet" is removed from John 7:8.
Can the remaining verse still contain the meaning of yet?
Yes (if that verb is being correctly translated from the Greek in my
Bible).
"I am not going" is present tense and refers to today, now.
"I will not be going" refers to the future.
If Jesus said "I am not going", that technically only refers to today
and leaves open the possibility of his going tomorrow.
Verse 10 says that *after* the brothers went to the feast *then*
Jesus
went also, showing that Jesus went not "now" but "future".
And since verse 10 shows that Jesus wanted to go secretly, I suspect
that he worded verse 8 very carefully so that he was saying "I am not
going" knowing that they would *think* that he meant "I will not be
going".
That does not show Jesus lying.
It shows Jesus being very clever in his wording so as to enable him
to
go to the festival in secret.
So the Textus Receptus and Majority Text show Jesus openly saying
"yet", while the Alexandrian shows Jesus carefully wording his
statement so as to hide his intention of going to the festival the
next day.
Could that be that Past/present/and future tenses were not part
of the Original greek of the Uncials, as they came into being around
the 8th Century
No. There are distinct tenses in the earliest Greek of the Homeric
epics and the earliest Greek writings. Koine was a Hellenistic
development from the Attic family of Greek and verbs had been parsed in
detail by the late date of the uncial New Testament manuscripts, and
some centuries before.
What uncials came into being around the 8th century?
All the 8th century texts were Uncials, as the Cursive texts began to
show up with the Vaticanus series, 1207/1209/1241/1247 ect.
when the Cursive texts began to flourish.
there are Cursives in the 9th century, but it wasn't until the later
8th century, that Past, and Future tenses were Introduced
into the Greek Language, they were an Arab invention,
Introduced by the spread of Islam., and the Influences of
Islam upon western Cultures.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: two radically different Greek texts |
25 Jul 2004 02:14:18 PM |
|
|
"Sam Taylor" <cygnet@cncnet.com> wrote in message
news:41036d86.6317213@news.quiknet.com...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:25 -0500, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
"Sam Taylor" <cygnet@cncnet.com> wrote in message
news:41014304.3089500@news.quiknet.com...
On 23 Jul 2004 04:19:39 -0700, (moshe) wrote:
yuku@trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message
news:<2b61489c.0407221040.6426808@posting.google.com>...
(moshe) wrote in message
news:<40f21e75.0407212237.215b85d@posting.google.com>...
Hieron <george@msn.de> wrote in message
news:<2lm4s3FeeheqU2@uni-berlin.de>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear friends,
Here's something that I've found on the Net re | | | | | | | | |
