Is the Byzantine Text a "late" text?

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by kman:

Thanks Archangel7. I read Pickerings stuff a while back and was unfortunately deceived.

That is what irks me the most regarding the entire textual issue..there is alot of deception, false statements, and poor scholarship that leaves one wondering who is telling the truth.

Who do you suggest are reliable trustworthy witnesses to the textual issue? Books? Articles?

Nobody approaches the issues of Biblical translations and textual criticism completely bias-free. Some, however, endeavour to be more objective than others. My advice would be to read some of the better works from different sides of the issue, weigh the evidence and arguments, and decide for yourself -- "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21, ESV).

One of the best TC sites on the Web is Bob Waltz' Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. Lots of good info there offered from a balanced perspective.

I'd also recommend some of the standard introductory works: Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament; Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament; and Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux' An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. To understand why the editorial committee of the UBS Greek NT made its decisions, check out Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. These works all reflect the consensus of current mainstream Biblical scholarhip which employs the "reasoned eclectic" method.

There's also a book entitled Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism edited by David Alan Black. It contains essays by advocates of three different schools of textual criticism making a case for each one. Michael Holmes represents the "reasoned eclectic" position (the best reading is determined by considering all the evidence, both internal and external); J.K. Elliott argues for the "thoroughgoing eclectic" position (the best reading is determined by internal evidence alone); and Maurice A. Robinson makes the case for the "Byzantine Priority" position (the best reading is the one with the most secure transmissional history found in the majority of extant MSS).

On the "King James Only" issue, read both James White's The King James Only Controversy and Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory. Both are partisan -- White is "anti-KJVO" and Holland is "pro-KJVO" -- but these two writers argue for their respective positions in a civil and Christlike manner.

I hope this is helpful.

[ November 13, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
I hope this is helpful.

Yes..thank you.

-kman

 

[HankD]

So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.

OK is the New World Translation inspired?
If not why not?

Is the Latin Vulgate which held sway over the Church for over 1000 years?

How about Wyclif's translation?
What about Tyndale's translation?
The Geneva Bible?

What are the criteria and where in the Scripture are these criteria found?

HankD

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Scott, you asked: Questions: If the TR has readings drawn directly from the Latin Vulgate without any Greek support, does that mean that either all the Greek or else the TR contains "foreign matter"?


Example, please. I imagine you are referring to the wives fable concerning Revelation 22. Can you be more specific so I won't have to guess?


Scott>>>Have you found the Greek ms that matches the TR word for word? Which one is it? If you haven't then how do you arrive at the conclusion that the TR and only the TR is the "same water" as the originals?

No, Scott. I am not aware of any ONE ms. that matches the KJB. Don't all your other bible versions do the same thing, where they take some from this one and some from that one? Of course they do.

By the way, there is no "THE" TR, but I think you already know this.


Scott>>>If the KJV ever strays from the TR, does that mean that one or the other is not of the "same water"?

Again, there is no "the" TR. My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His wordS,as the Scriptures teach - not just the general message or whatever. I have faith that we do have an inspired Bible today and you obviously do not, since you came right out and stated so in another post.

Neither one of us can "prove" anything so as to convince the other. All I can do is show the superiority of the KJB and how the new versions are corrupted and bear false witness. Then we have to leave it up to God to open eyes and give understanding as He wills.

God bless,

Will K

 

[HankD]

Again, there is no "the" TR.

Yes there is Will, but to be sure this is a subjective matter.

It is the Scrivener 1894/5 Textus Receptus.

There is far less than 1 percent of difference between the Erasmus (1535), Stephanus (1550) Beza (1583) Traditional Text documents.

For the most part, these apparently are the Greek documents the KJV translators used.

Of the tiny fraction of variants between these documents, Scrivener distilled out the Greek words to match the choices made by the translators reflected in the 1850 King James English Version of the Bible (NT).

FYI and FWIW, This is the Greek text used by Dr. Peter Ruckman (KJVO chief spokeman if you didn't already know).

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

FYI and FWIW, This is the Greek text used by Dr. Peter Ruckman (KJVO chief spokeman if you didn't already know).

Well DUH!!! FYI and FWIW,if you or any other here would get over your fear and predudice(mostly from heresay)and read some of his books you would find out that he "uses" a whole lot more than that in the classroom;this is to show the superiority of the KJB,and to expose [snipped by moderator] the texts they come from.

[ November 16, 2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[HankD]

Dear A-A,

I have read some of his publications and in my opinion either you are he or his clone.

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I have read some of his publications and in my opinion either you are he or his clone.

I am neither.I am a Bible(KJB) believer; and,like him,reject the Alexandrian texts and the "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)that come from them.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:



Example, please. I imagine you are referring to the wives fable concerning Revelation 22. Can you be more specific so I won't have to guess?

Demonstrate that it is a fable. Please list the Greek mss that say "book" rather than "tree"... that were in existence prior to Erasmus' work of course.

No, Scott. I am not aware of any ONE ms. that matches the KJB. Don't all your other bible versions do the same thing, where they take some from this one and some from that one? Of course they do.

But I never said it was a problem nor have I claimed that we possess a single set of inspired words. You have. You say persistently that the KJV is the manifestation of God's perfect preservation of words... not His Word but words. If not one Greek ms matches the KJV, or the TR for that matter, then your premise is false. There is not perfect preservation of words.

By the way, there is no "THE" TR, but I think you already know this.

Oh, so now there is not only no perfect succession of Greek copies, there is also no perfect underlying text for the KJV?


Scott>>>If the KJV ever strays from the TR, does that mean that one or the other is not of the "same water"?

My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His wordS,as the Scriptures teach - not just the general message or whatever.

Please show from scripture how God said He would preserve the Bible for the last 1900 years.

I have faith that we do have an inspired Bible today and you obviously do not, since you came right out and stated so in another post.

No. I said we didn't have inspired words nor translations. The Word is inspired... and the difference in these things is critical yet very elementary.

Neither one of us can "prove" anything so as to convince the other. All I can do is show the superiority of the KJB and how the new versions are corrupted and bear false witness.

You cannot even do this. You only demonstrate dishonesty by employing double standards and circular reasoning. You start with what you believe then only accept as "true" things that support your belief... then say "a ha, see there I'm right."

Then we have to leave it up to God to open eyes and give understanding as He wills.

With this I agree. I sincerely pray that if I am wrong God will show me. This is an important issue and one that would be more convenient for me if I believed as you do. However, the more I pray that God will show me if I am wrong, the further removed from the KJVO position I become.

 

[mioque]

Hank&Anti-Alexandrian
This dr. Ruckman you 2 are talking about, wouldn't happen to be the guy who said the following?
"“To this day Ham’s children are born light-colored and turn dark in 18 hours! Japheth’s children are born red and turn white! Since our original color is defined as ‘Adam’ (‘red-brown’), the original color must have been red-clay, as we find it in Georgia. This itself accounts for a curious Negro custom, which close-hand observers have had time to watch--the eating of red clay by the spoonful out of the clay banks of North Alabama BY NEGROES. Ham’s hidden desire is to get a color back that was evidently lost somewhere between Genesis 3 and Genesis 10” (Peter S. Ruckman, Segregation or Integration, page 34)."

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Just exactly what does all of that have to do with the Byzantine text??

 

[HankD]

Dear A-A,

It is indirectly related.

Ham is presumably the fore-father of the Alexandrians which the KJVO fear so much.

Those (Alexandrians) whom they say corrupted the Word of God.

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Those (Alexandrians) whom they say corrupted the Word of God.

No,they did not and can not corrupt the Word of God(capital W),because that Word is found in John 1;who is incorruptable as per Romans 1:23.

However,they did in fact corrupt the word(little w;Matt 24:35,Psalm 12:6-7,and Proverbs 30:5)of God and it is still going on today;as per Gen 3 and 2nd Corinthians 2:17.

 

[HankD]

Good point A-A concerning the Word of God in John 1.

You are right, I stand corrected.

My point about Ham still stands being the fore-father of the Alexandrians.

And yes (IMO) , except for Athanasius (and a precious few others), the Alexandrians were nothing but trouble for the Apostolic Church.
In fact they even imprisoned Athanasius for his views.

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

My point about Ham still stands being the fore-father of the Alexandrians.

You are absolutly correct.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear A-A,

It is indirectly related.

Ham is presumably the fore-father of the Alexandrians which the KJVO fear so much.

Those (Alexandrians) whom they say corrupted the Word of God.

HankD

Was Ham cursed? If so, will God curse anyone who produced the Alexandrian Texts?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear A-A,

It is indirectly related.

Ham is presumably the fore-father of the Alexandrians which the KJVO fear so much.

Those (Alexandrians) whom they say corrupted the Word of God.

HankD

Another question is:

Was Ham homosexual? If so, look at the NIV that these current homosexuals bought the NIV business. Now they own it.

 

[HankD]

Was Ham homosexual?

Some believe it to be a possiblity from the text but there is nothing there that I can see to prove it without a doubt.

There is however a similar ugly rumor concerning King James which I have chosen NOT to believe.

While this sin is categorized as an abominatiom so are several others. If the publication of the Bible depended upon sinless human translators we wouldn't have one unless it dropped down out of heaven.

Look even at some of the inspired writers of the Bible. King David guilty of premeditated murder of the first degree, yet he wrote from the breath of God through his mind onto the page

Psalm 130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
Some believe it to be a possiblity from the text but there is nothing there that I can see to prove it without a doubt.

If Ham was not homosexual, how would Noah curse him?

There is however a similar ugly rumor concerning King James which I have chosen NOT to believe.

After King James died, there was a great rumor against him. Some enemies said he was. However when King James was alive, no one reported it.

Look even at some of the inspired writers of the Bible. King David guilty of premeditated murder of the first degree, yet he wrote from the breath of God through his mind onto the page

Did David repent before he wrote the book of Psalm?

 

[mioque]

Anti-Alexandrian
"Just exactly what does all of that have to do with the Byzantine text??"
To be honest to me it was mostly a personal attack levelled at Ruckman.

Not that anyone noticed.
By the way in the original Greek there is no difference between W and w.

Askjo
"Was Ham cursed?"
Apparently he was cursed by Noach not by God.

"Was Ham homosexual?"
And if he was, did he rape his own dad?

"If Ham was not homosexual, how would Noah curse him?"
Apparently in those days, fathers could do these things.

"Did David repent before he wrote the book of Psalm? "
Considering that it is a bundle of poetry, it possibly was written throughout large parts of David's life.