Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Yet another reason why the work of scholars and experts need to be approached with caution is, due to the source of their knowledge. Often they may simply have learned the errors of their teachers, and in spite of their vast knowledge they may in some instances be simply regurgitating the errors of their mentors.

Of a truth every denomination has their experts in both theology and philosophy, yet we know full well not all denominations agree. Overcoming the errors of one's schooling would be a hard matter to accomplish. Certainly some do and do approach the issue from an unbiased position, but I would assume they are the exception to the rule.

When dealing with the Scriptures and theological and philosophical ideas being involved, coupled with translating them language to language, notions that may not have all been the object of the original inspired autographs, may well crept into even the earliest of manuscripts and translations.

I know of English teachers that disagree with certain matters even of the English language. I know full well from being on this list that different individuals from varying denominational backgrounds can look at the very same text and read into it completely different ideas and notions. Are we to believe for a minute that when the scribes and translators translated from the original languages, or even as they copied early transcripts, that they never tried to clarify or correct former errors of a scribe or translator before them? Are we to believe that men who would kill their fellow man over theological differences such as issues of the Trinity would not try to clarify certain passages to support that which they would even kill another over, thinking they do God a service? It would stretch my imagination beyond imaginable bounds to believe for a minute that the text traveled through the hands of many of these individuals so indoctrinated and sure of their own thoughts that they would kill others for the simple matter of disagreement with them, and yet not alter a passage that to them might need clarity or further explanation to gain the desired end of relating to those reading their works that which they perceived as truth, or to correct what in their minds appeared to be possible mistakes of others.

Certainly modern-day translators have taken all sorts of flak for their work. They have been accused of practically anything and everything. Are we to suppose that only those of a particular text we happen to be fond of our pure as driven snow, able to divine truth without the possibility of error, or the slightest inclination to add clarity to difficult passages in line with that which they personally believe is truth? Are we to suppose that only modern-day translators have an agenda and are biased, but those of old never suffered from like tendencies and even faults, regardless of how many languages they could speak or credentials they possessed?

Maybe I suffer from a mild case of cynicism, having been educated in the area of the human heart and mind on lists such as we are on.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet another reason why the work of scholars and experts need to be approached with caution is, due to the source of their knowledge. Often they may simply have learned the errors of their teachers, and in spite of their vast knowledge they may in some instances be simply regurgitating the errors of their mentors.

Of a truth every denomination has their experts in both theology and philosophy, yet we know full well not all denominations agree. Overcoming the errors of one's schooling would be a hard matter to accomplish. Certainly some do and do approach the issue from an unbiased position, but I would assume they are the exception to the rule.

When dealing with the Scriptures and theological and philosophical ideas being involved, coupled with translating them language to language, notions that may not have all been the object of the original inspired autographs, may well crept into even the earliest of manuscripts and translations.

I know of English teachers that disagree with certain matters even of the English language. I know full well from being on this list that different individuals from varying denominational backgrounds can look at the very same text and read into it completely different ideas and notions. Are we to believe for a minute that when the scribes and translators translated from the original languages, or even as they copied early transcripts, that they never tried to clarify or correct former errors of a scribe or translator before them? Are we to believe that men who would kill their fellow man over theological differences such as issues of the Trinity would not try to clarify certain passages to support that which they would even kill another over, thinking they do God a service? It would stretch my imagination beyond imaginable bounds to believe for a minute that the text traveled through the hands of many of these individuals so indoctrinated and sure of their own thoughts that they would kill others for the simple matter of disagreement with them, and yet not alter a passage that to them might need clarity or further explanation to gain the desired end of relating to those reading their works that which they perceived as truth, or to correct what in their minds appeared to be possible mistakes of others.

Certainly modern-day translators have taken all sorts of flak for their work. They have been accused of practically anything and everything. Are we to suppose that only those of a particular text we happen to be fond of our pure as driven snow, able to divine truth without the possibility of error, or the slightest inclination to add clarity to difficult passages in line with that which they personally believe is truth? Are we to suppose that only modern-day translators have an agenda and are biased, but those of old never suffered from like tendencies and even faults, regardless of how many languages they could speak or credentials they possessed?

Maybe I suffer from a mild case of cynicism, having been educated in the area of the human heart and mind on lists such as we are on.

When you get done playing your mind game, the problem for your interpretation remains the same. Mark and Luke say exactly what you don't want them to say and Matthew has a split discision.

1. You have no contextual evidence to overrule Mark and Luke

2. You have to reject inspiration to overule Mark and Luke and the reading in Matthew that agrees with Mark and Luke



You simply are at a complete dead end and all your elusive manuevering means nothing and you have to reject common sense as well as inspriation of the Scriptures to overule Mark and Luke.

 

[The Biblicist]

When you get done playing your mind game, the problem for your interpretation remains the same. Mark and Luke say exactly what you don't want them to say and Matthew has a split discision.

1. You have no contextual evidence to overrule Mark and Luke

2. You have to reject inspiration to overule Mark and Luke and the reading in Matthew that agrees with Mark and Luke



You simply are at a complete dead end and all your elusive manuevering means nothing and you have to reject common sense as well as inspriation of the Scriptures to overule Mark and Luke.

In Matthew, Mark and Luke there are some synonymous ideas that prove the KJV selection of the reading in Matthew that agrees with both Mark and Luke is correct.

A. The Contextual meaning of "agathos" is Perfection

1. The Intrinsic goodness of God = perfection

2. The instrinsic goodness of the law = perfection

3. "if thou wilt be Perfect" is precisely the summation by Christ of both the young mans claims and the goal he must acheive to "do" to inherit eternal life.



B. This man already claims perfection

It is his claim by his equal application of "agathos" to Christ and himself.

It is his claim by asserting he had kept the law from his youth up



C. Jesus denies His claim to perfection

It is denied by Christ by asserting agathos belonged only to one - God

It is denied by Christ by asserting he had not yet attained it "if thou wilt be perfect"

It is denied by Christ by asserting "with men it is impossible"

It is denied by Christ by his illustration "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"

It is denied by limiting it to God alone "with God all things are possible"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I read the link you gave me and responded to the logic employed. Any comments on the issues I raised?

 

[The Biblicist]

In Matthew, Mark and Luke there are some synonymous ideas that prove the KJV selection of the reading in Matthew that agrees with both Mark and Luke is correct.

A. The Contextual meaning of "agathos" is Perfection

1. The Intrinsic goodness of God = perfection

2. The instrinsic goodness of the law = perfection

3. "if thou wilt be Perfect" is precisely the summation by Christ of both the young mans claims and the goal he must acheive to "do" to inherit eternal life.



B. This man already claims perfection

It is his claim by his equal application of "agathos" to Christ and himself.

It is his claim by asserting he had kept the law from his youth up



C. Jesus denies His claim to perfection

It is denied by Christ by asserting agathos belonged only to one - God

It is denied by Christ by asserting he had not yet attained it "if thou wilt be perfect"

It is denied by Christ by asserting "with men it is impossible"

It is denied by Christ by his illustration "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"

It is denied by limiting it to God alone "with God all things are possible"

Are you willing yet to deal with the text as it reads in the TR because it reads the same in Mark and Luke in any text you care to compare?

I think you are simply looking for a way out so that you will not have to be forced to be confronted with what the Word of God says if interpreted according to common rules of interpretation.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I probably should comments some on the site concerning the KJV and the article by Dr. D.A. Waite. One issue I would clearly take issue with is under the section #4 entitled "The King James Bible has Superior Theology." In this section he tries to show different verses mentioned in the King James version as compared to the "B" (Vatican, Aleph (Sinai), and others. While I completely see the differences he brings to light I do not necessarily follow his conclusions as being logically assumed. This is especially brought to light in #5 where he looks at John 7:8. "Go ye up to this feast: I go not up yet under this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

Here he makes mention that these other text mention leave out the word "yet." Dr.Waite suggests that this makes out the Lord Jesus Christ to be a liar because he went up later to the feast in question. I feel such comments as Dr. Waite mentions here clearly takes away from or diminishes his credibility to reason justly. I cannot see any logical reason to arrive at any such conclusion as Dr. Waite sets forth suggesting that these other text take away from or change any biblical doctrine by their elimination of the word "yet.".

Dr. Waite has a valid point. See if you can understand it.

John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
--I go not up yet to the feast.
This means that he is going to the feast, but just not right now.

(ESV) You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."
"I am not going up to this feast." This is not what Jesus said. It does make him lying according to what he said in the KJV, and the ASV and most other translations. Christ did say he was going to the feast, but just not "yet," or now. Why do some translations make him out to be lying, the question is asked. It is a legitimate question.

When an author draws such unfounded conclusions it makes me wonder as to his objectivity in other areas as well. The lesson I take from this for myself is to be careful not to try and tear down another's opinions by the use of such means. Again to do so would be to take the risk of discrediting other things that will may be the truth in the eyes of others due to a personal indiscretion or lack of fair objectivity on my part. I think he was trying so hard to discredit those texts mentioned that he fell into the trap of overstating his argument to the point of discrediting his other points that will may have had some validity to them.

As you can see it is not an unfounded conclusion. It has basis in fact.

In the other verses mentioned, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that the scribes responsible for the texts underlying the KJV could have in reality added those words, stated by Dr. Waite as left out, in order to add clarity.

In all probability he was no doubt referring to a particular translation. There are some mv's (only a few of them) that have made this mistake. Not all translations coming from the Critical Text have made the same. For example:

John 7:8 You go up to the feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled." WEB

John 7:8 Ye--go ye up to this feast; I do not yet go up to this feast, because my time hath not yet been fulfilled;' Young's
--And others also include "yet." But some of them omit it, and therein lies the problem he was pointing out. It is a problem of translation.

Those words could have been in essence interpolations by scribes and not in reality in that original documents. I certainly would not make doctrine out of either position. Because something in the KJV state something more clearly or more verbose than does another given text, that is not reason to believe that such words have been maliciously stricken or corrupted from the original text as Dr. Waite seems to imply may well be the case.

The Greek word is "ουπω" which means "yet." I checked both the Westcott Hort, and the TR. Both texts have the word. There is no difference in the Greek texts. The difference is a deliberate difference in translations, not in text, at least this time. And the inclusion or exclusion of the word makes the two statements say the opposite of each other. Which statement is true. Obviously the KJV is true, for Jesus went up to the feast, but after his brothers.

Knowing full well how some good intentioned scribes could well have added much clarity to the original Greek texts, as well as other texts over the many years they were transcribed by so many different men, I can see where some weight might possibly be given in certain cases to the shorter text as compared to a longer text. I do not know how far I would take that argument or if I would apply it in every place that some of the newer versions do, but in fairness I can see some clear logical legitimacy in such an argument that Dr. Waite seems to disparage. Again I'm not taking sides one way or the other, I am just saying the 'shorter' argument disparaged by Dr. Waite could well have some reasonable validity in some cases at least.

This argument has no validity as the CT and TR are basically the same. The word "ουπω" is used twice in each verse. It is in the translations that there are differences.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Dr. Waite has a valid point. See if you can understand it.

John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
--I go not up yet to the feast.
This means that he is going to the feast, but just not right now.

(ESV) You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."
"I am not going up to this feast." This is not what Jesus said. It does make him lying according to what he said in the KJV, and the ASV and most other translations. Christ did say he was going to the feast, but just not "yet," or now. Why do some translations make him out to be lying, the question is asked. It is a legitimate question.

HP: If I say at one point in time I am not going somewhere, does that mean if I ever go there I am 'lying?' Now if I said I will NEVER go there, there 'may' be reason to say one has lied about going, but even then, if the circumstances that made one say he would never, changed, it certainly would give valid reason why one now would go without the least untruth being made or even suggested. I believe Waite's point is simply off base and illogical without the least shred of validity to it as stated.

 

[DHK]

HP: If I say at one point in time I am not going somewhere, does that mean if I ever go there I am 'lying?' Now if I said I will NEVER go there, there 'may' be reason to say one has lied about going, but even then, if the circumstances that made one say he would never, changed, it certainly would give valid reason why one now would go without the least untruth being made or even suggested. I believe Waite's point is simply off base and illogical without the least shred of validity to it as stated.

Your argument is absurd and illogical.

I am not going up to the feast YET.
I am not going up to the feast. (at all is inferred).

Two statements, divided in meaning, by one word.
You can't have both statements true. One is true and the other is false. One has to choose which statement is true. By context we know that the first statement is true and the latter false.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The Greek word is "ουπω" which means "yet." I checked both the Westcott Hort, and the TR. Both texts have the word. There is no difference in the Greek texts. The difference is a deliberate difference in translations, not in text, at least this time. And the inclusion or exclusion of the word makes the two statements say the opposite of each other. Which statement is true. Obviously the KJV is true, for Jesus went up to the feast, but after his brothers.

HP: The word used according to you meaning 'yet' is not in the GK text of the Nestle-Aland in the first part of the verse as the KJ has it. There is a clear difference between texts as I see it. I also could not find it in the manuscript called the p66. I feel certain there are many others that differ one from another as well.

At any rate, it makes absolutely no real difference whether or not it says 'yet' or it does not. Common parlance and common sense find no reason to call either rendering right or wrong. Waite seems to be trying his best to disparage and place in the worst possible light any other text than the KJ no matter the logical truth of the matter. I cannot appreciate such tactics. Such tactics cause me to question anything else he has to offer when such clear, unfair, and unfounded bias is so readily seen.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is what one has to conclude to believe as Waite suggests. One is Scripture and one is a lie. One is ordained of God and one is a counterfeit. One is the very Word of God and the other is NOT the Word of God. How can such a stated position be anything other than a purely 'KJO' attitude that I thought was despised as a bigoted position by this list, and as such not to be allowed? Is it within the rules of this forum to take a position that certain versions are NOT the Word of God? Maybe this forum has never taken a position as I mention here. DHK, can you give us the official position of Baptist Board on the issue of disparaging versions of Scripture? I well may not understand the position of BB on this issue. Thanks.

 

[DHK]

HP: The word used according to you meaning 'yet' is not in the GK text of the Nestle-Aland in the first part of the verse as the KJ has it. There is a clear difference between texts as I see it. I also could not find it in the manuscript called the p66. I feel certain there are many others that differ one from another as well.

At any rate, it makes absolutely no real difference whether or not it says 'yet' or it does not. Common parlance and common sense find no reason to call either rendering right or wrong. Waite seems to be trying his best to disparage and place in the worst possible light any other text than the KJ no matter the logical truth of the matter. I cannot appreciate such tactics. Such tactics cause me to question anything else he has to offer when such clear, unfair, and unfounded bias is so readily seen.

υμεις αναβητε εις την εορτην εγω ουπω αναβαινω εις την εορτην ταυτην οτι ο εμος καιρος ουπω πεπληρωται (WH)

υμεις αναβητε εις την εορτην ταυτην εγω ουπω αναβαινω εις την εορτην ταυτην οτι ο καιρος ο εμος ουπω πεπληρωται (TR)

ουπω
from 3756 and 4452; not yet:—hitherto not, (no...) as yet, not yet.


I don't know what your problem is. I have presented both texts for you--Critical text and Received text. They both have the word for "yet," included. Yet some mv's don't translate it and some do. Leave it at that. Waite made no mistake in his assessment of some of the modern translations.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, if it is in the critical text, why is it not in the Nestle-Aland GK NT? Just asking, not arguing either way. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

DHK, if it is in the critical text, why is it not in the Nestle-Aland GK NT? Just asking, not arguing either way. :thumbsup:

I don't know. Maybe they have so many editions and revisions they don't know what to believe any more. :tonofbricks:

Stick with the Majority Text.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

That used to be my line:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Could it be DHK that you are making a broad generalization when you mention the 'critical text'? It would be my understanding that there are more than one text coming from a somewhat similar critical examination of early manuscripts but do not agree with each other on all points, nor do they follow in many places the same GK manuscripts. I am certainly open to correction on this point if I am wrong, but that is my take so far from the study I've done.

 

[DHK]

Could it be DHK that you are making a broad generalization when you mention the 'critical text'? It would be my understanding that there are more than one text coming from a somewhat similar critical examination of early manuscripts but do not agree with each other on all points, nor do they follow in many places the same GK manuscripts. I am certainly open to correction on this point if I am wrong, but that is my take so far from the study I've done.

The Majority Text, so called because it was accepted by the majority of the churches down through the ages, and became that which was received by believers. Hence received text.

The Critical Text is a reconstructed text. It is "eclectic." Thus in reality it is not really a text at all.
Sorenson, in his book, "Touch not the Unclean Thing," page 65 describes the Critical Text this way:

The Uncertainty of the Critical Text
As one becomes conversant with the critical text, it will be apparent that it abounds with textual variants. (These are differences in the various manuscripts used to oppose it.)53 Moreover, as one begins to try and sort out the thousands of textual variants, it becomes a bottomless pit of confusion and subjective second guessing. Furthermore, the textual apparatus (the footnotes at the bottom of each page of the critical text) changes periodically as various "authorities" of textual criticism disagree on respective variants. Rather than building faith, the endless minutia and disagreement over variants in the critical text lead to doubt and tend to shake one's faith in the integrity of the Word of God. As this writer in years past waded through the arguments, both pro and con, over a given variant reading, he came away shaking his head wondering what was the true reading. Yet, the very nature of the critical text and its attempt to "reconstruct" the Word of God lends itself to such doubts. Is God the author of confusion? Is He the author of doubt? (65)

This is the reason there are so many variants.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The Majority Text, so called because it was accepted by the majority of the churches down through the ages, and became that which was received by believers. Hence received text.

HP: I believe you are wrong, besides being impossible to establish. I for one am beginning to formulate the notion that so many of these classifications, such as majority, Eastern, Western, etc., are manufactured, self-serving, speculative, and sometimes designations of types of text are nothing more than convenient tools to support a clear bias or to disparage manuscripts that may not be in keeping with a certain bias.

DHK: The Critical Text is a reconstructed text. It is "eclectic." Thus in reality it is not really a text at all.

HP: And do you think for a minute that the text of Erasmus was not a reconstructed text?

 

[DHK]

HP: And do you think for a minute that the text of Erasmus was not a reconstructed text?

No, it is the one that has been used throughout history. It has been accepted by the churches (the Majority text). History is on its side. From it we have the very ancient Itala and other ancient versions. They are also known as the Byzantine texts because of the area they came from. They were not reconstructed. Even the Latin Vulgate came from it. It was already in existence.

There was no such thing as a Critical Text until the time of Westcott and Hort at the very end of the 19th century when they reconstructed a text out of nothing. They didn't have a text to begin with. It is an eclectic text.

 

[DaChaser1]

No, it is the one that has been used throughout history. It has been accepted by the churches (the Majority text). History is on its side. From it we have the very ancient Itala and other ancient versions. They are also known as the Byzantine texts because of the area they came from. They were not reconstructed. Even the Latin Vulgate came from it. It was already in existence.

There was no such thing as a Critical Text until the time of Westcott and Hort at the very end of the 19th century when they reconstructed a text out of nothing. They didn't have a text to begin with. It is an eclectic text.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

There was not a greek text TR all the time in the church, was there?

the Critical text of today is basically reconstructing the Greek text based upon better documents/manuscripts that have been found, and think that the CT is actually to some degree closer to original ones then the majority or TR are!

 

[DHK]

There was not a greek text TR all the time in the church, was there?

the Critical text of today is basically reconstructing the Greek text based upon better documents/manuscripts that have been found, and think that the CT is actually to some degree closer to original ones then the majority or TR are!

That is the theory. And that is where the controversy lay. I personally disagree with that conclusion. This discussion should be in the Versions forum not here.