Featured Do you believe in the scriptures being Infallable?

And what does this have to do with my belief that the Byzantine Textform is superior?

I believe δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια is without error of fact. If you believe I am wrong please feel free to tell me which of the words above are wrong in the Greek. And tell my why you think they are wrong. Show me the evidence that proves they are wrong.

I believe the angels said δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια.

Here, Jordan, let me help you. The Greek words in question are επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια. Get out your Strongs and look up each word.

επι = on (Strongs 1909)
γης = land or ground, and by implication, the whole world, planet, earth. (Strongs 1093)
ειρηνη = peace, or rest, or prosperity, by implication the peacefulness of having them. (Strongs 151)
εν = in (Strongs 1722)
ανθρωποις = Humans, human-kind, humanity, people (Strongs 444)
ευδοκια = kindness, or good purpose (Strongs 2107)

So, Jordan, a literal reading would be "on earth peace in men of good purpose (or kindness)."

In fact, Jordan, all the English versions say the same thing. You just misunderstood what the KJV meant when it said "peace on earth good will toward men." It does not mean the peace was being given to (toward) the men, but rather it is saying that men of good purpose have the peace and well being of others as their philosophy of life.

Your problem of understanding is that you are unaware (probably because your pastor can't read Greek) that the last word, ευδοκια, is a noun in the genitive (case of belonging to, or what we might call a possessive), singular, feminine and goes with ειρηνη. So it says the "kindness" belongs to the men of "peace."

Jordan, peace loving people are kind people. And where does that peace come from? It comes from God, of course, so these men in question certainly have the grace (unmerited favor) of God resting on them. Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

Why do you bring up the NA text? We were talking about the Byzantine Textform.

Why do you bring up the NA text? We were talking about the Byzantine Textform.

And?

I believe καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ is without error of fact. If you disagree could you point out to me where that error is and provide the proof it is wrong.

You have, as yet, not given me an error of fact. But please, keep trying.

You have yet to explain to me what the error is and why you can prove it is an error.

It is true there may be variants in the Greek text but how does that prove an error of fact in the bible?

I am going to stop you right there and warn you not to call my honesty into question again. You will not like the result.

You have not, as yet, shown me an error of fact in either the Byzantine or Alexandrian textforms. All you have done is show some variants in the English translations. And even then you failed to provide any evidence that any of them were, in fact, an error, and additionally, you failed to post any proof of your charge of error.

Jordan, let me give you a little grandfatherly advice. You cutting and pasting from a KJVO web site put up by people with no knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Text-Critical analysis, grammar or syntax does not trump the ability to actually read the bible in the language in which it was inspired and study the manuscript evidence for over 50 years.

 

I disagree. I think you may have conflated inerrancy with infallibility.

Yes we do. There are over 200 original, first edition KJVs still in various libraries and museums around the world. Another one was found in an old church cupboard last year. And you can get a photographic facsimile, original size, from a number of sources including "Greatsite.com." A little pricey, but I bought one.

 

But Jordan, you didn't. Show me where the two different major textforms differ in the verses you posted.

 

No need to. I know they are different. If they were not there would be no need for two editions.

An easy way to see which one you have is to check Jeremiah 34:16. If it says, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." - then you have a Cambridge.

If it says, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." - then you have an Oxford.

Oh, by the way, "ye" is the correct reading, the Hebrew is plural. When typesetting the old fashioned way, by hand, apprentice printers were told to "watch your p's and q's." That admonition was necessary for type was set backwards and when the impression was made it was reversed on the paper. A "p" is a backward "q". The same is true of the older typefaces regarding "h" and "y" the "h" is just an upside down "y". An old uncorrected typesetters error that has survived for 233 years!

Yep. Everything.

 

Sorry, but Revelation 21:19 reads "And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;"

The Greek for Revelation 21:19 reads οἱ θεμέλιοι τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ κεκοσμημένοι· ὁ θεμέλιος ὁ πρῶτος ἴασπις, ὁ δεύτερος σάπφιρος, ὁ τρίτος χαλκηδών, ὁ τέταρτος σμάραγδος,

Now, if you mean Revelation 22:19 then it reads καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

But the TR reads και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω

The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV reading is based, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When Erasmus compiled his Greek NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation (the last page of his manuscript was missing). So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. The reading “the tree” of life is found in all Greek mss, and is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators.

If you would do a little study you would see the following: Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

And the context of Revelation chapter 22 is even more interesting. Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

And Revelation 22:14 tells us we are talking about a tree, not a book.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

You see, Jordan, according to the bible in Revelation 2:7 it is the Tree of Life that gives life. Not a book. All the book does is record who has eternal life and who does not.

If you want to stick with "book" fine, but you are saying that God either did not preserve his word from 100 AD until 1525, or that He is too stupid to know the difference between "tree" and "book."

Tell you want. Look up the text-critical evidence for the "tree" reading and the text critical evidence for the "book" reading. See for yourself that "book" is the result of a mistake by Erasmus and has no manuscript support at all. God said "tree." The context of Revelation 22 says "tree." The inspired reading is "tree."

 

Theos.

Actually, it can without changing the meaning of the passage. "He" was manifest in flesh. Who is "He?" Verse 15 makes it clear it is "God." And even verse 16 makes it clear by addressing "Godliness." So, even if you change "God" to "He" the antecedent of "He" would still be "God."

 

I Timothy 3:16 is one of the weaker variants to pick on, IMO, as Doc has pointed out.

As to Revelation 22:19, there is no theological difference between the two readings. Doc has pointed out that "tree of life" fits with many other references in Revelation.

But we all know that the Latin versions preserved the original words, not the Greek.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/book-o...-Textus-Receptus-is-Accurate-at-Revelation-22

 

I hope that was sarcasm.

There are 230 Greek manuscripts of Revelation including Codex Sinaiticus (325 to 350 AD).

P47 dates to 200-250 AD.

There are fragmentary quotations in the writings of the Patristics dating to 125-175 AD.

P18, p85, and p24 date to around 300 AD.

As far as canonicity is concerned, neither the Church of Rome nor the Eastern Orthodox Churches established the canon. The canon was established by the local churches as early as 120 AD.

 

It is not "filled" with errors. But it does have some variants. 17 of them are obvious from Erasmus translating the Latin Vulgate into Greek because his manuscript of Revelation (Codex 1r) was missing its last page. And even his misspelling of "tree" (ligno) to cause it to read "book" (libro), probably due to ageing eyesight and lack of quality light in the environment in which he was working, is not sufficient to cause me any alarm. The TR is still a reliable example of the Byzantine Textform without error of fact. (Even the ligno/libro variant doesn't bother me for, if a person was not given access to the tree of life his name would not be in the Lamb's Book of Life.)

The TR was the sole Greek bible in use by the churches from the time of Erasmus (16th century) until the mid 19th century when the first representatives of the Alexandrian Textform were published. And prior to Erasmus, the text of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox) used a form of the "Text Commonly Received By All" (or "Textus Receptus" in Latin) since the beginning of the schism with Rome, which began in the early 4th century and reached fruition in the 11th century (the Great Schism of 1054).

So, contrary to popular opinion, the TR did not originate with Erasmus, but even Wescott and Hort said that "Erasmus simply passed along the text in common use for over 1000 years" (or words to that effect). However, it must be pointed out that the text we now call the TR has been frozen in time to reflect the work of Erasmus and his successors (especially Scrivener and his GNT of 1894) to the detriment of accuracy and fidelity to the Byzantine/Majority text, and has been almost "canonized" by many TR Only folks and organizations (the Trinitarian Bible Society) which ought to know better.

I prefer my Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine New Testament Text (2005 edition) but in its absence I will still use the Scrivener TR.