Featured Textual Criticism.

Probably because the question it self is built upon false pretenses. Sinatiticus was not about to be destroyed. That is lie has been repeated for 150 years. Even the Chick Foundation and David Daniels who are anti-Sinaiticus acknowledge that it was not found in the trash. To call them "catholic maunscripts" is also misleading. The catholic church had no control or oversight in their production.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

That would be all of f35. 11th century is the earliest I know of, and very few of those. The vast majority seem to be 13th century or later. So he should have listed them all.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Then how do you interpret his own words. Look st the last sentence here. He clearly believes he has reproduced the autographs.

"The Original Text is the ultimate archetype; any candidate must also be an archetype—a real, honest to goodness, objectively verifiable archetype; there is only one—Family 35. I affirm that God used Family 35 to preserve the precise original wording of the New Testament Text; it is reproduced in my edition of the Greek Text. I affirm that God has preserved the precise original wording of the New Testament, and that we can, and do, know what it is. It is reproduced precisely in my edition of the Greek New Testament.”

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

You are assuming here that the TR and the Kjv themselves though would be exact copies of the originals, and thus would have to had divine inspiration in regards to the translation practice!
My main point in this issue would be that regardless if one prefers the TR/MT/CT, all of them would be the Greek word of the Lord to us, and any translation done of them correctly would be the English form to us!

 

That would be so untrue!

 

Readings, perhaps. The text maybe present early. I will just have to buy his book to see his logic. The first variant you had listed in the above post from his apparatus is still unknown to me other than his work.

Have you read his book of f35 by chance?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Yes it is a summary of his conclusion. I have no idea how he got to this. That is my issue with it. Logically he thinks he was used to achieve the precise replication of the autographs. He had to make decisions on which reading to go with. His conclusion cannot stand unless he seen himself in the "how". He was the one who edited his GNT

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

To me you are stating that differing Greek Texts, whose words also differ in many places, are all the inerrant words of God.
IMO, you may wish to step back and examine what you are proposing, a little closer.

Any translation of the CT is going to differ ( in some cases greatly ) when compared to any translation of the TR into the same language.
The TR and the MT differ far less compared to one another than the TR and the CT when compared.

So, no, they are not all THE Greek word of the Lord to us.
If you consider both derivatives to be the words of God, even with the glaring differences, I'm not sure why your "Hmmmm...." isn't going off like the lunch bell at grade school.

 

I agree.
At issue is what are the actual words of God.
I feel, in my spirit, that the TR is correct, and the AV leads the pack with a very wide margin.
Anything based exclusively off the TR and MT gets a distant second place with me just on principle.

Personally, I wouldn't use any of the other ones you've listed because of their association with the CT and its variants, except maybe the NKJV ( it claims the TR as its basis, but I've read through it and I see the translators going with CT-type readings in at least several places ) and I still have heavy reservations about using that.

 

You fail to demonstrate or prove that the NKJV actually goes with any CT-type readings. You do not present any actual specific examples so others can check them out.

Perhaps you may ignore the fact that the KJV sometimes was influenced by non-TR sources such as an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Some of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision were also sometimes influenced by the Latin Vulgate so they can be indirect influences of a non-TR source. In such cases of non-TR sources' influence on the KJV, the NKJV may be more faithful and true to the TR than the KJV is.

If the NKJV was supposedly influenced by any non-TR source, how would that any different than the KJV being actually influenced by a non-TR source? Would you attempt to apply a different standard/measure to the NKJV than to the KJV?

Even the textually-varying Textus Receptus editions include some alterations from the traditional Greek text since Erasmus added some readings from the Latin Vulgate and since Erasmus and Beza introduced some textual conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

In addition, you may incorrectly assume that differences in translation are supposedly difference in textual readings when that would not be the case.

I do not think that you make any sound case for your reservations concerning the NKJV.

 

Which one of the twenty to thirty textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus do you feel is the correct one?

Are subjective feelings the best way to determine which Greek text is more reliable or trustworthy?

 

I like that, Mr Gilbert. I think it's as good a reason as any.
I studied Latin and Greek at University as an unconverted youngster and did some textual criticism.of classical texts. I was unconvinced back then of the methodology, even as it applied to uninspired texts, and now, as a Christian, I find them objectionable when applied to the word of God.

1. The oldest manuscript is likely to be the most accurate. A moment's thought will show that this is a pretty shaky rule. An older MS may be the result of 100 or more copyings, while a newer MS may be a copy of the original. We have no way of knowing. Where there are only 4 or 5 extant copies, all differing widely, it may make some sense to suppose that the oldest is best, but in the Bible, where maybe 900 MSS are saying one thing, and just a few, admittedly older ones are saying something else, there is likely to be a reason for the imbalance.
Errors are most likely to have come in right at the start, when untrained copyists were working in secret. After Constantine, churches could afford to pay top-grade copyists and give them good facilities to work in. We see that even some of the oldest papyri have Byzantine readings in the (eg. P45, P46, P66). Harry Sturz was able to list 150 Byzantine readings with early papyri support. So 4th Century MSS like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus may perfectly well be the result of poor copying back in the 2nd Century.

2. The Shortest Reading is likely to be the most accurate. This view supposes that mistakes are most likely to arise when copyists put comments in the margin which later copyists then incorporate into the text. IMO, it is much more likely to be the case that some untrained copyist missed something out. Just try copying out large portions of a book and see how easy it is to omit something.
But more than that, this is a very secular view. We are considering the word of God. I would expect the true version to be the richest and most theologically sound one. When I consider the horrible mutilation of the Lord's Prayer in the C.T. of Luke 11:2-4 (NIV, ESV etc.), I can't believe it was what the Lord Jesus said.

3. The most difficult reading is likely to be the true one. This is the worst of the lot! It supposes that the Bible will contain things that are obviously ridiculous (eg. Luke 4:44 - Luke 5:1).

And when we come to T.R. reading with little MS support, usually, even if they are wrong they will cause no problem. Philip and the Ethiopian must have said to each other something similar to Acts of the Apostles 8:37, and 1 John 5:7 is true; there are three that witness in heaven, and they are One.

So I will stick to my NKJV, which I prefer to the KJV simply because it is in modern English. However, when I am asked to preach from the KJV, I am always happy to do so.