Textual Criticism?

[Silverhair]

90% or better of the Greek New Testament texts chosen to be taranslated in English is identifiable being the inerrant word of God. Do you deny this? Collating K^r Greek texts it's archetype text is recovered. It is being defined as Family 35 Greek New Testament text. How do you prove its archetype text is not the same text as the autographs from which the text of the New Testament came?

I am not the one making a claim re the F35 text so you are the one that has to provide the proof that what you are claiming is indeed true.

You have made the bold claim now provide the proof to back it up. I am not denying that the K^r Greek texts have been collated, but that does not mean they are equal to the autographs as you have been claiming. Do you think that they do not do that with other manuscripts that they have under study?

Why are you so wedded to the idea that the F35 are the equal of the autographs? Would your trust in the bible be shaken if you admitted that that idea is just that an idea.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What is the date range of the F35 MSS?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Textual criticism has not.

In that case, no case has been made either.

AFAICT, the only case that has been made is that a select set of MSS have a high degree of uniformity among themselves.

 

[37818]

I am not the one making a claim re the F35 text so you are the one that has to provide the proof that what you are claiming is indeed true.

It is it's own proof. There is no proof it cannot be. If you refuse to believe the whole, it is not the TR, not the MT and not the NU or W-H text. It agrees 90% to the W-H text. It is New Testament Greek.

Why are you so wedded to the idea that the F35 are the equal of the autographs? Would your trust in the bible be shaken if you admitted that that idea is just that an idea.

My Bible for starters has been the KJV. Back then I found it disturbing that 1 John 5:7 wasn't to be accepted. My first Greek New Testament was a Nestle Greek New Testament. I discovered most the text issues were common or majority versus oldest reading. Which on the whole never sat right. Then there was KJOnlyism which also did not sit right either. I read Pickering's 1977 "Identity of the New Testament text. A logical approach.

 

[Conan]

So we see your bias.

Or perhaps learned opinion?
I am worried about you though. Have we offended you in someway? Do you see opposing opinions as hurting your faith or something. To clarify, all Greek Texts are the Word of God. Some have higher degrees of accuracy, but they are all the Word of God. Isn't it alright to discuss such things? To explore the matter? No one is demanding that you agree. Just consider.

So what are your rankings for accuracy of the above Greek Texts? What would your rankings look like?

 

[37818]

What is the date range of the F35 MSS?

I do not know. The GA numbers can be had. The MS dates. I presume can be looked up. In The F35GNT they are not listed in it's apparatus. Since no MSS later than the V century are cited.

FYI, GA ms numbers are cited in the video on post #60

 

[37818]

I read Pickering's 1977 "Identity of the New Testament text.

In that edition, it had an Appendix with a review by D. A. Carson. In short, he didn't agree with Pickering's view.

https://www.amazon.com/identity-New-Testament-text/dp/0840751133

That link is of used revised edition of the book.

 

[Conan]

A 1977 edition was a long time ago. His latest 4th edition is the one to get.

The Identity of the New Testament Text IV Paperback – October 7, 2014
by Wilbur N Pickering Phd (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New...12-8142-c9221daee3e4&pd_rd_i=0989827356&psc=1

 

[37818]

A 1977 edition was a long time ago. His latest 4th edition is the one to get.

The Identity of the New Testament Text IV Paperback – October 7, 2014
by Wilbur N Pickering Phd (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New...12-8142-c9221daee3e4&pd_rd_i=0989827356&psc=1

The two reasons I reference the 1977 edition, it was my introduction to both Pickering and Carson.

For Pickering's book, the 4th edition the one to get now.
https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Identity-of-the-New-Testament-Text-IV.pdf

 

[37818]

On page 103, FAMILY 35 Original , Text of the New Testament Exposition of Evidence,

"g) Family 35 is demonstrably ancient, dating to the 3rd century, at least."

 

[Silverhair]

It is it's own proof. There is no proof it cannot be. If you refuse to believe the whole, it is not the TR, not the MT and not the NU or W-H text. It agrees 90% to the W-H text. It is New Testament Greek.

So you are depending upon F35 to prove F35. That is illogical and you know it but you just refuse to accept it.

I read Pickering's 1977 "Identity of the New Testament text. A logical approach.

Actually it is the opposite of logical. He did not nor have you based your conclusions on empirical evidence. He concluded that the F35 texts were the best and actually the text of the autographs. That is a far reach, but you are welcome to believe it.

 

[Silverhair]

Or perhaps learned opinion?
I am worried about you though. Have we offended you in someway? Do you see opposing opinions as hurting your faith or something. To clarify, all Greek Texts are the Word of God. Some have higher degrees of accuracy, but they are all the Word of God. Isn't it alright to discuss such things? To explore the matter? No one is demanding that you agree. Just consider.

So what are your rankings for accuracy of the above Greek Texts? What would your rankings look like?

No you have not offended me or hurt my feelings. Why would you think that what you say would cause me to question my faith? My faith is in Christ Jesus and that is not affected by others opinions.
Have we not been discussing the word of God as found in the Greek texts? I have been asking you to give me the proof you have that the F35 is the best text and reflects the autographs. What I have been given is that the F35 proves the F35. Not what I would call compelling evidence.

Read back over my posts, I have looked at a number of sites and listened to the video's that 37 posted. As I said to 37, if you want to think that F35 reflects the autographs that is your choice.

As for weighting the various text families. I just want the best texts used to produce the best bible translation we can have, but unlike some on this board I do not think we have manuscripts that will give us the autographs.

 

[Alan Gross]

I found it disturbing that 1 John 5:7 wasn't to be accepted

This is how you identify versions that God is disturbed with.

 

[AVL1984]

This is how you identify versions that God is disturbed with.

Why would God be disturbed with them? Translations are just that...translations....they have mans opinions worked into them no matter how man tries to keep his own biases out.

 

[Conan]

This is how you identify versions that God is disturbed with.

No, this is how you define if a version is based on the Textus Receptus or not. Only the Textus Receptus has this verse, interpolated from the Latin.

 

[Alan Gross]

Why would God be disturbed with them?

Let me put it this way; out of almost 100 posts about the Bible on this thread, yours is the only other one that mentions "God", "Jesus","The Holy Spirit", "The Triune GODHEAD", etc., unless the videos I haven't seen do mention them, if that means anything, as far as something disturbing to our Creator God.

The evidence for I John 5:7 is ancient and overwhelming, from what I can see, and from the list of the most 400* something omissions and alterations that include those with references to Deity, like above, deleted from underlying texts, I can't help but suspect the priority taken to eliminate their influence is actually more than the bias of men.

Translations are just that...translations....they have mans opinions worked into them no matter how man tries to keep his own biases out.

Nice friendly attempt at a very natural defence, though.

However couldn't the overriding, ever present, existence of Divinity have still been easily maintained in our postings and in texts for a Book that is supposed to exalt and reveal Him, even though we are men and the translators are people?

What is the precedent?

Where did the priority for assigning doubt to JESUS' Deity, for example, come from?

What is the suspected rush toward eliminating God from the Bible altogether?

Where is the Holy Spirit?

Looks like the wrong direction we are going with it to me and that that direction would be extremely offensive to God.

Enough so that I view His having allowed the omissions of references to Dirty, in His Providence, as being Judgment upon Apostate 'Christianity'.

How far off do you think I am?
...
My KJVO designation according to Dr. Bob on the
Bible Versions & Translations forum at Definitions of KJV Only is a 2.5, btw, if I may say so.

"KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

"This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.

"KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

( Not this part = strike through material
"This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs."

( But yes, this half of #3
"They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate."

*See list with several posts to include all of the 448 most egregious changes at: Don't cut the baby (DCTB) vs Cut the baby (CTB).

 

[37818]

Re: Matthew 3:11-12, ". . .
and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. . . ."

Re:". . . and fire: . . ." Only 20% of Matthew mss have the reading along with א, B, C, W. The NestleAland has no note in it's apparatus. 80% of Matthew mss in verse 11 end with "Holy Spirit." Which is regarded to be the f35 text.

Pickering's translation note, "There is no article with ‘Holy Spirit’, so I take the phrase as a proper name. The ‘and fire’ we are used to is read by only 20% of the Greek manuscripts. The 80% includes the best line of transmission."

The parallel reading in Luke is without a doubt.

 

[Alan Gross]

No, this is how you define if a version is based on the Textus Receptus or not. Only the Textus Receptus has this verse, interpolated from the Latin.

That would be contradicting what I had said about it, before.

You won't catch me saying anything like that...

I John 5:7

 

[37818]

That would be contradicting what I had said about it, before.

You won't catch me saying anything like that...

I John 5:7

Personally I am convinced it's correct reading, in verses 7-8, ". . . For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. . . ."

Pickering's translation note, "Those who use the AV or NKJV are used to: “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” The words in italics are only found in five late Greek manuscripts (less than 1% of the total) and part of the Latin tradition, from which they came. To be more precise, the manuscripts are: (61)[16th], (629)[14th], (918)[16th], 2318 [18th], 2473 [17th], wherein the cursives in ( ) all differ from each other; the two that agree verbatim with TR were probably copied from it. The only one that is clearly early enough to have served as TR’s exemplar, 629, is far too different—it lacks the seven last words in TR, omits another five, changes five and adds two—19 out of 40 words is too much; the Textus Receptus is not based on cursive 629, so it must be a translation from the Latin (or its exemplar is lost). The shorter reading makes excellent sense. [Those who make ‘the three heavenly witnesses’ a litmus test for orthodoxy are either ignorant or perverse (or both).]"

Pickering's translation, ". . . actually there are three who bear witness —the Spirit, the water and the blood—and the three are to one effect. . . ."

 

[37818]

So you are depending upon F35 to prove F35. That is illogical and you know it but you just refuse to accept it.

No. It is God's word that is self authenticating, for example, Romans 8:16.

Actually it is the opposite of logical. He did not nor have you based your conclusions on empirical evidence. He concluded that the F35 texts were the best and actually the text of the autographs. That is a far reach, but you are welcome to believe it.

Are you void of hearing? The manuscripts are the empirical evidence. How else would it be logical?