Featured How can you be honestly a KJVONLYIST?

I wouldn't say Luke 4:4 proves your position as scholars disagree. There are good arguments for the TR and for the older source texts.

Those who view older texts as better readings view the TR as omitting words. They criticize the TR for its age (it was written in the 16th century), the methods used in translation, a Catholic tradition, and its use of few source texts.


I see no reason to prefer one over the other. I believe God has preserved His Word in both sources.

My point with the KJV is that the translators relied on Latin texts when Greek texts were not avaliable.

 

You mean the Byzantine text (Byzantine priority is a theory held by a minority of translators).

And I agree. Since the TR used the Byzantine text (all but one of his avaliable manuscripts were Byzantine text) it is expected that the TR align with the sources used. These were the texts accepted by the Catholic Church, and they were what was avaliable.

That said, portions of the TR (not much....6 verses) were translated from the Latin because it is not in the Byzantine manuscripts (and were translated from Latin to Greek to create a Greek source).

The Byzantine text dates from the 4th to the 12th century.

The Alexandrian text dates from the 2nd century.

They agree 99% of the time (completely when taken as a whole on issues).

 

I am not sure what you are saying.

Probably me. I hit my head at work and got 7 stitches. You may have to dumb that down for me.

With the Byzantine text we are talking about manuscripts dating from the 4th to the 10th century. The TR Greek departs from the Byzantine text in over 1800 places.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "00.4% of manuscripts to be taken over 90.7% of manuscripts calls in question all the readings that are 100% the same to be in reality to not actually to be trusted".

I believe God's Word has been preserved in both the Byzantine text and the older sources.

 

Again....maybe the mild concussion....but I do not understand your reply.

My point is that we should discount neither the Byzantine text-type (5th-16th century), the Alexanderian text (2nd-4th century), or even the Western text-type (3rd-9th century).

I am saying there are no doctrinal differences. God's Word prevails.


If you are saying that not to accept the Byzantine priority theory, then you are right...I do deny that (I do not prioritize the text-types).

I cannot see a reason to look at older manuscripts as invalid because they do not perfectly align with newer manuscripts in a few non-doctrinal words.

I believe it is profitable to consider all text-types. In fact, that is one reason we know we can trust the later Byzantine text-type (there are no doctrinal differences when compared to earlier manuscripts).

Again....that is IF that's what you mean by your one word reply.

 

Will you please list the doctrines that are in question (the doctrines that the older text-types deny, or the Byzantine text-type denies)?

I think it would help to discuss how these text-types differ in terms of denying doctrines.

 

Mine reads:

Luke 4:4 :And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’

I believe that is probably the extent of the verse in the original (it fits with how Jesus referenced the OT in the rest of the passage). The Byzantine text probably added to the text as a teaching point (carried the reference over into the verse).

Both teach the same thing (both refer to this as a reference to Deut 8:3).

But as far as the text itself goes, I'd say it was probsbly an addition in the Byzantine text (perhaps a note that made it's way into the text over the centuries).

One, obviously, is not denying the other.

 

It is a small issue.

The reason is that none of these differences make a difference in doctrine.

Take Luke for example. Luke wrote it. It was copied over and over and distributed within congregations.

The earliest copy we have disagrees with a later copy. But most of the later copies agree.

You say because most later copies agree the late copy must be right.

Others argue that the earlier document is correct.

My argument is it does not matter because there is no actual change in doctrine (God's Word in both are identical).

But it makes more sence to me that a congregation would add a note, or clarity, instead of remove something from a document.

 

Both are accurate.

The verse is Jesus quoting the OT to Satan.


Most likely the older manuscript is verbatim to the actual words and the Byzantine text an addition (carrying forward more of the OT quote).

We do not know. There could be lost older manuscripts. This is why Byzantine priority is a theory (as are other positions that prioritize texts).

The text you rely on here is from the 5th century while the text I present is from the 2nd century.

But as far as accuracy, both are equally accurate.