Featured A better English Bible.

Because they haven't come across the information. They only read one side and do not know the truth.

It is not added Text. It was always there. It was copying mistakes which lost words. This is proven by studies in the early Papyrus manuscripts. All manuscripts do it some, but the safeguard is that not all or even most do it, usually. Matthew 3:11 may be an exception to that rule. But if you go by a small half a hand full of manuscripts that lose text it's obvious what has happened.

 

Are you accusing bible scholars of not looking at all the available information? They have seen the information and have found it wanting so they dismiss the Byzantine text type priority.

You are holding to the later manuscript is the best theory. Why do you not trust the ones written closest to the time of the event. What you call lost words others call added words. Of course you have to call Mat 3:11 an exception.

 

You sound surprised that one group would claim the other is not being honest. Do you think they might have a vested interest in doing that?

 

wrong thread --sorry

 

Are they saying that we can not trust other biblical scholars? That is quite the charge to make don't you think. Or could it be that they have a disagreement over what manuscripts to use and how they should be weighted?

 

I've considered it a couple times.

 

That was a straight forward question, "Are they saying that we can not trust other biblical scholars?", that I asked in response to your comments:
1] The so called liberal Bible scholars have not been, what conservatives would consider honest.
2] The issue of hiding what is actually true.

Who are the conservative scholars that have made these comments and of what liberal scholars were they made?

 

The Alexandrian text, which Westcott and Hort called the Neutral text (a question-begging title), is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original. Characteristics of the Alexandrian text are brevity and austerity. That is, it is generally shorter than the text of other forms, and it does not exhibit the degree of grammatical and stylistic polishing that is characteristic of the Byzantine type of text. Until recently the two chief witnesses to the Alexandrian text were codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (א), parchment manuscripts dating from about the middle of the fourth century. With the acquisition, however, of the Bodmer Papyri, particularly 66 and 75, both copied about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, evidence is now available that the Alexandrian type of text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century. The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings. BRUCE METZGER

Are you suggesting that Westcott and Hort should not be trusted as some have said they were not believers.

 

I am not the one that made those comments. I agree we can get good and bad scholarship from both believers and non-believers.

Do you agree with METZGER's assessment of the quality of the codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (א)?

 

So based on one word you are not sure. So are you saying that all the Byzantine texts have zero variants?

 

And your point is?

 

LSB is my new go to.