Featured A better English Bible.

Not genuine Textual Critic's, no. There are not many and I accuse them of no such thing.

Not exactly. Byzantine readings are becoming more and more acceptable. More and more readings are accepted from the Text type. Not the Text Type as a whole. But some individual readings.

Quite to the contrary, here it is the Byzantine Text that has the shortest text, and the earlier text has the longer text. That goes against everything you have been saying. So did the younger text lose words, or the oldest manuscripts add words?

 

You didn't ask me, but I disagree with Metzger on the quality of both manuscripts. However I like the Byzantine Text that is in these manuscripts. When these two 4 century manuscripts disagree (often in the Gospels) one, or the other will aline with the Byzantine Text.

 

Some of the Byzantine text is being accepted when it agrees with the Alexandrian.

So you are going to ignore the Alexandrian and base that on one word. That is saying a lot about you. You are not looking for the best translation just one that you agree with.

 

Not true. I used to be pro Alexandrian Text. So I have not ignored it.

 

Eclectic Text (or Critical Text) considers a variety of manuscript factors such as age, location, difficulty of the reading, and so on in order to determine which variant explains the origin of other variants. Each of these factors is given a weight when making translation decisions. It is the most complex translation process and except for the King James Version and the New King James Version, all modern-day English translations are based on the Eclectic Text.

There is no true answer to which biblical translation is the most accurate since we do not know what the original manuscripts said. The KJV and NKJV seem to use inferior translation methods but should not be ignored. They contain a very accurate representation of the translations prominent in the 12th century Eastern areas. Other translations, which use the Eclectic Text, are likely more accurate in many ways, or at least do the best job of translating to an understandable and meaningful English equivalent.

When studying the Bible, your best option is to study using various translations, note the differences, and strive to understand why the various translations differ. In nearly all cases, the differences in translations do little to change the meaning of the text.

 

Your source didn't mention any Byzantine Text Translations? Could it be an outdated source?

 

So you went from a clear early text to a later text that has added to the word of God.

 

Has the Byzantine text changed in the last few years?

 

You keep posting the same video. We already know that the Alexandrian & Byzantine text forms agree to a great extent.


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

Comparing the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types, we see stark differences. The Alexandrian text-type, with its complex syntax and vocabulary, reflects a commitment to preserving the original wording of the authors. This text-type’s early dating brings it closer to the autographs, potentially making it more accurate in representing the original text of the New Testament.

The Byzantine text-type, on the other hand, with its smoother reading and harmonization, provides greater readability. However, its later dating and potential for scribal modifications over time pose challenges to its authenticity. Yet, its high consistency across thousands of manuscripts and widespread acceptance among the Christian community indicate its reliability (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005; Robinson & Pierpont, 2005)

The aim of textual criticism is not to elevate one text-type over another but to utilize both in the quest to approximate the original text of the New Testament as closely as possible. Recognizing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, the study of these text-types is not a mere academic pursuit. Instead, it is a sacred endeavour to hear God’s voice as clearly and accurately as possible, fostering a deeper understanding of His message.

 

My error on that one.

You post many video's on the board in support of your F35, Byzantine text form so they just all run together.

 

When the text scholars tell us that we have an accurate biblical text in the range of 99% plus then I think we can trust what we have in our hands. You say you want to know what the text is but you also say you use the KJV which we know was translated from inferior texts so I wonder why you still use it. If you want to stay with that line the NKJV would be a better choice.

While we do have variants in the text none of them affect any main doctrine. Whether it be the “moveable nu” or the word order, it will minimal if any effect on the text.

You point to Luk 4:4 as a case but the Alexandrian does not have it. And Pickering includes it because the Btyzantine text does. It would be more logical to say "but by every word of God." was added by a scribe that copied it from Mat 4:4 (which is a quotation of Deu 8:3). as a means to make the text agree.

 

Not that I am aware of. But I was wondering why it didn’t mention Byzantine Text translations? I think your quoted source was before their time? Out of date source ?

 

No not at all. I have gone from an error riddled text to a better one.

 

So because it does not mention Byzantine they must not have looked at Byzantine. What do you consider an out of date source, one that does not support your view? The response you made to another post shows your closed view of the manuscripts. "I have gone from an error riddled text to a better one."

When you approach any topic with a closed mind such as you have presented then discussion is pointless. You will not look at things from an objective point of view. But that is your option.

 

Well, truly it went from one groups opinion of what the original Greek text to what your opinion of what the original Greek text said.

It’s just one more Greek text among a great many others.

Rob

 

The wording of the KJV is to say the least odd to a present day individual. Where does this present a problem in a modern translation?

Your comfortable with the KJV but most find the dated text to cause to many problems.