Featured A better English Bible.

I have an open mind. You are operating with a block. You don't have to agree with me or anyone. I have not just approached this subject. I have studied off and on for 30 some years. I had accepted most textual critics methods. Sometimes I saw the flaws in the methods. I couldn't come to an early consensus agreed text. So I had to retreat to a Codex Vaticanus is best. Of course that is no real answer. Others had noticed what I had noticed but could explain it better. I came to realize things I had been taught were wrong. I have an open mind and have only tried to share what I have found out. Because I believe the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text (or texts) rank a certain way does not make me close minded. I might be wrong. But having a learned opinion, even if wrong does not make me close minded.

 

True enough! No matter which is the most accurate, they are all great New Testaments. Without any of them we would be poorer without it. Perhaps having a CT, TR and MT guarantees The Original Text.

 

Do you understand context? What verse or verses gives you a problem?

 

And you think because I do not fully agree with your view that I must be wrong. As I have said more than once I have bible from both lines of transmission and I use all of them. I do not hold the Byzantine line as being the accurate one. It seem more logical to look to the oldest manuscripts rather than the youngest. I have not seen any compelling evidence that would prompt me to change my view.

 

There is no problem. Point out the verse or verses that you do not understand.

 

I am just trying to share what I have learned. It does not matter whether you agree or not. That is your business. I am just trying to share.

Then why would you use both lines of transmission if the Byzantine was not accurate. You use both but one is not accurate? Why would you use it if it was not accurate?

You will. On a surface, beginning level you are right. But when you actually look at it you will discover something else.
If you are not ready that is fine. That is up to you.

 

So you can not figure out who Paul is referring to or do you think it verse should have been written differently and if so how?

I do not see any problem with understanding the verse.

 

That is fine that you want to share what you have learned but that does not require that all agree with your conclusions.

It seems that you have never compared various bible translations. By doing so you can get a better understanding of the verses or verses in question. The same holds when you compare bible from different lines of transmission. But you woulds not understand that as you are so committed to your Byzantine line.

You are quite condescending in your comments.

 

Do you have a problem understanding the verses and who is being referred to in the text. It seems you enjoy making a mountain out of a molehill. You seem to look for inconsequential things to complain about.

 

Actually it is not as clear cut as you would like to portray it as being.

ὑμῖν (humin, "you") is found in many valuable witnesses (Ã61 א F G P 0278 33 1739 1881 al sy co). The witnesses for ἡμῖν (hēmin, "us") are not as strong (A C D Ψ 048vid œ), but nevertheless represent a broad base. Internally, ἡμῖν could be favored because of second person pronouns surrounding it, making it the harder reading. On the other hand, the last second person plural pronoun was in Phm_1:3, and the next one will not show up until Phm_1:22, a fact which tends to counter the internal argument on behalf of ἡμῖν. Although a decision is difficult, with the internal evidence being capable of favoring either reading, our preference is based on the external evidence; ὑμῖν is thus slightly preferred. NET, New English Translation Notes

So no I did not prove your argument, care to rephrase your comment.

 

Thanks.

Of course.

Why would you assume that?

True! Agreed.

Why? It's not like I am Byzantine Text only or something. Shoot, even the Byzantine Text divides at times.

That's why I like the "The Text-Critical English New Testament" Byzantine Text Version.
It's text is translated from the Byzantine Text, but it has the variants from many other Greek New Testament Texts in the footnotes in English, including Nestle/Aland 28. So if the Text above is mistaken, the correct reading will be in the footnotes. I can compare all the variants on the same page. Even if one did not like the Byzantine Text, the other Greek Text that they prefer is in the footnotes, and they could read the footnote in the main body of the text. Modern Versions, KJV, all texts (not translations) are represented.

I do not mean too. I apologize!

 

Just because the Byzantine was copied does not make it correct. But as I point out before it does not make any difference. NOTE none of the doctrines are in dispute. You are trying to pick out gnats. It makes zero difference in the understanding of the text of scripture.

You like the late date texts and that is your right I will go with the early texts. You seem to think the early texts are correct because they agree with the late ones but your thinking is wrong.