1 John 5:7-8

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I always thought that over 5000 manuscripts were available for examination today. Is that an exaggeration by over 2500 times or is it the truth?

The point was that nate says the TR could not possibly be representative of the Byzantine textform because Erasmus only had 5 manuscripts in his possession and only used 4 of them.

The same is true of Westcott and Hort, they only used 2 manuscripts, yet nate insists that their text is representative of its broader textform.

He can't have it both ways. If the TR is not representative of its broader textform then neither is the WH text.

I have noticed that the KJV and NIV agree in Amos 4:4 but not the LXX and MT. Does that make the KJV like the NIV? Did the KJV use the same eclectic text?

This has been dealt with ad infinitum, ad nauseum! There is no textual difference in Amos 4:4. The difference is a translational choice. One group insists on the slavishly literal meaning of "yom" and the others recognize the word is being used metaphorically, as it so often is in the OT.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Steven Avery:

You should learn more about how Jesus debated and how he dealt with people. You might be more convincing if you did.

Why not just deal with the substance of his post? Let's try to avoid the name-calling and personal attacks.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
This has been dealt with ad infinitum, ad nauseum! There is no textual difference in Amos 4:4. The difference is a translational choice. One group insists on the slavishly literal meaning of "yom" and the others recognize the word is being used metaphorically, as it so often is in the OT.

Idid not see a response to the last post I made whiuch stated,

"Two different translations cannot be right. It is possible all are wrong but not all can be right when they differ.

If I go with what you write then it may agree with the MT but it still does not agree with the LXX. The word for "three days" in the LXX is only found in Amos 4:4. If one takes your position then the KJV and NIV agree with only the MT and not the LXX. If I take my position then the NAS agrees with both the MT and LXX and disagrees with the KJV and NIV."

Are you saying the KJV and NIV choice is better than the LXX and those who translated the LXX were wrong. The translation "three days" is very clear in the LXX.

I don't want to insult you but rather get to the heart of the point. Don't you think to shrug it off as a translation choice does not give much value to study and the importance of accurate translation? How is your proof any different than an arbitrary choice like drawing straws or casting lots?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Steven Avery:

You should learn more about how Jesus debated and how he dealt with people. You might be more convincing if you did.

Why not just deal with the substance of his post? Let's try to avoid the name-calling and personal attacks. </font>[/QUOTE]I wrote what I did because I felt he was attacking the writer and had zero subtsance in his post. When Jesus debated he used what the other person valued or considered credible and used that to deal with him. For example when Jesus dealt with the Sadducees he used the Torah but with the Pharisees he used the OT.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Are you saying the KJV and NIV choice is better than the LXX and those who translated the LXX were wrong. The translation "three days" is very clear in the LXX.

The KJV and NIV word choices better reflect the metaphorical use of the word "yom" and better fit the context of the special tithe offered every three years.

The Hebrew word is "yom" which, if taken only in the literal sense, means "day" so the Septuagint translation is not wrong, but merely passed the work along into Greek and expected the reader to understand the metaphorical nature of the expression and realize it was referring to the special tithe received every three years.

I don't want to insult you but rather get to the heart of the point. Don't you think to shrug it off as a translation choice does not give much value to study and the importance of accurate translation? How is your proof any different than an arbitrary choice like drawing straws or casting lots?

Because both translations are accurate. One accurately translates the metaphorical meaning of the word and the other accurately translates the literal meaning of the word.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I wrote what I did because I felt he was attacking the writer and had zero subtsance in his post. When Jesus debated he used what the other person valued or considered credible and used that to deal with him. For example when Jesus dealt with the Sadducees he used the Torah but with the Pharisees he used the OT.

He's not Jesus. And neither are you.

 

[Eliyahu]

I think some fundamental difference in the arguments came up from the view on the credibility of LXX. Some often say that NT quoted the LXX word by word, the others say that LXX was translated after NT was written, retrospectively.
One thing that I often notice in translating OT is that there are so many differences between Masoretic and LXX, not because of the whole story but because LXX is not the word-to-word translation from any Hebrew text either from Babylonian Hebrew text or Egyptian Hebrew text.

Anyway IMO, TCassidy's explanation on Amos 4:4 is sufficient. If there is no case at all where Yom was used for Year, then KJV would have a problem.

If NASV translated D'Var into more than 100 meanings, why don't you appeal them?
Word can be translated into several meanings, i.e.
Sabbath can be translated into either Sabbath or Week. Read 1 Cor 16:2 and Acts 20:7.
Jesus had to find out the proof of Resurrection only in Torah, because Saducees disbelieved the rest of Tanak. This was the big dilema for Pharisees. If Saducees accepted the rest of Tanak, Pharisees could refer to Daniel and Isaiah quickly but Saducees never accepted them.
If you don't have any specific comments on 1 John 5:7, we can move the discussion to Amos.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Eliyahu said:

'Jesus had to find out the proof of Resurrection only in Torah'

Sorry, Elihayu, don't know where ya got that from. My Bible tells me Jesus is the Resurrection (John 11). He told the Pharisees once, 'Before Abraham was, I AM' In that He was proclaiming His Deity.

He did not have to find out proof of Resurrection.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Eliyahu said:

'Jesus had to find out the proof of Resurrection only in Torah'

Sorry, Elihayu, don't know where ya got that from. My Bible tells me Jesus is the Resurrection (John 11). He told the Pharisees once, 'Before Abraham was, I AM' In that He was proclaiming His Deity.

He did not have to find out proof of Resurrection.

English is not Eliyahu's primary language. You have to read what he meant instead of what you think he said.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
I wrote what I did because I felt he was attacking the writer and had zero subtsance in his post. When Jesus debated he used what the other person valued or considered credible and used that to deal with him. For example when Jesus dealt with the Sadducees he used the Torah but with the Pharisees he used the OT.

He's not Jesus. And neither are you.

</font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't it help to learn from the master?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
Because both translations are accurate. One accurately translates the metaphorical meaning of the word and the other accurately translates the literal meaning of the word.

Words only have meaning in their historical context. I do not see how Amos 4:4 can be a sensus plenior and possess two entirely different meanings. So I have to disagree with you in saying that two entirely different translations can be right in light of one given historical context.

I just don't believe that when one loks at the entire message of Amos it would agree with what you claim. But you are entitled to your opinion. I just happen to think you are waffling around in your hermeneutics.

 

[Steven Avery]

[non-Baptist]

[ January 03, 2006, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Steven Avery]

[non-Baptist]

[ January 03, 2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[TCassidy]

Although I have great respect for David Qimhi's comments concerning ketiv-qere pairs, I don't think his position on "yom" was discussed in this thread.

 

[Steven Avery]

[non-Baptist]

[ January 03, 2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Steven Avery:

(notwithstanding the manuscripts he saw all over Europe personally, and the voluminous correspondence, nor the additional refinement of top scholars Stephanus, Bezae, and Elziver, nor the general agreement with the different-sourced Complutensian Polyglot)

did not in fact represent well the homogeneous Byzantine text ?

Nate, are you math-savvy ? Do you realize that a statistical sampling size can be small on a homogeneous group, yet still quite accurate ?

And what do you think about a Greek text that simply proof-texted TWO manuscripts, that in fact were not even homogeneous with each other, much less yet hundreds of other manuscripts ?

A few questions for one-liner Nate.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

NO the TR doesn't represent the Byzantine text that well for instance Luke 17:36 as noted in by the KJV translators is in very few of the byzantine texts. Also the Comma is only in 4 mss. That means there are a whole lot of Byzantine texts that don't include it. The TR by no means represents the Byzantine text. B and Aleph carry a lot more weight than the Comma 15th Century texts.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
The point was that nate says the TR could not possibly be representative of the Byzantine textform because Erasmus only had 5 manuscripts in his possession and only used 4 of them.

The same is true of Westcott and Hort, they only used 2 manuscripts, yet nate insists that their text is representative of its broader textform.

He can't have it both ways. If the TR is not representative of its broader textform then neither is the WH text.

You seem to make the same mistake the KJVO's make. Which is they assume that the Critical texts today are the same thing that W&H had in the 1880's this is false. I read somewhere online that they changed nearly 1200+ changes between the NA&UBS and the W&H text.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by nate:
You seem to make the same mistake the KJVO's make.

Wrong again.

Which is they assume that the Critical texts today are the same thing that W&H had in the 1880's this is false.

I have not made that assumption.

I read somewhere online that they changed nearly 1200+ changes between the NA&UBS and the W&H text.

The changes of the Critical Text have been gradual starting with the original NA published in 1898, which was virtually identical to the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, to the present incarnation, the 27th edition, which has moved back toward the Byzantine textform in many instances.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by nate:
NO the TR doesn't represent the Byzantine text that well

Come on, nate. You can't ignore proven historic fact and expect to be taken seriously. The various editions of the TR (roughly 30 of them) are representitive of the Byzantine textform just as the various editions of NA (27 of them) are representitive of the Alexandrian textform.

 

[gb93433]

I seriously doubt that anyone who undertakes a serious study of the text and its variants will always come up with the TR or NA27. When I was a student we spent some time evaluating textual variants and questioned the NA committees decisions. When we presented them with our evaluation there was time when they changed their decision. The TR was often seen as a text with a conglomerate of additions.