A better English Bible.

[Silverhair]

Not true.
γενομενου being ended.
γινομενου during.

John 13:2 the meal being ended. Following Luke 22:20 being instituted after they had eaten.
Judas didn't leave until after Jesus washed His disciples feet.

If you hear people talk about textual criticism, you'll walk away thinking that we can't believe anything. Well, number one, there's about 5600 Greek New Testament manuscripts, which for an ancient body of literature is a phenomenal amount of information. So we have a lot of texts to look at. Second of all, 99% of the variations are inconsequential. They simply don't really matter. Or we can easily see why one morphed into the other. And thirdly, this is the most important thing that remaining 1%, it’s actually less than 1%, do not contain any biblical doctrine. There is no belief either core or frankly incidental that you believe that is brought into question by variations among the Greek manuscripts. Bill Mounce

 

[Deacon]

Not true.
γενομενου being ended.
γινομενου during.

John 13:2 the meal being ended. Following Luke 22:20 being instituted after they had eaten.
Judas didn't leave until after Jesus washed His disciples feet.

Am I missing something?
What is the doctrine/ teaching that is effected?
How does the notion that Jesus finished eating or was still eating when the devil worked his magic on Judas, change your actions today?
And Luke mentions the drink after the eating of the bread.

You are making mountains out of mole hills.

Rob

 

[37818]

Am I missing something?
What is the doctrine/ teaching that is effected?

Are you blind?
I cited John 13:2.
The difference between "ended" and "during."
And Luke 22:20.

 

[37818]

If you hear people talk about textual criticism, you'll walk away thinking that we can't believe anything. Well, number one, there's about 5600 Greek New Testament manuscripts, which for an ancient body of literature is a phenomenal amount of information. So we have a lot of texts to look at. Second of all, 99% of the variations are inconsequential. They simply don't really matter. Or we can easily see why one morphed into the other. And thirdly, this is the most important thing that remaining 1%, it’s actually less than 1%, do not contain any biblical doctrine. There is no belief either core or frankly incidental that you believe that is brought into question by variations among the Greek manuscripts. Bill Mounce

The difference between what manuscript evidence is weighed. The common evidence versus the rare evidence which has poor correlation with additional rare readings.

 

[37818]

And Luke mentions the drink after the eating of the bread.

A difference in understanding done after versus referring to the prior meal or just that piece of bread.

 

[Silverhair]

The difference between what manuscript evidence is weighed. The common evidence versus the rare evidence which has poor correlation with additional rare readings.

And around and round we go. You do not like anything other than Pickering and his F35. So you dismiss everything else.

You dismiss the early manuscripts out of hand. Strange that you will hold to latter manuscripts that add words to the text.

 

[Conan]

Yes I know you think that text was lost from the autographs but the later scribes could have just as easily have added text. It all depends upon who you read.

One day it will be good for you to form your own opinion, instead of just depending on who you read.

My concern is that over time man would come to worship them rather than the author. Do you really think that modern man is any different from the Jews that worshiped the bronze serpent? The biblical text that we have is sufficient to teach us about God and how one can come to trust in Him for their salvation.

I am glad you are not bothered by variants.

We already have people that look at a bible and will not mark in it for fear of offending God or ruining the word of God. Let alone that someone should actually throw one out or burn it. We are to worship the author of the book not the book that tells us about the author.

Ok. Good.

Of course some manuscripts are more accurate than others but that is the question, which are the more accurate manuscripts.

The better quality ones. The ones that have the most accurate texts are the best ones.

Just as you are opposing what I have said.

That the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate? Yes. I think everyone has a right to know the truth.

I agree that Pickering is right on some things and wrong on others just as all the various scholars are.

Agreed.

You have made a concerted effort to champion Pickerings F35 theory.

To only give him a chance instead of dismissing everything he says. I do not agree with everything he says, but that he is highly accurate about things makes him worth listening to.

Why do you not understand that not all agree with Pickering.

I understand just fine that most disagree with him. I was saying don't just dismiss him out of hand. But even all of those who disagree with him will appreciate what he has done to collate all of those manuscripts of Family 35. Even those who think F35 to be the least accurate will appreciate his work.

The errors that you say he has pointed out are what he considers errors but do all the various scholars agree with him?

Who cares whether any agree with him or not? What does your mind say is what is important. Of course you would have to read him for yourself to have a real one. No one is asking you to agree with him. But to read him. Form your own opinion.

As I have said before I have bibles from both lines of transmission and use them in my studies. I have not seen any serious problem come up in my studies when comparing the texts.

As Bill Mounce said 99% of the variations are inconsequential. They simply don't really matter. Or we can easily see why one morphed into the other. This is the most important thing, that remaining 1%, it's actually less than 1%, do not contain any biblical doctrine. There is no belief either core or frankly incidental that you believe that is brought into question by variations among the Greek manuscripts.

Then why try to cancel discussions on textual criticism?

I do not see the need to continue going over this again and again. You keep pushing the F35 text type and as I have said many times it is pickerings opinion and others do not agree so nothing changes does it.

Ok. We will never go over the need to discuss Pickering again.

The reality is that we as non-scholars can only trust what some scholar has said we do not have the expertise to actually judge whether what they are saying is correct or not.

No. A person can learn for themselves. Form their own opinions, and see the flaws in theories.

 

[37818]

And around and round we go. You do not like anything other than Pickering and his F35. So you dismiss everything else.

You dismiss the early manuscripts out of hand. Strange that you will hold to latter manuscripts that add words to the text.

Empty accusations.
Please deal with an actual text case. Presenting nothing is still arguing nothing.
The reading "being ended" in John 13:2 is both the oldest (P66) and the common reading at 99.5% of the manuscripts.

The original reading of Sinaiticus and it's second corrector demonstrates the older reading than Sinaiticus.

You need to cite an actual case I have argued. And make a case that text is not the word of God.

 

[Silverhair]

Empty accusations.
Please deal with an actual text case. Presenting nothing is still arguing nothing.
The reading "being ended" in John 13:2 is both the oldest (P66) and the common reading at 99.5% of the manuscripts.

You need to cite an actual case I have argued. And make a case that text is not the word of God.

You seem to have missed what I have been saying. You have been arguing for your F35 for a long time now and what I have been saying is that while you champion it it has not been accepted by other scholars.

I use bibles from both main lines of transmission and quite frankly what you get all up about is really just a tempest in a teapot. If you wanted to point out a "variant" that actually affected a doctrine then it would be understandable but you are spending way to much time on points that do not influence whether a person will trust in God or not.

It seems you are majoring in the minors.

 

[Silverhair]

One day it will be good for you to form your own opinion, instead of just depending on who you read.

So you are a Greek text scholar are you? You comment shows that you are being a bit disingenuous.

I am glad you are not bothered by variants.

Point out the ones that actually bring a doctrine into question.

The better quality ones. The ones that have the most accurate texts are the best ones.

And who judges what are the most accurate ones, you?

That the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate? Yes. I think everyone has a right to know the truth.

So you admit that you do not trust the earliest manuscripts but trust those from the 5th century that have added text to the original scriptures. So the reason you trust the later manuscripts is not because you actually read them yourself but you are trusting what some scholar, in this case Pickering, has told you. Just as I have put more weight on what other scholars, Mounce, have said.

To only give him a chance instead of dismissing everything he says. I do not agree with everything he says, but that he is highly accurate about things makes him worth listening to

I understand just fine that most disagree with him. I was saying don't just dismiss him out of hand. But even all of those who disagree with him will appreciate what he has done to collate all of those manuscripts of Family 35. Even those who think F35 to be the least accurate will appreciate his work..

When other scholars disagree with his view and I trust those other scholars then I am not dismissing Pickering out of hand, I am trusting what other scholars have said.

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? Daniel B. Wallace
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org


[QUOTE="Conan, post: 2887955, member: 15211]"Who cares whether any agree with him or not? What does your mind say is what is important. Of course you would have to read him for yourself to have a real one. No one is asking you to agree with him. But to read him. Form your own opinion.[/QUOTE]

You have just pointed out your bias "Who cares whether any agree with him or not?" You should care as he could be leading to tho a false understanding of scripture.

But more to the point how could I a non-scholar actually judge what he is saying. That is why we trust other bible scholars that have the ability to evaluate his work.

[QUOTE="Conan, post: 2887955, member: 15211]Then why try to cancel discussions on textual criticism?

Ok. We will never go over the need to discuss Pickering again.


No. A person can learn for themselves. Form their own opinions, and see the flaws in theories.[/QUOTE]

Have I stopped you from making any comments, NO. You could even start another thread in you so wished.

How does one learn for themselves, they read various scholars on the subject do they not. From what I have read on this and it is limited as I do not see why the fight over words {37818 and John 13:2}. If the variants cause a problem with a critical doctrine then we would see the scholars dealing with that problem but the problem does not exist. If you know of such a variant then please point it out.

This is actually more an attempt to have people agree that one particular view is correct, one particular transmission line is correct. While you and 37818 think that F35 is that line not all people do. Plus for most non-scholars we trust the text we have in our hands. You must remember that people were saved even when all we had was the flawed KJV or TR. So as I said, it is just a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Conan]

While you and 37818 think that F35 is that line not all people do. Plus for most non-scholars we trust the text we have in our hands.

I do not think Family 35 is perfect or "the one". I was saying that it is highly accurate. Not to be dismissed.

You must remember that people were saved even when all we had was the flawed KJV or TR.

The TR and KJV are also highly accurate. Not to be dismissed.

 

[Silverhair]

I do not think Family 35 is perfect or "the one". I was saying that it is highly accurate. Not to be dismissed.

The TR and KJV are also highly accurate. Not to be dismissed.

The bibles we have in our hands are good and that is why you can trust ones from either line of transmission. And that is why I use them form both lines of transmission.

Over a number of threads you and 37818 have continued to promote the F35 as the best version, since you like it so much use it.

Others disagree so they do not use that version, do you have a problem with that?

I have both on my system but rarely use them. Why use them when we have better translations available to us.

 

[Conan]

Others disagree so they do not use that version, do you have a problem with that?

No why would I. But you have a problem with it, by speaking against it as if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[37818]

. . . your F35 for a long time . . .

You do not know anything of the sort. Presenting it's case does not make it mine. I am pro KJV. For example I believe Matthew 3:11 "and with fire." Are part of Matthew's original text. It's omission is supported by 80% of the manuscript evidence.

 

[37818]

@Silverhair,
There is a common ground as to OT and New Testament texts. It does vary between believers.

 

[Silverhair]

No why would I. But you have a problem with it, by speaking against it as if you knew what you were talking about.

Why would I use a version that other scholars say is actually not the best. He used late manuscripts and ignored the earliest ones. He used manuscripts that added to the earliest texts so while I my not be a textural scholar I can trust those that are.

By speaking for it you speak as if you actually knew what you were talking about.

 

[Silverhair]

You do not know anything of the sort. Presenting it's case does not make it mine. I am pro KJV. For example I believe Matthew 3:11 "and with fire." Are part of Matthew's original text. It's omission is supported by 80% of the manuscript evidence.

So this 80% is it Byzantine text.

 

[Conan]

Why would I use a version that other scholars say is actually not the best. He used late manuscripts and ignored the earliest ones. He used manuscripts that added to the earliest texts so while I my not be a textural scholar I can trust those that are.

Well, good for you.

By speaking for it you speak as if you actually knew what you were talking about.

I believe that I do. I have studied textual criticism for a long time. As a hobby. I used to be critical text like you. But I have seen flaws in the CT and have seen where at times the Byzantine Text is superior. I like to promote the more accurate texts. But I understand you are not interested. Thats cool. I am glade that you have excellent Bibles! That is good!

 

[37818]

So this 80% is it Byzantine text.

20% have the reading. And is not the sole evidence for that reading.

 

[Silverhair]

Well, good for you.


I believe that I do. I have studied textual criticism for a long time. As a hobby. I used to be critical text like you. But I have seen flaws in the CT and have seen where at times the Byzantine Text is superior. I like to promote the more accurate texts. But I understand you are not interested. Thats cool. I am glade that you have excellent Bibles! That is good!

What you see as flaws others do not. The added text of the byzantine type is considered to be a flaw and thus brings into question the value of such.