A better English Bible.

[37818]

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?

Explain how the very same pronouns can be used for both the singular and plural pronouns? When so done, how do you propose to tell the singular and plural pronouns a part?

 

[Conan]

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 What do you consider an out of date source, one that does not support your view?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.

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.

 

[Conan]

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

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.

 

[Silverhair]

Explain how the very same pronouns can be used for both the singular and plural pronouns? When so done, how do you propose to tell the singular and plural pronouns a part?

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

 

[Silverhair]

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.

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.

 

[37818]

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

By this question, you really show you do not understand context.

Especially when it has to do with written singular and plural pronouns.

Your reply showed you didn't understand the problem:

Explain how the very same pronouns can be used for both the singular and plural pronouns? When so done, how do you propose to tell the singular and plural pronouns a part?

 

[Silverhair]

By this question, you really show you do not understand context.

Especially when it has to do with written singular and plural pronouns.

Your reply showed you didn't understand the problem:

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

 

[37818]

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

I am talking about singular and plural pronouns.

NASB Philemon 1:6, and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake.

 

[Conan]

And you think because I do not fully agree with your view that I must be wrong.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Silverhair]

I am talking about singular and plural pronouns.

NASB Philemon 1:6, and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake.

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.

 

[37818]

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.

Good.

In verse 1:6, from the context, from the Bible you use, the two pronouns or more in your Bible are all singular or all plural or different being singular or plural and why?

[My primary translation I use for studying the word happens to be the KJV.]

 

[Silverhair]

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.

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.

 

[Silverhair]

Good.

In verse 1:6, from the context, from the Bible you use, the two pronouns or more in your Bible are all singular or all plural or different being singular or plural and why?

[My primary translation I use for studying the word happens to be the KJV.]

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.

 

[37818]

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.

No. I do not believe you are being honest.

You have avoided actually answering what I had explicitly asked.

Thank you for proving my argument.

Philemon 1:6, That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

In many modern English Bible translations, one cannot tell, the second pronoun is actually plural unless the translation uses the first person plural variant reading.

Which ironically is the Majority Text reading.

 

[37818]

Philemon 1:6 NIV: I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ.

 

[Silverhair]

No. I do not believe you are being honest.

You have avoided actually answering what I had explicitly asked.

Thank you for proving my argument.

Philemon 1:6, That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

In many modern English Bible translations, one cannot tell, the second pronoun is actually plural unless the translation uses the first person plural variant reading.

Which ironically is the Majority Text reading.

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.

 

[37818]

Byzantine Text form. [Robert Adam Boyd, translation.]

Philemon 1:6,

I pray that yoʋr fellowship with us in the faith may be effective in deepening yoʋr understanding of every blessing that *we have in Christ Jesus.

* we [64.4%] ¦ you PCK TR [34.7%]

 

[Conan]

That is fine that you want to share what you have learned

Thanks.

but that does not require that all agree with your conclusions.

Of course.

It seems that you have never compared various bible translations.

Why would you assume that?

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.

True! Agreed.

But you woulds not understand that as you are so committed to your Byzantine line.

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.

You are quite condescending in your comments.

I do not mean too. I apologize!

 

[37818]

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

No. But I love your response here.

 

[Silverhair]

Byzantine Text form. [Robert Adam Boyd, translation.]

Philemon 1:6,

I pray that yoʋr fellowship with us in the faith may be effective in deepening yoʋr understanding of every blessing that *we have in Christ Jesus.

* we [64.4%] ¦ you PCK TR [34.7%]

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.