Debate on Codex Sinaiticus

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan, why do you continue in this silliness? Since no two Greek manuscripts are exactly alike, logic alone says that either all of them have a/some corruption(s) or only one of them is free from all corruptions. If the former, then you agree with Yeshua, and if the latter, then according to your interpretation of the preservation passages God's word only applies to that single Greek manuscript...so kindly tell us which one that is? Oh, that's right, you think Beza's 1598 edition was perfect, or was it Erasmus' 1516? Never mind, whichever edition you pick, it doesn't mirror any Greek manuscript exactly, so you're back at Yeshua's original presumption which you just condemned him, but more importantly your own self, for! Stop using your silly little word games and false rules of exegesis.

"No two Greek manuscripts are alike"
And you make this claim based on what authority?

This statement is a pretty radical claim to make without anything to substantiate it.

Yes the different editions of the Textus Receptus that do not mirror any Greek manuscript... But that's because we have very few complete New Testament manuscripts, what we have are a lot fragments and portions. You misrepresent the situation.

Yes there are no 2 identical Greek manuscripts with the same Book/Chapter/Verse Content. But that is not to say that there are not 2 Greek manuscripts with identical readings. For example I'm sure there may be one Greek Papyrus fragment of John 3:16 that will agree with say another Papyrus Fragment's reading of John 3:16 that also contains John 1:16-4:21... Again like I said you severely misrepresent facts and place false implications on them.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan, why do you continue in this silliness? Since no two Greek manuscripts are exactly alike, logic alone says that either all of them have a/some corruption(s) or only one of them is free from all corruptions. If the former, then you agree with Yeshua, and if the latter, then according to your interpretation of the preservation passages God's word only applies to that single Greek manuscript...so kindly tell us which one that is? Oh, that's right, you think Beza's 1598 edition was perfect, or was it Erasmus' 1516? Never mind, whichever edition you pick, it doesn't mirror any Greek manuscript exactly, so you're back at Yeshua's original presumption which you just condemned him, but more importantly your own self, for! Stop using your silly little word games and false rules of exegesis.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

How is man to live by EVERY word if we only have "the gist" of what God says...? it does not say man shall live by every gist that proceeds out of his mouth..

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God obviously cares about all of his word he cares about additions and subtractions... If God pronounces a curse on those who would corrupt his word, why are you so quick to believe that he would not preserve his inerrent words?

I find that your statement all copies of scripture have errors is not based on Sola Scriptura but is based on what Paul would call "Oppositions of science falsely so called." and based on man made tradition.

Here are some more scriptures to think upon.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Please don't feed me the them is God's people, anyone who knows basic english can tell that the words of the Lord are the antecedent for them.

 

[Rippon]

And you make this claim based on what authority?

This statement is a pretty radical claim to make without anything to substantiate it.

You misrepresent the situation.

Er Jordon. I think you don't know that you are in over your head. Jonathan knows his stuff on textual issues. Time for you to eat some humble pie.

Yes there are no 2 identical Greek manuscripts with the same Book/Chapter/Verse Content. But that is not to say that there are not 2 Greek manuscripts with identical readings.

Are you aware that there were no chapter and verse distinctions made in MSS?

Again like I said you severely misrepresent facts and place false implications on them.

There you go again.

 

[Yeshua1]

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

How is man to live by EVERY word if we only have "the gist" of what God says...? it does not say man shall live by every gist that proceeds out of his mouth..

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God obviously cares about all of his word he cares about additions and subtractions... If God pronounces a curse on those who would corrupt his word, why are you so quick to believe that he would not preserve his inerrent words?

I find that your statement all copies of scripture have errors is not based on Sola Scriptura but is based on what Paul would call "Oppositions of science falsely so called." and based on man made tradition.

Here are some more scriptures to think upon.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Please don't feed me the them is God's people, anyone who knows basic english can tell that the words of the Lord are the antecedent for them.

refers to the originals God inspired unto us, and the copies that we have now extant in the various Greek/hebrew text pretty much mirror those!

Do you see the originals as being ANY different then the KJV version then?
Were they inspired equally, or what?

 

[Rippon]

Do you see the originals as being ANY different then the KJV version then?
Were they inspired equally, or what?

The originals match the KJV exactly! Haven't you heard of the Codex KJVaticus?

 

[Yeshua1]

The originals match the KJV exactly! Haven't you heard of the Codex KJVaticus?

TAHT must have been the document the monks copied off from, before burning it, and keeping their "corrupted" one!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Er Jordon. I think you don't know that you are in over your head. Jonathan knows his stuff on textual issues. Time for you to eat some humble pie.


Are you aware that there were no chapter and verse distinctions made in MSS?

There you go again.

You missed my entire point with the chapter and verse disctinctions. The fact you made this statement shows you don't realize what I was saying.

Yes I am well aware that the were no chapter and verse distinctions in the MSS.

And I'm actually pretty well studied in textual issues as well... Either way that doesn't make either of us more correct than the other.

 

[Yeshua1]

You missed my entire point with the chapter and verse disctinctions. The fact you made this statement shows you don't realize what I was saying.

Yes I am well aware that the were no chapter and verse distinctions in the MSS.

And I'm actually pretty well studied in textual issues as well... Either way that doesn't make either of us more correct than the other.

The main distinction in this topic is that we will allow for you to view the TR as being the best available Greek text, while we would see the CT as that, but we would see all available greek/hebrew texts as valid as word of the lord to us in original languages!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The main distinction in this topic is that we will allow for you to view the TR as being the best available Greek text, while we would see the CT as that, but we would see all available greek/hebrew texts as valid as word of the lord to us in original languages!

No. just no.

 

[Logos1560]

And I'm actually pretty well studied in textual issues as well.

Your posts do not show it. Perhaps you have only studied one side of the textual issues and thus rely upon one-sided, biased, unreliable KJV-only sources.

If you were well-studied, you should know that there were copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts on which the printed TR editions were based.

Have you read the book Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament by Jan Krans?

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Jordan Kurecki

And I'm actually pretty well studied in textual issues as well.

"No two Greek manuscripts are alike"
And you make this claim based on what authority?

This statement is a pretty radical claim to make without anything to substantiate it.

Anyone well-studied in textual issues would know that the statement you claimed to be "radical" is actually a well-established fact according to those who have actually examined the manuscript evidence.

In his book Behind the Bible that he substitled "A Primer on Textual Criticism," Jeffrey D. Johnson noted that "none of the existing New Testament MSS perfectly agree with one another" (p. 14).

Johnson noted that "this means that there are no perfect extant (existing) MSS; all have at least a few mistakes" (p. 14).

"
You misrepresent the situation.

Perhaps you are the one who misrepresents the facts through your own personal KJV-only bias and opinions.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. just no.

WHICH TR edition is to be seen then as correct valid one?

Which edition was the one Eramus used?

Is the TR 100% the originals were then?

So NO other Greek text is valid, period, all others were corrupted by who/what?