The Critical, majority, Bzt, and even the TR texts all reflect those originals to high degree, enough so to have confidence in using any of them as text sources for a translation
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Defence of John 7:53 - John 8:11.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Modern translations are just as much valid translation as the Kjv was and is though
37818
Well-Known Member
They share a common Greek 100% text between variants.
37818
Well-Known Member
This is generally true. All translations can have issues.
I have NO problem when one says I prefer the Kjv, just do when they insist KJVO position
You did. See your words below.
You can learn about the subject and make your own informed decisions.
So you learn about the subject for yourself instead of not making a decision because there are variations.
Are you disputing we don't have the Originals in John 1:1-17? All the witnesses agree. There is not really a real variation until verse 1:18.
Two manuscripts, of the "western text" do have a variant. Codex's Beza and Sinaiticus. But no one picks those two manuscripts in Text or Translation.
How can you say we don't have the Original Text in John 1:1-17? Those 2 Codex's tripping you up? They trip no one else up?
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
And who say I have not?
Did i say I had not made a decision?
Are they the autographs?
Strange that you have to have everyone agree with you.
But as I have said before, you do not have the autographs so either way is just a best guess. You may not like that answer but at least it is an honest look at the situation.
37818
Well-Known Member
You know we no longer have the autographs.
We do have their texts. Which didn't come from nowhere.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
But which texts? The ones with Mar 16:9-20, John 7:53 - John 8:11 or the ones without.
It still comes down to which texts the scholars trust as being the best. A guess.
I am sorry that you and Conan are so hung up on this but you are beating a dead horse.
Those two sections of text, in or out, do not impact my trust in the bible. But they do seem to have quite an impact on yours.
37818
Well-Known Member
These issues are not dead.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
So what are the issues as you see them?
Do you think those that do not think those verses should be in the bible do not trust the bible?
37818
Well-Known Member
Acknowledging or denying text being God's word.
They don't believe those texts are original to those books and/or being God's word.
Last edited:
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
How are they denying God's word if they do not think those texts should be in God's word? Would they not say you are just adding to His word?
It still comes down to a judgement call as we do not have the autographs.
37818
Well-Known Member
If said text are actually God's word and original to said books.
37818
Well-Known Member
@Silverhair,
Both (John 7:53 - John 8:11) and (Mark 16:9-20) has been part of the Greek TR as the word of God since Tyndale translated the New Testament into English.
Both (John 7:53 - John 8:11) and (Mark 16:9-20) has been part of the Greek TR as the word of God since Tyndale translated the New Testament into English.