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.
Your best guessing suggests you have not.
Perfect copies of the autographs. However I was mistaken about there being no variation. There is some at 1:16. So I would have to modify John 1:1-15, 17.
Ridiculous.
It is not an honest way to look at it at all. Between the Hodges/Farstad Majority Text, Pierpont/Robinson Byzantine Text, and Pickering's Family 35 there is 99.5 % agreement. Textus Receptus 98% agreement, and even Nestle/Aland Text 96% agreement.
You think there is any doubt about having the Originals when in the places all of these Greek Texts agree 100% , which is the vast majority of the time?
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
So he chose too include them. Still does not prove one way or the other.
That is what you have been missing. Those that include them do so because they think they should those that do not do so because they think they should not.
It seems that you and conan really need everyone to agree with your view.
If either of those texts had an impact on whether a person trusted in Jesus for their salvation I could see why you are so stuck on this but they do not.
But it seems that you and conan have chosen this hill to die on so carry on.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You may not like that some scholars disagree with you view but so be it.
But as I said to 37818 you have chosen this hill to die on so carry on.
I do not think those texts will have much impact on whether a person would trust in Christ for their salvation.
37818
Well-Known Member
Those two sets of passages are not essential in order to believe Jesus to be the Christ. But not trusting that they were of God, thinking they were wrongly added can add double to trusting any of the rest of the Bible being trustworthy.