• 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!

Differences between the TR and Alexandrian

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Yea but can you imagine the world following a "beast" :rolleyes: . Obviously Revelation is full of symbolism and to say it didn't use it here is not only crazy with so little mss support but also pretending you know how the Word of God ought read. [/QB]
In case of Beast, there are plenty of verses for it, and we can understand the good reason for that metaphor, but as for Eagle....., suddenly?
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Well since I'm 18 and have not yet been to Seminary I do fairly rely on others.
18? I would have guessed much younger.
BTW you relied on Hoskier first I'm just letting everyone know Hoskier discredited all three mss you claim that he claimed were proof that Erasmus didn't copy from the Latin.
Uh, you seem to be having a reading comprehension problem.

You claimed that Erasmus translated the last 6 verses from the Vulgate.

I pointed out that was a myth.

You accused me of misrepresenting the facts. You then cut and pasted the statement by Euthymius which agreed with me! Erasmus did not translate from the Vulgate. He translated from a commentary written Lorenzo de Valla!

I said that Hoskier stated Erasmus translated from 141.

You accused me of misrepresenting the facts. You then posted another cut and past from Euthymius which, again, agreed with me! He says that Hoskier did make that claim.

So, please explain to my how your posting of Euthymius's agreements with me proves I "misrepresented the facts?"
The fact is Erasmus did copy from the Latin. Period. The person was addressing a KJVO Ruckmanite using your same ridiculous arguement.
The fact is that Erasmus did not translate from the Vulgate.

And I don't know nor care who he was addressing. He was correct. Erasmus did not translate from the Vulgate and Hoskier did claim Erasmus had 141. How can my statement be "ridiculous" when I make it but "profound" when Euthymius makes the same statement?
 

DeclareHim

New Member
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
In case of Beast, there are plenty of verses for it, and we can understand the good reason for that metaphor, but as for Eagle....., suddenly?
Here is Revelation 4:
7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. 8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say,

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”
Here we see an Eagle speaking so it's not that unlikely that in chapter 8 verse 13 we could see an Eagle speaking.
 

DeclareHim

New Member
I said that Hoskier stated Erasmus translated from 141.
Hoskier admits that 141 was a handwritten copy of a printed Greek NT and is therefore of no value. It means nothing to the Greek manuscript tradition. But the fact remains even as you posted Erasmus did translate much of the last 6 verses of Revelation from LATIN.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I said that Hoskier stated Erasmus translated from 141.
Hoskier admits that 141 was a handwritten copy of a printed Greek NT and is therefore of no value. It means nothing to the Greek manuscript tradition. But the fact remains even as you posted Erasmus did translate much of the last 6 verses of Revelation from LATIN. </font>[/QUOTE]One last time. Now, pay attention. Erasmus did not translate from the Latin Vulgate. Hoskier said he used 141. Both of those statements are true. Even your internet "expert" attests to both those statements being true. So, how does my posting true statements constitute "mistating the facts?"
 

DeclareHim

New Member
You admit that Erasmus translated some of those 6 verses from the commentary written Lorenzo de Valla which was in Latin so there it is you admit that Erasmus translated some portions of those verses from the Latin.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
You admit that Erasmus translated some of those 6 verses from the commentary written Lorenzo de Valla which was in Latin so there it is you admit that Erasmus translated some portions of those verses from the Latin.
&lt;sigh&gt; One more time. I said that Erasmus did not translate from the Latin Vulgate.
 

Boanerges

New Member
Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
When I get my doctorate, can I lord it over as many people as I possible as well?
Only if you can substantiate your case using manuscript numbers, and facts, facts, and more facts.
type.gif
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
But Dr. Cassidy has yet to give the facts.
What facts have I failed to give? Even your internet "expert" concurred with my statements. Do you dispute those facts? If so, can you offer any empirical evidence that Erasmus did, in fact, translate from the Latin Vulgate into Greek even though he clearly said that he did not, but rather translated from a commentary by Lorenzo de Valla?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that Hoskier did not intimate that Erasmus got the readings from ms 141?

If not, then why not just agree with the facts that Erasmus did not translate from the Latin Vulgate and that Hoskier did intimate that Erasmus got the reading from 141?

Why must the truth be sacrificed on the altar of ego?
 

Brother James

New Member
The biggest difference is which one has been blessed and been used of God. I'm not against a new translation but the sea of translations that have come from the CT have caused a lot of confusion amongst the people of God. I'm not a greek scholar so I'll just stick with the text of the reformation.
 

DesiderioDomini

New Member
Only if you can substantiate your case using manuscript numbers, and facts, facts, and more facts.
You cannot be serious. I thought all that learning was for the purposes of educating other people, not for pride? What was I thinking?

Moderator: I would like to know why you allow Dr. Cassidy's insult to stand, but my calling attention to it is snipped? Do you not feel this is playing favorites? Are you unsure as to whether or not he was insulting people?
 

DeclareHim

New Member
Originally posted by TCassidy:
What facts have I failed to give? Even your internet "expert" concurred with my statements. Do you dispute those facts? If so, can you offer any empirical evidence that Erasmus did, in fact, translate from the Latin Vulgate into Greek even though he clearly said that he did not, but rather translated from a commentary by Lorenzo de Valla?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that Hoskier did not intimate that Erasmus got the readings from ms 141?

If not, then why not just agree with the facts that Erasmus did not translate from the Latin Vulgate and that Hoskier did intimate that Erasmus got the reading from 141?

Why must the truth be sacrificed on the altar of ego?
Here is the board= Bible Versions Discussion Board where you can talk to my source and debate him if you wish.
 

Boanerges

New Member
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TCassidy:
What facts have I failed to give? Even your internet "expert" concurred with my statements. Do you dispute those facts? If so, can you offer any empirical evidence that Erasmus did, in fact, translate from the Latin Vulgate into Greek even though he clearly said that he did not, but rather translated from a commentary by Lorenzo de Valla?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that Hoskier did not intimate that Erasmus got the readings from ms 141?

If not, then why not just agree with the facts that Erasmus did not translate from the Latin Vulgate and that Hoskier did intimate that Erasmus got the reading from 141?

Why must the truth be sacrificed on the altar of ego?
Here is the board= Bible Versions Discussion Board where you can talk to my source and debate him if you wish. </font>[/QUOTE]Man, how I hate going to boards with a zillion pop-ups. Too annoying for me. :eek:
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Here we see an Eagle speaking so it's not that unlikely that in chapter 8 verse 13 we could see an Eagle speaking. [/QB]
What you mentioned about the living creature is related to Ezekiel 1 and doesn't say exactly Eagle, but says "looks like an Eagle which may be special angelic nature. But in 8:13, after describing the 4 angels, another angel declares so. Moreover, what the angel (or eagle) declare is the Woes, saying woe, woe, woe. One woe is mentioned in 9:12 which was declared by the fifth angel, 11:14 another woe, thereafter the third woe was following. all the woes were declared by angels. I can hardly expect the eagle was declaring the woes flying in the chaos. It is up to you.
 

DeclareHim

New Member
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
What you mentioned about the living creature is related to Ezekiel 1 and doesn't say exactly Eagle, but says "looks like an Eagle which may be special angelic nature. But in 8:13, after describing the 4 angels, another angel declares so. Moreover, what the angel (or eagle) declare is the Woes, saying woe, woe, woe. One woe is mentioned in 9:12 which was declared by the fifth angel, 11:14 another woe, thereafter the third woe was following. all the woes were declared by angels. I can hardly expect the eagle was declaring the woes flying in the chaos. It is up to you.
In a sense I can understand the position. But I will not correct the Word of God because it makes more sense from me to do so.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
In a sense I can understand the position. But I will not correct the Word of God because it makes more sense from me to do so. [/QB]
Me either! since I trust Erasmus who did a good job while othere didn't
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top