Disagreement

Any thoughts?

Yes.

You enjoy arguing.
You aren't interested in changing your mind.

You are wrong on this issue.

You can't read Greek and Hebrew fluently so you are not really qualified as a textual critic. You are entitled to an opinion but you are at the mercy of the actual research opinions of others who are actually qualified as textual critics.

You are unfortunately listening to the wrong people.

You asked for my thoughts.

 

Askjo: "Some manuscripts do not include this verse."

That is BALONEY!!

No, it isn't. Some mss don't include this verse.

As for disagreements...The Four Gospels disagree with each other from their beginnings. Yet, all of them have been considered Scripture from the gitgo. The clear differences between Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles have been known for over 2500 years; yet no one has denied their status as Scripture. There's as form a case for ADDITIONS as there is for OMISSIONS. That argument has no merit.

 

Askjo: //Most modern versions' footnotes said:

"Some manuscripts do not contain..."
"Some manuscripts omit...."
"early manuscripts omit..."
"Later manuscripts add..."

That is BALONEY!! //

Actually that is the truth.
Here is some more truth:

2 Timothy 3:1 (HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible):

But know this: difficult times will come in the last days.
2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money,
boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers,
without self-control, brutal, without love
for what is good,
4 traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers
of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 holding to the form of religion but denying
its power. Avoid these people!
6 For among them are those who worm their way
into households and capture idle women burdened
down with sins, led along by a variety of passions,
7 always learning and never able to come
to a knowledge of the truth.
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so
these also resist the truth, men who
are corrupt in mind, worthless in regard to the faith.
9 But they will not make further progress,
for their lack of understanding will be
clear to all, as theirs was also.

 

Askjo,

Do you have a list of the differences between the "TR and the TR" in Mark? Also, do you have a list of the differences between Aleph & B in Mark? I'm very interested in this.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

I like you Askjo

 

There is a version of the Bible that completely changed 1John 5:7. It was referred to as the plain english (I found it online under the KJV link on the same site) Instead of "Three bear record in Heaven: The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost, and those three are One." it said "The Spirit bears witness in Heaven" or something to that affect. I found it shocking that it was that different.

In Christ,

Brooks

 

Do you mean this?

1 John 5:7 (web = World English Bible)

It is the Spirit who bears witness,
because the Spirit is the truth.

I'll tell one secret, you won't find out
why this verse is this way reading only
the KJV1769 without any margin notes.

 

Actually the correct spelling is from a word in the Italian original language and is "Balogna" of which "Baloney" is an anglicized (W&H) variant.

HankD

 

Don't you mean Bologna?

 

Yes! Mine is yet another variant.



HankD

 

Askjo...being a KJV guy I don't necessarily disagree with what you were trying to say but you set yourself up for the obvious derision of this group in here by resorting to "Ruckmanesque" language like "Baloney".
Kind of lacks grace...don't you think?

For the record...In my Humble Opinion...I have always had the personal conviction that the footnotes in the MV's do great damage to the concept of "authority" in the Word of God and bring it into question.That is just one more reason why I stay with my KJV...since I see none of that in there.I can read my bible without having the veracity or authority of it brought into question.I'm content with that...and always will be.My advice to you is that if you are gonna continue to engage in arguments in here stick by what you believe but TONE DOWN the rhetoric.JMO

In Christ,Greg Sr.

 

GregSr. said it so well....tone down the rhetoric.

this is one reason i don't post here much...the personal attacks.

just my 2 cents....FWIW.

 

Yeah, Askjo, I agree with this as being "bologna".

The reason why? The KJV was an update (as described by the translaters themselves in the front page of the 1611) of older translations from the Bishop's and Great Bible stream. Not only did it use a huge hodge-podge of manuscripts pieced together like a quilt, it used the Vulgate where it couldn't find agreeing manuscripts.

You are right. The Stephen's TR is only an attempt to reverse engineer the source Hebrew, and Greek text of the KJV.

As far as footnotes, I would rather the translator be honest and tell me that manuscripts had this or had that. It certainly doesn't add or take away from the text. I do agree that the verses ought to be left in the translation, but not without a footnote. This is my ONE problem with the ESV because it will often just leave a verse out, rather than include it with a footnote. Even the loosey goosey NIV contains most of the contraversial verses or a footnote to tell you what other manuscripts have.

 

Yes that is a noble understanding Gregory, reminiscent of the Bereans and although your KJV may not have footnotes, the original First Edition KJV had translator footnotes and in fact if you are a KJV purist you can purchase a facsimile First Edition with the KJV translator footnotes and the Apocrypha as well even from KJVO bookstores.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/kjv_defense.html

Perhaps you may already know this but the OT has "footnotes" (actually marginal notes) as part of the ancient text in a scribal practice called the Kethib-Qere system with the ancient scribal/Masoretic choices usually hidden from the reader by the translator/publisher.

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol08/Graves2003.html

HankD

 

Gregory Perry Sr.: "For the record...In my Humble Opinion...I have always had the personal conviction that the footnotes in the MV's do great damage to the concept of "authority" in the Word of God and bring it into question."

Then we shall always be at odds.
I beleive IMHO the translator footnotes* are
the best way to tell the truth. Such truth
is necessary to good understanding of the Written
Words of God.
BTW, the KJV1873 found in TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE
(Zondervan, 2000) contains the KJV1611's
translator footnotes.

*note: do not confuse translator footnotes
with cross-reference footnotes nor commentary
footnotes.