It's a prophecy.
-
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!
Does It REALLY matter Which Greek text translating From Into English?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
It's a prophecy.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Rippon,
Most people thought the world was flat at one time, but they were wrong. Martin Luther was decidedly in the minority. I don't care about being in the minority so long as I'm right. I try to read widely, not just one or two authors, to think critically and then make my own decisions. Based on your interest in this forum I would assume you do the same. So why not try wrestling with some of the real arguments for the authenticity of "in the prophets" in Mark 1:2 instead of simply [For a person claiming to be well read, I think you could find a better word to describe your feelings of Comfort and Rippon's quotes that is a bit more along the lines of what the admins. would like to see on the board; a non-Christian would wonder where you come up with your grammar and the reason for it.] who himself is merely an echo of Metzger?
Most people thought the world was flat at one time, but they were wrong. Martin Luther was decidedly in the minority. I don't care about being in the minority so long as I'm right. I try to read widely, not just one or two authors, to think critically and then make my own decisions. Based on your interest in this forum I would assume you do the same. So why not try wrestling with some of the real arguments for the authenticity of "in the prophets" in Mark 1:2 instead of simply [For a person claiming to be well read, I think you could find a better word to describe your feelings of Comfort and Rippon's quotes that is a bit more along the lines of what the admins. would like to see on the board; a non-Christian would wonder where you come up with your grammar and the reason for it.] who himself is merely an echo of Metzger?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well,my thoughts are that the manuscripts which are closer to the originals and having less tampering are in the minority --yet more accurate than the Majority Text.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
We should follow the manuscripts that are closest to the originals and have the least amount of tampering. We know which manuscripts are closest to the originals and have the least tampering through internal analysis of variations in succession (such as has been done on my blog on the first four chapters of Matthew). If the earliest manuscripts are not better in Mark 1:2 as Aleph and others in a very similar place in Matt 13:35, and if they have the non-original and thus later readings in variation after variation in succession (i.e., in their types of text), then they aren't the best, are they? And if they aren't the best then their weight in solving textual difficulties is diminished significantly. So why not consider the wrestling with the real arguments for the opposing side of Mark 1:2 instead of simply dodging the debate? Perhaps you have no real answers for the real arguments in favor of "in the prophets" in Mark 1:2?
That is a non-sequitur. The JW's did fine (speaking TIC) when the only translation that they used was the KJV.
Well, bring the verse up in conversation with a JW and see what he says. :tongue3:
In the interests of fairness, I might add that the JWs also love the KJV renderings of Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1.
Steve
interesting
Okay we have three cited Greek passages.
TR
CT
MT
First, you don't mention which TR you wish to use. There is a selection you know.
Okay, let's take worse case: 85% difference, let's also take no major theological differences as you youself admitted (It seems only the fundamentalists using the KJV only use the 85%. The 95% or less has more to do with sentence structure but not meaning.
Now, you keep quoting the TR as being different over and over. Which am I to believe, documents from within hundreds of years of Christ or 1500's of years?
You quote differences, which ones were added to by scribes and which one's were subtracted by scribes. If you were a scribe trying to be as accurate as possible as we know the Jews attempted to do, I would think there would be more accidently lost than added to strengthen their theology. I also point out that there are different books mentioned along with verses that are not found in any manuscripts. Obviously these were lost and obviously Jesus might have shown us by example to believe the best we have and since the Last verses of the Revelation (among others) had to come from the Latin Vulgate (which was okay since we know England was primarily Catholic or at least Lithergic in the Church of England and many heads lost and people burned at the stake for not using the KJV by decree of the King of England Himself. The Geneva was found as the Bible carried over on the MayFlower as the selected translation and many of the American's printed illegal copies of the KJV just to snub the King of England and prove that the United States of America to come was not under Brittish Rule which caused the printers in England to use "Authorized Version" to indicate it was approved by the KING not by God.
What I really can't stand when I do visit my daughter's church is the fundamentalist preacher calling my Bible the Non-Inspired Version and ALL but the new translations as coming from Satan. Does not the Bible itself say that if it admits Jesus as the Savior and Son of God it must be from God? Sure there are cruddy translations, but a good list of modern versions never sent anybody to hell and I've seen a LOT of Christians who used the NIV as their Bible of Inspiration by the pastor. I thought I was saved at 9 believe it or not I had no idea what I was reading until the "not very good" Good news for modern man came out and I devoured it because I could understand it and didn't get bored. It took modern Bible's before I eventually gave my heart to the Lord and they had a significant part in that conversion.
I have a real problem with parents shoving the KJV down kids throats and was told by my daughter I can't say anything to my grandson about this until he is eighteen. I'm loading for bear and may even put it in writng from grandpa just in case he does not make it. He'll have a lockbox and key plus information on where to obtain it on his 18th birthday.
Okay we have three cited Greek passages.
TR
CT
MT
First, you don't mention which TR you wish to use. There is a selection you know.
Okay, let's take worse case: 85% difference, let's also take no major theological differences as you youself admitted (It seems only the fundamentalists using the KJV only use the 85%. The 95% or less has more to do with sentence structure but not meaning.
Now, you keep quoting the TR as being different over and over. Which am I to believe, documents from within hundreds of years of Christ or 1500's of years?
You quote differences, which ones were added to by scribes and which one's were subtracted by scribes. If you were a scribe trying to be as accurate as possible as we know the Jews attempted to do, I would think there would be more accidently lost than added to strengthen their theology. I also point out that there are different books mentioned along with verses that are not found in any manuscripts. Obviously these were lost and obviously Jesus might have shown us by example to believe the best we have and since the Last verses of the Revelation (among others) had to come from the Latin Vulgate (which was okay since we know England was primarily Catholic or at least Lithergic in the Church of England and many heads lost and people burned at the stake for not using the KJV by decree of the King of England Himself. The Geneva was found as the Bible carried over on the MayFlower as the selected translation and many of the American's printed illegal copies of the KJV just to snub the King of England and prove that the United States of America to come was not under Brittish Rule which caused the printers in England to use "Authorized Version" to indicate it was approved by the KING not by God.
What I really can't stand when I do visit my daughter's church is the fundamentalist preacher calling my Bible the Non-Inspired Version and ALL but the new translations as coming from Satan. Does not the Bible itself say that if it admits Jesus as the Savior and Son of God it must be from God? Sure there are cruddy translations, but a good list of modern versions never sent anybody to hell and I've seen a LOT of Christians who used the NIV as their Bible of Inspiration by the pastor. I thought I was saved at 9 believe it or not I had no idea what I was reading until the "not very good" Good news for modern man came out and I devoured it because I could understand it and didn't get bored. It took modern Bible's before I eventually gave my heart to the Lord and they had a significant part in that conversion.
I have a real problem with parents shoving the KJV down kids throats and was told by my daughter I can't say anything to my grandson about this until he is eighteen. I'm loading for bear and may even put it in writng from grandpa just in case he does not make it. He'll have a lockbox and key plus information on where to obtain it on his 18th birthday.
Excellent point, Rippon. Good to see you after a while away. :wavey:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Let me start by saying that I am not KJVO. In fact, I use the NKJV.
However, I find some of the things in the above quote puzzling.
England primarily Catholic? It certainly had been, but it wasn't at the time the 1611 translation was made. Liturgical yes, but predominantly RC, no.
Heads lost and people burned at the stake for not using the KJV? People had earlier been imprisoned and burned at the stakefor daring to translate the bible into English, but not, as far as I know, for using one English translation rather than another.
As for the American printers printing "illegal" copies of the 1611 translation, you will know more about American history than I do, so I am a bit out of my depth on this point, but I thought that the first book of any kind to be printed in America was The Massachusetts Bay Psalm Book, in 1640. And the only bibles printed in America until well into the 18th century were the Geneva bible, and the Algonquin Indian language Bible.