-
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!
Final Authority before 1611?
- Thread starter Cix
- Start date
Michelle: “I read somewhere, and I do not recall where I read it, that the New Greek Text, or N/A text was also considered by them the majority text, hence the reason I said it was renamed that.”
Whatever the source, it was in error.
Michelle: “And as C4K indicated this is what underlines all the mv's, this is what I was under the impression of and referring to.”
Agreed that nearly all modern versions (NKJV a major exception) follow a text that is itself very similar, and one that closely parallels that of Westcott and Hort (as noted, this is true whether one is speaking of the NA27, UBS4, or whatever eclectically determined Greek text underlies most modern translations, NKJV excepted). It just isn't called the majority text, but is basically an Alexandrian type of text with some non-Alexandrian readings that were eclectically determined to be more original that the base Alexandrian text otherwise showed.
Michelle: “What then is the majority text, if it is not the N/A or the TR?”
Strictly speaking the “majority text” is that which numerically dominates the manuscript tradition, otherwise called the Byzantine or Traditional text. It does not mean 50%+1 = majority, but generally reflects an agreement of anywhere from 80-95% of all existing Greek manuscripts.
Michelle: “I was under the understanding also, that the TR used to be called or referred to as the majority text, but no longer is, as the N/A is now called this.”
The various printed TR editions are all close, but not identical, to the Byzantine or majority text, differing from the Byzantine text in around 1850 places (according to a count made by Dan Wallace). The TR and Byzantine editions differ from the NA27/UBS4/WH text in around 6000 places, and reflect a significantly different text-type. But the TR editions are not themselves the "majority text", nor should they be called such.
Michelle: “There is not three streams of texts, but two streams, one of the TR and the others of the Alexandria type.”
Actually there are three streams, since the TR and Byzantine differ among themselves to some significant degree, even if that degree is far less than the differences of either with the Alexandrian text. But there are also several minority lines of text that exist, such as the Western and Caesearean, even though these generally are not regarded as original nor used as the base texts of any major translations.
Whatever the source, it was in error.
Michelle: “And as C4K indicated this is what underlines all the mv's, this is what I was under the impression of and referring to.”
Agreed that nearly all modern versions (NKJV a major exception) follow a text that is itself very similar, and one that closely parallels that of Westcott and Hort (as noted, this is true whether one is speaking of the NA27, UBS4, or whatever eclectically determined Greek text underlies most modern translations, NKJV excepted). It just isn't called the majority text, but is basically an Alexandrian type of text with some non-Alexandrian readings that were eclectically determined to be more original that the base Alexandrian text otherwise showed.
Michelle: “What then is the majority text, if it is not the N/A or the TR?”
Strictly speaking the “majority text” is that which numerically dominates the manuscript tradition, otherwise called the Byzantine or Traditional text. It does not mean 50%+1 = majority, but generally reflects an agreement of anywhere from 80-95% of all existing Greek manuscripts.
Michelle: “I was under the understanding also, that the TR used to be called or referred to as the majority text, but no longer is, as the N/A is now called this.”
The various printed TR editions are all close, but not identical, to the Byzantine or majority text, differing from the Byzantine text in around 1850 places (according to a count made by Dan Wallace). The TR and Byzantine editions differ from the NA27/UBS4/WH text in around 6000 places, and reflect a significantly different text-type. But the TR editions are not themselves the "majority text", nor should they be called such.
Michelle: “There is not three streams of texts, but two streams, one of the TR and the others of the Alexandria type.”
Actually there are three streams, since the TR and Byzantine differ among themselves to some significant degree, even if that degree is far less than the differences of either with the Alexandrian text. But there are also several minority lines of text that exist, such as the Western and Caesearean, even though these generally are not regarded as original nor used as the base texts of any major translations.
--------------------------------------------------
Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.
--------------------------------------------------
No. I did not say reasonably accurate, I said accurate.
Websters New world Dictionary
accurate: 1. careful and exact 2. free from errors; precise
You are subjecting your own opinion into this
truth.
--------------------------------------------------
Key Fallacy #3: although one can legitimately maintain that accurate translation indeed proceeds “under the providence of God”, once again one cannot maintain that such translation must be or necessarily is “without error”, since once again every translation differs from every other.
--------------------------------------------------
You are lacking faith and denying that the Lord could do this, and Has done this based upon your opinion. God's word of truth has NO ERRORS.
--------------------------------------------------
Key Fallacy #4: Except for certain translations with known non-orthodox biases, Bible translation definitely strives to reproduce “the word of God accurately in the prospective language” from the original texts. But to presume that any translation made by fallible humans will necessarily be produced “without error - perfectly” is to presume more than scripturally should be expected in any such endeavor (“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (KJV)/corrupt (RSV)/sick (ESV)” (Hebrew 'ANASH = weak, sick, frail, incurable)
--------------------------------------------------
Now you are the one limiting God, and while you do this, you have made the power of man above that of the power of God, and have made man then your final authority.
--------------------------------------------------
Imperfect manuscripts (being the ultimate source of any translation) cannot become perfect in translation, especially when such translation is made by human beings who themselves are imperfect. Now if one wants to postulate special “advanced revelation” and direct inspiration of certain translators, that is another matter and a differing theological opinion which I would not happen to share.
--------------------------------------------------
If this is true, how then can you live in God's perfect will and safety, if you have left yourself open to deception from the errors that might come in?How then can you differentiate between truth and error? And how do you know then it is God speaking to you, and not some other spirit? How then can the Lord be the lamp unto your feet? How then is God's word sweet as honey?
By the way, it is not very nice, or polite to pick on anothers spelling errors. The nice thing to do would be to ignore them, and understand it is a printing error. You still understood the word and point I was making.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.
--------------------------------------------------
No. I did not say reasonably accurate, I said accurate.
Websters New world Dictionary
accurate: 1. careful and exact 2. free from errors; precise
You are subjecting your own opinion into this
truth.
--------------------------------------------------
Key Fallacy #3: although one can legitimately maintain that accurate translation indeed proceeds “under the providence of God”, once again one cannot maintain that such translation must be or necessarily is “without error”, since once again every translation differs from every other.
--------------------------------------------------
You are lacking faith and denying that the Lord could do this, and Has done this based upon your opinion. God's word of truth has NO ERRORS.
--------------------------------------------------
Key Fallacy #4: Except for certain translations with known non-orthodox biases, Bible translation definitely strives to reproduce “the word of God accurately in the prospective language” from the original texts. But to presume that any translation made by fallible humans will necessarily be produced “without error - perfectly” is to presume more than scripturally should be expected in any such endeavor (“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (KJV)/corrupt (RSV)/sick (ESV)” (Hebrew 'ANASH = weak, sick, frail, incurable)
--------------------------------------------------
Now you are the one limiting God, and while you do this, you have made the power of man above that of the power of God, and have made man then your final authority.
--------------------------------------------------
Imperfect manuscripts (being the ultimate source of any translation) cannot become perfect in translation, especially when such translation is made by human beings who themselves are imperfect. Now if one wants to postulate special “advanced revelation” and direct inspiration of certain translators, that is another matter and a differing theological opinion which I would not happen to share.
--------------------------------------------------
If this is true, how then can you live in God's perfect will and safety, if you have left yourself open to deception from the errors that might come in?How then can you differentiate between truth and error? And how do you know then it is God speaking to you, and not some other spirit? How then can the Lord be the lamp unto your feet? How then is God's word sweet as honey?
By the way, it is not very nice, or polite to pick on anothers spelling errors. The nice thing to do would be to ignore them, and understand it is a printing error. You still understood the word and point I was making.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Matthew is not KJVO.
Matthew 4
14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
KJV Isaiah 9
1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
HankD
Matthew 4
14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
KJV Isaiah 9
1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
HankD
Nope. Generically they are called critical or ecclectic texts- meaning they were derived by qualitative standards considering the full scope of the evidence.
There are four families that textual scholars divide the Greek into. The two major ones are the Byzantine (Antiochian) and Alexandrian.
This does not mean that they come from those locations or even that the first text of the type was created there. It means that their unique readings suggest a common ancestor that seems to be generally traceable to those general areas.
In fact, a recent archeological discovery that I linked to a few months ago shows that Christians from Antioch went to the tomb of a Jewish Christian in Palestine and inscribed a verse of scripture... it was characteristically Alexandrian, not Byzantine.
In general, the Byzantine are more numerous (thus called the majority texts) and the Alexandrian are older. The Byzantine were derived from and include texts preserved by the Eastern Orthodox (Catholic) Church. The Alexandrian line was cut off, almost like the SciFi idea of suspended animation, when the Middle East was over run by Islam.
The Byzantine is also more uniform than the Alexandrian but not perfectly so.
The "Majority Text" is basically an effort to count readings and choose the one that is most numerous unless there obvious reasons not to do so. This makes it characteristically Byzantine.
The TR is derived from 6-10 incomplete mss from the Byzantine family. Erasmus also used the Latin Vulgate and his first text was issued as an interlinear Bible with the Vulgate if I am not mistaken.
One of the things I like about the NKJV is that it follows the TR but points out when that text differs from the majority reading of the Byzantine text or from the Alexandrian. This is basic honesty on the part of the producers.
Two notable examples where the TR departs from the majority text of the Byzantine type are I John 5:7-8 (the TR follows the Latin Vulgate and 2 very late and possibly spurious texts) and Revelation 22:19 (the TR follows Erasmus back translation of the Vulgate against all Greek mss of all types).
Wait a minute. You don't even know the difference between the various terms but you want to dictate how many streams there are?
As I said, 4 are recognized but two are considered superior. The Western text type is sometimes talked about but is considered less reliable.
There are actually many "streams" of texts subordinate to the major classifications. All of the texts are different from each other but their similarities allow them to be classified by scholars.
--------------------------------------------------
1) Coptic-speaking Christians in Egypt even to this day use only the Coptic version. That version has been of the Alexandrian type of text ever since the second century, and remains so today. Do the Egyptian Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(2) Syriac-speaking Christians who continue to use the Peshitto have a NT canon that excludes 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn, Jude. Is their NT complete for them? Also, while the Gospels in the Syriac version are more strongly Byzantine, in the Acts and Epistles, “the Peshitta includes significant elements of other types.... about 30-40% of the whole” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism). With a truncated canon and a 40% non-Byzantine text in their Acts and Epistles, do today’s Syriac-speaking Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(3) The Japanese people, since the introduction of Christianity, continually have had a translation in their mother tongue that was based exclusively on the Alexandrian type of text. They have never had a translation based on a TR or Byzantine type of text. Do today’s Japanese people have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
Still waiting for a reply (good or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------
As I said to you that I have no knowledge of these things, and even though you claim you know all about it, and all the facts, I do not believe that you are approaching this in an unbiased manner. You can believe that those people have corrupted texts to rely upon. By faith, I believe those in those countries, who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, will have been provided the true and accurate word of God in their language without error. Your knowledge has proven nothing to me in regards to the facts and truth regarding the word of God, but only of your bias for corrupt texts and your attempts to justify them.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
1) Coptic-speaking Christians in Egypt even to this day use only the Coptic version. That version has been of the Alexandrian type of text ever since the second century, and remains so today. Do the Egyptian Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(2) Syriac-speaking Christians who continue to use the Peshitto have a NT canon that excludes 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn, Jude. Is their NT complete for them? Also, while the Gospels in the Syriac version are more strongly Byzantine, in the Acts and Epistles, “the Peshitta includes significant elements of other types.... about 30-40% of the whole” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism). With a truncated canon and a 40% non-Byzantine text in their Acts and Epistles, do today’s Syriac-speaking Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
(3) The Japanese people, since the introduction of Christianity, continually have had a translation in their mother tongue that was based exclusively on the Alexandrian type of text. They have never had a translation based on a TR or Byzantine type of text. Do today’s Japanese people have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?
Still waiting for a reply (good or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------
As I said to you that I have no knowledge of these things, and even though you claim you know all about it, and all the facts, I do not believe that you are approaching this in an unbiased manner. You can believe that those people have corrupted texts to rely upon. By faith, I believe those in those countries, who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, will have been provided the true and accurate word of God in their language without error. Your knowledge has proven nothing to me in regards to the facts and truth regarding the word of God, but only of your bias for corrupt texts and your attempts to justify them.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle said "By faith, I believe those in those countries, who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, will have been provided the true and accurate word of God in their language without error. Your knowledge has proven nothing to me in regards to the facts and truth regarding the word of God, but only of your bias for corrupt texts and your attempts to justify them."
Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind and therefore facts are irrelevant."
Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind and therefore facts are irrelevant."
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGG!!!!
Michelle, It is the difference between the definitions of "word". "Word" can mean an individual unit of speech made up of letters or it can mean an expressed thought/idea.
We don't have nor can most of us read the "words" (individual units of speech) of the autographs. The original autographs, as so often pointed out by KJVO's, have been lost for centuries. They were probably lost before the Bible was collated into one book.
So the next question is, "Does the evidence God providentially preserved through history down to us prove that we can have and be certain of the thoughts and ideas that God expressed through the originals"? The answer, Praise God, is a resounding, unflinching, undoubtable- YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!
It is only a lack of faith that causes someone to read two faithful versions and construe that they contradict one another.
I compared the texts of Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 for you earlier. I don't believe these passages contradict each other. They aren't the same and I won't deny that reality but reading them in faith I can accept that where the meanings of the different words overlap is what was expressed in the originals... which ever text represents them best.
Scott J said "I compared the texts of Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 for you earlier. I don't believe these passages contradict each other. They aren't the same and I won't deny that reality but reading them in faith I can accept that where the meanings of the different words overlap is what was expressed in the originals... which ever text represents them best."
Beautiful explanation.
Too bad it will go right over their heads.
Beautiful explanation.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. You also misinterpret because you approach this verse with "assumption" and a "preconcieved idea/belief first, rather than understanding plainly what is said.
I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said. Otherwise, I wouldn't know he said it.
But did you read what He said through Isaiah? I doubt it...and if you did, you'll prolly say neither Isaiah nor the translators were right.
--------------------------------------------------
I answered this in another post in this thread. You are approaching the scriptures wrong (with presumption), in order to prove something that is not there. This is very wrong robycop, and it is the presumption that leads you to misinterpret the scriptures, and leaves you coming away with a different meaning, and revelation than it reveals.
Hint: I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Wrong. You also misinterpret because you approach this verse with "assumption" and a "preconcieved idea/belief first, rather than understanding plainly what is said.
I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said. Otherwise, I wouldn't know he said it.
But did you read what He said through Isaiah? I doubt it...and if you did, you'll prolly say neither Isaiah nor the translators were right.
--------------------------------------------------
I answered this in another post in this thread. You are approaching the scriptures wrong (with presumption), in order to prove something that is not there. This is very wrong robycop, and it is the presumption that leads you to misinterpret the scriptures, and leaves you coming away with a different meaning, and revelation than it reveals.
Hint: I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Ziggy:
“Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.”
Michelle: “No. I did not say reasonably accurate, I said accurate,” with definition from Webster: “accurate: 1. careful and exact 2. free from errors; precise.” “You are subjecting your own opinion into this truth.”
Not my “opinion”, Michelle, but an honest statement of known and demonstrable _fact_.
Let’s deal with one item at a time, with _no_ spin or changing the subject. You conveniently skipped over and didn’t mention fallacy #1, which I will restate:
Key Fallacy #1: “preserved accurately in copies” does not equal “preserved perfectly”, otherwise the copies would not differ a whit from one another. If one thinks otherwise, we then need to know which single Greek manuscript copy is “the” perfectly preserved one, and then we can base and test all translations upon such.
So, Michelle, why don’t any two Greek manuscript copies agree, if they are supposedly all “accurate”, “careful and exact”, “free from errors” and “precise”? And if they are _not_ all “accurate” in the sense of being totally “free from errors” and “precise,” then why can they not be accepted as they really exist, and be recognized as “reasonably accurate” or even “highly accurate” as the existing evidence was summarized in the wording of Key Fallacy #2?
Somehow I think you would understand if you only understood.
BTW, feel free to correct any spelling or typo errors I might happen to make. I accept and appreciate correction at all times.
“Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.”
Michelle: “No. I did not say reasonably accurate, I said accurate,” with definition from Webster: “accurate: 1. careful and exact 2. free from errors; precise.” “You are subjecting your own opinion into this truth.”
Not my “opinion”, Michelle, but an honest statement of known and demonstrable _fact_.
Let’s deal with one item at a time, with _no_ spin or changing the subject. You conveniently skipped over and didn’t mention fallacy #1, which I will restate:
Key Fallacy #1: “preserved accurately in copies” does not equal “preserved perfectly”, otherwise the copies would not differ a whit from one another. If one thinks otherwise, we then need to know which single Greek manuscript copy is “the” perfectly preserved one, and then we can base and test all translations upon such.
So, Michelle, why don’t any two Greek manuscript copies agree, if they are supposedly all “accurate”, “careful and exact”, “free from errors” and “precise”? And if they are _not_ all “accurate” in the sense of being totally “free from errors” and “precise,” then why can they not be accepted as they really exist, and be recognized as “reasonably accurate” or even “highly accurate” as the existing evidence was summarized in the wording of Key Fallacy #2?
Somehow I think you would understand if you only understood.
BTW, feel free to correct any spelling or typo errors I might happen to make. I accept and appreciate correction at all times.
--------------------------------------------------
Congratulated by whom? Men, or God? Nothing will convince the stubborn man of anything, because the stubborness blinds and is a stumblingblock toward the truth.
So you're saying Slambo won't look objectively at the facts?
--------------------------------------------------
No, I was rather referring to you robycop.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Congratulated by whom? Men, or God? Nothing will convince the stubborn man of anything, because the stubborness blinds and is a stumblingblock toward the truth.
So you're saying Slambo won't look objectively at the facts?
--------------------------------------------------
No, I was rather referring to you robycop.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle you have now posted 4 or 5 times without dealing with the fact that what Jesus read in Luke is not the same as the text of Isaiah 61 as it appears in the KJV.
Which is correct?
Or is it possible that "things that are different can indeed be the same?"
Which is correct?
Or is it possible that "things that are different can indeed be the same?"
Michelle: "By faith, I believe those in those countries, who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, will have been provided the true and accurate word of God in their language without error."
Every Japanese Christian I have ever met (and these are many) has had _only_ an Alexandrian-based translation of the New Testament in his own language. Seems like they all are _still_ waiting for the divine provision of "the true and accurate word of God in their language without error" and will be for a long time. And as for all those Japanese Christians who have died without ever having a "true and accurate word of God in their language", I suppose their ignorance will be taken into account at the judgment seat of Christ, correct?
Every Japanese Christian I have ever met (and these are many) has had _only_ an Alexandrian-based translation of the New Testament in his own language. Seems like they all are _still_ waiting for the divine provision of "the true and accurate word of God in their language without error" and will be for a long time. And as for all those Japanese Christians who have died without ever having a "true and accurate word of God in their language", I suppose their ignorance will be taken into account at the judgment seat of Christ, correct?
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, despite your reworking of my example, your examination and conclusion are still dependent on the premise being true. That's what's circular.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is the TRUTH. Truth is not circular. It is absolute. It is your denial of this TRUTH that makes it become circular in your eyes.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, despite your reworking of my example, your examination and conclusion are still dependent on the premise being true. That's what's circular.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is the TRUTH. Truth is not circular. It is absolute. It is your denial of this TRUTH that makes it become circular in your eyes.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Ziggy:
“Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.”
Michelle: “No. I did not say reasonably accurate, I said accurate,” with definition from Webster: “accurate: 1. careful and exact 2. free from errors; precise.” “You are subjecting your own opinion into this truth.”
Not my “opinion”, Michelle, but an honest statement of known and demonstrable _fact_.
Let’s deal with one item at a time, with _no_ spin or changing the subject. You conveniently skipped over and didn’t mention fallacy #1, which I will restate:
Key Fallacy #1: “preserved accurately in copies” does not equal “preserved perfectly”, otherwise the copies would not differ a whit from one another. If one thinks otherwise, we then need to know which single Greek manuscript copy is “the” perfectly preserved one, and then we can base and test all translations upon such.
So, Michelle, why don’t any two Greek manuscript copies agree, if they are supposedly all “accurate”, “careful and exact”, “free from errors” and “precise”? And if they are _not_ all “accurate” in the sense of being totally “free from errors” and “precise,” then why can they not be accepted as they really exist, and be recognized as “reasonably accurate” or even “highly accurate” as the existing evidence was summarized in the wording of Key Fallacy #2?
Somehow I think you would understand if you only understood.
BTW, feel free to correct any spelling or typo errors I might happen to make. I accept and appreciate correction at all times.
“Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.”
Michelle: “No. I did not say reasonably accurate, I said accurate,” with definition from Webster: “accurate: 1. careful and exact 2. free from errors; precise.” “You are subjecting your own opinion into this truth.”
Not my “opinion”, Michelle, but an honest statement of known and demonstrable _fact_.
Let’s deal with one item at a time, with _no_ spin or changing the subject. You conveniently skipped over and didn’t mention fallacy #1, which I will restate:
Key Fallacy #1: “preserved accurately in copies” does not equal “preserved perfectly”, otherwise the copies would not differ a whit from one another. If one thinks otherwise, we then need to know which single Greek manuscript copy is “the” perfectly preserved one, and then we can base and test all translations upon such.
So, Michelle, why don’t any two Greek manuscript copies agree, if they are supposedly all “accurate”, “careful and exact”, “free from errors” and “precise”? And if they are _not_ all “accurate” in the sense of being totally “free from errors” and “precise,” then why can they not be accepted as they really exist, and be recognized as “reasonably accurate” or even “highly accurate” as the existing evidence was summarized in the wording of Key Fallacy #2?
Somehow I think you would understand if you only understood.
BTW, feel free to correct any spelling or typo errors I might happen to make. I accept and appreciate correction at all times.
--------------------------------------------------
won't ya ever get it?
premise: the KJV1769 is the Word of God
examination: the 1611, 1873, and other editions differ from Michelle's favourite version.
conclusion: Michelle's version is the only Word of God since the other KJV's differ. Isn't logic wonderful?
--------------------------------------------------
Sure it is, but only when that logic is based upon the truth and faith first, unlike your above example.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
won't ya ever get it?
premise: the KJV1769 is the Word of God
examination: the 1611, 1873, and other editions differ from Michelle's favourite version.
conclusion: Michelle's version is the only Word of God since the other KJV's differ. Isn't logic wonderful?
--------------------------------------------------
Sure it is, but only when that logic is based upon the truth and faith first, unlike your above example.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
When will you deal with the "truthful" comparison I made between Luke 4 (KJV) and Isaiah 61 (KJV)?
No circular reasoning there... just side by side proof that Jesus' words in Luke are not the same as Isaiah's words according to the KJV even though we are told that He read from Isaiah.
Michelle, There is an explosive outbreak of the gospel going on in China today. I believe that the Word of God is necessary for such a thing to happen. How about you?
Here is an interesting exchange where someone apparently of your stripe sought without success to foist the KJVO myth onto the Chinese people.
Note that the Chinese versions in use today are derived from the dread modern texts.
http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa050.htm
Here is an interesting exchange where someone apparently of your stripe sought without success to foist the KJVO myth onto the Chinese people.
Note that the Chinese versions in use today are derived from the dread modern texts.
http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa050.htm