KJV Defense of Romans 8:1

[jonathan.borland]

You (and maybe even Dr. Wallace for that matter) don't seem to get what scholars in the field hold regarding the irrelevance of the date of a manuscript in regard to the date of its text due to contamination in "open" textual traditions. Sorry I entered into the discussion with you. The text of a 16th century ms that has the right reading is earlier than textual corruptions of 2nd and 4th century mss (cf. the omission in 1 Cor 15:54 and try to understand). If you can't "get" this than you can't even begin to do textual criticism.

 

[Van]

Yet another strawman, because I have addressed this and shown that scribal corruption occurs when copied, not when the original being copied was written. Thus the dates of the manuscripts with the errors, whether deletions or additions is key. If you can't get this than you can't begin to do textual criticism.

Dr Wallace said the manuscripts without part or all of the additon were earlier and earlier still. Are you saying the dating given by Dr. Wallace is wrong?

The date of the manuscript is important when we are talking about an action of the scribes copying the manuscript, either adding the clause, the Dr. Wallace view, shared by CT advocates, and the deletion view, held by Byzantine advocates.

1) The earliest, according to Dr. Wallace had no addition of the interpolation from Romans 8:4. OTOH, you claim non-existent copies earlier that these, had the addition.

2) The next later batch had part of the addition according to Dr. Wallace. You claim these were flawed (from memory) efforts to restore the deletions supposedly in the earliest but non-existent copies.

3) The latest copies have the full interpolation according to Dr. Wallace. You claim these are actually copies, not from memory as the earlier ones were, of the non-existent copies containing the full addition.

4) Does not hang together at all for me.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Sorry you still don't get it. Maybe next time, brother.

 

[Van]

It looks like someone knows that discretion is the better part of valor.

The interpolated phrase from Romans 8:4 "who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" does not appear in the earliest existent copies. Then part of the phrase appears, and then still later, the whole interpolation appears. Thus the CT sees the interpolation as a corruption and many modern translations agree.

Personal attacks on me do not even address the views of the many well qualified scholars with whom I share the scribal addition view.

 

[Yeshua1]

It looks like someone knows that discretion is the better part of valor.

The interpolated phrase from Romans 8:4 "who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" does not appear in the earliest existent copies. Then part of the phrase appears, and then still later, the whole interpolation appears. Thus the CT sees the interpolation as a corruption and many modern translations agree.

Personal attacks on me do not even address the views of the many well qualified scholars with whom I share the scribal addition view.

Seems that those against the CT Greek text would at times almost sound 'KJVO" in supporting received text!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Seems that those against the CT Greek text would at times almost sound 'KJVO" in supporting received text!

Funny you should say that, since qualified scholars (such as G. D, Kilpatrick) have blasted the attitude which you exude that elevates the current critical text to the untouchable status of modern-day TEXTUS RECEPTUS, never to be questioned but followed blindly no matter the critical and evidentiary evidence against it in many places (such as, e.g., Rom 8:1). It is this detestable presupposition that must be demolished.

 

[jonathan.borland]

It looks like someone knows that discretion is the better part of valor.

Van, I love you but you still don't seem to get it and therefore discussion with you is and will continue to be in vain. According to the way you're wanting me to think, (to take a more famous example), the original of Matt 6:33 was "seek ye first the righteousness and his kingdom" (no "of God"), because this is what the earliest manuscript (B/03) has. About 25 years later, the phrase was changed to "seek ye first the kingdom and his righteousness" (also no "of God"), because this is what the second oldest manuscript (ℵ/01) has. Not until the 5th and 6th centuries did scribes begin to "add" the words "of God" in order to come up with what almost all Greek manuscripts today have (and also the Latin and Syriac traditions): "seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." It is your blind belief in the fallacy that the date of a text does not precede the date of the manuscript on which it is copied that makes discussion with you on this topic fruitless. This fallacy is so dangerous that it undermines the authority of Scripture itself, for what do we have other than "what was handed down to us"? Since you not only continue in this fallacy but rather seem to enjoy it, discussion with you on a subject as technical as NT textual criticism is only in vain, since you don't even accept the quintessential canon of the whole premise of doing it in the first place.