KJV vs the original Greek

[37818]

Where is the 100% agreement?

Are you really going to claim this ingorace? The constant witness are the parts of the New Testament text void of textual variant. Now variants that are omissions cannot be excluded, because of what an omission is. The constant witness of John 1:18, "θεον ουδεις εωρακε πωποτε * μονογενης ** ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο"

Variant * ο or omitted.
Variant **υιος or θεος or omitted.
There are some other variant reading.

Far as I understand there exist no manuscripts which have both omissions.

 

[37818]

All manuscript "types"? What is a type to you?

Categories of New Testament manuscripts - Wikipedia

 

[37818]

You said 100%




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Less omissions do to copiest or loss do to damage. How can there be less than a 100% agreement with what all texts of sll copies of a book has the same? Otherwise it would be a different book. Or a completely a different version of it.

 

[Logos1560]

When KJV-only advocates or KJV defenders choose to believe things concerning the KJV that are not actually true, they are choosing to deceive themselves.

They may incorrectly think that their appeals to belief or faith justify their unproven KJV-only claims or their KJV-only reasoning, but they do not.

Belief in assumptions or speculations, in opinions of men, and in human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is not sound faith in what God stated.

 

[McCree79]

Categories of New Testament manuscripts - Wikipedia

That article is becoming quickly outdated.

*"Text types" are now rejected in textual criticism.

Only the Byzantine text type is recognized

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Are you really going to claim this ingorace? The constant witness are the parts of the New Testament text void of textual variant. Now variants that are omissions cannot be excluded, because of what an omission is. The constant witness of John 1:18, "θεον ουδεις εωρακε πωποτε * μονογενης ** ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο"

Variant * ο or omitted.
Variant **υιος or θεος or omitted.
There are some other variant reading.

Far as I understand there exist no manuscripts which have both omissions.

So there is no 100% agreement. Got it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

That article is becoming quickly outdated.

*"Text types" are now rejected in textual criticism.

Only the Byzantine text type is recognized

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So there is no 100% agreement. Got it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It is you who is saying this stuff. Not me.

 

[McCree79]

Let's break this down.....

Family 35 is to be the identity of the New Tesramennt text.

Do you hold to the view that Pickering has reproduced the autographs? The answer helps me understand your view of f35.

The constant witness being the text which all manuscript types agree at 100%.

Which manuscript has the constant witness?
But constant witness, I am assuming you are saying that is same the autograph witness. Did Pickering come up with the constant witness?

A "witness" is the the text of manuscript. Family 35 doesn't not have the text across manuscripts. So what is the constant witness? If it has to be at 100% agreement, then your claim is f35 readings are found in all "text types"...[which is a term without meaning now in the rapidly changing field of textual criticism]... You will say no..."we don't expect to see omissions." Your flaw in this logic is that omissions or additions outside of f35 should be ignored. When f35 has many additions to the early witness of manuscripts. To say it has the constant witness, you must show what text is the witness. Pickering claimed to have done such? Do you agree? Your claim can not be tested unless you can point a text and say this is the constant witness. It can be found in all "text types". Which cannot be done since their is no Alexadrian, or Western text type


The acceptance of f35 as the text is a presumption that can only be proven if you start with the belief that f35 is the best and then set out to prove that, only by using the f35 as the standard and judging the rest. No method of textual criticism ever widely accepted will lead to f35 being the witness of the autographs. It ignores scribal habits as well.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

It is you who is saying this stuff. Not me.

No sir... you used the terms "100% agreement" and "text type"

Read your post.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

. . . come up with the constant witness?

The term is used in the Nestle-Aland introduction to the apperatus.
". . . In the Nestle-Aland text, however,

has an additional use beyond the equivalent in the other texts. It also serves as a group symbol to include any uncited "constant witnesses of the second order." These "constant witnesses of the second order" are witnesses cited for every variant in the apparatus, but whose readings are only cited explicitly when they differ from

. . . . "
But I am using the term to describe the common text which makes up the New Testament copies share in common. The 97% or something of the copies of the NT documents which are identical. Get it?

 

[McCree79]

But I am using the term to describe the common text which makes up the New Testament copies share in common. The 97% or something of the copies of the NT documents which are identical.

Thank you for you Clarification.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Conan]

I had thought Family 35 was a grouping of about 250 or so late manuscripts which are a sub-group of Byzantine manuscripts. In other words the vast majority of texts are Byzantine (80%), but can be sub-divided into different streams or or branches, family 35 dated the latest of all, yet remarkably similar.

 

[37818]

Do you hold to the view that Pickering has reproduced the autographs? The answer helps me understand your view of f35.

It is my understanding Dr Pickering's intent is to identify the [of course the original] identity of the New Testament text. Which is he whole intest of textual criticism. Only the original readings, from the original autographs, from which our copies came, are the inerrant word of God. So any variant from the original is not from God as orignally given.

 

[37818]

So there is no 100% agreement. Got it

Those are your words.

No sir... you used the terms "100% agreement" and "text type"

Read your post.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

I had thought Family 35 was a grouping of about 250 or so late manuscripts which are a sub-group of Byzantine manuscripts. In other words the vast majority of texts are Byzantine (80%), but can be sub-divided into different streams or or branches, family 35 dated the latest of all, yet remarkably similar.

I think your understand is better than mine. Even so here is a link discssuing the issue. Differences Between GNT-Family 35 & GNT-Byzantine 2005 - Accordance Announcements - Accordance Forums

Here is Dr. Pickerings work:
https://www.prunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/F35-GNT.pdf

The compare:
F35-RP.PDF

 

[McCree79]

I had thought Family 35 was a grouping of about 250 or so late manuscripts which are a sub-group of Byzantine manuscripts. In other words the vast majority of texts are Byzantine (80%), but can be sub-divided into different streams or or branches, family 35 dated the latest of all, yet remarkably similar.

That is pretty accurate

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Logos1560]

Charles Lantz wrote: "The KJVO movement has developed a misplaced faith in the 1611 English translation that has superseded the original Greek and Hebrew texts" (Just One Bible? Why I am NOT a King James Only Advocate! An Apologetic for the Faith, p. 36).

 

[The Lamb Rescued Me]

When KJV-only advocates or KJV defenders choose to believe things concerning the KJV that are not actually true, they are choosing to deceive themselves.

They may incorrectly think that their appeals to belief or faith justify their unproven KJV-only claims or their KJV-only reasoning, but they do not.

Belief in assumptions or speculations, in opinions of men, and in human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is not sound faith in what God stated.

This is a very accurate statement and I agree with it 100%.

 

[Logos1560]

Concerning "the inspired KJV group," Charles Lantz asserted: "The importance of the TR and the MT begin to fade away into the background because now the translation of the KJV in English is THE Word of God and also inerrant, and the ONLY LEGITIMATE translation for that matter. This means that all other versions are inferior, corrupt" (Just One Bible, p. 82)

 

[John of Japan]

Do you know where we can find the Original Greek?
Most people here seem to have a problem nailing it down.

We find the original Greek in any of the many Greek NTs out there. I personally find the original Greek in the Byzantine Textform Greek NT. I translate a verse every day from the Majority Greek NT of Hodges and Farstad. In secular translation studies this is called the "source text" in the "source language."

Perhaps you mean "original manuscripts" rather than "original Greek."

And a thought: where are the original, handwritten manuscripts of the KJV?