Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[DHK]

Every proof text Biblicist posts has been soundly refuted many times. Even the most elementary fair-minded examination of the context of any one of those passages shows clearly no such principle of original sin was stated or implied. One has to realize though that context means nothing to one totally unwilling to fairly examine the text.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
This applies to you. You rationalize these verses away. They teach what they teach. You have not been able to prove otherwise.

 

[DHK]

17ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο
He and said to him? Why Me you call good? No one(is) good except one
θεος ει δε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην τηρησον τας εντολας
you desire to enter into life, keep the commands.


Something the still bothers me about this text itself in the King James version, is that it is always been my understanding that if something is added to the text it would be put in italics. The above text is from the text of Stephanus, often called the TR as I understand it. The word 'God' is not found in verse 17 in the Greek as far as I can tell. Yet in the King James version it is placed in the text yet not in italics. What am I not understanding about italics and the use of italics in the King James version? Why did they not italicize the word 'God' in verse 17 if they were going to insert it into a text in which the word 'God,' as far as I can see, was not in the Greek itself?

Why not learn Greek first. The word for God is there, as you posted in red and white. It is the word theos.

 

[The Biblicist]

17ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο
He and said to him? Why Me you call good? No one(is) good except one
θεος ει δε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην τηρησον τας εντολας
you desire to enter into life, keep the commands.


Something the still bothers me about this text itself in the King James version, is that it is always been my understanding that if something is added to the text it would be put in italics. The above text is from the text of Stephanus, often called the TR as I understand it. The word 'God' is not found in verse 17 in the Greek as far as I can tell. Yet in the King James version it is placed in the text yet not in italics. What am I not understanding about italics and the use of italics in the King James version? Why did they not italicize the word 'God' in verse 17 if they were going to insert it into a text in which the word 'God,' as far as I can see, was not in the Greek itself?

Below is the 1550 edition of the Stephanus text and it does include the term "God."

17 ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος ει δε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην τηρησον τας εντολας

You must be quoting from the apparatus at the bottom of the Stephanus text where they included the reading from the minority text in the footnotes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

How many editions were there of the so-called Stephanus text alone? Do they contain changes? How many different texts are all denoted TR, are they all the same? Even the text of Erasmus is denoted by some as the TR. How many different texts were attributed to him and were they all the same?

If one takes the position that a given 'translation' or particular 'text' is 'the' God-Inspired, or the 'true inspired text,' what accounts for the numerous discrepancies and changes?

Was Erasmus, Stephanus, or King James and his translators the estoppels of all textual criticism? If so, why are there differences even between all these translations and texts?

Was not a portion at least of the TR not only translated from the Latin, but changed to read in more modern Latin, before it was again translated to the GK? Was the original Latin text the true text, or the changed version by Erasmus, or the GK that changed it again translating it from the Latin to the GK..... and then even revising that a few times over?

Now we have the NKJ. It also can be said to be taken from the TR.

What in reality can be relied upon unquestionably to be the true inspired Word of God? The original autographs (which I know full well we do not have,) or a particular translation or subsequent text such as the TR? Be certain to show clear proof that you are correct in your assumptions.

 

[DHK]

How many editions were there of the so-called Stephanus text alone? Do they contain changes? How many different texts are all denoted TR, are they all the same? Even the text of Erasmus is denoted by some as the TR. How many different texts were attributed to him and were they all the same?

If one takes the position that a given 'translation' or particular 'text' is 'the' God-Inspired, or the 'true inspired text,' what accounts for the numerous discrepancies and changes?

Was Erasmus, Stephanus, or King James and his translators the estoppels of all textual criticism? If so, why are there differences even between all these translations and texts?

Was not a portion at least of the TR not only translated from the Latin, but changed to read in more modern Latin, before it was again translated to the GK? Was the original Latin text the true text, or the changed version by Erasmus, or the GK that changed it again translating it from the Latin to the GK..... and then even revising that a few times over?

Now we have the NKJ. It also can be said to be taken from the TR.

What in reality can be relied upon unquestionably to be the true inspired Word of God? The original autographs (which I know full well we do not have,) or a particular translation or subsequent text such as the TR? Be certain to show clear proof that you are correct in your assumptions.

Why do you find it necessary to align yourself with unbelievers: modernists and liberals, those that deny the inspiration of the Bible like Griesbach, et. al. and continue to attack the Word of God? Is this profitable for you? You have been given incontrovertible evidence, and still try to refute it. I can only conclude that no matter what and how much evidence is given, you will, just like an atheist, reject it. For what reason, I don't know.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I asked several questions (not refuting anything by the way) to which DHK replies,

DHK: "You have been given incontrovertible evidence, and still try to refute it."

HP: Pardon me? Where have you given any such 'incontrovertible evidence to any of the questions I simply asked? Is asking simple questions now proof of 'refuting' something??

 

[The Biblicist]

I asked several questions (not refuting anything by the way) to which DHK replies,


HP: Pardon me? Where have you given any such 'incontrovertible evidence to any of the questions I simply asked? Is asking simple questions now proof of 'refuting' something??

Can you produce a copy of the Stephanus edition that omits the term "God" in Matthew's account? No!

Let's say you could. So now we have two different readings of Matthew. So, Matthew becomes moot because we cannot agree which reading should be there!

So, lets say Matthew is moot and we can't agree. NNE DISPUTES THE READINGS BY MARK AND LUKE so now what are you going to do with them????????

You have the same problem twice over with Mark and Luke don't you? No one disputes their reading! Do you want to discuss the two accounts where there is no dispute about what both Mark and Luke said?

I don't think you do or will! Why? Because you are not interested in the truth at all but just interested in debating a baseless issue!

 

[gb93433]

[QUOTE=DHK;1797491]
Why do you find it necessary to align yourself with unbelievers: modernists and liberals, those that deny the inspiration of the Bible like Griesbach, et. al. and continue to attack the Word of God? [/QUOTE]Do you have any documentation to support your point about Griesbach?

 

[DHK]

[QUOTE=DHK;1797491]
Why do you find it necessary to align yourself with unbelievers: modernists and liberals, those that deny the inspiration of the Bible like Griesbach, et. al. and continue to attack the Word of God?

Do you have any documentation to support your point about Griesbach?[/QUOTE]
Here is one statement (one of many) taken from David Sorenson's Book, "Touch not the Unclean Thing"
[FONT=&quot]Semler profoundly influenced Johann Jakob Gresbach (1745-1812) who was one of the fathers of Modernism.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]26[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Moreover, Semler viewed the Bible as a manmade book.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]27 [/quote]
The quote is taken from [/FONT] D.A. Thompson, “The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to Mark.” Surrey: Bible Christian Unity Fellowship, 39-40; reprint of an article which appeared in Bible League Quarterly, London, 1973.

He gives more information from another source:
Fenton John Antony Hort, The NT in the Original Greek, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper, 1882), 185.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[gb93433]

Do you have any documentation to support your point about Griesbach?

Here is one statement (one of many) taken from David Sorenson's Book, "Touch not the Unclean Thing"
[FONT=&quot]Semler profoundly influenced Johann Jakob Gresbach (1745-1812) who was one of the fathers of Modernism.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]26[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Moreover, Semler viewed the Bible as a manmade book.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]27 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

The quote is taken from

[/FONT]

D.A. Thompson, “The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to Mark.” Surrey: Bible Christian Unity Fellowship, 39-40; reprint of an article which appeared in Bible League Quarterly, London, 1973.

He gives more information from another source:
Fenton John Antony Hort, The NT in the Original Greek, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper, 1882), 185.

Could you give some quotes from primary sources? Maybe I missed it but I was unable to find any quotes form original sources.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Can you produce a copy of the Stephanus edition that omits the term "God" in Matthew's account? No!

HP: Even if I cannot does the argument end there? What text(s) did Stephanus use in his version/translation? If you say the text of Erasmus, may I ask you if that text omits the word God? One would then have to ask, just how many manuscripts did Erasmus use to establish his text? Did any of them eliminate the word 'God'?

Don't get upset or over protective of the KJV DHK. I am asking questions not establishing dogma. I am far from drawing any definite opinions, even on this text and the word "God" and or "Good" as it is in the KJV. Its OK to ask questions is it not?

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Even if I cannot does the argument end there? What text(s) did Stephanus use in his version/translation? If you say the text of Erasmus, may I ask you if that text omits the word God? One would then have to ask, just how many manuscripts did Erasmus use to establish his text? Did any of them eliminate the word 'God'?

Don't get upset or over protective of the KJV DHK. I am asking questions not establishing dogma. I am far from drawing any definite opinions, even on this text and the word "God" and or "Good" as it is in the KJV. Its OK to ask questions is it not?

Can you find ANY VERSION or ANY GREEK TEXT that disputes the very same thing the KJV says in Luke and Mark?


There is NO VERSION and there are NO GREEK TEXTS that dispute the KJV version in Mark and Luke!

So, even if you reject the KJV reading of Matthew, YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM with Luke and Mark and NO ENGLISH VERSIONS and NO GREEK TEXTS dispute Mark and Luke and so you have the same problem in Matthew but TWICE OVER in Mark and Luke!!!

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Mark 10:18 ο δε ιησους ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.


Luke 18:19 ειπεν δε αυτω ο ιησους τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος


When a person has not a leg to stand on, when all the evidence proves them wrong and they still refuse to acknowledge what is obvious - that they are wrong, then what good does it do for anyone to continue to discuss ANYTHING with that kind of person????? What kind of person is that? That kind of person is what the Bible describes as aheretic whose conscience is seared by false doctrine and will not admit the truth no matter what!!!!

 

[DHK]

HP: Even if I cannot does the argument end there? What text(s) did Stephanus use in his version/translation? If you say the text of Erasmus, may I ask you if that text omits the word God? One would then have to ask, just how many manuscripts did Erasmus use to establish his text? Did any of them eliminate the word 'God'?

Don't get upset or over protective of the KJV DHK. I am asking questions not establishing dogma. I am far from drawing any definite opinions, even on this text and the word "God" and or "Good" as it is in the KJV. Its OK to ask questions is it not?

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

 

[gb93433]

Was Erasmus, Stephanus, or King James and his translators the estoppels of all textual criticism?

Was not a portion at least of the TR not only translated from the Latin, but changed to read in more modern Latin, before it was again translated to the GK?

Well of course it is better to have 12 manuscripts and use the Vulgate for the missing manuscripts than to have over 5000 today.:laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GB, the more I read the more intriguing this textual issue becomes, and I have not even scratched the surface.

Yes, it is far easier on the eyes to just look a few texts and call it good, rather than to at least give a fair attempt to examine all the other evidence.

The way I understand it, when developing the Majority text, primarily Byzantine texts were used. Is there any doubt as to why the Majority text looks Byzantine or why Byzantine readings out voted those that by sheer numbers were in the minority? I cannot help but wonder how it might have read if in fact all available texts were used, in particular the old Latin and other texts. In other words, how might of the text finally read if every text would have been used and every text given one vote? As always, I am open to logical reasons I have not considered and have no idea concerning at this juncture in my personal study.

So, how did Erasmus develop a "Majority" text if he did not have access to large majority of manuscripts now available? That appears puzzling to me.

Oh whatever. It is much easier for some to simply label all that even dare raise a question as heretics....especially when those name calling and attacking others personally, who must view themselves as deity, self-deceived into assuming they know every motive and every hidden agenda of all others that dare question any notion they have personally accepted.

 

[gb93433]

GB, the more I read the more intriguing this textual issue becomes, and I have not even scratched the surface.

Yes, it is far easier on the eyes to just look a few texts and call it good, rather than to at least give a fair attempt to examine all the other evidence.

I agree. Not every one can be right but it is possible that everyone can be wrong.

The way I understand it, when developing the Majority text, primarily Byzantine texts were used. Is there any doubt as to why the Majority text looks Byzantine or why Byzantine readings out voted those that by sheer numbers were in the minority? I cannot help but wonder how it might have read if in fact all available texts were used, in particular the old Latin and other texts. In other words, how might of the text finally read if every text would have been used and every text given one vote? As always, I am open to logical reasons I have not considered and have no idea concerning at this juncture in my personal study.

As with anything if one examines the basic premises then that will help to know why things were done certain ways.

So, how did Erasmus develop a "Majority" text if he did not have access to large majority of manuscripts now available? That appears puzzling to me.

There are those who will believe anything they are told and not try to learn for themselves.

Oh whatever. It is much easier for some to simply label all that even dare raise a question as heretics....especially when those name calling and attacking others personally, who must view themselves as deity, self-deceived into assuming they know every motive and every hidden agenda of all others that dare question any notion they have personally accepted.

I have come to the conclusion that too often a person feels threatened by one who seeks the truth especially if there is the possibility that it may mean the person must admit wrong and change. Too often it means they may be ostracized by others because they disagree.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

One thing that that is at the heart of my own confusion, is the things I have heard before by others but never took the time to check it out myself. I have the term "Majority text" used to describe the KJ Text as well as to describe the Erasmus text and the Stephanus text. In reality, that well may not be the case. Does the term 'Majority text' pre-date the text called the 'Majority text' established on or around 1982? Has the TR ever been denoted as the Majority text?

 

[gb93433]

One thing that that is at the heart of my own confusion, is the things I have heard before by others but never took the time to check it out myself. I have the term "Majority text" used to describe the KJ Text as well as to describe the Erasmus text and the Stephanus text. In reality, that well may not be the case. Does the term 'Majority text' pre-date the text called the 'Majority text' established on or around 1982? Has the TR ever been denoted as the Majority text?

Take a look at http://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

You may also want to take a look at http://www.csntm.org/

If you do a book search you will find there are many books on textual criticism that may help you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks GB! I am in my busy season with work and am trying my best to wade into the thick of it as I can. I have some helps and have others ordered. I will check out those sites as well. This process will certainly not be an overnight one.:thumbsup: Thanks again for the help!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now GB, since you pointed me to this great site, can you help? (The Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts) I am looking for the passage in the 19th Chapter of Matthew we have been discussing, in the translation of Erasmus. Since I cannot read the GK, how do I know what page it might be found on?

Here is the link to start with http://www.csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/ErasmusNovumInstrumentum