Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[The Biblicist]

No, it is the one that has been used throughout history. It has been accepted by the churches (the Majority text). History is on its side. From it we have the very ancient Itala and other ancient versions. They are also known as the Byzantine texts because of the area they came from. They were not reconstructed. Even the Latin Vulgate came from it. It was already in existence.

There was no such thing as a Critical Text until the time of Westcott and Hort at the very end of the 19th century when they reconstructed a text out of nothing. They didn't have a text to begin with. It is an eclectic text.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Even the most liberal scholars do not deny that the text we have is over 98% identical with the original manuscripts. This far exceeds any ancient document in human history.

The are well aware of all the disputed small percentage. The small percentage is not sufficient to overturn or seriously cast doubt on any Biblical doctrine. Even the most liberal scholars admit this.

However, Liberal scholars for the most part choose to reject the Biblical doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures or choose to interpret it to allow them to reject whatever they choose to reject in the scriptures.

Conservative scholarship (those who accept Biblical inspiration) admit to a tiny percentage of variant readings but believe there is sufficient evidence either gained from internal context and/or from sufficient number of source materials to accurately determine what the tiny percentage of variants should read.

In the case we are discussing, we have both internal and sufficient source materials to know for certain the true reading of the text.

We have sufficient source materials of Matthew that provide readings for both variants in Matthew 19:17. In addition, there is unanimous agreement by other Biblical writers as to which variant is correct. Hence, we are not left with mere personal opinion but we have the inspired opinion of other witnesses. In addition we have the internal contextual evidence which proves which reading is correct.

This is a no brainer to the Bible student who simple objective is to ascertain the correct reading.

However, you are certainly not coming to the evidence objectively but with a clear subjective agenda and so no amount of evidence will deter you.

 

[DaChaser1]

That is the theory. And that is where the controversy lay. I personally disagree with that conclusion. This discussion should be in the Versions forum not here.

i agree with you on where to discuss it, but just want to say that i am NOT CT ONLY, as feel that between TR/MT/CT, that they are all very close to each other in agreement, and that one can in confidence rely upon any of them to study original text and to use for translation basis!

 

[DHK]

Even the most liberal scholars do not deny that the text we have is over 98% identical with the original manuscripts. This far exceeds any ancient document in human history.

The are well aware of all the disputed small percentage. The small percentage is not sufficient to overturn or seriously cast doubt on any Biblical doctrine. Even the most liberal scholars admit this.

However, Liberal scholars for the most part choose to reject the Biblical doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures or choose to interpret it to allow them to reject whatever they choose to reject in the scriptures.

Conservative scholarship (those who accept Biblical inspiration) admit to a tiny percentage of variant readings but believe there is sufficient evidence either gained from internal context and/or from sufficient number of source materials to accurately determine what the tiny percentage of variants should read.

In the case we are discussing, we have both internal and sufficient source materials to know for certain the true reading of the text.

We have sufficient source materials of Matthew that provide readings for both variants in Matthew 19:17. In addition, there is unanimous agreement by other Biblical writers as to which variant is correct. Hence, we are not left with mere personal opinion but we have the inspired opinion of other witnesses. In addition we have the internal contextual evidence which proves which reading is correct.

I agree with every thing that you have said.

This is a no brainer to the Bible student who simple objective is to ascertain the correct reading.

However, you are certainly not coming to the evidence objectively but with a clear subjective agenda and so no amount of evidence will deter you.

I am puzzled at your conclusion. I have no agenda. It HP that wants to build a doctrine on a variant reading of Mat.19:17.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with every thing that you have said.

I am puzzled at your conclusion. I have no agenda. It HP that wants to build a doctrine on a variant reading of Mat.19:17.

I was adding to your comments to HP! I was really using your post to further the discussion with HP. Sorry for the confusion.