• 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!

Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jbh28

Active Member
Winman said:
Exactly. So as I have been saying for months, eventually you will be forced to decide by faith in God's promise. He promised to preserve his pure and perfect word, so one of the versions has to be it.

Now you just need to make a choice.
Click to expand...

non-sequitur

God promised to preserve His word and his word he has preserved. If it has to be in one version, He didn't preserve it them because there is no perfect version. Now, you say that the KJV is this version. What about before the KJV. You say the received text, but the kjv doesn't agree with any particular received text except the one from 1884. Then what about before the received text(which has roots to the 1500's)? Was the Bible preserved them? If so, then according to your view, where. See, my view says the WORDS are preserved and it doesn't matter if they were copied down correctly in any particular manuscript, nor if they were translated correctly. I know the words are here on this earth. I have an ESV with me and I know I have the Word of God. I have a KJV at home along with a NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB and I know I have the word of God. Praise his for the ABUNDANCE of sources in English to read his Word!
 
Thinkingstuff

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
TCassidy said:
You seem to have missed the point. Metzger, et alii, admit they have no substantive evidence to support the theory of a Lucian Recension and that they are simply quoting Westcott and Hort who, when confronted for evidence to support their assertion admitted it was pure speculation engaged in to explain the rapid decline of the Alexandrian textform and rapid ascendancy of the Byzantine textform in the 4th century AD.

Later manuscript discoveries found over 150 distinctive Byzantine readings which predated the so-called Lucian Recension that proved the theory to be untenable. Facts tend to be uncomfortable things, don't they? :)
Click to expand...

I'm not uncomfortable about it at all. But the debate is far more evolved than the Lucian Recension theory of Hort. Lucian was touted because of the time frames which haven't been dismissed matches. It doesn't change the Fact that John Chrysostum and Austerius only agrees with 75% of the text. So we're talking about a later date the peshitta arangement gives it the date that Wescott and Hort alluded to. Lucian was a theory it can be proven or disproven but the dating seems to have support. So not as uncomfortable as you might think. Try reading Silva.
 
W

Winman

Active Member
jbh28 said:
non-sequitur

God promised to preserve His word and his word he has preserved. If it has to be in one version, He didn't preserve it them because there is no perfect version. Now, you say that the KJV is this version. What about before the KJV. You say the received text, but the kjv doesn't agree with any particular received text except the one from 1884. Then what about before the received text(which has roots to the 1500's)? Was the Bible preserved them? If so, then according to your view, where. See, my view says the WORDS are preserved and it doesn't matter if they were copied down correctly in any particular manuscript, nor if they were translated correctly. I know the words are here on this earth. I have an ESV with me and I know I have the Word of God. I have a KJV at home along with a NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB and I know I have the word of God. Praise his for the ABUNDANCE of sources in English to read his Word!
Click to expand...

You must not be aware that multiple thousands of words (in the Greek) are missing from the Critical Text. Here is an article on this:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped5.html
 
S

stilllearning

Active Member
Hello Trotter

I can’t believe you said this, in response to winman’s call to trust “one” Bible version.....
“My faith lies in God Himself and not in what men have put to paper.”
Click to expand...
How can you even know about God, without “what men have put to paper”?!?

We have faith in the one true living God, that has given us His Word.
(And His Word has be preserved for us, by “what men have put to paper”.)
--------------------------------------------------
But.....the Bible repeatedly warns us about deceivers, who will try to destroy our faith, by casting doubt upon God’s Word.

This is the whole reason for this part of the BB...........
(1) Some of us say, that having multiple versions of the Bible in any one language, is part of Satan’s attempt to cast doubt upon God’s Word.
(2) While others say, that “they like having multiple versions”, because they have been told, that they all say the same thing; (If this is true, why even have them.)

But winman found this verse the other day, that shows just how dangerous multiple versions can be........
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 AV)

“"To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of you] from your iniquities."” (Acts 3:26 NKJV)

Subtly casting doubt upon the Deity of Christ.
(Now multiply this by a thousand, and how are people’s faith effected?)
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
stilllearning said:
Hello Trotter

I can’t believe you said this, in response to winman’s call to trust “one” Bible version.....

How can you even know about God, without “what men have put to paper”?!?

We have faith in the one true living God, that has given us His Word.
(And His Word has be preserved for us, by “what men have put to paper”.)
--------------------------------------------------
But.....the Bible repeatedly warns us about deceivers, who will try to destroy our faith, by casting doubt upon God’s Word.

This is the whole reason for this part of the BB...........
(1) Some of us say, that having multiple versions of the Bible in any one language, is part of Satan’s attempt to cast doubt upon God’s Word.
(2) While others say, that “they like having multiple versions”, because they have been told, that they all say the same thing; (If this is true, why even have them.)

But winman found this verse the other day, that shows just how dangerous multiple versions can be........
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 AV)

“"To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of you] from your iniquities."” (Acts 3:26 NKJV)

Subtly casting doubt upon the Deity of Christ.
(Now multiply this by a thousand, and how are people’s faith effected?)
Click to expand...

Servant, Son- same difference in the Greek. It's a translator's choice issue. Servant fits the context of the sermon better.
 
A

Askjo

New Member
Mexdeaf said:
Servant, Son- same difference in the Greek. It's a translator's choice issue. Servant fits the context of the sermon better.
Click to expand...
You believe:

God the Father
God the Servant
God the Holy Spirit.

I believe:

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit.
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
Askjo said:
You believe:

God the Father
God the Servant
God the Holy Spirit.

I believe:

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

As Dr. Roberson used to say, "I don't need you to tell me how I believe the Bible." And he wasn't KJVO either.
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Thinkingstuff said:
I'm not uncomfortable about it at all. But the debate is far more evolved than the Lucian Recension theory of Hort. Lucian was touted because of the time frames which haven't been dismissed matches. It doesn't change the Fact that John Chrysostum and Austerius only agrees with 75% of the text. So we're talking about a later date the peshitta arangement gives it the date that Wescott and Hort alluded to. Lucian was a theory it can be proven or disproven but the dating seems to have support. So not as uncomfortable as you might think. Try reading Silva.
Click to expand...
You have, apparently inadvertently, supported my position. The fact that pre 4th century distinctively Byzantine readings exist at all proves that the Byzantine textform is not a late, derivative textform. And, when that became patently obvious the Alexandrian textform apologists invented the so-called "block mixture" theory, which also flies in the face of proven facts.

Let’s face it. The evidence supports the existence of distinctly Byzantine readings prior to the 4th century.

Also, I am not the spelling/grammar police, but I would tend to give more credence to your arguments if you spelled Chrysostom and Westcott correctly. :)
 
J

jbh28

Active Member
Winman said:
You must not be aware that multiple thousands of words (in the Greek) are missing from the Critical Text. Here is an article on this:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped5.html
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning. You are assuming that the words in the TR were not added. You have made the TR the standard and the CT, when it has a shorter reading, must have "removed" the words. Could it not be that the TR has added words?

In textual criticism(something that Erasmus did and others with the TR text over the years) the trend is that readings will grow over the years. That is why in textual criticism, the shorter reading is generally preferred as being original. (this is the case in any textual criticism, not just when it is dealing with biblical texts) Copyist tend to add words than remove them. Usually this happens when a Scribe puts something(like an explanation) in the text, and the next Scribe thinks it is part of the text.

But over all, you missed the point of my post. Or you ignored it because you might realize that I'm right. Not about shorter vs longer, or majority vs older, but that my view of preservation is correct. You might notice that I do use the KJV and I have not asked you one time to switch from the KJV. I have no problem with somebody that disagrees with me over which is the better text(TR vs CT). What I do have a problem is the bad reasons for kjvo. There are good reasons, but there are bad. Promoting the KJV as a "perfect" versions is one because it simply isn't true. Saying one must have a perfect versions isn't true. It isn't supported by Scripture and people mislead others by pretending to use "faith" as a support. It isn't faith, well it isn't faith in the Bible. As I said, if it must be in one translation, then you need to tell us where this "perfect" copy was prior to the KJV. Or was it not in a perfect copy then? And if it wasn't, was it still preserved?
 
J

jbh28

Active Member
Askjo said:
Acts 3:26 is not in the Book of Mark.
Click to expand...

I never said it was. You didn't like the term servant being in reference to Jesus and I wasn't showing how Mark shows Jesus.

in Acts 3:26, the term is pais which can be either servant or son.
 
A

Askjo

New Member
jbh28 said:
I never said it was. You didn't like the term servant being in reference to Jesus and I wasn't showing how Mark shows Jesus.

in Acts 3:26, the term is pais which can be either servant or son.
Click to expand...
I read the Book of Mark concerning Jesus as a Servant. The KJV translators were so wise to translate a right word on Acts 3:26 because of the doctrinal clarification.
 
W

Winman

Active Member
Circular reasoning. You are assuming that the words in the TR were not added. You have made the TR the standard and the CT, when it has a shorter reading, must have "removed" the words. Could it not be that the TR has added words?
Click to expand...

Fine, if the Critical Text is correct, then the TR did add words and the authors of those extra words and I suppose those who trust it like myself would come under God's curses shown in Revelation 22:18-19.

But either way, you can't say both the CT and the TR are the preserved and pure Word of God. One of them is corrupt.

I believe the TR is correct and the CT is corrupt, what do you believe?
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Winman said:
I believe the TR is correct and the CT is corrupt, what do you believe?
Click to expand...
I believe the evidence indicates both the TR (you pick whichever one of the 30 odd TRs you please) and the CT (again, you pick which of the 30 odd CTs you prefer) are corrupt.

However, I believe the Byzantine textform is the preserved word of God in Greek, and best represents the autographical readings. However, I believe the Alexandrian textform also represents the preserved word of God in Greek, but with a lesser degree of accuracy.

But, unfortunately, that is a position arrived at via 35 years of study, scholarship, and personal examination of the evidence, something you lack either the ability or character to do. You will continue to rely on illogical emotional arguments bereft of any historic factual basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top