Revision Revised and it's implications on modern critical texts.

[Jordan Kurecki]

The originals ONLY were inspired revelation from God to us, as they were inerrant, NO mistakes in them...

ALl Greek/Hebrew texts have been corrupted to some extent, but God preserved to us the "Gist " of the originals!

Where is your authority for this statement that all texts have been corrupted?

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Your statement is refuted by the bible itself.

Timothy knew the holy scriptures, which were not the originals but were manuscript copies, Paul called these manuscript copies that Timothy learned from scripture. Paul then writes that all scripture is given by inspiration. Therefore the manuscript copies are still considered to be the inspired scriptures.

The bible nowhere claims that God would preserve "The gist" of the scriptures.... The bible does however claim that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law...
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

How is man to live by EVERY word if we only have "the gist" of what God says...? it does not say man shall live by ever gist that proceeds out of his mouth..

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God obviously cares about all of his word he cares about additions and subtractions... If God pronounces a curse on those who would corrupt his word, why are you so quick to believe that he would not preserve his inerrent words?

I find that your statement all copies of scripture have errors is not based on Sola Scriptura but is based on what Paul would call "Oppositions of science falsely so called." and based on man made tradition.

You seem to fail to realize that Inspiration that is preserved is still inerrent.

Nowhere in scripture does it say God will preserve "the gist" of his word. your position is unscriptural.

Here are some more scriptures to think upon.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Please don't feed me the them is God's people, anyone who knows basic english can tell that the words of the Lord are the antecedent for them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is your authority for this statement that all texts have been corrupted?

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Your statement is refuted by the bible itself.

Timothy knew the holy scriptures, which were not the originals but were manuscript copies, Paul called these manuscript copies that Timothy learned from scripture. Paul then writes that all scripture is given by inspiration. Therefore the manuscript copies are still considered to be the inspired scriptures.

The bible nowhere claims that God would preserve "The gist" of the scriptures.... The bible does however claim that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law...
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

How is man to live by EVERY word if we only have "the gist" of what God says...? it does not say man shall live by ever gist that proceeds out of his mouth..

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God obviously cares about all of his word he cares about additions and subtractions... If God pronounces a curse on those who would corrupt his word, why are you so quick to believe that he would not preserve his inerrent words?

I find that your statement all copies of scripture have errors is not based on Sola Scriptura but is based on what Paul would call "Oppositions of science falsely so called." and based on man made tradition.

You seem to fail to realize that Inspiration that is preserved is still inerrent.

Nowhere in scripture does it say God will preserve "the gist" of his word. your position is unscriptural.

Here are some more scriptures to think upon.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Please don't feed me the them is God's people, anyone who knows basic english can tell that the words of the Lord are the antecedent for them.

We have the bible in various versions, we do NOT have today the "scriptures" that david wrote about, nor Jesus and His Apostles, as thsoe were the originals from God!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

We have the bible in various versions, we do NOT have today the "scriptures" that david wrote about, nor Jesus and His Apostles, as thsoe were the originals from God!

You failed to address any of the scriptures in my post and you are speaking purely from vain human philosophy and wisdom.

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

You failed to address any of the scriptures in my post and you are speaking purely from vain human philosophy and wisdom.

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

You do realise that when David delighted in the Law of the Lord, was the words Moses had penned down, NOT the Kjv, correct?

And that the Lord did have his word written down perfectly, no errors/mistakes thru the originals, and he preserved that to us in the greek/hebrew texts that we use today to translate off from, and study the bible from, correct?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You do realise that when David delighted in the Law of the Lord, was the words Moses had penned down, NOT the Kjv, correct?

And that the Lord did have his word written down perfectly, no errors/mistakes thru the originals, and he preserved that to us in the greek/hebrew texts that we use today to translate off from, and study the bible from, correct?

Which Greek texts are the preserved words?

 

[Yeshua1]

Which Greek texts are the preserved words?

Ct/MT/Bzt/TR are ALL the preserved greek texts to us, to use for study and translation purposes!

Some are closer than others to actual originals, but ALL are the preserved word of the Lord!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Ct/MT/Bzt/TR are ALL the preserved greek texts to us, to use for study and translation purposes!

Some are closer than others to actual originals, but ALL are the preserved word of the Lord!

Something that's preserved isn't corrupted or missing important verses like the last 12 verse of Mark 16.

You don't seem to know what preserved means.

 

[Logos1560]

Something that's preserved isn't corrupted or missing important verses like the last 12 verse of Mark 16.

You don't seem to know what preserved means.

Do you know what preserved means and do you apply it consistently?

Are you arguing from a fallacy [the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division]? When someone claims that what is claimed to be true of some individual words or readings of a text is true of the entire text, it would be an example of the use of the fallacy of composition.

According to a consistent application of your own faulty reasoning, the Greek NT manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus editions were based were not preserved and were corrupted since they had some copying errors and were missing whole verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7] along with a number of clauses, phrases, and words.

 

[Yeshua1]

Something that's preserved isn't corrupted or missing important verses like the last 12 verse of Mark 16.

You don't seem to know what preserved means.

the truth is that we need to discuss IF the originals actually contained the so called longer ending in mark before was can dispute corruptions of texts, eh?

The TR only start from assumption that it is automatically same as the originals, so of course if CT MT has some other renderings, they are all corrupted/inferior !

same logic applies toward english translation, for unless use "best/only TR". obviously MUST be flawed!

 

[Rippon]

Something that's preserved isn't corrupted or missing important verses like the last 12 verse of Mark 16.

What translation is "missing" the last dozen verses of Mark 16?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

What translation is "missing" the last dozen verses of Mark 16?

When did I say a translation?

 

[Rippon]

Something that's preserved isn't corrupted or missing important verses like the last 12 verse of Mark 16.

From your perspective the last 12 veres of Mark 16 are "missing" from some manuscripts. Have you considered the possibility that they were added?

Jerome (347-430) said "almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage."

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

From your perspective the last 12 veres of Mark 16 are "missing" from some manuscripts. Have you considered the possibility that they were added?

Jerome (347-430) said "almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage."

As To MANUSCRIPTS, there are none older than the fourth century, and the oldest two uncial MSS. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are without those twelve verses. Of all the others (consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive MSS. which contain the Gospel of Mark) contain these twelve verses.

There are also some very curious irregularities with both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. As Dean Burgon testifies, the Vatican manuscript has only one blank space in the entire manuscript and it is here at the ending of Mark 16:8. He says "it is amply sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one in the whole manuscript." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Volume 1, page 298.

As for Sinaticus, according to Dean Burgon pages 298-299, even Tischendorf (who discovered this codex) believed this whole section was originally canceled out and written over by a different scribe than the one who wrote most of the manuscript. Suddenly the letters in the columns become much larger than at any other place in the codex, either before or after. Dean Burgon points out that if the letters had been written in the normal size, there would be ample room for these missing 12 verses.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

From your perspective the last 12 veres of Mark 16 are "missing" from some manuscripts. Have you considered the possibility that they were added?

Jerome (347-430) said "almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage."

The oldest is the Syriac in its various forms : the "Peshitto" (cent. 2), and the "Curetonian Syriac" (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek MS. in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (cent. 5) and the "Jerusalem" (cent. 5).

THE LATIN VERSIONS. JEROME (A.D. 382), who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to cent. 2, and contains these verses.

THE GOTHIC VERSION (A.D. 350) contains them.

THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS: the Memphitic (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "COPTIC"), belonging to cent. 4 or 5, contains them; as does the "THEBAIC" (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "SAHIDIC"), belonging to cent. 3.

THE ARMENIAN (cent. 5), the ETHIOPIC (cent. 4-7), and the GEORGIAN (cent. 6) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.

THE FATHERS. Whatever may be their value as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual word or their form, or sequence their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions. There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.

1. PAPIAS (about A.D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. iii. 39).

2. JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).

3. IRENAEUS (A.D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).

4. HIPPOLYTUS (A.D. 190-227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).

5. VINCENTIUS (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under CYPRIAN.

6. The ACTA PILATI (cent. 2) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1852, pp. 243, 351).

7. The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (cent. 3 or 4) quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.

8. EUSEBIUS (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by MARINUS from a lost part of his History.

9. APHRAARTES (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i. p. 21).

10. AMBROSE (A.D. 374-97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv. 15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v. 20 (once).

11. CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".

12. JEROME (b. 331, d. 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.

13. AUGUSTINE (fl. A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.

14. NESTORIUS (cent. 5) quotes v. 20 and

15. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.

16. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many MSS. which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

From your perspective the last 12 veres of Mark 16 are "missing" from some manuscripts. Have you considered the possibility that they were added?

Jerome (347-430) said "almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage."

Have you ever considered that a majority of modern scholars don't know what they are talking about?

 

[Yeshua1]

Have you ever considered that a majority of modern scholars don't know what they are talking about?

So the scholars that would uphold that the MT/CT/Bzt texts are superior to, and closer to the originals than TR is, are all wrong?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So the scholars that would uphold that the MT/CT/Bzt texts are superior to, and closer to the originals than TR is, are all wrong?

Yes. they are.

 

[Rippon]

So the scholars that would uphold that the MT/CT/Bzt texts are superior to, and closer to the originals than TR is, are all wrong?

Jordon,you say that those scholars are all wrong. Based on what criteria?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordon,you say that those scholars are all wrong. Based on what criteria?

Ancient MSS,Church Fathers and the A.V. Pg 53-55 list of Uncials:Uncial is a majuscule[1] script (written entirely in capital letters)
Here is a list of the Alphabet Uncialsabs, E-07,F-09,F-010,G-011,G-012,H-013,H-014,H-015,I-016,K-017,K-018,L-019,L-020,M-021,M-022,O-023,P-024,P-25,Q-026,R-027,S-028,T-029,U-030,V-031,W-032,X-033,Y-034,Z-045,Gamma 036,Delta 037, Theta 038, Lambda 039, XI-040,Pi-041,Sigma 042,Phi-043,Psi 044,Omega 045.

The reading from these that follow the reading of the A.V. (KJV) are 3,308 vs readings that follow the NIV(Critical Text) are 818


Mark 13:33New International Version (NIV)33 Be on guard! Be alert[a]! You do not know when that time will come.Footnotes:Mark 13:33 Some manuscripts alert and prayEnglish Standard Version (ESV)33 Be on guard, keep awake.[a] For you do not know when the time will come.Footnotes:Mark 13:33 Some manuscripts add and pray

A.V.-Mark 13:33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

The word and pray according to this book is found in Aleph,A,C,E,F,G,H,K,L,M,S,U,V,W,X,Y,Gamma,Delta,Th eta,Pi,Sigma,Psi,Omega,0104, 0116, in the Cursives is found in the majority of families 1 and 13, In the Old Latin:aur,f,ff2,g1,2,i,l,q,rl, and the Vulgate, in the Syriac: Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harclean, ,in the Coptic:Sahidic, Bohairic, also extant in Phi 047, 055, 0211.

Some manuscripts really?

the readings from the NIV and ESV are only supported by: B,D, the cursives p and C, The old latin a,c,k, and the Coptic Fayyumic. (Early MSS, Church Fathers, and the A.V., Moorman pg 166)
This is just one example of 356 doctrinal passages Moorman concludes in his book.Seems Morman is coming to the same conclusions as Burgon even more than a century later.
Extremely Factual and puts a nail in the coffin of critical greek texts, it destroys the Wescott and Hort theory.

These are only a few problems and reasons why I reject the CT/MT/BZT.

 

[Rippon]

(Early MSS, Church Fathers, and the A.V., Moorman pg 166)
This is just one example of 356 doctrinal passages Moorman concludes in his book.Seems Morman is coming to the same conclusions as Burgon even more than a century later.

You regard Jack Moorman as a New Testament scholar? Do you have a high regard for Peter Ruckman? Moorman quotes him rather extensively. Have you seen or listened to the debate between Moorman and James White?