Textual Criticism?

[37818]

 

[Conan]

Excellent video 37818! Thank you.

 

[37818]

 

[37818]

 

[37818]

 

[37818]

 

[37818]

 

[37818]

 

[37818]

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Sovereign-Creator-has-Spoken-3rd.pdf

 

[RipponRedeaux]

In 1979 D.A. Carson wrote a book called The King James Version Debate. In the appendix he wrote an 18 page review of Wilbur N. Pickering's work. Carson's treatment is entitled A Critique Of The Identity Of The New Testament Text. Carson demolishes Pickering's stance.

 

[Conan]

In 1979 D.A. Carson wrote a book called The King James Version Debate. In the appendix he wrote an 18 page review of Wilbur N. Pickering's work. Carson's treatment is entitled A Critique Of The Identity Of The New Testament Text. Carson demolishes Pickering's stance.

Pickering is up to a fourth edition of his Identity of the New Testament Text. Carson wouldn't be able to even review it. I can't speak to a 1979 edition. That's way, way behind the times. He probably did not tell you Pickerings real stance. Unless you read Pickering himself you will never know. In other words, Carson may have misled you. Read Pickerings 4th edition. I promise you will not be disapointed. I am not asking you to agree with him, just give him a fair hearing.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Pickering is up to a fourth edition of his Identity of the New Testament Text. Carson wouldn't be able to even review it. I can't speak to a 1979 edition. That's way, way behind the times. He probably did not tell you Pickerings real stance. Unless you read Pickering himself you will never know. In other words, Carson may have misled you. Read Pickerings 4th edition. I promise you will not be disapointed. I am not asking you to agree with him, just give him a fair hearing.

Of course Carson knew the real stance of Pickering. It was an 18 page critique. Why you say say that Carson misled me and many other readers. Are you saying he lied? Don't go there. Carson has more integrity than you are aware of.
I went to Amazon to read reviews of the 4th edition. And so far nothing.
Sure, he had to have made revisions of his original work. But his initial stance could not have been significantly different from his current position.

 

[Conan]

Of course Carson knew the real stance of Pickering. It was an 18 page critique.

Which begs the question, what is a review of Pickering doing in a KJV debate book?

Why you say say that Carson misled me and many other readers. Are you saying he lied? Don't go there. Carson has more integrity than you are aware of.

Not on purpose. My opologies.

I went to Amazon to read reviews of the 4th edition. And so far nothing.
Sure, he had to have made revisions of his original work. But his initial stance could not have been significantly different from his current position.

You have not read him for yourself. My understanding is his 4th was a major change. If you read this latest edition you will have read the very best. The best of Textual Criticism.

 

[37818]

Of course Carson knew the real stance of Pickering. It was an 18 page critique. Why you say say that Carson misled me and many other readers. Are you saying he lied? Don't go there. Carson has more integrity than you are aware of.
I went to Amazon to read reviews of the 4th edition. And so far nothing.
Sure, he had to have made revisions of his original work. But his initial stance could not have been significantly different from his current position.

Well can we identity a specific fallacy in collating manuscripts to identify an original text? We only need to prove one exception. In general some 90% of the CT and Family 35 are in agreement on the text. The major difference is the belief that the original autographs were inerrant in the CT theory.

 

[Silverhair]

Well can we identity a specific fallacy in collating manuscripts to identify an original text? We only need to prove one exception. In general some 90% of the CT and Family 35 are in agreement on the text. The major difference is the belief that the original autographs were inerrant in the CT theory.

Just doing a bit of reading on this and came across this.

The Family 35 group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text. So, they took Byzantine manuscripts at that time and tried to create a majority text in the 12th-century. So, if the Byzantine text is corrupt from its start in the fifth century C.E. and then copies of those corruptions were repeated and added to over the next 800 years and then they try and create a standard text from corrupt texts, you have a corrupt text. Yes?

In addition, by attempting to create a unified text in the 12-century, they have to openly admit that the Byzantine family was not unified all along. Otherwise, why created a standard text and then work so hard to make perfect copies. Thus, if it is not unified; then, even trying to pick the best readings from the 12-century manuscripts that created Family 35, you are picking from corrupt manuscripts to do so.
And making the argument, which they do that “the copying was controlled and the accuracy is unequaled in the history of the transmission of the New Testament text” does not still answer (1) the Byzantine corruption period prior to, (2) nor deal with the Alexandrian Family that dates 200-250 years earlier than the earliest Byzantine text.
The Byzantine Kr/family 35 Text-Form (1261-1453 C.E.) - Christian Publishing House Blog

 

[Conan]

Just doing a bit of reading on this and came across this.

The Family 35 group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text.

Proof that this is an attempt by who? To create a unified text?
They just asserted it. It is not proof.

So, they took Byzantine manuscripts at that time and tried to create a majority text in the 12th-century. So, if the Byzantine text is corrupt from its start in the fifth century C.E. and then copies of those corruptions were repeated and added to over the next 800 years and then they try and create a standard text from corrupt texts, you have a corrupt text. Yes?

Who is they? And what proof is there? Did they actually present any?

In addition, by attempting to create a unified text in the 12-century, they have to openly admit that the Byzantine family was not unified all along. Otherwise, why created a standard text and then work so hard to make perfect copies. Thus, if it is not unified; then, even trying to pick the best readings from the 12-century manuscripts that created Family 35, you are picking from corrupt manuscripts to do so.
And making the argument, which they do that “the copying was controlled and the accuracy is unequaled in the history of the transmission of the New Testament text” does not still answer (1) the Byzantine corruption period prior to, (2) nor deal with the Alexandrian Family that dates 200-250 years earlier than the earliest Byzantine text.
The Byzantine Kr/family 35 Text-Form (1261-1453 C.E.) - Christian Publishing House Blog

So if it is not unified then it is independant then! That is a good thing!

 

[37818]

The Family 35 group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text.

It is a fallacy based on the date of the manuscripts. Not a fallacy? Other than the date of those copies, what is the evidence that is what was being done?

 

[Silverhair]

Proof that this is an attempt by who? To create a unified text?
They just asserted it. It is not proof.


Who is they? And what proof is there? Did they actually present any?

So if it is not unified then it is independant then! That is a good thing!

You two are really funny. I give you another view that actually is more logical and has better manuscript support than what you have put forward and you just pass it off as nothing.

Give your proof that your F35 /TR is inerrant or the best text available. You seem to be so wedded to your view that you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Silverhair]

It is a fallacy based on the date of the manuscripts. Not a fallacy? Other than the date of those copies, what is the evidence that is what was being done?

So, if the Byzantine text is corrupt from its start in the fifth century C.E. and then copies of those corruptions were repeated and added to over the next 800 years and then they try and create a standard text from corrupt texts, you have a corrupt text. Yes?

Is that a truthful comment? Of course it is. If you just copy an errant text a 100 times it just means you now have 101 bad texts.

Description of Byzantine Kr/family 35 Text-Form
The group was discovered by Hermann von Soden in the late 19th century and designated by him with symbol Kr.[1]

According to Soden, the group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text;

 

[37818]

So, if the Byzantine text is corrupt from its start in the fifth century C.E. and then copies of those corruptions were repeated and added to over the next 800 years and then they try and create a standard text from corrupt texts, you have a corrupt text. Yes?

Is that a truthful comment? Of course it is. If you just copy an errant text a 100 times it just means you now have 101 bad texts.

Description of Byzantine Kr/family 35 Text-Form
The group was discovered by Hermann von Soden in the late 19th century and designated by him with symbol Kr.[1]

According to Soden, the group is the result of an early 12th-century attempt to create a unified New Testament text;

That if is pure conjecture. Who did Soden source?