The Bible wars.

[Origen]

One should probably read about the Majority Text from those who promote it instead of it's enemies.

Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

I agree. I simply point out there are others who have issues with the MT and their arguments ought to be considered as well. More information (both positive and negative) is critical to making an informed decision.

The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis

 

[37818]

Does your chosen Bible promote readings which are contrary to the word of God?

Either the reading of John 1:18, as ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." or ". . . God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." is used for the translation. One is God's word the other is not.

This reference is key issue.

 

[robycop3]

Explicitly the man Jesus is not God, 1 Timothy 2:5. That Jesus as the Christ is both the man and God I agree, 1 John 5:1, Ephesians 3:9.

Now either the words of John 1:18 being God's word as, ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." or ". . . God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." but not goth.

Now remember Jesus argued against those who do not listen to God's words saying, John 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

For Jesus to be the ONE Mediator between God & man, He must've been much more than just a man while He was physically, visibly here. Sure, he didn't APPEAR any different from an ordinary man, but what mere man ever calmed a storm, walked on water, & enabled someone else to do so?

He was never just a man. Even in His "passion", He retained the power to stay alive while taking enough physical abuse to have killed 3 men.

And while He was a boy, He astounded the Jewish Scriptural experts with His knowledge of Scripture, & its meanings. He did not learn that knowledge from Joseph & Mary: he had always had it before He was born of Mary.

Yes, He was both God & man the whole time He was here.

And I see you have no reply to the fact that the KJV's English is largely archaic & obsolete. Would you really want to witness to an immigrant who was just learning English from an archaic version he/she wouldn't understand much of ?

 

[37818]

For Jesus to be the ONE Mediator between God & man, He must've been much more than just a man while He was physically, visibly here. Sure, he didn't APPEAR any different from an ordinary man, but what mere man ever calmed a storm, walked on water, & enabled someone else to do so?

He was never just a man. Even in His "passion", He retained the power to stay alive while taking enough physical abuse to have killed 3 men.

And while He was a boy, He astounded the Jewish Scriptural experts with His knowledge of Scripture, & its meanings. He did not learn that knowledge from Joseph & Mary: he had always had it before He was born of Mary.

Yes, He was both God & man the whole time He was here.

And I see you have no reply to the fact that the KJV's English is largely archaic & obsolete. Would you really want to witness to an immigrant who was just learning English from an archaic version he/she wouldn't understand much of ?

So long as we agree that Jesus Christ the man was a real man, 100% man and being Creator was always a 100% God.
And the man is not God and God is not man. Jesus Christ was fully both the man not God and God not man.

 

[John of Japan]

There exist between all the manuscripts and 100% reading. What would convince you a 0.5% reading is better than 99.5% reading? Show me an exception.

Did you know the words "into salvation" in 1 Peter 2:2 is really the MT reading? 65% mss suport the reading. Yet it is rejected because it is commonly held not to be the MT reading.

Actually, the M and Byz reading is not "in salvation" because that is the minority Byz. reading, not a majority reading. Look it up if you have both Greek NTs. The truth is that both Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont omit "into salvation" because that is not in the majority of mss, but only in the majority of Dr. Pickering's favorite Kr/Fam35. This is because Dr. Pickering does not have actual access to the majority of mss at this point. (Dr. Robinson informs me on these points.)

On the other hand, my UBS 4 has the reading εἰς σωτηριαν, with Metzger's textual commentary pointing out that the TR omits the phrase. So it looks to me like an Alexandrian reading that crept into Pickering's Kr/Fam35.

Furthermore, doctrinally ἐις σωτηριᾳ is suspect. (I realize that doctrine is certainly not a strong consideration in a reading's authenticity.) But think about it. Do we grow into salvation, or is it an instantaneous miracle?

 

[Yeshua1]

For Jesus to be the ONE Mediator between God & man, He must've been much more than just a man while He was physically, visibly here. Sure, he didn't APPEAR any different from an ordinary man, but what mere man ever calmed a storm, walked on water, & enabled someone else to do so?

He was never just a man. Even in His "passion", He retained the power to stay alive while taking enough physical abuse to have killed 3 men.

And while He was a boy, He astounded the Jewish Scriptural experts with His knowledge of Scripture, & its meanings. He did not learn that knowledge from Joseph & Mary: he had always had it before He was born of Mary.

Yes, He was both God & man the whole time He was here.

And I see you have no reply to the fact that the KJV's English is largely archaic & obsolete. Would you really want to witness to an immigrant who was just learning English from an archaic version he/she wouldn't understand much of ?

Jesus is still both God and man right now!

 

[Yeshua1]

For Jesus to be the ONE Mediator between God & man, He must've been much more than just a man while He was physically, visibly here. Sure, he didn't APPEAR any different from an ordinary man, but what mere man ever calmed a storm, walked on water, & enabled someone else to do so?

He was never just a man. Even in His "passion", He retained the power to stay alive while taking enough physical abuse to have killed 3 men.

And while He was a boy, He astounded the Jewish Scriptural experts with His knowledge of Scripture, & its meanings. He did not learn that knowledge from Joseph & Mary: he had always had it before He was born of Mary.

Yes, He was both God & man the whole time He was here.

And I see you have no reply to the fact that the KJV's English is largely archaic & obsolete. Would you really want to witness to an immigrant who was just learning English from an archaic version he/she wouldn't understand much of ?

Jesus is still both God and man right now!

 

[Yeshua1]

For Jesus to be the ONE Mediator between God & man, He must've been much more than just a man while He was physically, visibly here. Sure, he didn't APPEAR any different from an ordinary man, but what mere man ever calmed a storm, walked on water, & enabled someone else to do so?

He was never just a man. Even in His "passion", He retained the power to stay alive while taking enough physical abuse to have killed 3 men.

And while He was a boy, He astounded the Jewish Scriptural experts with His knowledge of Scripture, & its meanings. He did not learn that knowledge from Joseph & Mary: he had always had it before He was born of Mary.

Yes, He was both God & man the whole time He was here.

And I see you have no reply to the fact that the KJV's English is largely archaic & obsolete. Would you really want to witness to an immigrant who was just learning English from an archaic version he/she wouldn't understand much of ?

Jesus is still both God and man right now!

 

[Yeshua1]

Does your chosen Bible promote readings which are contrary to the word of God?

Either the reading of John 1:18, as ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." or ". . . God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." is used for the translation. One is God's word the other is not.

This reference is key issue.

Both statements are true!

 

[Yeshua1]

Does your chosen Bible promote readings which are contrary to the word of God?

Either the reading of John 1:18, as ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." or ". . . God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." is used for the translation. One is God's word the other is not.

This reference is key issue.

Both statements are true!

 

[37818]

Actually, the M and Byz reading is not "in salvation" because that is the minority Byz. reading, not a majority reading. Look it up if you have both Greek NTs. The truth is that both Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont omit "into salvation" because that is not in the majority of mss, but only in the majority of Dr. Pickering's favorite Kr/Fam35. This is because Dr. Pickering does not have actual access to the majority of mss at this point. (Dr. Robinson informs me on these points.)

On the other hand, my UBS 4 has the reading εἰς σωτηριαν, with Metzger's textual commentary pointing out that the TR omits the phrase. So it looks to me like an Alexandrian reading that crept into Pickering's Kr/Fam35.

Furthermore, doctrinally ἐις σωτηριᾳ is suspect. (I realize that doctrine is certainly not a strong consideration in a reading's authenticity.) But think about it. Do we grow into salvation, or is it an instantaneous miracle?

The first Greek NT I bought in 1968, a Nestle's text, has that reading listed as a majority reading. A Greek NT I bought in the early 1970's as a TR which has 1 John 5:7 in smaller Greek type also has that Greek reading for "into salvation." My take on this is one cannot grow into what one does not yet have.

 

[John of Japan]

The first Greek NT I bought in 1968, a Nestle's text, has that reading listed as a majority reading. A Greek NT I bought in the early 1970's as a TR which has 1 John 5:7 in smaller Greek type also has that Greek reading for "into salvation." My take on this is one cannot grow into what one does not yet have.

But the phrase is ἐν, not εἰς. If it were "in salvation" it would be salvation one already has, but "into salvation" is directional, not continuative, especially because the verb is aorist.

 

[37818]

But the phrase is ἐν, not εἰς. If it were "in salvation" it would be salvation one already has, but "into salvation" is directional, not continuative, especially because the verb is aorist.

So are you saying it makes no good sense to grow "into" something one already posseses?

 

[John of Japan]

So are you saying it makes no good sense to grow "into" something one already posseses?

Yes, in Greek; that is what I am saying. You grow "in" something, not "into" something. I will change my view if you can find an analogous Greek source that uses αὐξανω with an imperfective aspect (present or imperfect tense) and an εἰς prepositional phrase.

 

[37818]

Yes, in Greek; that is what I am saying. You grow "in" something, not "into" something. I will change my view if you can find an analogous Greek source that uses αὐξανω with an imperfective aspect (present or imperfect tense) and an εἰς prepositional phrase.

Epesians 2:21, "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: . . ."

 

[John of Japan]

Epesians 2:21, "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: . . ."

I figured you would find that one.

Now, taking a second look at 1 Pet. 2:2, it's an aorist, so aoristic aspect. You could take it as looking at salvation as a whole, then, in which case it would mean growing until the divine act of salvation. But it still doesn't make theological sense to me having εἰς σωτηριαν there.

Eph. 2:21 is a pres. act. ind. verb, of course, and the indicative can be either aoristic or imperfective. In this verse I would take it as aoristic, meaning a time when the growth culminates in becoming a temple. But I can't see taking it as imperfective, growing a temple up.

 

[37818]

I figured you would find that one.

Now, taking a second look at 1 Pet. 2:2, it's an aorist, so aoristic aspect. You could take it as looking at salvation as a whole, then, in which case it would mean growing until the divine act of salvation. But it still doesn't make theological sense to me having εἰς σωτηριαν there.

Eph. 2:21 is a pres. act. ind. verb, of course, and the indicative can be either aoristic or imperfective. In this verse I would take it as aoristic, meaning a time when the growth culminates in becoming a temple. But I can't see taking it as imperfective, growing a temple up.

There are two more cases, Ephesians 4:15 and Colossians 1:10.

 

[37818]

Now, taking a second look at 1 Pet. 2:2, it's an aorist, so aoristic aspect. You could take it as looking at salvation as a whole, then, in which case it would mean growing until the divine act of salvation. But it still doesn't make theological sense to me having εἰς σωτηριαν there.

Dr Pickering's programming note, "Until quite recently, based upon von Soden’s apparent ascribing of some 80% attestation to the shorter reading (80% of the extant Greek manuscripts), I was rather critical of the longer form; I argued that Peter was writing to the “elect” [1:2], to the “redeemed” [1:18], to the “born again” [1:23], to a “holy priesthood” [2:5], to “believers” [2:7], to “slaves of God” [2:16]—they did indeed need to grow, but not “into salvation”. However, the evidence as presented by ECM [Editio Critica Maior] looks quite different (some 65% for the longer reading, including the best line of transmission, and joined by all three ancient versions, a not insignificant witness).Time and again Peter presents both divine sovereignty and human responsibility; God guarantees His part, we must do our part. According to 1:5 the full manifestation [at least] of our salvation is still future. Here in 2:2 the immediately following “if indeed” would appear to allow for some uncertainty as to their spiritual condition; Peter is emphasizing their responsibility." Pickering's view point is an Arminianism.

 

[John of Japan]

There are two more cases, Ephesians 4:15 and Colossians 1:10.

Yep. And?

Eph. 4:15 is an aorist subjunctive & Col. 1:10 is a present pass. participle. What is the significance?

 

[John of Japan]

The first Greek NT I bought in 1968, a Nestle's text, has that reading listed as a majority reading. A Greek NT I bought in the early 1970's as a TR which has 1 John 5:7 in smaller Greek type also has that Greek reading for "into salvation." My take on this is one cannot grow into what one does not yet have.

I'm puzzled at this. What TR was that? Neither the Scrivener's nor the 1550 Stephanus has the phrase.