The Bible wars.

[37818]

You are assuming that the MT though is the best and most correct text, so everything based off of that Presumption!

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.

 

[37818]

No, would state that the manuscripts reflected by the CT tradition were not all "satanic inspired/corrupted"

Accidental verses delibrate ms alterations.

The long reading of Mark's epilogue, 99.8%. Compare Colossians 1:23 to Mark 16:15.

 

[37818]

In this discussion are you defending readings which are to be understood to beGod's inerrant word. Because that is what is at issue.

The AV has had a long run. The ASV to the RSV. The JW NWT, NWT 2013, and all the other popular modern translations.

Which side are you on?

What turned me off on the NASB 1977 was "begotten God" in John 1:18. (NWT "begotten god") And John 6:47 omitting without note "in Me." Also I later noticed "resulting in" used in Romans 10:10 twice. (NIV 1978 "so that" in Acts 2:38)

Translation choices turned me off on the NKJV. How something is translated is a different issue than manuscript reading choices.

The KJV as "bad" as some think is over all yet better. I know its problems.

 

[Yeshua1]

In this discussion are you defending readings which are to be understood to beGod's inerrant word. Because that is what is at issue.

The AV has had a long run. The ASV to the RSV. The JW NWT, NWT 2013, and all the other popular modern translations.

Which side are you on?

What turned me off on the NASB 1977 was "begotten God" in John 1:18. (NWT "begotten god") And John 6:47 omitting without note "in Me." Also I later noticed "resulting in" used in Romans 10:10 twice. (NIV 1978 "so that" in Acts 2:38)

Translation choices turned me off on the NKJV. How something is translated is a different issue than manuscript reading choices.

The KJV as "bad" as some think is over all yet better. I know its problems.

How is Jesus being called God there in nas a bad thing?

 

[37818]

How is Jesus being called God there in nas a bad thing?

Two things, first it does not say the man Jesus is God, even if it was correctly "begotten God." Second you are arguing 99.5% of the mss are in error.

 

[Conan]

So, what 37818 happens when the early bad manuscripts join the Byzantine text against the Textus Receptus? Do the bad manuscripts become the word of God on those occasions? Does the Textus Receptus become bad then? How about when the bad manuscripts and the Textus Receptus agree against the Byzantine Text. Does the Byzantine Text become bad?

Don't all manuscripts have errors in them?
What happens when a modern Bible corrects an error in the KJV? Is it a good thing then?

 

[Van]

What turned me off on the NASB 1977 was "begotten God" in John 1:18. (NWT "begotten god") And John 6:47 omitting without note "in Me." Also I later noticed "resulting in" used in Romans 10:10 twice. (NIV 1978 "so that" in Acts 2:38)

Translation choices turned me off on the NKJV. How something is translated is a different issue than manuscript reading choices.

The KJV as "bad" as some think is over all yet better. I know its problems.

The choice of the variant reading "begotten God" over "begotten Son" is accepted by many scholars. To claim those that made that choice have "disqualified" a translation is arbitrary

In John 6:47 again some variant readings have "believe in Me" and others "believe in God" but the earliest and best witnesses do not contain the "object" and so once more many scholars adhere to the shorter rendering.

As far as translating "eis" as "resulting in" at Romans 10:10 I do not see any difference in meaning from "into." You are still righteous whether you believe into righteousness or you believe resulting in righteousness.

 

[37818]

So, what 37818 happens when the early bad manuscripts join the Byzantine text against the Textus Receptus? Do the bad manuscripts become the word of God on those occasions? Does the Textus Receptus become bad then? How about when the bad manuscripts and the Textus Receptus agree against the Byzantine Text. Does the Byzantine Text become bad?

Don't all manuscripts have errors in them?
What happens when a modern Bible corrects an error in the KJV? Is it a good thing then?

God's word is immutable, Psalms 119:89. Man corrupts it. Luke 4:4.

 

[robycop3]

Well, well established readings being typically better than the so called oldest and best reading. The bad readins of Luke 4:4 and John 6:47 are the very small evidence of 0.5% or less. Their well established readings being 99.5%.
At issue is dening the word of God based on very small number and not typicaly reliable mss.

Again, you're not an authority on what are the best mss. & neither am I. You're just guessing which are "better", forgetting that GOD preserved them ALL.

 

[robycop3]

The modern versions do far more errors on purpose supposing errors for the word of God. Prove this is not the case.

If you were a jurer and there were witnesses on both sides of a man being guiltly or not guity, 20 witness and 2. which side would you go? Most mss versus (across mss types) a few mss (one mss type).

I would rely upon the MOST-ACCURATE witness. With that being impossible to establish, I'd go with what supportd the known facts & evidence the most.

 

[robycop3]

37818, you have NO Scriptural support for your KJVO myth. Now, you just CANNOT get by that fact.

Just WHERE in Scripture is God limited to just one English translation of His word ??????????????????????????

 

[37818]

The choice of the variant reading "begotten God" over "begotten Son" is accepted by many scholars. To claim those that made that choice have "disqualified" a translation is arbitrary

In John 6:47 again some variant readings have "believe in Me" and others "believe in God" but the earliest and best witnesses do not contain the "object" and so once more many scholars adhere to the shorter rendering.

As far as translating "eis" as "resulting in" at Romans 10:10 I do not see any difference in meaning from "into." You are still righteous whether you believe into righteousness or you believe resulting in righteousness.

eis, so that, resulting in, in order to. We do not agree. Manusript readings with very little support because they are among the oldest rarest readings to be taken over the common 99%+ readings. The actual word of God . . .

 

[Origen]

It really depends on which methodology, given the evidence and arguments, a person finds persuasive. If someone is a majority text advocate, primality it all comes down to numbers. If one is a critical text advocate, then a majority reading (in and of itself) is not convincing given other important criteria. CT advocates live by the mantra "manuscripts (or witnesses) must be weighed, not merely counted."

For those interested here are a few articles addressing key issues concerning the majority text (three by Gordon Fee, three by Daniel Wallace, and one by Michael Holmes).


https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-1/21-1-pp019-033_JETS.pdf

http://library.mibckerala.org/lms_frame/eBook/Nodern 1.pdf

[Eldon J. Epp, Gordon D. Fee] Studies in the Theor(bookos-z1.org)
See Fee chapter 10, p. 183-208


https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text | Bible.org


The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue - The Gospel Coalition


Also check out Michael D. Marlowe comments concerning Fee's critique of Pickering.
What about the Majority Text?

 

[37818]

Again, you're not an authority on what are the best mss. & neither am I. You're just guessing which are "better", forgetting that GOD preserved them ALL.

How do you know which expert or experts are correct? How about Dr Wilbur N Pickering, f35 GNT.

God's word is immutanble, Psalms 119:89. Man corrupts God's word, Luke 4:4.

". . . God, who is in the bosom of the Father, . . ."
versus
". . . Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, . . ."
One reading is of God the other is not of God.

 

[37818]

Jesus argued to those who did not listen to God saying, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Either the words, ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." is God's word or ". . . God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." but not both.

 

[robycop3]

How do you know which expert or experts are correct? How about Dr Wilbur N Pickering, f35 GNT.

God's word is immutanble, Psalms 119:89. Man corrupts God's word, Luke 4:4.

". . . God, who is in the bosom of the Father, . . ."
versus
". . . Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, . . ."
One reading is of God the other is not of God.

I believe Jesus is God, along with His Father & the Holy Soirit. Don't YOU believe likewise ?

 

[Conan]

It really depends on which methodology, given the evidence and arguments, a person finds persuasive. If someone is a majority text advocate, primality it all comes down to numbers. If one is a critical text advocate, then a majority reading (in and of itself) is not convincing given other important criteria. CT advocates live by the mantra "manuscripts (or witnesses) must be weighed, not merely counted."

For those interested here are a few articles addressing key issues concerning the majority text (three by Gordon Fee, three by Daniel Wallace, and one by Michael Holmes).

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-1/21-1-pp019-033_JETS.pdf

http://library.mibckerala.org/lms_frame/eBook/Nodern 1.pdf

[Eldon J. Epp, Gordon D. Fee] Studies in the Theor(bookos-z1.org)
See Fee chapter 10, p. 183-208


https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text | Bible.org


The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue - The Gospel Coalition


Also check out Michael D. Marlowe comments concerning Fee's critique of Pickering.
What about the Majority Text?

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

Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

 

[37818]

I believe Jesus is God, along with His Father & the Holy Soirit. Don't YOU believe likewise ?

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."

 

[Van]

eis, so that, resulting in, in order to. We do not agree. Manusript readings with very little support because they are among the oldest rarest readings to be taken over the common 99%+ readings. The actual word of God . . .

You can certainly pick one side of a biblical difficulty and claim that choice is the word of God. But truth requires the observation that sometimes the NASB rendering is best, sometimes the NKJV is best (or the WEB) and sometimes even the dreaded KJV is best.

 

[37818]

You can certainly pick one side of a biblical difficulty and claim that choice is the word of God. But truth requires the observation that sometimes the NASB rendering is best, sometimes the NKJV is best (or the WEB) and sometimes even the dreaded KJV is best.

Well, one pick is error and the other is the truth. I have found the KJV with all its known faults proves to be the best choice for study of the written word of God. I have the other translations as well as other study tools.

Each textual issue must be takine one at a time. While the problems may be mostly this or that, it is never an all or nothing choice to be made. My general choice has proven to me to be the KJV. I am not a KJonlyist.

What is and what is not the word of God is at issue. Luke 4:4.