The inspiration controversy - part 2

[Pastor_Bob]

I apologize for any inaccurate information that I presented. The information was secondary, thus, I had no way to verify it's correctness.

The following, however, is firsthand information from The Bible in Translation - Ancient and English Versions by Bruce M. Metzger, whom many would consider exclusively "authoritative" on this issue.

The origins of the Peshitta Old Testament are shrouded in uncertainty...The late M.P. Weitzman argued that the Old Testament Peshitta "was put together about 200 C.E."...As for the New Testament, the process of producing the Peshitta version from the Old Syriac probably began before the end of the fourth century. emphasis mine pgs. 26-28

Metzger says that the Old Syriac "began to circulate in Syria" "at the close of the second or third century." Pg. 26

The bottom line is, there is much evidence to support the fact that early texts that parallel the Received Text did exist much earlier than Critical Text advocates would like us to believe.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:

I apologize for any inaccurate information that I presented. The information was secondary, thus, I had no way to verify it's correctness.

The following, however, is firsthand information from The Bible in Translation - Ancient and English Versions by Bruce M. Metzger, whom many would consider exclusively "authoritative" on this issue.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The origins of the Peshitta Old Testament are shrouded in uncertainty...The late M.P. Weitzman argued that the Old Testament Peshitta "was put together about 200 C.E."...As for the New Testament, the process of producing the Peshitta version from the Old Syriac probably began before the end of the fourth century. emphasis mine pgs. 26-28

Metzger says that the Old Syriac "began to circulate in Syria" "at the close of the second or third century." Pg. 26

The bottom line is, there is much evidence to support the fact that early texts that parallel the Received Text did exist much earlier than Critical Text advocates would like us to believe. </font>[/QUOTE]There's quite a bit about the origin of the Peshitta we don't know, but one thing that we're fairly certain of is that there's no evidence to support the existence of the Peshitta before the late-4th C. All the evidence we have from the Scriptural quotations of the pre-5th C. Syriac Fathers tells us that they used either Tatian's Diatessaron (the popular Syriac text of the time) or the Old Syriac. None of them used the Peshitta, which is passing strange if (1) it existed, and (2) it were the "received text" of the Syriac church.

The bottom line is that there's no evidence whatsoever of the existence of anything that could be called "THE Received Text" in *any* language before Erasmus essentially created it in the early 16th C.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The bottom line is that there's no evidence whatsoever of the existence of anything that could be called "THE Received Text" in *any* language before Erasmus essentially created it in the early 16th C.

I will conceed to this statement. I agree that there was nothing that was called "The Received Text" before Erasmus, but Erasmus didn't created the text; he compiled the text from at least 10 extant manuscripts.

I will stand by my quote above:

The bottom line is, there is much evidence to support the fact that early texts that parallel the Received Text did exist much earlier than Critical Text advocates would like us to believe.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I apologize for any inaccurate information that I presented. The information was secondary, thus, I had no way to verify it's correctness.

Anyone who has spent much time on a message board should know better than to quote secondary sources when the primary sources are readily available. Therefore, I believe that a simple apology would be much more in order than an "apology" followed by a flimsy excuse, especially considering the importance of this issue.

It has been my personal experience that the argument for the superiority of the Byzantine text-type is most often “defended” by persons who are woefully misinformed and who are so desperate to “prove” their theory that they commonly resort dishonesty. Therefore, extreme caution should be exercised in believing what they have to say, and much more so in quoting them.

For a good, credible defense of the Byzantine text-type, see:

Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

I should probably add here that although Prof. Sturz does present an excellent defense of the Byzantine text-type, he does, nonetheless, favor the Alexandrian text-type.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The bottom line is, there is much evidence to support the fact that early texts that parallel the Received Text did exist much earlier than Critical Text advocates would like us to believe.

The word "parallel" in this statement without a qualifying adverb modifying the word is, in my opinion, misleading.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
All versions were from copies of copies of copies.

MVs were from copies of copies of Alexandria MSS. The KJV was from copies of copies of TR MSS. The history of the TR began with the apostolic period. It began with the manuscripts that were copied and recopied by the churches. </font>[/QUOTE]The NKJV, WEB, are just 2 MV examples of translations that did not use the Alexanrian MSS.

1cross+3nails=4given

 

[Ziggy]

CraigByTheSea: "For a good, credible defense of the Byzantine text-type, see:

"Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Actually in that book Sturz only defends the early *existence* of the Byzantine Texttype, claiming that the Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine all were in existence by the late 2nd century.

CraigByTheSea: "I should probably add here that although Prof. Sturz does present an excellent defense of the Byzantine text-type, he does, nonetheless, favor the Alexandrian text-type."

Actually not. Sturz was a peculiar bird, in that he did not think the autograph text could be restored by any text-critical means. Rather, assuming the mutual co-existence of the three major texttypes by the end of the 2nd century, Sturz felt that a close approximation to the original text could be made by following a 2-out-of-3 texttype method. However, he would not dare call this resultant text the "originals" or anything close to such, but only a "Second Century Greek text".

By this means, Sturz constructed his own so-called "Second Century Greek text" of Matthew (no other books). But in the end, the overall text of Sturz is more Byzantine than any other type of text, simply because Byz+Alex and Byz+Western readings far outnumber Alex+Western readings (there is no question, of course, when Byz+Alex+Western agree, which is 90% of the time).

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The word "parallel" in this statement without a qualifying adverb modifying the word is, in my opinion, misleading.

How about "significantly?"

 

[robycop3]

I believe a factor often overlooked, especially by the KJVOs, is the POWER OF GOD. If the Sinaiticus mss is so evil, why did God allow Tischendorf to find and preserve it? Why was it not burnt centuries ago? Same with Vaticanus...the RCC certainly wasn't using it. Could it be GOD knows a little more than those who would try to limit Him in His providing of His word?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Askjo:
MVs were from copies of copies of Alexandria MSS. The KJV was from copies of copies of TR MSS. The history of the TR began with the apostolic period. It began with the manuscripts that were copied and recopied by the churches.

If this is an oft-used arguement to support argument for KJVOism, then why wouldn't that same argument support the idea that a translation made in today's language, using the TR as the source text, is of the same inspirational weight as the KJV?

 

[HankD]

And I find this to be an attack on the bretheren (KJB translators) of the past who had nothing to do with this.

Of course you do because you believe only what you want to believe.
This has been documented. King James and his men and "bishops" (at least two of whom were on the translation committee (Richard Bancroft, Lancelot Andrews) actively participated in the burning of two men for the crime of "heresy" one of them was an anabaptist.

Henry 8th (Church of England founder) had Tyndale burned at the stake for translating the Scriptures into English.

Several others lost various body members for criticizing the AV. The crime for advocating the removal of the apocrypha from the "Holy Bible" AV1611 was one year in prison.

These facts have all been documented.

The Church of England inherited this propensity for bloodshed from their parent Church, the Church of Rome.

HankD

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by michelle:
Yes Askjo. The copies of the written inspired words of God were still the inspired words of God in written form, copied throughout the centuries of the churches. This also includes the translations of those copies into other languages, to which are also considered the inspired words of God, only in that prospective language. Yes, continued inspiration. Yes, therefore the KJB is the inspired word of God.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle, you still haven't addressed which version of the kjV is the "perfect, inspired" Word of God. The 1611? The 1769? Which version of the version? The Cambridge? The Oxford? Your faith is based on a flawed premise. You refuse to answer these questions because you cannot. There is no such thing as "continued inspiration" and it's not even taught by the kjVERSION. The kjVERSION is no more inspired than is the NASB, NIV or any other version.

AVL1984