I know of those and have taken lots of notes (only a handful which I brought back with me to America). P46 and P66 do not support your claim or Tom's. They are in the Alexandrian camp --not the Byzantine.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
Do not bear false witness Tom Cassidy.
I didn't. Hort claimed there were no distinctively Byzantine readings prior to 350 AD. Harry Sturz provided over 150 of them.
You had said that "His Greek text agreed with the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts including those which predate Aleph and B."
That is a false statement.
I focused on the latter part :"including those which predate Aleph and B."
I want you to provide information about Byzantine manuscripts that are before 330.
I am not making things up as I go along as you said. You are in the sinful habit of saying such untrue things a lot of the time.
Hmm, I think its a communications disconnect.
I don't think either one of you is proud and arrogant any more than most of us.
Tom IMO was just making a general statement that there is evidence of an early Byzantine text type predating the "best" uncials.
I have read Sturz book and he makes that case by doing raw statistics against the early papyri, Byzantine and Alexandrian mss variant readings.
If you get Harry Sturz book you can see the raw statistics.
And if I remember correctly you are right.
However p46 and p66 contain Byzantine text type, just not a preponderance.
The fact is that they do exist pre-uncials. Of course so do Alexandrian readings.
Some weight in Alexandrian text type, some Byzantine.
Also if I remember correctly Harry is a secular historian.
His research is/was historical and he "has no dog" in this fight other than history and I believe he made a similar statement himself.
This was a remarkable find for the secular world.
strange, the world delights in an historical find but we - we are at each others throats.
Rip, to me this is not about personalities except to defend.
I love you all guys.
I'm trying to find my copy of Harry's book in my random access library.
No, its not. Your not wanting to believe it does not make it false.
I have the same authority to say it as a KJVO does.
Well, actually, I DO. paul wrote that if he spoke to a given audience in a language he knew but they didn't, he'd just be making noise to them. that could be carried over to my trying to read a Bible written in a language I don't know.
it's quite evident that incest is an abomination to God. And God doesn't change.If incest is an abomination to Him now, it always has been.
We know worshipping other "gods" is an abomination to God, but He doesn't punish idolators on earth too often. However, both God and man frequently punish incest participants here on earth.
Do we know that FOR SURE? Of course not. Even if God created other people, their children would have A&E's blood in them, as they'd marry descendants of A&E. I simply refuse to believe Cain (or Seth) married his sister, unless it could be proven to me without a doubt that he did. That's all I have to say about it.
Yep. None. None whatsoever.
Not the issue.
It is now.
No, but mankind does.
Nope. God once required animal sacrifices. He no longer does. At one time it was a sin to wear a garment of two different materials. Not any more.
Yes.
And that is the problem.
So you are saying God created more people that just Adam and Eve? Where does the Bible teach that?
Yep....that's exactly what he's saying............which is why, as I stated before, roby lost all credibility with me years ago. And his bashing of KJVO for claiming something without Scriptural support, when he's doing the exact same thing, is highly hypocritical, IMHO.
If KJV-only advocates who claim scriptural support for their KJV-only opinions and fail to provide it have not also lost credibility with you, does your response also indicate hypocrisy?
Do you apply a different measure or standard to this poster than you apply to posters who advocate a KJV-only theory?
There is plenty of hypocrisy, double standards, and showing of partiality in KJV-only claims and allegations.
Are you saying that what the Scriptures teach about the inspiration of the Scriptures is not a Bible doctrine?
Are you saying that what the Scriptures teach about the preservation of the Scriptures is not a Bible doctrine?
Duh! The bible does not tell us which writings are inspired and which were not. That is a function of Godly scholarship led by the Holy Spirit through the local assemblies.
The bible does not tell us which texts, textforms, or manuscripts were preserved. That is a function of scholarship.
The bible does not even tell us what language the original manuscripts were written in. That is a function of scholarship. And, in fact, there is still a debate regarding the original (inspired) language of Matthew.
My question did not assert or suggest that the Bible doctrine concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures concerned something that the Bible did not teach. My question referred to what the Scriptures do state and teach.
Do you suggest that what is stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 is not Bible teaching concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures?
The Scriptures give instruction/teaching that would guide in determining which words God has or has not spoken by the prophets or apostles and also how to determine who would be a true prophet of God and who would be a false prophet. It would be based on scriptural truth/teaching that it would be known that words added by men would not be words given by inspiration of God.
I did not say, suggest, or imply any such thing.
As it was worded, your earlier statement did suggest that inspiration was not a bible doctrine.
No, it didn't. Inspiration (what was inspired), Preservation (what was preserved), and Translation (what was translated) are not bible doctrines.
One of the main reasons I seldom respond to your drivel is that you read posts to respond negatively, rather than reading them to try to understand the other persons point of view. Then you ask silly "questions" that are nothing more than veiled accusations.
We're done.
Some readers may think that you respond negatively to the posts of others and that you do not try to understand the other person's point of view. Perhaps you sometimes fail to practice what you preach. You do not seem to consider some of your own very negative comments relating to other posters' statements.
I attempt to understand the point of view of posters to which I respond so your allegation is not true. Some of my questions are intended to aid in understanding what another poster is asserting.
- Status