Two principle NT issues.

[37818]

Do you have the autograph?

First, no original autograph of the 1st century NT is known to exist. Secondly, all copies made of any writing has an original autograph. Thirdly, God is inerrant an so His given word is inerrant. Fourthly, the original reading of the original autograph of our John 1:18 either reads, "God" or "Son." One is the inerrant word of God the other is not.

 

[37818]

Luke 17:37, ". . . And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. . . ."
Revelation 19:21, ". . . And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. . . ."

 

[Conan]

Luke 17:37, ". . . And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. . . ."
Revelation 19:21, ". . . And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. . . ."

Is there a textual note in the KJV at Revelation 19:21? That is why I posted the passage from Luke. The original 1611 KJV translators left a marginal note stating "this.36. verse is wanting in most of the greek copies".
You can view more here..."KJV Only" advocates refuted!

 

[McCree79]

First, no original autograph of the 1st century NT is known to exist. Secondly, all copies made of any writing has an original autograph. Thirdly, God is inerrant an so His given word is inerrant. Fourthly, the original reading of the original autograph of our John 1:18 either reads, "God" or "Son." One is the inerrant word of God the other is not.

So how do you decide which one is real?
Do you count numbers of manuscripts? Is that your preference?

Remember these words...
"It is not a matter one's preference."

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

The two readings for John 1:18, "God" [00.4% mss evidence] and "Son" [99,6% mss evidence].

How many manuscripts read "Son" before the 5th century?


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Your statement “ shows up in the 5th and doesn’t become well attested until after the 9th century.” Sounds like a mistaken statement by Professor Wallace regarding The Byzantine Text. Thanks.

How many manscripts read υίος between 5th and 9th century?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Conan]

How many manscripts read υίος between 5th and 9th century?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

17 uncials and 2 minuscules 1424 having a date of 9th-10century. I do not see 33 (queen of the cursives) listed at all. C was corrected to Son. L (8th) has God.

 

[37818]

Is there a textual note in the KJV at Revelation 19:21? That is why I posted the passage from Luke. The original 1611 KJV translators left a marginal note stating "this.36. verse is wanting in most of the greek copies".
You can view more here..."KJV Only" advocates refuted!

I missed the note on Luke 17:36. From what I understand it is lacking in 80% of the manuscript evidence.

 

[Yeshua1]

Currently the only major Bible translation which touches both issues is the NKJV.
In the NT it has textual footnotes. NU for Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society Greek text. And M for a Majority text.

Most major printed modern translations follow a so-called Critical Text.

I personally use the KJV because its faults are well known. I have come to dislike the NKJV.

The Nkjv uses same source texts as Kjv though, just updated grammar!

 

[Yeshua1]

So according to you, am I to understand the variants do not matter?

My first problem as a new Christian was 1 John 5:7-8, ". . . in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, . . ." Where those words not the word of God?

KJVO would contend that they are.

When I got a copy of the NASB was the correct reading of John 1:18, ". . . only begotten God . . , ?"

The question weighing was, was not God's word inerrant? I was taught that it was. And I believed it was. Now we are speaking for me now a span more than 10 years.

Each variant matters. Oh, I have concluded 1 John 5:7 not the word of God, and "only begotten God" is not the word of God.

John 13:2, "supper being ended" versus "During supper." The so called MLV rejects "being ended" for in italics "during." The rejected reading "being ended" is really the text.

For the record I have been a Christian since 1962.

There is NO Greek text used that is an exact copy of the originals then, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

From what I understand the 5 oldest readings for John 1:18 has "God." Being only .4% of the manuscript evidence. The other 99.6% have "Son." Jesus is the man, He being the Son of God is both God and man.

It is my understanding there are 4 main variants of the reading. One is a variant spelling of μονογενης. Of the 5 mss that have θεος. only one keeps the article before μονογενης.

Isn't a rule of textual criticism though is that the oldest and the one that seems "different" is to be preferred?

 

[McCree79]

17 uncials and 2 minuscules 1424 having a date of 9th-10century. I do not see 33 (queen of the cursives) listed at all. C was corrected to Son. L (8th) has God.

C was then corrected back to "God".

33 reads God.

How many of your 19 is 9th century?


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

I hope no one minds me joining the conversation. There are seven Greek manuscripts which read θεός.

According to the sources they are: p66, p75, ℵ*, B, C, L, 33. Five of those do not have the article (i.e. p66, ℵ*, B, C, L).

 

[Conan]

C was then corrected back to "God".

33 reads Son.

How many of your 19 is 9th century?


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

K 9th. E 8th. F 9th. G 9th. H 9th. S 6th. Y 9th. Omega 9th. A 5th. W 5th, but John 1:1-5:11 are a supplement from a later hand, probably to replace a quire that was lost. NT Manuscripts - Uncials
C corrector (The corrector C1 was the original corrector, but made very few changes. C1 is not once cited in NA27.) Corrector C2 is though to have worked in the sixth century or thereabouts; C3 performed his task around the ninth century. NT Manuscripts - Uncials
M 9th. U 9th. Delta 9th. Theta 9th. Lambda 9th. Phi 9th. Psi 8th/9th. And the 2 minuscules are from the 9th.

It just so happens to be the vast majority of our surviving Greek New Testament Uncial Manuscripts are from the 9th century.

 

[Conan]

I hope no one minds me joining the conversation. There are seven Greek manuscripts which read θεός.

According to the sources they are: p66, p75, ℵ*, B, C, L, 33. Five of those do not have the article (i.e. p66, ℵ*, B, C, L).

Don't mind at all and welcome! Could we get a double check on 33? It's been cited both ways.

 

[rlvaughn]

I hope no one minds me joining the conversation.

Well, at least now we have someone from the time period.

Origen, welcome to the Baptist Board.

 

[Origen]

Don't mind at all and welcome! Could we get a double check on 33? It's been cited both ways.

All the apparatuses list 33. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research does not provide a pic of the manuscript.


However at the right side it does provide the Greek text and it does have θεός.

 

[McCree79]

K 9th. E 8th. F 9th. G 9th. H 9th. S 6th. Y 9th. Omega 9th. A 5th. W 5th, but John 1:1-5:11 are a supplement from a later hand, probably to replace a quire that was lost. NT Manuscripts - Uncials
C corrector (The corrector C1 was the original corrector, but made very few changes. C1 is not once cited in NA27.) Corrector C2 is though to have worked in the sixth century or thereabouts; C3 performed his task around the ninth century. NT Manuscripts - Uncials
M 9th. U 9th. Delta 9th. Theta 9th. Lambda 9th. Phi 9th. Psi 8th/9th. And the 2 minuscules are from the 9th.

It just so happens to be the vast majority of our surviving Greek New Testament Uncial Manuscripts are from the 9th century.

Codex S is 10th century. The date is literally written on it. 949

Psi is also 9th/10th

You are down to 2. You claimed earlier that my statement that "son was not wide spread until 9th century" was false. Yet you only proved to manuscripts that read son before the 9th?

Leading up to the council of Nicea arguments were being fought over the words μονογενης θεος for 1:18. The church fathers had this reading. The coptic and Arabic exclusively read "God". The reason the read of "God" was suppressed was the activity of Islam. The Byzantine was able to become dominant due to this activity.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Conan]

Thank you for the double check Origen!

 

[Origen]

Well, at least now we have someone from the time period.

Origen, welcome to the Baptist Board.

Thank you.