UnHoly hands on the Bible Volume II

The support for the NASB reading in Matt 6:33:

Greek: Aleph, (B)with odd variation

Versions: 1 old latin: l, coptic versions(with variations)

A minority on the UBS commitee agreed with the
omission, while the majority disagreed that the omission was valid. They decided to enclose it within brackets to note the difference of opinion (as seen in the UBS and NA texts).

Even though I use and love the NASB, and I believe the NA and UBS greek texts are the best we currently have..I think the NASB translators dropped the ball on this one. The evidence for the omission is very weak and geographically localized (egypt). Atleast it should of been bracketed in the text or footnoted.

Just my opinion..which isn't worth much since I'm not a scholar.

-kman

 

Maybe Jesus isn't God. I really can't tell what liberal think. Ask Pastor Larry, he's a liberal.

I didn't ask about what a liberal or conservative would think. it is YOU who thinks that someone might not be clear, so I'm asking YOU.

No matter what version you use, you have no idea who's speaking just by reading the verse. If you read the entire context, two things become clear:

1 - Jesus is speaking.
2 - Jesus in this verse is referring to God (the Father, not himself). That is abundantly clear whether you see "God" or "His" in your version.

 

No. You missed a very important word. I said "likely." There is no way to know for sure since we don't have the autographs. The point is that a thousand copies of a error does not make it true; and one copy of truth does not make it an error. I didn't say it wasn't Matthew's. I tend to think it was. But that argues against the KJV. Matthew usually uses "kingdom of God." He rarely uses "his kingdom." Therefore, your argument supports my side

That could well be. But he might add it when he reads a word and then, being familiar with "kingdom of God" in many other places, instinctively adds it without really reading. Note how many times we do something like that, seeing something that we expect to be there, even though it really isn't there. Studying textual criticism would explain this problem very thoroughly. It is a demonstrable issue in textual transmission.

You think I am liberal?? The KJVOs are the only ones who have accused me of that. Truth be told, if you look at my doctrine and practice, I am more conservative and fundamental than probably 95% of this board and 99% of Christianity. If you want to know how fundamental I am, just come to my church for a while. I think it will disabuse you of any notion that I am liberal.

Unfortunately, "liberal" is often thrown out by those who do not understand what liberals really are. I stand firmly in the tradition of historic fundamentalism, the "Christianity" of Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism."

So you are welcome to disagree with me on this, but until you can show me where I have denied a revealed truth of God, it would be better not to associate me with those who have.

 

But you don't know what a "liberal" is if you used that basis for calling me one. "Likely" is all you can say for your position, so that makes you a liberal. Here are the facts.

1. Someone, somehwere in history, did not write "tou theou" in this place in question.
2. Someone, somewhere in history, did write "tou theou" in this place.

Those are the only facts there are. You interpret them one way (and I have no problem with it). Others who have forgotten far more than you and I ever will know have interpreted those facts another way. So the best we can say is "likely."

If you use this basis to call me a liberal, you can only say the same thing about yourself, unless you recently came into possession of Matthew's document which would solve the problem conclusively for us.

Worse, if you use this to call me a liberal, you are grossly unfamiliar with the issues that define liberalism and conservatism or fundamentalism.

Again, I ask, what is the point? What is at stake? There is absolutely no difference, nothing other than pettiness for this to be an issue.

 

I like facts, and facts get in the way of liberals.

Then KJVO's are all "liberal" because they add to the bible with no facts to support the position that they're allowed to do so.

 

Friend speaks my mind.

Yay! Another "when'd you stop beating your wife" question! To even begin to answer this, it must be taken apart.

Last things first:

God's words are those that apply, period.

First things last:

The only way a newer translation can be said to have things added and subtracted (because some things in the MVs are not in the KJV and vice versa) is by ignoring the fact that the KJV is itself a translation.

Are MVs different than the KJV? Sure, otherwise why would they be a separate translation? Do they add and subtract from the KJV? Actually, no, because they are not based on the KJV. To say that they do add and subtract is based on extremely faulty logic, and a fair case of nearsightedness.

The KJVO "add and subtract" argument is circularly illogical.

 

It is a violation of Baptist Board rules to engage in personal attacks and "flaming".

This forum is for Baptists only. All others may not post here.

Those who cannot abide by these rules know where the door is.

TomVols
Co-Moderator