Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, corrupted manuscript copies - proof

[gb93433]

Eariier in one of the postings was written, "One needs not be an especially intelligent person to perceive that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, reportedly the pet manuscripts of W & Hort, are tampered with and adulterated manuscript copies, just like I stated to Larry. They exhibit very bad theology, and in no wise reflect the character of the originally given infallibly God-breathed inerrant Greek Testament of the Son of God the Lord Christ Jesus. **attack removed***
Harald"

All Greek texts are edited. They have continued to be edited. The manuscripts were found in different geographical areas. Some of the words have different spellings much like the words center/centre in English. So it has involved people trying to do their best to come up with what they feel is the best text that represents the original. We have more manuscripts available to us today than ever before.

It is my understanding that the KJV was translated partly form the Hebrew, the Greek, the Aramiaic and from the Latin Vulgate. Some of the older protestant KJV Bibles I have seen, included the apochrypha. It hasn't been that long since it has been removed.

Personally I have great repsect for text critics. They must know about the texts and their age. They must also know about the various dialiectical spellings. Also they would need to know the vocabulary because the older texts do not have punctuation and spaces between the letters. Plus the style of writing is much different than a standard modern typestyle.

 

[gb93433]

In regards to Mark 1:1,2 the Greek text does say "in Isaiah the prophet." It soes not state "prophets." The modern day "prophets" written in some Bibles is simply an interpretation not in accordance with the text. That is taking liberty with the text and geting it to say what it does not. Those verses would not had a numbering system, etc. However those verses are found in the scroll with Isaiah on it. A scroll would contain more than one book of the Bible. It was referenced by the major prophet.

 

[HankD]

For the TRO view of the Traditional Text and particularly in relation to the two renown uncials Aleph and B here is a website of a summary of Dean Burgon's In Defense of the Traditional Text.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/dbs2771.htm


BTW Dean Burgon is to KJVO as Calvin is to Calvinists (although Burgon himself was NOT KJVO).

HankD

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by HankD:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/dbs2771.htm


BTW Dean Burgon is to KJVO as Calvin is to Calvinists (although Burgon himself was NOT KJVO).

n i further wonder what the Dean Burgon Society is to Dean Burgon!

possibly a chain on wheel?

as in causes him to spin furiously in his grave?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
BTW Dean Burgon is to KJVO as Calvin is to Calvinists (although Burgon himself was NOT KJVO).

HankD

Dean Burgon defended the KJV, but he was NOT KJV onlyist.

 

[HankD]

Dear Settled,

Yes after reading many of Burgon's writings I believe he would be unhappy about what people claim he has said (on either side of the issue), this is why I give/gave the URL (or quote directly from his writings) so people can read for themselves.

Dear askjo,

Burgon did not so much defend the KJV as he did the TR, the Greek text behind the NT of the KJV.

Wescott and Hort had been commissioned by the Convocation of the Southern Province of the Church of England on February 10, 1870 to revise the Authorized Version with the terms of the resolution being 'the removal of plain and clear errors' and to introduce as few alterations as possible into the Authorized Text'.

Burgon felt they had failed in both resolutions.

He was also very critical of the English text that Wescott and Hort had developed from their "revised" TR.

On this matter he said :

In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the "New Greek Text” of the Revisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of their position and so perforce I had: for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken what else but incorrect must the English Translation be?

But on examining the so-called "Revision of the Authorized Version", I speedily made the further discovery that the Revised English would have been intolerable, even had the Greek been left alone.

In the first place to my surprise and annoyance, it proved to be a New Translation rather than a Revision of the old which had been attempted. Painfully apparent were the tokens which met me on every side that the revisionists had been supremely eager not so much to correct 'plain and clear errors' as to introduce as many changes in the New Testament Scriptures as they conveniently could.

Preface to The Revision Revised John Burgon 1883.

IMO, Since the evidence is lacking on either side (TR vs WH-Aleph,B) we must make a faith decision concerning this matter and I choose the TR while respecting the choice of other brethren.

Hebrews 11:6 ...without faith it is impossible to please Him...


HankD

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by BrianT:
But Aleph and B are highly valuable resources for purposes of textual criticism.

Were they trustworthy?

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
But Aleph and B are highly valuable resources for purposes of textual criticism.

Were they trustworthy? </font>[/QUOTE]no less than Froy's 1Jn 5:7.

 

[gb93433]

Certainly one thing I am not in favor of is SYI (share your ignorance). Metzger and Aland have written numerous books on the subject. Metzger has written, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. If you were to even take a quick view of some of the manuscripts you can see material written in the margins of some of the manuscripts. You will also have a greater appreciation for the work being done.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Certainly one thing I am not in favor of is SYI (share your ignorance). Metzger and Aland have written numerous books on the subject. Metzger has written, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. If you were to even take a quick view of some of the manuscripts you can see material written in the margins of some of the manuscripts. You will also have a greater appreciation for the work being done.

Are you aware that Metzger is an unbeliever?

 

[gb93433]

ASKJO you made a bold statement when you wrote, "Are you aware that Metzger is an unbeliever?

What proof do you have of that?

I am sure you are aware that there are a number of non-Christians involved in textual criticism and translation. That does not mean that they can't do an honest job, They just don't take the message to heart. We are surrounded by people who make claims that are not true. Some are in the church and some are not. Some preach each Sunday and some don't.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Are you aware that Metzger is an unbeliever?

i'm aware that many unbelievers have a higher level of honesty than believers ... even Christian "leaders."

so far, Mrs. God-And, Dr. Waite, n a whole lot others haven't been terribly forthcoming in terms of honesty. r u aware of the biblical teachings on those who call themselves brethren who don't bear out their claims by their deeds?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Are you aware that Metzger is an unbeliever?

No, I am not aware of that. Please provide quotes, with references (book titles, page number), complete with surrounding context if possible.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
ASKJO you made a bold statement when you wrote, "Are you aware that Metzger is an unbeliever?

What proof do you have of that?

David Cloud declares Metzger is an unbeliever. Go ahead to look his website here:
David's Website

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
David Cloud declares Metzger is an unbeliever. Go ahead to look his website here:
David's Website

When did God die and leave David Cloud in charge of deciding who is saved and who isn't???

David Cloud is not a credible source on the Bible version issue. He is mislead and is misleading others.

But more to the point, no one has yet to say why this matters. Textual criticism is not a matter that needs spiritual enlightenment. The spiritual condition of a textual editor is irrelevant. So whether Metzger is saved or not does not matter one little bit for purposes of this discussion. It is simply an attempt to prejudice the issue because other tactics won't work.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

. Textual criticism is not a matter that needs spiritual enlightenment. The spiritual condition of a textual editor is irrelevant. So whether Metzger is saved or not does not matter one little bit for purposes of this discussion. It is simply an attempt to prejudice the issue because other tactics won't work.

The Bible(KJB) says different:

1 Corinthians 2:14 " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "

Obviously it does make a difference.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Askjo:
David Cloud declares Metzger is an unbeliever. Go ahead to look his website here:

Sorry, but David Cloud is not the final authority.

What is a "believer"? Do we not, as Christians, use that term to someone who is saved, i.e. someone who repents and believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God who died for their sins and that he rose again? Funny, none of the quotes on Cloud's site have anything to do with this, so I don't understand how you can say Metzger is an unbeliever when none of these issues are even discussed. As for the issues that *are* discussed, most are quotes about what *others* ("Most scholars", etc.) believe, and the quotes make no mention if Metzger agrees with what "most scholars" believe or not. Context, context, context. Context. Really, I mean it. Context. I'm not kidding. Context, context. Without it, you have nothing.

BTW, context.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
Bible(KJB) says different:

1 Corinthians 2:14 " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "

Obviously it does make a difference.

This is not talking about textual criticism. It is talking about understanding the significance of Scripture. The plain words on the page can be understood by anyone who reads the language. The textual critic is simply comparing teh various manuscript evidence and trying to draw a conclusion about which is most likely to be the original reading. It has nothing to do with what 2 cor 2:14 is talking about.

So yet again we see a KJVO take a Scripture out of context and twist to make it support an idea it never was intended to support and then fail to prove the point anyway.

 

[AV Defender]

The textual critic is simply comparing teh various manuscript evidence and trying to draw a conclusion about which is most likely to be the original reading. It has nothing to do with what 2 cor 2:14 is talking about.

I'm sorry,but as usual,you are wrong. If a man falls under the catagory of 2 cor 2:14,how on earth can you expect him to determine what is of God when comparing the various manuscript evidence and trying to draw a conclusion about which is most likely to be the original reading? I say 2 cor 2:14 has EVERYTHING to do with it.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by JYD:
I'm sorry,but as usual,you are wrong. If a man falls under the catagory of 2 cor 2:14,how on earth can you expect him to determine what is of God when comparing the various manuscript evidence and trying to draw a conclusion about which is most likely to be the original reading? I say 2 cor 2:14 has EVERYTHING to do with it.

there's no use arguing abt abstracts. how'bout a REAL example?

how wld "a man falls under the catagory of 2 cor 2:14" draw a conclusion on:

John 1:18
Titus 2:13
2 Peter 1:1
Jude 25

any KJBO wanna try?