Which version - Why?

[Greektim]

Antioch Syria

Short... sweet... and to MY point. THANKS!

 

[Yeshua1]

So many errors so little time.
You made this in reply to me asking question which you never answered. Plus your reply has nothing to do with your original assertion of Mss NOT translations. Not such a good start.



Not exactly. While the TR is primarily Byzantine, it does depart 1,800 times. The TR also has readings w/ absolutely no Ms support. But one could argue the same for the CT (which I am not arguing for either).


This is more or less an overstatement. Do you know where the Mss discovered in Egypt originated? Do we have any way of knowing that??? And your dating of Byzantine Mss is not exactly correct. You were a bit too generous. I would say its dominance began in the 6th century, and that is being kind. But 4th century??? You do realize that is the date for Aleph and B (circa).


You might be correct in your summary of the Alexandrian and Byzantine transmissional history, but your last few statements were terribly inaccurate. There are not that many "scholars" that hold to the TR as authoritative. And to juxtapose it against the CT as if many scholars "considered corrupted" is simply disingenuous to the facts. Not to mention that it is mere speculation of a gnostic influence had crept into the Alexandrian text-type. Remember where Arianism flourished??? Antioch. Remember where a prolific anti-Arian Christian, Athanasius, ministered??? Alexandria, Egypt. So your "poisoned well" argument doesn't hold water (to mix metaphors).

Don't think that this issue is as cut and dried as some suppose, as regardless IF one holds to TR/MT/Bzt/CT, one would be using essentially same as originals, and with confidence have the word of God to us, and ANY version off them done compenant fashion would be valid and word of God to us today!

One can see any of them being superior, but cannot say ONLY Greek text to use, nor ONLY version based off it only one!