-
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!
Why Would the More Literal translations NOT be best ones?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Rob, check again; it's only 4.1%. :type:
Unproven.
Question: have you read anything by John Burgon? Maurice Robinson? Any other Byzantine priority scholar? If not, how can you understand the arguments contra the WH or eclectic methods?
Everything I said was false? please go item by item and tell me if you agree or disagree and why. I really doubt that you object to my whole post.
I've read snatches of "Dean" Burgon on the internet and transcripts of interviews with Robinson. I don't think the weight of evidence is on the side of Majority Text.
Said nothin about percent... 220 minus 211 is 9!
(sorry, my wife says my humor is dry).
Rob
I didn't say "false," I said "unproven." But if we go down the road of textual criticism we will derail the thread, which is of course about translation.
If this is all you've read, then you know next to nothing about the arguments in favor of the Byzantine. If you'll educate yourself in this area by reading Robinson's New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority (http://www.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html) and The Identity of the New Testament Text, by Wilbur Pickering (http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering3b.htm), then I'll debate you on it. I know you love books and read a lot. You should have no trouble with these two. You yourself wouldn't think much of an opponent who parroted the arguments against TULIP without having ever read anything by a Calvinist.
I've been had! :laugh:
would say that those authors at least have evidence of valid scholarship in regards to their assertion of textual anlysis proving the superority of the BZ Greek text compared tothe CT...
Disagree with them on that, but still good solid reading...
Would say that I would feel 'comfortable" with using either BZ text/MT/CT texts to see the english version based upon, but would prefer the CT!
Last edited by a moderator:
Pickering became a missionary, and hasn't written anything more on the subject that I know of, but he has the scholarship.
Robinson is the acknowledged scholar for the Byzantine position. IMO, much of what he says remains unanswered by the eclectic people. For example, Barbara Aland seems somewhat feeble in her rebuttle to his demolishing of the eclectic usage of "Rule 9" in Translating the New Testament, ed. by Stanley Porter and Mark Boda.
I'm currently reading Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, ed. by David Alan Black. I've read Daniel Wallace's and Maurice Robinson's contributions. IMO, though Wallace presents a good case for 16:8 as the end of the Gospel, Robinson's for the longer ending is decisive.
Dr Wallace works in the field of the Greek new testament is top notch, as he shows us how one can hold to inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible without 'giving in" to modern critical scholarship trying to give us a "less than" Bible!
see his work on demolishing bart ehrman attempt to discredit the greek NT!
have no problem with us disagreeing on things like this, as long as we come withearnest "real" schorlership, just at times get heated, as both sides here would use "less than reasons" and appeal to emotional responses!
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with all of this. Wallace's contributions are very large. His Greek grammar is a huge help, and I'm fascinated by how he's digitalizing the mss, even finding some new ones in the process.
Reply to John of Japan
You are right, my belief was in error. I had read where the KJV was 110% of the Word of God, suggesting it was chock full of additions. Somehow, my recall scrambled the reference.
You are right, my belief was in error. I had read where the KJV was 110% of the Word of God, suggesting it was chock full of additions. Somehow, my recall scrambled the reference.
Reply to Martin
Any time someone expresses concern for how something is expressed rather than the underlying idea, evasion is in the air.
As it turned out I did pluck a bogus number out of my memory. It has no basis in fact, and I regret the error.
The accepted view, which we should not accept dogmatically, is that the shorter reading is probably closer to the original. When your theory was tested, it failed.
The obvious efforts at harmonization, which you ignore, demonstrate that many of Rippon's examples are spot on.
Any time someone expresses concern for how something is expressed rather than the underlying idea, evasion is in the air.
As it turned out I did pluck a bogus number out of my memory. It has no basis in fact, and I regret the error.
The accepted view, which we should not accept dogmatically, is that the shorter reading is probably closer to the original. When your theory was tested, it failed.
The obvious efforts at harmonization, which you ignore, demonstrate that many of Rippon's examples are spot on.
Reply to Deacon,
My source suggested "touch a women" is a Hebrew-ism, a way to expressing euphemistically having relations with a mate. And the Septuagint is not all that old from a first century view. The same figure of speech should be translated concordantly so one verse will bring to mind another verse using the same figure of speech.
My source suggested "touch a women" is a Hebrew-ism, a way to expressing euphemistically having relations with a mate. And the Septuagint is not all that old from a first century view. The same figure of speech should be translated concordantly so one verse will bring to mind another verse using the same figure of speech.
have you checked out his blogs on Bible.org? Especially his entries on bart ehrmens and on a side note another view on charasmatics? he is onewho holds to ceasing Gifts, but still good to read by either side of that issue!
Robert Snow
New Member
I heard Dr. Fred Afman, professor at Tennessee Temple University, say during the beginning of an Old Testament survey course that he didn't care which version we read (we were required to read through the OT during the course), he was concerned with which translation we lived.
In todays America few of the high school graduates will be able to understand a version such as the KJV. This isn't a knock on this venerable version, just a statement of facts, as I see them.
I would rather a person find a good translation they can understand, and one that will lead them to love Christ more and serve Him better, rather than be stuck with a version they cannot understand and therefore seldom read, let alone understand.
My wife works at a Christian bookstore in a less than affluent neighborhood. She finds that people buy the NIV and the NLT more than the others. They can understand them better.
In todays America few of the high school graduates will be able to understand a version such as the KJV. This isn't a knock on this venerable version, just a statement of facts, as I see them.
I would rather a person find a good translation they can understand, and one that will lead them to love Christ more and serve Him better, rather than be stuck with a version they cannot understand and therefore seldom read, let alone understand.
My wife works at a Christian bookstore in a less than affluent neighborhood. She finds that people buy the NIV and the NLT more than the others. They can understand them better.
Robert Snow
New Member
Stay with you KJV, and let others choose what God speak to them through. After all, I don't think God called you to be the translation police.
My bible states to us that God sees it as 1 faith/Lord/baptism etc BUT
NOT stating just "1 bible version!"