Why Would the More Literal translations NOT be best ones?

Ha,ha.

The former is not dynamically-equivalent;the latter is.

Uh huh.

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

No problem.

 

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.

 

All the hoopla over having a translation one understands is sad. Understanding scripture is work regardless of one's translation. Folks do not want to put the work needed to study. It just cannot happen that way. The whole translation issue is a false argument.

 

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.