Byzantine Priority

How about a few examples or documentation that this is so? one does not have to like the so-called NU texts, such as Aleph, A, B, C, D, p66, or whatever, but that is a far cry from "omitting and denying the tense...". If you choose to make that charge, to sully the reputation of long deceased individuals who cannot defend themselves, as the Lord said in Isaiah "Set forth your case!" Give some evidence that this is true. I am not defending Westcott any more than I am defending Rainolds, or Beza or anyone else, when I say this, BTW. But that is a fair request, don't you think?

Ed

 

Yep, I was right, you called me arrogant again!! :laugh: :laugh:

And by the way, W/H did not use a "dynamic form of equivalence translation." Anyone who has read the ERV knows that. They did not corrupt the Greek while they translated. They translated from the Greek, and you don't change the original while you translate. You appear to be mixing up translation and textual critism.

Whew, here I am defending W&H, and I don't even like them or agree with their methodology or conclusions. But I do love truth.

 

You've provided them all for me, so why should I bother?

 

Uh, one corrupt's the Greek by their rendition of what they translate from that Greek MSS by maligning the thoughts of those who read their culminations. Their conclusions are corrupt, as you have agreed.

So now you're saying they didn't consider their work as dynamic?

"Arrogance" fits all our character at some point, it's just more obvious in others than in some.

 

Sheesh!

:laugh:

 

Agreed.

Interesting how some put forth positions without data to back them up, then latch onto what someone else posted as their "evidence".

I think we can all see who the scholars are.
:thumbs:

 

Hey! Nice ad-hominem attack, if subtle. But as usual, you gave zero - not one iota of - evidence where this is supposed to have occurred. I am no great fan of Westcott and Hort, necessarily, any more than I am a fan of some others. But how about showing cases (and tenses) when you make such accusations. That is a fair request, I think. And I'm still waithing for some instances where your accusation is supposed to be true. But I will not hold my breath waiting, for I expect it to take a very long time.

Oh yeah! You might could brush up on the Greek tenses, when you have a bit of free time, or maybe even take a bit of the time, instead of posting unsubstianted accusations at people that are not around and not able to defend themselves any longer.

Ed

 

Of course not, since dynamic equivalence was invented by Eugene Nida who was born much after they worked on the ERV. And the ERV became the ASV in America and was revised as the NASV--all very literal translations. So no, H & W certainly did not consider their translation work to be dynamic equivalence.

Son, this would be a good time to prove your humility (and thus your qualification to call people arrogant) by admitting that you mixed things up, that H & W did not use dynamic equivalence.

So, you've called me arrogant three times in one thread. Trying for a BB record? :laugh: Thanks for the laughs! :laugh:

I especially get a kick out of the first time you called me arrogant--on a thread where I had talked about many of my translation errors. How to get Salamander to call you arrogant? Tell about your blunders! :thumbs:

 

Hmmm. I wouldn't call telling of your own blunders arrogance at all. Humility, maybe? And in extreme cases maybe a touch of self-degredation. But certainly not arrogance! John, maybe you should stop patting yourself on the back for making mistakes! :laugh:

Seems someone was a bit more confused than normal, wouldn't you say?

 

You're right--it's unwise of me to attempt to be humble. I'll never make it! :laugh:

 

That is at least the third time you have made this charge that I have seen, And you have yet to cite the first instance, even when asked by me and other posters! This is nothing more than hearsay, unless you can show some instances. You have the right to believe anything you want, adn I have never said anything against that. But, IMO, you don't have the right to keep indicting someone without any real evidence.

We have just seen Mr. Nifong, now disbarred, do just that at Duke, with the lascosse players, obstentiouly in order to get votes.

IMO, the BB doesn't need any with the similar scruples as that former attorney possessed.

Produce your case, or stop making the claim, please.

Ed