Disagreement

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Askjo, Jan 28, 2005.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The disagreement is the biggest problem because I read many posts about missing verses in modern versions. I have list of manuscripts where The KJV and modern versions disagree each other because of missing verses or missing words or missing important doctrines such as the Christology, the theology, the pneumatology, the soteriology, anthropolgy, etc,.

    Mark 1:1, for example, has its phrase, "the Son of God."

    The KJV has this phrase. The Message omitted it. However modern versions' footnotes said, " Some manuscripts do not contain the phrase." or " Some manuscripts omit the Son of God."

    Most modern versions' footnotes said:

    "Some manuscripts do not contain..."
    "Some manuscripts omit...."
    "early manuscripts omit..."
    "Later manuscripts add..."

    That is BALONEY!!

    Mark 1:1 has this phrase, "the Son of God" because MORE THAN 60 manuscripts contain this phrase. The Messege omitted it because only 3 manuscripts omitted it.

    On other hand, let us look at the Gospel of Luke. Luke 24:40, another example, has its passage, but modern versions' footnotes said:

    "Some manuscripts do not include this verse."

    That is BALONEY!!

    I heard that some scholars said that the KJV derived from only 6 manuscripts.

    That is BALONEY!!

    The KJV has Luke 24:40. P75 had it. P75 is OLDER than B and Aleph. Why did MV's footnotes said Some MSS do not include it?

    Not only footnotes, MVs omitted the verses or any words reflecting to the IMPORTANT doctrine because they followed some MSS.

    I researched and counted these manuscripts where the KJV and MVs disagree each other. I was awestruck to notice something interestingly.

    For example, Mark 1:1 has the Son of God -- MORE than 60 MSS had it. Three MSS omitted this phrase.

    You remember that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagreed each other on the Gospel of Mark over 600 times!

    TR and TR disagreed each other on the Gospel of Mark. 19 times!

    Now you look CLOSELY at what I counted these manuscripts where Modern Versions DISAGREE with. Manuscripts and MVs disagree each other on the Gospel of Mark only MORE THAN 2,000 times!!!!!

    Compare on the DISAGREEMENT - the Gospel of Mark only:

    B and Aleph -- more than 600 times!!

    TR and TR -- 19 times!!

    MSS and Modern versions -- MORE THAN 2,000 times!!

    Look at modern versions on the Gospel of Mark -- "UNCERTAINITY" - more than 2,000 times!!!

    Did God give you His UNCERTAIN Word of God?

    What problem do you have with modern versions is the UNCERTAIN Word of God.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. HappyG

    HappyG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any thoughts?

    Yes.

    You enjoy arguing.
    You aren't interested in changing your mind.

    You are wrong on this issue.

    You can't read Greek and Hebrew fluently so you are not really qualified as a textual critic. You are entitled to an opinion but you are at the mercy of the actual research opinions of others who are actually qualified as textual critics.

    You are unfortunately listening to the wrong people.

    You asked for my thoughts.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Askjo: "Some manuscripts do not include this verse."

    That is BALONEY!!


    No, it isn't. Some mss don't include this verse.

    As for disagreements...The Four Gospels disagree with each other from their beginnings. Yet, all of them have been considered Scripture from the gitgo. The clear differences between Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles have been known for over 2500 years; yet no one has denied their status as Scripture. There's as form a case for ADDITIONS as there is for OMISSIONS. That argument has no merit.
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo: //Most modern versions' footnotes said:

    "Some manuscripts do not contain..."
    "Some manuscripts omit...."
    "early manuscripts omit..."
    "Later manuscripts add..."

    That is BALONEY!!
    //

    Actually that is the truth.
    Here is some more truth:

    2 Timothy 3:1 (HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible):

    But know this: difficult times will come in the last days.
    2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money,
    boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
    ungrateful, unholy,
    3 unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers,
    without self-control, brutal, without love
    for what is good,
    4 traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers
    of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
    5 holding to the form of religion but denying
    its power. Avoid these people!
    6 For among them are those who worm their way
    into households and capture idle women burdened
    down with sins, led along by a variety of passions,
    7 always learning and never able to come
    to a knowledge of the truth.
    8 Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so
    these also resist the truth, men who
    are corrupt in mind, worthless in regard to the faith.
    9 But they will not make further progress,
    for their lack of understanding will be
    clear to all,
    as theirs was also.
     
  5. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    Askjo,

    Do you have a list of the differences between the "TR and the TR" in Mark? Also, do you have a list of the differences between Aleph & B in Mark? I'm very interested in this.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  6. Amity

    Amity
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I like you Askjo :D
     
  7. untangled

    untangled
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a version of the Bible that completely changed 1John 5:7. It was referred to as the plain english (I found it online under the KJV link on the same site) Instead of "Three bear record in Heaven: The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost, and those three are One." it said "The Spirit bears witness in Heaven" or something to that affect. I found it shocking that it was that different.

    In Christ,

    Brooks
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you mean this?

    1 John 5:7 (web = World English Bible)

    It is the Spirit who bears witness,
    because the Spirit is the truth.


    I'll tell one secret, you won't find out
    why this verse is this way reading only
    the KJV1769 without any margin notes.
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Askjo kept signing his name

    Baloney

    but nothing else made sense . . .
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Actually the correct spelling is from a word in the Italian original language and is "Balogna" of which "Baloney" is an anglicized (W&H) variant.

    HankD
     
  11. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Don't you mean Bologna?
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Yes! Mine is yet another variant.

    [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  13. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rolleyes: Askjo...being a KJV guy I don't necessarily disagree with what you were trying to say but you set yourself up for the obvious derision of this group in here by resorting to "Ruckmanesque" language like "Baloney".
    Kind of lacks grace...don't you think?

    For the record...In my Humble Opinion...I have always had the personal conviction that the footnotes in the MV's do great damage to the concept of "authority" in the Word of God and bring it into question.That is just one more reason why I stay with my KJV...since I see none of that in there.I can read my bible without having the veracity or authority of it brought into question.I'm content with that...and always will be.My advice to you is that if you are gonna continue to engage in arguments in here stick by what you believe but TONE DOWN the rhetoric.JMO

    In Christ,Greg Sr. [​IMG]
     
  14. Amity

    Amity
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    GregSr. said it so well....tone down the rhetoric.

    this is one reason i don't post here much...the personal attacks.

    just my 2 cents....FWIW.
     
  15. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, Askjo, I agree with this as being "bologna".

    The reason why? The KJV was an update (as described by the translaters themselves in the front page of the 1611) of older translations from the Bishop's and Great Bible stream. Not only did it use a huge hodge-podge of manuscripts pieced together like a quilt, it used the Vulgate where it couldn't find agreeing manuscripts.

    You are right. The Stephen's TR is only an attempt to reverse engineer the source Hebrew, and Greek text of the KJV.

    As far as footnotes, I would rather the translator be honest and tell me that manuscripts had this or had that. It certainly doesn't add or take away from the text. I do agree that the verses ought to be left in the translation, but not without a footnote. This is my ONE problem with the ESV because it will often just leave a verse out, rather than include it with a footnote. Even the loosey goosey NIV contains most of the contraversial verses or a footnote to tell you what other manuscripts have.
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should the 4 writers of the Gospels cheat each other and write down EXACT story? :rolleyes:
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Yes that is a noble understanding Gregory, reminiscent of the Bereans and although your KJV may not have footnotes, the original First Edition KJV had translator footnotes and in fact if you are a KJV purist you can purchase a facsimile First Edition with the KJV translator footnotes and the Apocrypha as well even from KJVO bookstores.

    http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/kjv_defense.html

    Perhaps you may already know this but the OT has "footnotes" (actually marginal notes) as part of the ancient text in a scribal practice called the Kethib-Qere system with the ancient scribal/Masoretic choices usually hidden from the reader by the translator/publisher.

    http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol08/Graves2003.html

    HankD
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    You would look at some verses where TR and TR differ each other: Luke 2:22;17:36; John 16:33; Romans 12:11 and more.

    According to Hoskier, he listed verses where B and Aleph differ from one another in his book. This book that I found is in library at a liberal bible seminary.
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    God bless your heart! :D Love you in the Lord! [​IMG]
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gregory Perry Sr.: "For the record...In my Humble Opinion...I have always had the personal conviction that the footnotes in the MV's do great damage to the concept of "authority" in the Word of God and bring it into question."

    Then we shall always be at odds.
    I beleive IMHO the translator footnotes* are
    the best way to tell the truth. Such truth
    is necessary to good understanding of the Written
    Words of God.
    BTW, the KJV1873 found in TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE
    (Zondervan, 2000) contains the KJV1611's
    translator footnotes.

    *note: do not confuse translator footnotes
    with cross-reference footnotes nor commentary
    footnotes.
     

Share This Page

Loading...