1. 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!

Do 95% of Greek mss support KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Sep 23, 2007.

Top Posters
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In another thread, the following was posted:

    "Our understanding is the fact that many extant NT mss. are corrupted and unreliable. It is a fact that of the 5,000+ extant mss., 95% of them agree with and support the KJV and other translations that are based on these mss. It is a fact that modern versions are based upon 5% of conflicting mss., and many times on just one lone manuscript.

    You see, this belief is based in substantiated facts."

    _______________________________________

    While I favor the traditional Greek or Byzantine text and I have not recommended the Critical Greek Text, I have some questions about the above statements. In my opinion, the above seem to be overstatements or even perhaps somewhat misleading.

    What is the documented evidence that confirms the above as "substantiated facts?"

    It seems a little inconsistent to suggest that "many" N. T. manuscripts are "corrupted and unreliable" while claiming that 95% of them support the KJV. In the context, the "many" would seem to be more than 5%.

    Is it being implied that all modern versions are based upon 5% of the Greek mss. evidence?

    Do 95% of the 5,000+ extant Greek mss. support every reading found in the KJV as seems to be implied above? Can 5%, 25%, 50%, or 95% of the existing Greek manuscripts be named or identified that agree every word in text with the KJV?

    Who or what group has completely examined, collated, and tabulated all the readings of all the 5,000+ existing Greek manuscripts of portions of the New Testament? According to what I have read, many of those 5,000 Greek manuscripts have not been completely collated. In some cases, it may be assumed that certain manuscripts belong to a certain text-type even though they have not been collated. In some cases, it is claimed that certain manuscripts belong to a certain text-type based on a sampling process of checking a few readings but not by a complete collation of the entire manuscript. There are said to be a number of various readings in the book of Revelation where the existing Greek manuscript evidence is nearly evenly divided.

    According to my study of this issue, it is said that some readings in the Textus Receptus Greek text on which the KJV was based are not even supported by the majority of the Greek manscripts [51%], and thus definitely not by 95%. Some readings in the Textus Receptus are supported only by a mere handful of Greek manuscripts if any at all.

    While the majority of the existing Greek manuscript evidence may support the majority of the readings in the text on which the KJV was based, we should be careful not to overstate or claim more than the available actual evidence supports.
     
    #1 Logos1560, Sep 23, 2007
  2. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only someone who is not up on the extant MSS, their dates, and the locations where they were discovered, would make such an overstatement.
     
    #2 TCGreek, Sep 23, 2007
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    D. A. Waite wrote: "The TR is not a 'subset" of anything. It is based upon over 5,210 manuscripts of those in our possession as of 1967" (FUNDAMENTALIST DECEPTION ON BIBLE PRESERVATION, p. 87).

    Waite wrote: "Does he know that Von Sodden had only 414 Greek manuscripts (and that was all that were used) as the basis of the Majority Text of Hodges and Farsted? 414 is not a majority of anything compared to the over 5, 255 manuscripts that we have as of 1967. The Textus Receptus is not a subset of anything" (p. 87).

    Were the printed editions of the Textus Receptus in the 1500's and 1600's that had some differences "based upon over 5,210 manuscripts" as Waite implied?

    The first two editions [1546 and 1549] of Stephanus' Greek New Testament were a compound of the earlier editions by Erasmus and the earlier Complutensian Polyglot. KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance also noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). The Cambridge History of the Bible pointed out that "Erasmus's Greek text was to remain the principal source" for that standard 1550 text of Stephanus (Vol. 2, p. 449). Tregelles affirmed that in Stephanus' 1550 folio edition "Erasmus was almost exclusively followed" (Account of the Printed Text, p. 30). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "through its [Erasmus's Greek text] being incorporated into the third edition of Robert Estienne's Greek Testament (1550) it influenced strongly the Greek Testament of Theodore de Beza" (Vol. 2, p. 57). Scrivener noted that his “own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata” (Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).


    The fourth edition (1551) of Stephanus included two Latin New Testaments (the Vulgate and the Latin translation by Erasmus) on either side of the Greek text (Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 104). Armstrong pointed out that Stephanus defended the inclusion of the Latin Vulgate in his 1551 edition "on the grounds that it represented a very ancient Greek text, was still the most familiar version to most people, and was still a valuable translation to the beginner in Greek when used with a modern version" (Robert Estienne, p. 76). This fourth Stephanus edition was the first to have the text divided with numbered verse divisions. Thomas Holland reported that in the last edition of his Greek text Stephanus "proclaimed his conversion to Protestantism" (Crowned With Glory, p. 252).


    Stephanus, who had served as royal printer to French King Francis I (a Roman Catholic), had published several Latin Bibles (1527-28, 1532, 1540) in which "he followed as closely as possible the text of Jerome" (New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 353). Armstrong observed that Stephanus' "primary aim in 1527 was certainly to give the best possible text of St. Jerome's version" (Robert Estienne, p. 75). MacGregor also confirmed that Stephanus “tried to follow Jerome’s text as closely as possible” (Literary History, p. 42). Scrivener noted that Stephanus published an important edition (1538-40) of the Latin Vulgate in which he made use of seventeen manuscripts and that "this edition is practically the foundation of the Modern Vulgate" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 62).


    Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener noted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Are KJV-only advocates trusting 100% the collations of an eighteen year old? Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of all his collations? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Edwin Rumball-Petre asserted that Henry Stephens would later edit his own edition of the Greek N. T. printed in 1576 that “differs from both Beza and Robert Stephens” (Rare Bibles, p. 35). [underlining added by this poster to the statement above]


    The editions of Theodore Beza (1519-1605), the friend and successor of John Calvin at Geneva, were based on those of Stephanus with only a few differences. Laurence Vance acknowledged that Beza's text "differs little from the work of Stephanus" (Brief History, p. 13). Floyd Jones claimed that Beza's fifth edition "reads almost the same as the last update of Erasmus" (Which Version, p. 44). Beza's Greek editions also included the Latin Vulgate and Beza's own Latin translation (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 13). Irena Backus stated: "Beza's 1582 version differed from Stephanus in about 40 places" (Reformed Roots of the English N. T., p. 2). Backus produced evidence that "suggests that Beza was largely dependent on the collations of the two Stephani for his MS variants" (p. 6). Scrivener affirmed that “Robert Stephen did not even print all the materials that Henry had gathered; many of whose various readings were published subsequently by Beza from the collator’s own manuscript, which itself must have been very defective” (Introduction, II, p. 191). KJV defender Edward F. Hills noted: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208).


    Were the printed editions of the Textus Receptus in the 1500's and 1600's based on more than one hundred actual Greek manuscripts [or perhaps less than twenty] that were completely collated and accurately tabulated as to their readings at every verse and that can be named and identified? How can Waite accurately suggest that the twenty or so Greek manuscripts upon which the Greek text editions of Stephanus and Beza were based are a larger group than the 414 examined Greek manuscripts?
     
    #3 Logos1560, Sep 23, 2007
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    For example, let's assume in a randomly selected group of 5000+ people (of all ages) that 95% of them could not personally confirm that The Holocaust was in fact an actual historic event {Where you there? Do you personally know someone that experienced it?}. Since most of the current population was born after 1945, this could be a possible result. Would the majority evidence make the testimony the 5% of survivors and witnesses any less reliable? God forbid! That the genocide of European Jews during WWII was a historical fabrication would be a dubious belief even though it could be based upon a "substantiated" fact.

    Perhaps this is not a flawless analogy, but it does illustrate that statistical data must also be put into a context to have real meaning corresponding to reality.
     
    #4 franklinmonroe, Sep 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2007
  5. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,490
    Likes Received:
    1,239
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Our esteemed brothers, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, wrote in 1882:

    "The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths [87.5%] of the whole.
    The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of [textual] criticism.
    Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (p2)

    As you note, the author of the quote ignores the variation among Byzantine documents.
    Obviously these were not counted among the 5% at variance.

    Rob
     
    #5 Deacon, Sep 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2007
  6. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose you then would have to consider the source?

    Statistics only mean there are statistics.

    Facts that the Masoretic Hebrew texts are the most reliable in their agreement would be the best witness in regards to which MSS should be consulted vs the conflicting witnesses that have been subjugated by other individuals for whatever purpose they might have thought to have had.

    We'll keep standing on the preservation of Scripture when all the dust settles and the smoke ceases.:godisgood:
     
    #6 Salamander, Sep 24, 2007
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    How did we suddenly make the jump from any Greek NT MSS and texts over to Hebrew Masoretic (OT) texts? :confused:

    And how did we get into the Holocaust, in any event, regarding ANY Biblical texts??? :BangHead:
    >
    >
    Oh, Never mind the above two questions!

    I mean, after all, I did ask you, Salamander, four times, already, to explain what you meant when you responded back to me, a line in a post that said
    when I had not mentioned any English version, at all, (The thread concerned the Textus Receptus.) in my several posts on the thread. And as I am still waiting for your response as to the meaning or import of that remark, why should I really expect any answer to this question, either?

    Ed
     
    #7 EdSutton, Sep 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2007
  8. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here We Go Again

    Let's consider some, uh, 'facts' that are not brought out here.

    1) Not only are 'many' NT mss 'corrupted' - ALL of them are. Since even the closest manuscripts within the Byzantine tradition have between two and ten variations per chapter, ALL mss. exhibit some degree of corruption.

    2) Corruption does NOT mean 'we don't know what it says.' That is a non sequitor to refer to them as 'unreliable.'

    3) For starters, the TR was NOT based on 5,000 mss - it was based on between 5 and 12 LATE mss with not one earlier than the tenth century. They just happen to represent a stream of textual transmission that is dominant.

    4) Of those 5,000 mss. - why doesn't he mention that a good 4/5 of them are from the NINTH century or LATER?

    5) I'm not aware of a SINGLE reading in the so-called modern conservative versions based on ONE mss. On the other hand, I AM aware of some Latin Vulgate interpolations into the KJV that have NO Greek mss support whatsoever - including 17 words in the last six verses of Revelation.

    The KJV Only issue is a double-edged sword; what it gives with one hand it takes away with the other.


    This last sentence of yours is the beginning of text critical wisdom, and I applaud you for it.

    The new versions do NOT dismiss the later mss. The only debate comes up on textual variants consisting of less than 2% of the text. In the other 98, if the KJV and the new versions agree, that would have to mean they agree with the MAJORITY of mss wouldn't it?
     
    #8 Maestroh, Oct 1, 2007
  9. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because D.A. Waite....

    Let me give you some advice here: anyone who listens to D.A. Waite on the issue of Bible versions is listening to a man who lies deliberately and without conscience.

    In 1979, Waite published a book entitled "Heresies of Westcott and Hort." I have the March 2004 edition. He alleges that W-H were theological heretics who - his words - writes: "With the above HERESIES Held By Westcott and Hort, it Would Be IMPOSSIBLE For Them To Have Been SAVED MEN, And Hence They Are In Hell Today." (D.A. Waite, "Heresies of Westcott and Hort," p. 52).

    Note: All those caps and large letters are in the original writing (or is it ranting?)

    I hope the reader will note that Waite has no conscience about usurping a role that is left solely for Jesus Christ. That's bad enough, but when I checked out his references almost every single one of them is OUT OF CONTEXT. Here are just a few examples:

    EXAMPLE ONE

    "Westcott Objects To the 'PRE-EXISTENCE' of Christ in John 1:1. He wrote:

    (John 1:1) (In the beginning) The "being" of the Word is thus necessarily carried beyond the limits of time. THOUGH THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE WORD IS NOT DEFINITELY STATED. The simple affirmation of existence in this connexion suggests a loftier conception than that of PRE-EXISTENCE; which is embarrased by the idea of time... (Westcott - John, op. cit. p. 2). (D.A. Waite, "Heresies of Westcott and Hort," p. 7).


    But notice what Westcott ACTUALLY SAID!!

    (John 1:1) (In the beginning) The "being" of the Word is thus necessarily carried beyond the limits of time. THOUGH THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE WORD IS NOT DEFINITELY STATED. The simple affirmation of existence in this connexion suggests a loftier conception than that of PRE-EXISTENCE; which is embarrased by the idea of time. Pre-existence however, is affirmed in a different connexion: ch. xvii.5. (Westcott - John, op. cit. p. 2).

    I hope everyone notices that Westcott DID affirm the pre-existence in the very citation that Waite clipped short. Not only that - he gave ANOTHER REFERENCE for Waite to go look at for a commentary on Pre-existence.


    Waite DELIBERATELY lied about the man's theology here.

    Now let's see what Westcott ACTUALLY SAID at the reference he gave in the same book:

    "Thus the verse presents a contrast between the state of the Incarnate Son and of the Eternal Word. The Person is one (glorify me...which I had...) but by the assumption of manhood the Son for a time emptied Himself of that which He afterwards received again.

    which I had] in actual possession and not as the object of the divine thought. Comp i.I. The "glory" spoken of here is not the predestined glory of Christ's humanity, but the glory of His divinty which He resumed on His Ascension." (B.F. Westcott, The Gospel of John, p. 240).
     
    #9 Maestroh, Oct 1, 2007
  10. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    More D.A. Waite Deception

    On pp. 31-33, Waite lists EIGHT separate instances where Westcott SUPPOSEDLY DENIED the Deity of Christ. I do not have time in this limited space to go through them all. However, all I really have to do is show that Waite KNEW what he wrote was a lie. And all I have to do for that is to use the SAME SOURCE Waite claims proves Westcott denied Christ's Deity.

    Note: Please note that in accusing Westcott of heresy, Waite himself slips off into modalism and uses long discredited arguments that Sabellians use - this is truly embarrassing.

    WAITE (p. 33)

    "Westcott, By Saying Jesus Was Only "ONE WITH GOD" Denied That He Was "GOD" Himself. He wrote:

    (John 10:34) (Jesus answered...) This, they argued, was violated if Jesus, truly man, claimed to be ONE WITH GOD. (Westcott - - John, op. cit. p. 160)

    You cannot be "ONE WITH GOD" and be "GOD" also. Thus, Westcott was denying that Jesus Christ was "GOD."

    But AGAIN - notice ALL of what Westcott ACTUALLY said!!!

    (John 10:34) (Jesus answered...) The accusation of the Jews was grounded upon a false conception of the unity of God drawn from the Old Testament. This, they argued, was violated if Jesus, truly man, claimed to be ONE WITH GOD. The Lord therefore shews in His answer that even in the Old Testament there was a preparation for that union of God and man which He came to complete.(Westcott - - John, op. cit. p. 160)

    Notice TWO THINGS here:

    1) Westcott is actually AFFIRMING the hypostatic union and

    2) Waite is DENYING the Trinity when he claims one cannot be 'one with God' and yet be 'God' at the same time.

    One might as well ask Waite how something - like the Logos - can be 'with' God AND be God at the same time.

    Waite continued

    g. Westcott spoke of the "SPECIAL RELATION" In Which "CHRIST STOOD TO GOD" For Martha, Thus Denying That Christ Was In Effect "GOD" Himself. He wrote:

    (John 11:22) (I know) The emphatic repetition of God, as the end of both clauses in the original serves to bring out, as it were, the SPECIAL RELATION IN WHICH CHRIST STOOD TO GOD in Martha's thoughts. (Westcott -- John, op. cit. p. 168).

    If "CHRIST" merely "STOOD" in a "SPECIAL RELATION...TO GOD," then He by no means could be considered by Westcott as "GOD" Himself.

    Note the FULLNESS of what Westcott said!!

    (John 11:22) (I know) The emphatic repetition of God, as the end of both clauses in the original serves to bring out, as it were, the SPECIAL RELATION IN WHICH CHRIST STOOD TO GOD in Martha's thoughts. It is to be observed that Martha uses a word for the Lord's prayer (aiteiv) which the Lord uses of others (xiv.13 f., vx.16, xvi. 23.f), but never of Himself. Comp. xvi. 26, note. (Westcott -- John, op. cit. p. 168).

    Let's again consider Waite's lack of ability to think outside of his own orthodoxy. According to Waite, if Jesus stood (Westcott did NOT use the word merely - that is Waite's distortion) in special relation to God, He couldn't have been God.

    Again - we have Dr. Waite DENYING the Trinity here.

    But a MORE IMPORTANT question is due here. Did Westcott CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY AFFIRM the Deity of Christ?

    Because IF HE DID - then Waite KNOWS his imposing speculations are NOTHING but LIES!!!
     
    #10 Maestroh, Oct 1, 2007
  11. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did Westcott Affirm Christ's Deity?

    Yes, He did. Too many times to post them all here.

    From just one book - "The Gospel of St. John," a commentary Westcott wrote late in the 19th century.

    1) According to the teaching of St. John, the fundamental fact of Christianity includes all that "is" in each sphere. Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God (i. 18). (page xliv)

    2) "At the sae time these three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of the Word declared in vs. 14." (page 2).

    3) The mode of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; but He never ceased to be God. (page 10)

    4) It is of interest to notice that ‘love’ is connected by St Paul with each Person of the Holy Trinity,” (Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 133).


    5) It may be added that vv. 6—9 contain a testimony to the Holy Trinity in the several works of the Divine Persons: Christ ‘comes,’ the Spirit ‘witnesses,’ God (the Father) ‘hath witnessed concerning His Son,’ (Ibid, 186).

    6) “The knowledge of God, which Christ had as God, He set forth to men as man.” (John, 15)


    Verdict: Westcott affirmed Christ's Deity.


    D.A. Waite slandered him repeatedly.

    Do you now trust anything he has to say about anyone? This, after all, is a guy who claims to have read 1,291 pages of the works of Westcott and Hort. Yet he then deduced the opposite theology of what Westcott (in particular) actually affirmed.

    Word to the wise: do not trust anything D.A. Waite says about the textual issue without verification.
     
    #11 Maestroh, Oct 1, 2007
  12. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    I fully agree with you about the back-translated Greek from Latin and many other imperfections of the TR. But I will enlighten you to one reading in the NIV that has only one Greek MS in support (so far as I know):

    Mt 8:18 in reads "crowd" in the NIV, supported by Codex Vaticanus (B) as the only Greek representative.

    Other readings with more substantial support include "great crowds," "great crowd," or "crowds." Glad to be of some help!
     
    #12 Bluefalcon, Oct 3, 2007
  13. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    In One Sense

    I would ask this, however: was this done because of the TEXT or because of the TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHY of dynamic equivalence.

    I concur basically with what you're saying: the only primary witnesses to it are B and some Sahidic mss. And I would add this: although I concur that the mss. support is MINIMAL there is a difference between a fourth-century witness of high reliaiblity - and NO GREEK WITNESS whatsoever.

    Particularly in the case of anyone who wishes to argue the man-made doctrine of preservation and assume this means we've had an inerrant text that became another inerrant English text.

    M
     
    #13 Maestroh, Oct 10, 2007
  14. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Excepting radical KJVO adherents, I think most people pretty much relegate the concept of inerrancy to the concept of the autographs, do they not? While one may say his NIV or NKJV or KJV is inerrant, what he means is that it is inerrant only so long as it accurately reflects the inspired canonical text at any given spot. The task of ascertaining the approximate inspired canonical text, of course, is the aim of textual criticism. Even now, in general, readings found in only one Greek MS are considered singular, or, in the case of Mt 8.18, subsingular, and thus to be rejected as peculiar to a specific region or scribe or period of time. In other words, such readings are secondary to the reading(s) in the many continuously reproducing lines of transmission that preceded it, we may guess, everywhere else, unless we propose a situation that caused all the MSS in this case to be corrupt except one. In the latter case, we may just as easily assume that if such is the normal nature of the NT textual tradition, then the NT is not secure. Consequently, Bart Ehrman's theory is correct, that sometimes, even many times, even one MS does not preserve the original, and the original is completely lost. Only what remain are corruptions introduced by well-meaning scribes or orthodox powers.
     
    #14 Bluefalcon, Oct 10, 2007
  15. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Maestroh:Word to the wise: do not trust anything D.A. Waite says about the textual issue without verification.

    Shoot, Dr. Waite cannot settle just how many differences there are between the AV1611 & the 1769 KJV edition. Seems he has a different figure every month.
     
    #15 robycop3, Oct 11, 2007
  16. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    I think most agree today that about 85-90 percent of all Greek MSS support the Byzantine Textform. But this fact, in itself, doesn't mean anything unless it can be demonstrated consistently on other grounds that the Byzantine Consensus does in fact have the original reading. For example, see Mt 27:49, where the Byzantine Consensus does not insert 13 extra words from Jn 19:34; and Mt 23:14 (which originally was Mt 23:13), where the Byzantine Consensus does not omit an entire verse due to scribal error called haplography, skipping from the "Woe to you ..." of one verse to the "Woe to you ..." of the next; and Mk 11:26, where the Consensus does not skip a verse due to haplography by skipping from the "your transgressions" of 11:25 to the "your transgressions" of 11:26, although intentional deletion could also have been a force at work in this last one.
     
    #16 Bluefalcon, Oct 23, 2007
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see no problem there - both the 1611 & 1769 are moving
    targets ;)

    Which AV1611 Edition?
    Which KJV1769 Edition? KJV1762? American Bible Society (ABS)
    of 1850?
     
    #17 Ed Edwards, Oct 23, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...