Evaluating the Rules of "Best" Text

I guess dying for the "word of God" only counts after 1611, and only if you die for the KJV. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. Poor Tyndale, if only he knew.

 

James said "Does it matter? If I came to the knowledge that Christ was the son of God, but I didn't get there the same way you did, does that invalidate my belief?"

But we're not talking about a common belief. We're talking about OPPOSING beliefs, and I'm asking you HOW you came to yours. How do you know it was resurrected in the KJV and not some other translation, already in existence or yet to come? What do you base this on? What exhorts you to have this faith? Good grief, just answer the question!

 

That's the kicker. If a foreign translation agrees with your translation, then it's fine, but if a foreign translation doesn't agree with your translation, then your translation is authoritative. Therein lies your error. Giving a translation of scripture doctrinal authority. There is no scriptural support for this. In fact, it's quite Mormonesque, and borders on heresy.

 

Who are you to talk, you seem to believe that we do not have a preserved Word of God now! At least James agrees that we now have the Word of God.

 

Terry said "you seem to believe that we do not have a preserved Word of God now!"

No, no, no. I have repeatedly stated I believe we DO have the preserved word of God now, and that we also had it before 1611 as well. Why do you not thank ME for my support of the word of God throughout history, when I argue this point with James? Why do you only thank James for areas you agree with him, but not others for where you agree with them (in opposition to James)?

 

Even Homer Simpson could answer this one. Everone agrees with people when they agree with what they are saying. Maybe you need a break from attacking the KJV to get you head straight.

 

Off-original-topic, but a necessary correction:

JohnV: "Dating to the time of Christ, and being very intact, the DSS writings generally support the oldest copies of the MSS over the newer TR. However, regardless of what later texts the DSS support, there can be no arguement that the DSS should be given precedence over later manuscripts."

But John, the DSS do not contain *any* NT text, so how can they be superior to "the newer TR", let alone "be given precendence over later manuscripts"?

 

One more off-topic but pertinent comment (and then I'll back off):

Re 13:16 (KJV) : "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark IN their right hand, or IN their foreheads:

James Newman: "Why is it that almost evry other version (and arguably EVERY popular version) says ON their right hand or ON their forehead?"

Leaving aside the fact that the underlying Greek (here the *autograph* reading, since it is identical in *all* Greek manuscripts regardless of texttype) reads EN, which legitimately can be translated according to contextual possibilities as "in", "on", "by", "with", etc., this observation becomes interesting in view of Ruckman's specific claim that the Mark of the Beast (the big leopard-mark kiss from the giant UFO antichrist) will be planted firmly ON the forehead or ON the hand of the recipient.

Amazingly, it seems that Peter Ruckman himself is thus guilty of being a KJV Bible *corrector* as opposed to a KJV Bible *believer* by his own definition. Perhaps someone should tell him of his error?

 

Dr Bob: "SO LET'S GET BACK ON SUBJECT. Which rules are "faulty" in the A/A listing and how should they be "corrected"?"

You're asking a very loaded question Dr. Bob. While Aland and Aland have their rules, Tischendorf had a different set of rules, Alford another, Tregelles another, Greisbach another, Bengel another, Westcott and Hort another, most reasoned eclectics of today another, most thoroughgoing eclectics another, most Western-priority advocates another, most Byzantine-priority or majority text advocates another, plus even more options from various textual critics of the past 200 years.

To be fair, you probably would have to list the set of principles held by each of these groups and then open matters for discussion.

Even most reasoned eclectics of today have sharp differences regarding certain aspects of the Aland and Aland methodology and resultant text (e.g. Kent Clarke and his "Textual Optimism" book). So you really open a can of worms at this point.

No wonder the discussion rapidly degenerates to the lowest common denominator of KJVOism.

 

And this is supposed to be a science?

 

Sorry, everyone. My bad (shows what late-night back-translating the English into Greek will do, just like Erasmus back-translating Latin into Greek in Revelation):

The universal reading in Re 13:16 in all Greek manuscripts is EPI, which generally means "upon", "regarding", or "with reference to" according to context.

Thus PSR remains correct in his interpretative application (not that it is at all true, but that's another matter); yet by following the actual meaning of the Greek word, PSR still ends up *correcting* the KJV.

 

James
"If your Dutch bible agrees with my bible, then I suppose you have the perfect word of God in Dutch."
"
Ofcourse it does... except where it corrects the faulty English ofcourse. No wonder all those horrid heresies (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seven Day Adventists, Christian Science, the Rapture, Methodism) originated in the English speaking world in the last 4 centuries, it's that mediocre KJB translation everyone has been using.


What?

 

Terry said "Everone agrees with people when they agree with what they are saying."

Then why did you never thank me for when you agreed with me?

Terry said "Maybe you need a break from attacking the KJV to get you head straight."

I have never attacked the KJV. I have attacked an extra-Biblical doctrine ABOUT the KJV.

 

marking for notification

 

I think everyone is fully aware that DSS are OT only. The DSS were written before the books of the NT were likely penned. Bearing this in mind, it's not unresonable at all to give greater authoritative weight to the DSS writings than to later manuscripts, including the TR and MSS. Since the DSS writings generally support the oldest copies of the MSS over the newer TR, it supports the arguement that the oldest copies of the MSS should be given greater weight than the later TR, especially in regards to the NT.

However, there is no historical or evidentiary support to think that the later TR should have authoritative weight over earlier writings.

 

Same to you. I asked you some questions or I answered your questions. You did not answered back to my questions or comments.

 

JohnV: "I think everyone is fully aware that DSS are OT only. The DSS were written before the books of the NT were likely penned. Bearing this in mind, it's not unresonable at all to give greater authoritative weight to the DSS writings than to later manuscripts, including the TR and MSS. Since the DSS writings generally support the oldest copies of the MSS over the newer TR, it supports the arguement that the oldest copies of the MSS should be given greater weight than the later TR, especially in regards to the NT."

This is still incorrect, and at best a non-sequitur statement, since it has nothing to do with the TR or NT, and a parallel comparison cannot be drawn, since we have no first-century MSS of the NT documents.

Even within the OT realm (which is the only place the DSS should be brought into the picture), the general consensus of OT scholars is still to favor the basic Massoretic Hebrew text over the aberrancies of the DSS, even when the DSS happen to concur with certain lines in the LXX.

Bottom line is that most OT English translations today continue to retain the Massoretic Text as primary, and in general tend merely to cite the different DSS readings in footnotes.

One can examine the "Dead Sea Scrolls Bible" (ed. Flint and Abegg) to see precisely how the extant OT portions of the DSS read vis-a-vis the Massoretic text; the overall differences are few, but are footnoted wherever they occur; then compare those cited differences against various English translations and see how few DSS readings ever make it into the main text of English translations.

What the DSS actually support is the truism that the *age* of a manuscript does not in and of itself confer authoriity; the age and quality of the *text* preserved -- even in later MSS -- remains the primary factor.

Most OT Hebrew MSS are clearly hundreds of years later than the DSS, but are generaly considered to preserve a more authentic text in most of the places where variation occurs between the later MSS and the DSS. So the analogy is faulty.