Galatians 3:1

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Lil Sister, Nov 7, 2003.

  1. Lil Sister

    Lil Sister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    "O Foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth , before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?" Gal. 3:1 KJV
    Please notice the above quote, and especially the part I emboldened. As far as we can tell, the only other version to include this important part of the passage is the NKJV. My husband and I checked NIV, TNLB, and NASB.
    As my husband was studying for his sermon last week (he is preaching through Galatians), he noticed that the passage did not make sense in the Greek. The thought was incomplete; the sentence not flowing or clear. That is because he was not using the Greek Textus Receptus.
    Then he checked another Greek NT that was TR. In the Greek the emboldened part is present in the Textus Receptus, but not in the Vaticinus or Sinaticus.
    This is another example that those translations based upon anything other than Textus Receptus are errant and should at best only be used as a point of reference; not as solid Gospel truth.
    On his website Henry Morris wrote a good defense of the Textus Receptus, citing the errors and problems of trusting the V & S.
    As I put it bluntly to someone once, "Would you rather trust the testimony of 500 upright citizens who all speak the same thing (Textus Receptus), or 2 thugs (Vaticanus & Sinaticus) who cannot even agree with one another?!" We would rather trust the 500! [​IMG]
    We do not condemn people who use other versions, but we warn them that they are not getting the entire Scripture if they only use other versions.
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sista, be thou forewarned that to suppose the Scriptures--even the very meanest translations thereof--to be Thugs is wholly unbecoming of the saints.

    rememberest thou not the words of the serpent in the garden, who calleth into question the word of the Lord ("Yea hath God said")? Moreover Michael the archangel himself doth not bring a railing accusation even when disputing with Satan; wherefore dost thou rail against the words of the Almighty?

    as to the TR, why repenteth it not against the preponderence of the putative 500 at 1 John 5:7? why dost thou not heed the form of thine own words? hast thou not considered how the TR receiveth its name over against the Majority Text?

    why dost thou therefore uphold a minority text (TR) against the Majority when it appeareth expedient for thee so to do?
     
  3. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lil sis, just a couple of points because you have been lied to (although I won't say which side has lied to you).

    1. Fallacy: the KJV is the standard by which all other english versions should be judged. That is like starting with the answer and then proving it.

    2. I have long known of his fascination with the cultic KJVO view.

    3. This is just horrible. The Textus Receptus is made up of 5-8 manuscripts, none of which are the entire N.T. and which disagree in places also. Erasmus had to translate a portion of Revelation INTO GREEK FROM LATIN, to complete the T.R. He didn't include 1 John 5:7 until his third edition (after much pressure from the CATHOLIC group).

    4. That rules out trusting the TR and subsequently the KJV.

    Btw, the passages makes perfect sense without the bold part.

    Don't make me open a can on the KJVO position.
     
  4. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you trust the Syriac Peshitta as a witness?

    It agress with Aleph and B in Gal 3:1.

    Do you trust the old latin? Many of those agree
    with Aleph and B as well in Gal 3:1.

    According to the NA 27th edition the following
    witnesses omit the clause in question:

    Greek witnesses: Aleph, A, B, D, F, G, 6, 33, 81, 630, 1739 among a few others.

    Versions: Some of the old latin and vulgate (excepting the clementine edition), syriac peshitta, coptic versions.

    There exists early and geographically diverse witnesses to the modern text reading. It stands
    on more than just Aleph and B.

    -kman
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just checked the Greek and had no problem understanding it at all. Not sure why he did.

    It is more an example based on either not knowing the truth or defending a position. When you read the Greek, it makes perfect sense.

    Morris is a scholar, just not in textual issues.

    But if those 500 are all incorrect, why trust them??? That is the issue. No one should care "how many;" what we should care is "how accurate." One hundred copies of an error does not make it less an error.

    Your warning is unnecessary. The entire Scripture is found in modern versions.
     
  6. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which makes more sense: 1) a text was removed making the Greek more difficult to read, or 2) someone inserted an additional phrase to "fix" the grammar making it easier to read? Texual critics say #2, this is why the TR is rejected here.

    Grace and Peace, Danny [​IMG]
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should visit the Other Religions forum and see the Catholics parlay this same logic. Which would you rather trust, a massive religious organization with a strong moral code, long tradition, and almost uniform discipline of opinion or the conflicting protestant sects that cannot agree with each other... or even the conflicting Baptist sects?

    The Bible gives a long history of the "minority" frequently being right. We are never commanded to seek the majority opinion and make it our own. We are commanded to seek the truth.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,169
    Likes Received:
    323
    Indeed it is a matter of choice in the final analysis.

    Somewhere in the equation comes faith because that which is not of faith is sin.

    So, FWIW, I allow my brother/sister to exerecise choice blended with faith in the how and the where concerning the preservation of the Word of God on earth.

    May we all profit from His Word.

    HankD
     
  9. Lil Sister

    Lil Sister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    My, how touchy people are! I approached this gently because I know this is a subject some are rabid about. Certain people seem to look at a topic prepared to be offended.
    First, you don't have to be a scholar on a subject to be able to look at the evidence. re:Henry Morris
    Also, when you consider how the TR is based on the work of reformers Wycliffe & Tyndale, this should encourage people towards it.
    Also, the fruit of this translation is evident: mighty revivals, reformations and great salvations occurred in the use. The translations based on S & V seem to go hand in hand with confusion, error and apostacy.
    The Roman Catholic Church has their corrupted versions like Duoay (?spelling) and such. They don't like the KJV either; despite the fact that the first KJV had the Apocrapha in it. Remember, this is an area of weakness of the Episcopal church. The Anglicans/Puritans had that influence.
    A comment was made:
    "Somewhere in the equation comes faith because that which is not of faith is sin.
    So, FWIW, I allow my brother/sister to exerecise choice blended with faith in the how and the where concerning the preservation of the Word of God on earth."
    Yes, that which is not of faith is sin. But faith based on nothing is also sin. Our faith must be based on the solid Word of God. And when people begin to doubt if the Scripture really is God's Word because of higher criticism, and the
    S & V throws into doubt so much of God's Word (including this area)...then we need to ask if it is a little matter, or a truly important one.
    Anyway, I don't call you heretic, cultic or false brethren. I just pray you consider the importance of the passages that are shorted; and realize the necessity of carefulness in the complete Word of God. [​IMG]
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,169
    Likes Received:
    323
    Not Wyclif's work. It was a translation of a translation, the Latin Vulgate.

    OK, but what then do you call us?

    Whatever it is you'll have to stand in a long line of others who have come before you.

    HankD
     
  11. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you just as concerned about the omissions in the KJV? Compare Jn. 14:14, Ac. 4:25, Ac. 16:7, Rom. 1:4, Rom. 8:34, 1 Jn. 3:1, and Jude 25 in both the KJV and the NIV to see some of the things your KJV is missing.
     
  12. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    It is also found in the MKJV, WEB, and the YLT.

    kman said:
    It is true that the varient reading is supported by others than Aleph and B, but you must also agree that, by far the most weight is placed on these two. If just these two had the phrase and the rest of all extant mss did not, the phrase would have been included. That shows an unhealthy dependence upon one or two "best ancient MSS." To make these two the standard would be as Daniel David stated:
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,169
    Likes Received:
    323
    Douay-Rheims
    Galatians 3:1 O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth: before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?
     
  14. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0


    Yes, I would agree to the modern textual critic
    Aleph and B would carry more weight than the
    other witnesses listed.



    How do you know that? Modern textual critics use external and internal evidence to determine the best reading. The evidence that best meets those criteria is accepted.

    I can provide examples where Aleph and B agree and the reading is rejected by modern textual critics:

    The first is Matthew 27:49. In Aleph and B there is a harmonization to John 19:34. It is recognized as a harmonization (internal evidence) and rejected.

    Another example is Romans 5:1 where Aleph and B and alot of the early witnesses have the subjunctive "let us have peace with God". Based upon internal evidence this is rejected and the indicative "we have peace with God" is retained.

    Just because Aleph and B agree does not mean the reading is automatically accepted.

    -kman
     

Share This Page

Loading...