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!

Greek Texts

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by IFB Mole, Jun 27, 2007.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 4
  1. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Would you care to present a test case from the Gospels and demonstrate your point, allowing for criticism and debate on all sides?
     
    #41 Bluefalcon, Jun 30, 2007
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Classic example: Mark 16:9-20. UBS 4 gives an "A" rating to the short ending, I.E. omitting verses 9-20. An "A" rating indicates "the text is certain" (The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, Kurt Aland, et el., 2001, Deutsche bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, page3*.)

    However even a cursorary glance at the textual apparatus itself indicates the shorter ending is only attested to by three Greek witnesses, Aleph (4th century Alexandrian uncial), B (4th century Alexandrian uncial), and 304 (12th century Byzantine minuscule that ends with Mark 16:9).

    The manuscript evidence including the longer ending in one form or another is overwhelming and much too long to list here including both Alexandrian and Byzantine witnesses, uncials and minuscules, some with equal antiquity to that of Aleph and B. (It is cited my Justin as early as 165AD.)

    But even the two favorite manuscripts of the CT proponets, Aleph and B, do not clearly support the exclusion of the last 12 verses. John Burgon wrote a masterful tome reiterating the evidence that was so powerful that, when asked for a comment on the good dean's book, FJA Hort admitted he could not give the dean an answer.

    Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary recently held a conference where some of the best textual critics alive today debated the issue and came to no certain conclusion.

    So, why does the CT say the omitting of verses 9-12 is "certain?" Because the rules of textual criticism as practiced by the CT editors were designed to point toward Aleph and B.

    Why did Hort deny the authenticity of Byzantine readings in favor of his two favorites, Aleph and B?

    Here are his reasons: (From "Introduction to The New Testament In The Original Greek According to the Byzantine Textform" by Professor Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont)

    (See next post)
     
    #42 TCassidy, Jul 1, 2007
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ----begin quoted material----



    In contrast, the "Byzantine-priority" position simply urges, as a primary consideration, a return to external evidence following the sound principles of John W. Burgon and in agreement with an initial objective principle of F. J. A. Hort. Hort wrote in his "Introduction" volume that
    A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa.[13]​
    Yet Hort immediately proclaimed that this objective principle (which would favor "Byzantine/Majority-priority") was too weak in itself to stand "against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds." Hort's supporting evidence in favor of an Alexandrian priority, however, was deficient, and many of those who today favor an Alexandrian-based text have rejected certain of Hort's main principles. Hort, however, made it clear that, were his foundation-pillars to be overthrown, his theory would crumble. In such a case, a return to his initial "theoretical presumption" would appear to become the only logical position for textual scholars to hold, namely, that "a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents." The Byzantine Textform, therefore, would hold a strong claim toward autograph authenticity.
    The main pillars of Hort's theory are presented here in their most logical sequence:
    • The argument from genealogy. This hypothesis claims that all manuscripts of a texttype -- no matter how numerous -- have descended from a single archetype (parental ancestor) of that texttype. One therefore need consider only the archetype form, which becomes but a single witness in competition with the remaining archetypical "single-witnesses" of other texttypes. This argument -- established from a hypothetical stemmatic diagram -- effectively eliminated, in Hort's view, the "problem" of the Byzantine Textform's overwhelming numerical superiority.
    • Widespread conflation (the combining of readings from two or more source documents) was claimed to have prevailed among Byzantine-era manuscripts, but was claimed not to occur in early Alexandrian or Western documents. This argument supposedly showed the Byzantine Textform to be "late," having been created by combining readings of the "early" Western and Alexandrian texttypes. Hort provided a mere eight examples to "demonstrate" this point, and then proclaimed this state of affairs "never" to be reversed.
    • Hort claimed a total absence of "distinctively Byzantine" readings from manuscripts, versions, and Church Fathers before the mid-fourth century AD. Hort considered this argument to "prove" that readings found exclusively in later Byzantine manuscripts had no known early support and therefore absolutely could not have existed prior to AD 350. Hort was extremely adamant on this point.
    • The origin of the Byzantine Textform was alleged to be the result of an authorized revision in the fourth century. Hort used this argument to demonstrate how the Byzantine Textform could have been a "later" development, yet suddenly overwhelm the entire Greek-speaking church from AD 350 onward.
    • The assumed internal "inferiority" of Byzantine readings as opposed to the "better" readings found in the early manuscripts was strongly pressed by Hort. This argument, though obviously subjective, nevertheless further reduced whatever value remained of the Byzantine Textform in the eyes of many critics.
    • While the final item is subjective and basically prejudicial, the other arguments at least appear to present a convincing aura of objectivity. Had [???] case not seemed so solidly secured, his text might have been more seriously scrutinized and questioned. Yet, in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis.[14]
    Nevertheless, most modern scholars, while rejecting Hort's main principles, continue to favor his conclusions regarding the "original" Alexandrian-based text and the supposed inferiority of the "later" Byzantine/Majority Textform. This academic anomaly derives from holding a conclusion based upon no solid theory of textual transmission-history.

    In response to Hort's five "pillars," modern scholarship can declare the following counter-arguments:
    1. The genealogical argument was never actually applied to the New Testament text by Hort, and in fact has never been so applied by anyone. As Colwell noted, Hort utilized this principle solely to "depose the Textus Receptus," and not to establish a line of descent. His "stemmatic diagram" was itself a pure fabrication.[15]
    2. Even though a hypothetical stemma might "demonstrate" that "a majority of extant documents" may only have descended from the text of a single archetype (one branch on the genealogical "tree"), Hort was not able to establish that the Byzantine majority of manuscripts were genealogically dependent (and therefore belonged to a single branch of the stemma). Nor could he disallow that the essential archetype of the Byzantine Textform might not in fact be the autograph text itself rather than a later branch of the stemma. The virtual independence of the Byzantine-era manuscripts (as mentioned earlier) alone suffices to refute Hort's genealogical claim regarding the entire Byzantine/Majority Textform. Further discussion of this point will follow.
    3. Conflation is not exclusive to the Byzantine-era manuscripts; the scribes of Alexandrian and Western manuscripts conflate as much or more than what has been imputed to Byzantine-era scribal habits.[16] (Hort argued that only the Byzantine manuscripts practiced conflation, and that manuscripts of supposedly "earlier" texttypes never followed this practice).
    4. Over 150 "distinctively Byzantine" readings have been found in papyrus manuscripts predating AD 350, even though totally unattested by versions and Fathers.[17] (Hort emphatically maintained that, were this principle overthrown, his entire hypothesis would have been demolished).
    5. There never has been a shred of evidence that an "authorized revision" of the Greek New Testament text ever occurred, and the Greek church itself has never claimed such. (Hort maintained that, apart from such formally-authorized revision, there would be no way possible to explain the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform).[18]
    Endnotes:

    13 Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1881), 2:45. (back)
    14 Colwell was bold enough to admit this fact in his "Hort Redivivus," Studies, pp. 158-159. (back)
    15 Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, p.158. Colwell stated in 1947 that "genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts in such a way as to advance our knowledge of the original text of the New Testament." ("Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Limitations," Studies, p. 63). Yet at the time of Colwell's statement, the stemmatic approaches of Hoskier (to the Apocalypse) and of Von Soden (to Jn. 7:53-8:11) had been in print for about 20 and 45 years respectively. Colwell doubtless would have declared the same today regarding the approach of Hodges-Farstad to the same portions of Scripture. The principle remains: genealogical stemmatics have not been applied successfully to the New Testament Greek documents because such cannot be applied to a textually "mixed" body of manuscripts. Kinship in such a case is remote in the extreme, and the mixture within the manuscripts varies not only from book to book but even within chapters of the same book (See Thomas C. Geer, Jr., "The Two Faces of Codex 33 in Acts," Novum Testamentum, 31 [1989] 39-47, for a demonstration of this point). (back)
    16 See Wilbur N. Pickering, "Conflation or Confusion," Appendix D in his The Identity of the New Testament Text, rev. ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980), pp. 171-200. Contributors to that Appendix included William G. Pierpont, Maurice A. Robinson, Harry A Sturz, and Peter Johnston. (back)
    17 See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 137-230. (back) 18 See John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics rep. ea., n. d. [1883]), pp. 276-294; Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, pp. 157-159, 164-169. (back)

    ----end quoted material----
     
    #43 TCassidy, Jul 1, 2007
  4. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow.

    Wow that was a great reply.
    Any Thoughts. or criticism:wavey:

    Thanks, TCassidy this will be studied intently. I am Ok with it.Ehud.:thumbs:
     
    #44 Ehud, Jul 2, 2007
  5. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    T Cassidy is DA MAN!! WOW!! Tell us MORE.
     
    #45 IFB Mole, Jul 2, 2007
  6. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Hort's main point was that the earliest MSS, by studying each and every place where they differ from later MSS, are without a doubt considered to be the most pure, and thus all MSS after the earliest ones by matter of fact must be less pure than the earliest, most pure ones.

    Because the earliest and best MSS are purer than the rest, Hort concluded that when those best MSS were corrupt, such as in 2 Peter 3:10, the actual original words of Scripture were lost from the face of the earth. For example, the reading of the earlest MSS (hEUREQHSETAI) in 2 Peter 3:10, according to Hort, "is the most original of recorded readings, the parent of the rest, and yet itself is corrupt" (Introduction, paragraph 365), and, "The great difficulty of text has evidently given rise to all these variations . . . . It is doubtless itself a corruption . . ." (Notes, cf. 2 Pe 3:10). Such being the case, Hort could boldy claim, "Are there as a matter of fact places in which we are constrained by overwhelming evidence to recognise the existence of textual error in all extant documents? To this question we have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative" (Intro., paragraph 365).

    What system can one employ to prove that the earliest MSS are not the best?
     
    #46 Bluefalcon, Jul 4, 2007
  7. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thought on "critical text'

    I read your little exchange on the meaning of the term “Critical Text” with some interest. It again confirmed to my mind the fact that the “Byzantine Text” supporters will always get the better of the “Alexandrian Text” supporters if given a fair hearing. This is because the Alexandrian supporters labour under the following disadvantages:
    • The number of manuscripts in favour of the “Byzantine Text” is massive. No matter how you twist the facts, it still basically comes down to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and some sliced-up papyri fragments versus a mountain of manuscripts.
    • The “Byzantine Text” is theologically conservative, while the “Alexandrian” manuscripts contain many Gnostic heresies. This is difficult for bible-believing “Alexandrians” to explain – why are their favourite manuscripts so theologically abhorrent? Why, for example, does Codex Vaticanus have a soldier spearing the Lord when He was still alive?!?
    • The Westcott-Hort genealogical, text-type system is so obviously biased to produce a particular outcome. If the works of Dean Burgon and Wilbur Pickering ever became as widely read by 1st year Bible College and seminary students as the works of Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger, then the game would be up. Hort’s Introduction is merely an extensive attempt to make people believe two shocking rules: 1. The heretical reading is to be preferred. 2. The revised form of the text where the Gnostics removed the bits that they did not like is to be preferred.
    Considering the three points given above, it is no wonder that the “Alexandrians” are only able to keep their monopoly on the “discipline” of Biblical Textual Scholarship by using propaganda, censorship, intellectual defamation, scholastic intimidation and financial pressure to silence or marginalize any dissenting opinions.

    Yet, while the “Byzantine Text” supporters have better arguments, they are not altogether correct. You see, there is no such thing as a “Byzantine Text”, or an “Alexandrian Text”, for that matter. Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text, laid that one to rest in the 1970’s (or at least it would have if more people had read it!). The argument about Greek manuscripts and texts is really between two streams of manuscripts; one written by Greek Orthodox monks mainly between 500 AD and 1500 AD, and the other written by Egyptian Gnostics between 300 AD and 600 AD.

    The verdict? Neither stream of Greek manuscript can produce a perfect text. Von Soden, Lake and Colwell proved that the “Byzantine Text” manuscripts themselves have an amazingly large amount of minor variations. That was just one more reason why they could not be lumped together as a single witness and called a “text-type”, but it was also a reason as to why we should not expect to find a perfect text among the manuscripts of this Greek Vulgate. It must be remembered that the “Byzantine” spectrum of manuscripts was produced by an apostate state church – The Greek Orthodox Church. God does not preserve His perfect Word among apostates. As for the other stream, the “Alexandrian” scraps were produced by notorious heretics who deliberately changed the Scriptures (no wonder Westcott and Hort liked them!). If you are wondering where the pure manuscripts were, then just remember that the pure Scriptures were always preserved among the bible-believing churches – this is the reason why the bible scholars of the Reformation referred to the Medieval era bibles of groups of believers like the Waldenses to correct the few errors in the Greek Orthodox manuscripts.

    There is one more major point to consider, however, and it goes back to your discussion about “Critical Texts”. The whole idea of a critical text was really a 19th century conception which stated that a critic could determine the true reading of a portion of the Scriptures by applying “scientific” principles. Truth to tell, the whole discipline of textual criticism is based on the Satanic philosophy of Enlightenment Rationalism which dictates that only the natural world exists and therefore the supernatural is to be excluded from any investigation of any nature – even the search for the true form of the Bible. A further problem with using scientific principles is that the scientific method can only tell us about the immediate present. Science, by its very definition, is about testing, observing and repeating the test to prove the hypothesis – IN THE PRESENT. You cannot test, observe and repeat a test on an event that happened before you were born. While archaeological artifacts often do provide more information after being put through certain scientific processes, it must be remembered that the scientific process only tells the archaeologist what the artifact is like right now. It is then up to the archaeologist to use his historical knowledge to come to accurate conclusions about what happened in the past. Science only has a minor place in any investigation of the past, the main discipline for that sort of thing is called History.

    So, now you can see that the whole idea of a “Critical Text” is a perfect nonsense. Westcott and Hort were able to do so much damage in their day because the scholars of that time were so enamored with “scientific” theories, when they should have been looking for historical facts. Burgon accused Hort of building castles in the clouds with his “moonshine” theories. And this is what you guys are doing here - building arguments based on a vapour of reason. Forget about critical texts, do you really want to be criticizing God’s Word?!? Trust your King James Bible, stop wasting time on these sorts of fruitless discussions, and go door-knocking.

    A friend of Ehud, A true blue Aussie thought.
     
    #47 Ehud, Jul 5, 2007
  8. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you, but James R. White disagrees with you concerning the Gnosticism. I rejected JRW's comment against Ruckman about the history of Gnosticism in his book.
    We have 2 sides of Bible Colleges and Seminaries: TR schools and W/H schools. I recommend TR schools over W/H schools.
     
    #48 Askjo, Jul 5, 2007
  9. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Where's does the "mountain" of MSS lie in the case of Acts 24:6b-8a?

    Of the "many Gnostic heresies" contained in the Alexandrian text, would you mind listing just five?

    Why does perhaps the most Byzantine MS in the Gospels, Codex Tischendorfianus (Gamma), also have this interpolation at Mt. 27:49, along with about 40 other Byzantine minuscules?

    Anyone who read your long rant, all of which even I did not read, truly wasted his time. And I agree, let's win some souls today!
     
    #49 Bluefalcon, Jul 6, 2007
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey! Nice couple of ad hominem" attacks in there! I refer specifically to "the “Alexandrian” scraps" and "(no wonder Westcott and Hort liked them!)". This is uncalled for.

    But it is nice to know that your idea is that, in Greek manuscripts and codices, I can basically pick and choose between apostates and heretics. Or I can assume (with no evidence for this other than opinion, mind you) that God preserved some portions (I don't know why this does not include all the manuscripts in all places??) of the NT in certain selected churches, while allowing the rest to be at the mercy of these kinds of less than stellar witnesses.

    Sounds to me kind of like having William Tyndale decide between Marcion, the Heretic, Julian, the Apostate, or being caught in the middle of Henry VIII and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. No matter which one of the three he chose or which one you, or I choose, it is probably going to get ugly and certainly the outcome "ain't gonna' be pretty!"

    Got any similar good suggestions about the OT texts?? :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
    #50 EdSutton, Jul 6, 2007
  11. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Friend of Ehud replys

    .
    - Who cares what James White said in his book. Think for yourself.

    - I think that we are all well aware of the small number of places where the Received Text has scant, or no, Greek manuscript support. I think we are also well aware that in 99% or more of instances my assertion is quite correct, and since I was speaking in general terms at that point (mountains are pretty large-scale things), I can’t see much validity to your objection. Is that all you’ve got? You haven’t even begun to consider my main argument: “the whole idea of a “Critical Text” is a perfect nonsense”.

    - Because they are corrupt, just like your beloved Vatican manuscript. Remember, I do not defend, or even believe in the “Byzantine Text”. Go and buy Pickering’s book – he’ll set you straight on that one.

    Anyone who read your long rant, all of which even I did not read, truly wasted his time. And I agree, let's win some souls today!

    - Make sure you take your King James Bible with you. Otherwise you may come back a Mormon. Be careful!

    But it is nice to know that your idea is that, in Greek manuscripts and codices, I can basically pick and choose between apostates and heretics. Or I can assume (with no evidence for this other than opinion, mind you) that God preserved some portions (I don't know why this does not include all the manuscripts in all places??) of the NT in certain selected churches, while allowing the rest to be at the mercy of these kinds of less than stellar witnesses.

    Sounds to me kind of like having William Tyndale decide between Marcion, the Heretic, Julian, the Apostate, or being caught in the middle of Henry VIII and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. No matter which one of the three he chose or which one you, or I choose, it is probably going to get ugly and certainly the outcome "ain't gonna' be pretty!"

    Thank you for your commendation of my “ad hominem” attacks. If you had actually viewed pictures of p66 or p75, or any other papyrus manuscript, then you would realise that they are just scraps. After all they were dug up in ancient rubbish dumps. Codices Vaticanus and Satanicus (I did that on purpose – oops… not another “ad hominem” attack!) may present a little better, but the text of each is clearly mutilated – scraps.
    Westcott and Hort were heretics – check their correspondence and biographies if you don’t believe me. Not only were they heretics, but they were heretics who were very partial to ancient Gnosticism.
    It’s a bit rich for you to accuse me of false arguing when you so severely misrepresented what I said. I did not say that the Greek Orthodox manuscripts were terribly corrupt (I did say that about the “Alexandrian” manuscripts), what I said was that you will not find the perfect NT text in those manuscripts – just ask Hodges and Farstad. At the time of the Reformation, men like Tyndale and the TR editors corrected the minor errors in the manuscripts of the apostate Greek Orthodox Church with the manuscripts of believing churches – Waldenses especially.
    -
    As for the Old Testament, stay away from anything connected with the Kittels. Nazis and the Bible don’t mix too well.

    Cheers S.W.
     
    #51 Ehud, Jul 6, 2007
  12. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reply to Bluefalcon.

    - It would be a pleasure. Five heresies present in “Alexandrian manuscripts” would include:
    1. Matt 27:49 in “Alexandrian manuscripts” has a soldier piercing Christ’s side with a spear before He was dead. Yet, the Scriptures state that Christ gave up His Own life.
    2. Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:43 in “Alexandrian manuscripts” call Joseph Jesus’ father. The heresy here is that Christ had a human biological father. You may wonder why this heresy only occurs in Luke. The reason is that Luke was the only Gospel recognised by a number of the early Gnostics. They simply deleted the other gospels entirely from their “New Testaments”.
    3. Luke 11:2-4 in “Alexandrian manuscripts” has Marcion’s version of the Lord’s Prayer. The point of this mutilated “reading” was that you could pray this prayer to anyone – even the Devil (who do you think Marcion was serving?).
    4. Luke 23:45 in Codex Sinaiticus has an eclipse of the sun. This is an attempt to provide a natural explanation for a supernatural event (downplaying Christ’s divinity). Besides, astronomers have proven that no eclipse happened that day (Passover time etc…).
    5. John 1:18 in “Alexandrian manuscripts” explains that Jesus is an “only-begotten god” (did someone say “Mormons”?). This is a direct contradiction of the doctrine of the Trinity. If Christ’s Divine nature had a beginning, as His human nature did, then He is not One with the Father. He is a subordinate god – just like the Gnostics said He is. Joseph Smith would be proud of you.:laugh:

    Here’s a bonus one for you (there are many, many more – see Hoskier’s Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment):

    Mark 1:2 quotes Isaiah and Malachi, and then attributes both quotes to Isaiah. This “reading” attacks the doctrine of the perfection of the Scriptures.:thumbs:

    You might also consider how many times the “Alexandrian Manuscripts” delete the titles of our Lord Jesus Christ – do you think this might have been doctrinally motivated?

    Why does perhaps the most Byzantine MS in the Gospels, Codex Tischendorfianus (Gamma), also have this interpolation at Mt. 27:49, along with about 40 other Byzantine minuscules?

    Cheers S.W :saint:
     
    #52 Ehud, Jul 6, 2007
  13. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    This double standard has been refuted over and over and over again. Why is it that supporters of the KJVO position always cite this as heresy when the same "heresy" is shown in the 1611 KJV just a little farther down the page? This is certainly one of those double standards KJVO supporters are best known for.

    'Nuff said.
     
    #53 Keith M, Jul 7, 2007
  14. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0

    Luke 2:48 KJV 1611 is that Luke wrote concerning Jesus' mother's verbal comment toward Him, not written comment toward Him. Nothing wrong with the KJV. Ehud is right.
     
    #54 Askjo, Jul 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2007
  15. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is true. They were also apostates and unbelievers. We know where they are currently. How sad!
     
    #55 Askjo, Jul 7, 2007
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Wow! You must have the list of who is in Heaven and who is not. You actually know with certainty who are believers who are not?
    That's fantastic spiritual gift!
     
    #56 franklinmonroe, Jul 7, 2007
  17. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your errant opinion definitely shows you have a double standard, Askjo. Beside that, there are several things wrong with the various KJVs just as there are things wrong with the MVs. Your problem is that you have no discernment of this truth. Ehud, just like you, is absolutely WRONG, and that's a fact!
     
    #57 Keith M, Jul 8, 2007
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Here we go round the mulberry bush...

    Lets get back to the issue of the texts and not the KJV or....

    well you know the rest
     
    #58 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jul 8, 2007
  19. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Pretty bad calling Mary the mother of Jesus a heretic!

    Luke 2:48 (KJV): And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
     
    #59 Bluefalcon, Jul 8, 2007
  20. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    I don't think any malicious intent was behind the reading you attack, i.e., "in Isaiah the prophet" (Mk 1:2). It appears to be a simple harmonization to the terminology used in all the other Gospels introducing the prophecy concerning John the Baptist. The reading "in the prophets" is distinctive in Mark and probably original.
     
    #60 Bluefalcon, Jul 8, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 4
Loading...