JWs & NIV Agree : Verses missing from the NIV

I used the word support. Some studies have shown that P66 is supportive of the Byzantine text while P75 is supportive of the Alexandrian Aleph/B.
Both have both types.</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps some clarification of the terminology is in order. When the phrase, "Alexandrian/ 'Western'/ Byzantine READING" is used, it refers to a specific isolated variant reading characteristic of that particular text type. When the phrase "Alexandrian/ 'Western'/ Byzantine TEXT" is used, it refers to the overall text composed of all the characteristic readings of that text type. So when we are trying to determine whether or not a particular text type existed before 300 A.D., it's not enough to find a MS having a handful of isolated readings of that text type; it's necessary to find a MS having *all* those characteristic readings (or a significantly high percentage of them anyway) gathered together in one document.

So it's one thing to claim that the early papyri have some isolated *readings* which support the later Byzantine text (which, by the way, nobody disputes.) It's quite another to claim that the early papyri actually have a Byzantine *text* (i.e., a significantly high proportion of characteristically Byzantine readings in the same document). This is simply not the case. None of the early papyri, not even those which have some uniquely Byzantine *readings*, have an overall Byzantine *text*.

There are three standard methods of determining the textual character of any given MS -- quantitative analysis, analysis of test passages, and the Claremont Profile Method. When all three methods are applied to these early papyri, a clear picture emerges: P75 is a strong representative of the Alexandrian text; P66 is a mixed text with predominantly Alexandrian and "Western" elements; and both MSS have a smattering of isolated Byzantine *readings*, but nothing anywhere near a Byzantine *text*. Bottom line: the early papyri tell us that both the Alexandrian and the "Western" texts existed before 300 A.D., but not the Byzantine text.

Burgon's methodology is seriously flawed for numerous reasons (e.g., he didn't use critical editions of Patristic writings as sources for his Patristic citations of Scripture).

 

how wld u say ASL is similar to the Greek language?

why do u agree w the KJB n Greek TR on this verse--esp. when the two disagree--the Granville Sharp rule being honoured by the Greek TR but not by the KJB?

 

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven

ASL is a syntax grammar. So is the Greek.

Look at ASV. ASV agrees with the KJV. Tell me why ASV disagrees with modern versions.

Titus 2:13 in KJV "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"

Titus 2:13 in ASV "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"

Look at bold above -- Exactly!!!

In the Greek TR "our" is after "savior" -- syntax grammar -- that should be "our savior" in English grammar. That is how the KJV was translated from this Greek .

 

There are those who disagree:

From the Trinitarian Bible Society website

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lordgaveword.asp

Scroll down (long way) and read from "A. The Byzantine Text-type" through and including "B. The Alexandrian Text-type".

The authors cited (such as HA Sturz) can be noted for further research for those who are interested in scholarly work confirming the ancient character of the Traditional Text.

HankD

 

More interesting reading...

http://www.bibleviews.com/robinson.html

Dry but interesting.

HankD

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Sturz' study is flawed for two reasons.

(1) Many of the readings in his list are not "distinctively Byzantine" as he claims -- e.g., the reading εξεστησαν at Mk. 5:42, which is listed as "distinctively Byzantine" even though it's supported by the majority of Latin MSS which have a "Western" text type. In fact, of the 150 readings Sturz lists as being "distinctively Byzantine," all but eighteen are attested by non-Byzantine sources. Twelve of these are from the Book of Revelation, which has its own peculiar textual history in the Eastern Church. This leaves only six examples of what could be regarded as genuine "distinctively Byzantine" readings from the rest of the New Testament (Jn. 19:35, Ac. 4:33, Ac. 4:15, Rom. 10:14, Rom. 16:23, Heb. 12:25).

(2) Once again, the crucial point that is so frequently missed in these discussions -- the existence of *some* ancient distinctively Byzantine *readings* doesn't establish the existence of an ancient Byzantine *text type*. There's a huge difference between two documents which share a handful of similar readings and two documents which are of the same text type. The KJV and NIV both have identical readings in Mt. 5:3, Jn. 1:1, Jn. 11:35, 1 Cor. 13:9, 1 Cor. 15:43-44a, and Eph. 6:1; however, it would be incorrect to conclude that the KJV and NIV have the same text type (and it would be doubly incorrect to conclude that the NIV as a whole existed back in 1611! )

 

Dear Archangel,

I have already posted (perhaps it was with you now that I think about it) down this very path we are on with several other supportive sources, rebutting your rebuttals concerning Sturz work showing that many agree with him concerning the 150 citations being decidedly Byzantine.

To say that the byzantine agrees with the western can easily be turned around to be - the western agrees with the byzantine. But they both disagree with the Alexandrian.

The matter is subjective at this point to be sure.

One good thing I suppose that has come out of the KJVO error is a re-examination of the traditional text and many books are being published/republished as a result. The pendulum appears to be turning. Whether $$$ will come forth for further historical research remains to be seen.

HankD

 

Does anyone know what happened to Surfer5? Has he retreated so quickly?

 

A Surfer5 drive-by?

HankD

 

RIDDLE: What is this the sound of?:

Clip, clop, clip, clop, clip, clop, clip, clop, clip, clop, BANG, clip, clop, clip, clop, clip, clop....

ANSWER (read it backwards; I didn't want the answer to catch your eye before you'd digested the joke): .yb-evird hsimA nA

 

Yeah, all my dad seemed to remember--either badly pronounced or in dialect--was "close the door" and maybe "get up." His parents didn't teach him because of anti-German prejudice. The last German church service around my hometown was in the '50s, I think.

I studied a little on my own in fifth or sixth grade from a textbook, then took classes in seventh through ninth grades. I majored in it at university (a second major just for fun) and got one of my bachelor's degrees in it. I haven't kept up with it, so I'm rusty. But I read sometimes in the German Bible, and when I watch an episode of Enterprise or Voyager in German that I've already seen in English, I can follow the dialogue pretty well. It was fun being able to sing along with everyone else out of the hymnal when I attended a New Order Amish service once, and funny seeing the little Amish kid staring at me with surprise as I did so.

Speaking of roots, an ancestor on the other side of my family was born in Germany and emigrated to America in the early 1700s--and he was a Huguenot. That suggests to me that his ancestors had fled there from France. If so, it's kind of neat that I took a year of grad French. For a little while, because it was fresh and my German was rusty, I could read French sometimes better than German.

[ September 12, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Taufgesinnter ]

 

You're in America now. Please speak Spanish like the rest of us . </font>[/QUOTE]Schaade, ich kannet schpanisch schwaetze. Ich hawwe immer alleen en bissli dafun k'lernt.

I only remember a little of my second grade Spanish. Oh, well.

Buenos tardes! ?Como esta Usted?

 

OK I did my home work the NIV is missing those verse but becareful what you list people like me look it up. In sunday school a teacher told me the NIV did not talk about the virgin birth and some other things i looked them up and it did. OK so niv and some other versions are missing verses well i think that is a bad thing but still KJV is not the only right Bible folks. I did my home work here is all the Bible versions that are not missing verses

NSAB,ASV(AMERICAN STANDERED VERSION), KJV,NKJV,KJV21,WE (world wide english), YLT(YOUNGS LITERAL TRANSLATION), WYC(WYCLYFF NEW TESTAMENT),

 

I think the KJV *added* those verses, which is a "bad thing".