Oldest is best?

no indifference, and no stalking. I was simply responding to Sal's false statements about the SBC. When Sal responded in scorched-earth fashion, I just pointed out which one of the two of us tends to get in more hot water for personal attacks. Sal should show more grace in his posts, that's all.

No PM needed here. I didn't attack.

[/hijack]

I'll bow out of this one. Sal can have the last word.

 

And the marginal note shows the alternate rwading which is not accepted by the translators in that it only appears in the margin and not the Scripture.

I can have the completed word of God minus the marginal notes.:thumbsup:

 

Except the verse is found in the footnote being it was omitted in the NIV and then the footnote adressed to why they left it out.

That is not the case with the KJB now is it? Be....hon....:wavey:

 

Sal,
Your devotion to the KJV transation is commendable but you must study it all.

From the Preface of the 1611 King James Version [LINK]

REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH
***edited***​

Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point.

…it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.

Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.

We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

Rob

 

I suppose you too will fail to ever realize they put into Scripture what they were led of the Lord to and to place in the margin according to that same Spirit.:godisgood:

I'm amazed how so many will act as if the marginal notes and the Preface to the Reader are somehow inspired.:laugh:

 

I'll do you a favor when the time allows, I'll ask my pastor where it is in the NIV.

I won't look it up in the NIV.

 

Hmmm! I say the same thing about the practices of the translators of the NKJV. Same difference! :thumbs:

Ed

 

Only that the NKJV and the KJB are distinctly different, I'd agree.:godisgood:

 

My HCSB, in last Sunday's lesson, says 70 people of Israel went down to Egypt (Joseph & his two sons were already there but counted as part of the 70) in Genesis 46:27. But Paul in Acts 7:14 says it was 75.

My beloved KJV1611 Edition doesn't have any comment about this.

My HCSB HAS A FOOTNOTE that says that the O.T. came from the Hebrew and the information Paul had was from the LXX (Septuagint), the Greek translation of the O.T.

In the Geneva Bible, 1560 edition, here is what the Translator side-note on 75 (actually 'three score, ten, and five") says:

"After the Hebrewe, thre fsore, & ten".

The older Geneva1560 is better than the Modern Version (MV), later edition, KJV1611.

 

Just glad my wife believes older is better

 

Amen to that! Also the certainty is best. :thumbs:

 

Also I agree with Burgon.

 

Shoulda Worded This Differently

It's true that the original would obviously be the oldest reading.

However - the overriding principle of TC is:

"The variant most likely to be original is the one that explains the rise of the other variants."

 

Burgon Claimed A Lot of Things That Weren't True

Maybe, but that still doesn't explain which reading to take when the Bzyantine mss. themselves disagree with one another. It should be remembered that since it post-dates the third century, the Byzantine text rose to prominence after copying procedures had become more standardized and papyri had been replaced as a material.

You mean the Byzantine area was free of heretics? Shouldn't this actually be an argument AGAINST the Byzantine text since Satan wants so badly (according to the KJV Only nutcase theory) to corrupt the Word of God? It stands to reason that more heretics would be found where the TRUE Word was, doesn't it?

True, but even Burgon acknowledges it as a factor in his so-called 'seven notes of truth.'

Besides - Burgon's made up concoction to explain the utter lack of ANY manuscripts surviving the early period is the most ahistorical answer to a historical inquiry one could ever invent.

It sounds more to me like special pleading.

 

Thanks for proving my point. Your "overriding principle" is based on the more basic law that the older reading is the best (original) reading. And your overriding principle is not so easy to use when void of external evidence.

Take for instance Mt 5:16, where a MS omits "works" or "deeds" (Gr. ERGA). Or did all the other MSS add the word to make more specific what "good" (Gr. KALA) was referring to? Surely the word was thought to be superfluous to a scribe, since the meaning of ERGA is implied in KALA due to the nature of adjectives in Greek.

Once you have formed your opinion on that case, look at a nearly identical situation in Mt 5:11, where a few Greek MSS follow most of the Latin, the Old Syriac and two of the Egyptian versions in omitting "word" (Gr. RHMA). Or did all the other Greek MSS add the word? Surely your overriding principle is consistent in the two cases, is it not?

Or take Mt 7:11, where a few MSS, including an important Egyptian one, omit "gifts" (Gr. DOMATA), since it is implied in the adjective "good" (AGATHA). Surely your overriding principle can guide all of NT textual studies. But if you follow the NA/UBS, it's not even consistent over three simple test cases!

The conclusion is that your overriding principle is not used to tell you which MSS are best, but is only used when it supports the MSS you have already decided are best.

 

According to Burgon, the disagreements are far less and more isolated.

You cannot prove that.

And I can't prove the theory that the “standardization" of those copying procedures came from the original Jewish apostle(s) (namely Paul) who evangelized Asia Minor and knew the importance of scribal accuracy.
But I believe it to be so.

Satanic activity? Yes.
More heretics? Not necessarily.


HankD