Original Manuscripts?

--------------------------------------------------
I see again michelle has elevated herself above all of us.
Michelle, why do you consistantly ignore questions and spew your misconceptions about preservation of the Word of God?
Michelle, why do you say that we are talking of old things which we know not of, when you yourself are in that boat? Were you there? Did God give you a special revelation like Joseph Smith claimed? You're in a cultish mindset, friend.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't, nor can prove faith to you. I cannot give to you understanding that the Lord has given to me. I can share what He has given to me with you, but you can only recieve understanding from God. This is something I cannot give you - to which you falsely accuse me of elevating myself.

As for false accusing me again of being in a cult read the following definition of what exactly is a cult, hence having the mind of a cult:

cult: 1. a system of religious worship or ritual 2. devoted attachment to a person, principle, etc. 3. a sect

sect: 1. a religious denomination 2. a group of people having a common philosophy, set of beliefs, etc.

By these definitions, I am devoted to the worship of Jesus Christ, his word of truth, and happen to have this same understanding as others who also hold to this same belief.

By these definitions, you all are also included in these definitions.


Although, many have made it clear that my (and others) belief is based upon someone other than Jesus Christ, and that I am blindly following them and their belief. This is a false accusation of me, and many others who happen to hold to this same belief that we have the true word of God today without error and that the mv's have altered the word of God.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

HankD: “The NKJV follows the TR which includes 1 john 5:7.”

That it indeed does, Hank. But to be fair, one should mention the NKJV footnote that specifically states: “NU, M omit the words from _in heaven_ (v. 7) through _on earth_ (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.”

In truth, the evidence provided in the footnote is not totally correct; the actual data, from full published collations of all available MSS in this variant location, shows exactly 500 MSS that do not contain the passage, and 9 MSS that contain the passage in varying forms. Of these 9 MSS, only 3 actually agree in their wording (221mg 2318 2473), with the others differing substantially (61 88mg 429mg 629 636c 918). Those that contain the passage written in the margin or as a correction have it in a hand of the 16th century or later. Except for 629 (Greek-Latin of the 14th century, with the Greek harmonized to the Vulgate) those MSS that contain the passage in their main text date no earlier than the 16th century, with one MS (2318) even being from the 18th century.

HankD: “the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpont (1995) omits 1 John 5:7.”

So does the Hodges-Farstad majority text edition (1982), both editions for the good reason stated in the paragraph above.

 

actually to be acurate the NKJV follows the Majority text which is technically not the TR. The two families of mss vary in over 1900 places

 

jgodc: "actually to be acurate the NKJV follows the Majority text which is technically not the TR. The two families of mss vary in over 1900 places"

Incorrect. The NKJV main text follows the Scrivener 1894 TR, created deliberately to reflect the underlying text of the 1611 KJV.

The NKJV has "M-text" notes that reflect majority text readings that differ from the TR the NKJV is based upon.

 

Ziggy, you are correct. I used to assume the NKJV N.T. was based on the Majority Text, till Ransom told me to read the preface of the NKJV, and lo and behold he was right, it's N.T. is based on the Traditional Text. (the NKJV is my favorite version, which I use in preaching/teaching here).
Ex-KJVO, set free about nine years ago.

 

Sorry, but the NKJV *doesn't* follow the Majority Text. The NKJV has *minority* text readings in places like 1 Jn. 5:7 and Ac. 8:37.

 

My copy (which has other footnotes) does not have this footnote but is silent.

HankD

 

Seeker said:

3) Some compilation of all texts - Byz and Alex - would be best. Still literal translation is best. Not sure what fits here.

4) Text basis not as important as translating into modern language. Probably leans more toward dynamic equivalence. Does NIV fit here?

NIV would probably fit in #3: a basically literal translation (though not slavishly so), based on eclectic textual choices.