Questions for KJVO's

'More than likely' is an opinion. I would dare say that a group of Bible scholars who supported the Byzantine text body would refer to the 'vast majority and most reliable manuscripts.'

As some one said above - 'We just don't know.'

 

But, many of these people are not true Christians, and even those who are are using secular methods of textual criticism and applying them to the word of God.

Steve

 

Maybe because they are really older and better!

 

Older? Probably.
Better? Opinion

 

Don't we still have though reliable English versions REGARDLESS if we hold to either CT Greek text as best, as I do, or else the Mzy/MT text?

As ONLY originals actually were the inspired set. No?

 

Of course - but we any attempt to say which body of texts is 'better' is ultimately an educated guess.

 

I can't believe how some people state other people's OPINIONS as FACT.



A few hundred years ago, so called "educated" people thought you'd fall off the edge of the Earth if you went too far. People believed that as fact, too.:tongue3:

 

They are not merely opinions like any layperson would have. Godly scholars who have spent years researching have arrived at their conclusions.

You and your analogies. Your figure of correspondence is like comparing apples to apes.

 

There may be some truth in:

The Majority Text, because the majority of the churches used them.

The Received Text, for the same reason--received by the majority.

And for the Critical Text--criticized by the most.

 

Before the 9th century the current Majority Text was in the minority. And now most of the MT manuscripts etc. were made 1,000 or more years after the autographs.

If you'd speak to a Christian in 750 A.D. they wouldn't be familiar with the so-called Majority Text.

 

And your posts are like sandpaper on a sunburn. :laugh:

 

Still not FACT.......just their "conclusion".

 

Yep,like I said, apples to apes.

 

Based upon scholarly research and expertise which counters your inexperience in these matters.

 

STILL not FACT.....


and you know nothing about me, so you know nothing about my experience, or inexperience with anything. All I know about you is that it seems every time I post something you show up with some negative comment about what I post. You stalking me or something? Kinda weird.

 

I suppose not. They didn't speak English then!
But their Bibles (in various different translations) were taken from that group of MSS which we know as the Majority Text.

 

Really makes no difference. It is misleading and deceptive for translators to use words like 'best' and 'most reliable' when referring to manuscripts since those words express the educated guess of the translators. They may be far be qualified than I am to make their guess, but it is still a guess and should not be stated as a fact.

 

You have no basis for saying this, IMHO. I'm not aware that the Alexandrian Text was being copied in the 8th Century. In the West, people would be using the Vulgate Latin Version, and in the East they would be using the Byzantine-type text, which would be broadly, the majority Text. There is no proof that they ever used anything else, so far as I know. I'm prepared to be corrected if you know better, but you'll have to show me proof.

Steve