Roman Catholic influence in Modern Versions?

The fact is that it is a man's opinion based on another man's opinion you are basing your opinion on....Hmmmm....something strange about that.

 

Oh, by the way, your idea of a "decent" textual work, and other people's opinions might not be the same....AGAIN...that IS the fact. Don't imply that I speak without knowing facts...for it is YOU who are making yourself look ignorant, sir.

 

Ya, whatever, dude.

 

Maybe you should read that verse yourself, friend. It might do you some good. Opinions are like noses...everyone's got one.

 

Are you aware of the fact that several of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have "his father" at Luke 2:33?
"His father" is the rendering in the 1380's Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, 1557 Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles.
The 1543 Spanish Enzinas N. T. has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's 1534 German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon has "father" at Luke 2:33. Erasmus's edition of the Greek N. T. evidently had "father" at Luke 2:33.

The first English translation to have "Joseph" at Luke 2:33 seems to be the 1560 Geneva Bible.

 

Logos, I was wondering if anyone was going to point that out or if old ic was going to admit it himself....well...we see he didn't .......hmmmm...won't address precursors to the KJV having the same kind of thing.....like I said...something fishy about ic.

 

icthus said:

The facts speak for themselves.

By "facts," I assume you mean "harebrained conspiracy theories concocted by a poster named after a fish"? In that case, I'd agree.

 

icthus asked:

Can you not see the problems with these MV's?

No. I see you and the other KJV-thumpers insulting the intelligence of Bible believing Christians. Nothing more.

According to your hilarious cartload of horse hockey, when I read that Jesus had a "father and mother" in the NIV at Luke 2:33, I'm supposed to forget that two minutes earlier, I read that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:27,34), as taught by the same author only one page earlier.

When KJVers start puking out this cynical, self-serving codswallop, they demonstrate that they take the rest of us for fools and aren't even trying to pretend otherwise.

Is this what you call a "better handle" on textual criticism?

Pathetic.

You gotta laugh.

 

The facts speak for themselves. I have already shown, "firstborn" has gone, twice in Luke "Jospeh and Mary" has been changed to "His Father and mother", and "His parents". Staying in Luke's Gospel, in 1:35, the two small words "of thee", which not only teach the Virfin Birth (since the singular, feminine is ued), but also teaches that the "human nature" of Jesus Christ was actually "derived" (lit, "out of thee) from Mary, against many of the Gnostic heresies in the early Church, and some of our mordern "faiths". Again, the majority of MV's do not have these two words, even though Justn Martyr, who was born in 100A.D, kew of the words, and a host of other Church fathers.

Can you not see the problems with these MV's? </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmm, Icthus spews more one-sided nonsense.

Icthus views "Parents" as bad when it's in a MV. Yet I suppose Icthus doesn't have the same perceived difficulty when the word appears in Luke 2:41 in the KJV.

And I doubt that Icthus would see some sort of plot in John 1:45 in the KJV, where Jesus is called the son of Joseph.

 

Ah, so you freely acknowledge that the same textual and/or word choice things you take issue with in MV's also exist within the KJV. Thank you for clarifying that.

It's just more KJVO bluster along the lines of "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

hey, can I suggest that you take up doing some real Textual Criticism? That way you would understand the stuff that I post here </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see it as being a problem of understanding (regardless of what my background & training are in regards to textual criticism- of which you know nothing of). I see it more as an issue on your part of being blindly hypercritical of issues within MV's; to the extent of glossing over or ignoring the exact same issues within the KJV.

 

When Jesus became a man, He started as a baby as every other man has started, except those created from scratch by God. This necessitated that He have surrogate parents. These people were pre-selected by God.

It was necessary that He be an earthly descendant of David; thus, Mary was descended from David and David's son Nathan. Joseph was also descended from David, and from Jeconiah, whose posterity God DQd from occupying David's throne. Thus, both His earthly parents were descendants of david, but only His mother who physically gave birth to Him as a person was qualified to occupy David's throne,(Yes, there was one woman-Athaliah-who occupied David's throne) thus qualifying Jesus according to His Father's guidelines and His promises to Abraham and David.

God works His wonders in many ways. Thus, we see that Jesus is qualified by human standards as well as those of GOD, to occupy David's throne when the time comes.

A study of history reveals that adoption in J&M's time & place was somewhat easier, especially among Jews, than it is in the USA today. While Jesus called GOD His father when He was 12, He was obedient to J&M(Luke 2:51)

There's nothing wrong with calling J&M His earthly parents, as Mary DID give birth to Him, & they raised Him as they would have raised any ordinary baby.