What is Considered best 'proof" The CT is Corrupted/tainted?

Are you saying that God used unsaved translators to produce new bible versions?

 

No, the TR manuscripts were only 5 which sometimes agree with the consensus of all manuscripts and sometimes disagree. But if you speak of the manuscripts that are the result of an uncontrolled copying process covering more than a millennium and basically no two of which are directly related, then yes, the manuscripts reflecting the consensus text are the result of imperfect copying and copying and copying of the same original text and its copies over many centuries.

Very true, which is why the second "proof" I mentioned is so important. But sheer numbers in addition to geographic diversity do indicate a presumption in favor of authenticity that a minority of Greek manuscripts from only one location could only dream of.

I never said present in one and absent in another. I said present/absent in one (or a few) and absent/present in all the rest. And the consensus in Jude 25 reflects the restraint of most copyists from inserting the doxological magnification that a minority of scribes could not restrain themselves from.

 

Actually there are many more reasons why the phrase should have beeen deleted than added, one of which is especially since the biggest cults in Egypt at the time were highly ascetic, one or another orthodox scribe from the one location in the world (i.e. Egypt) where the cults were most problematic was influenced to remove the proof texts for the super-ascetic cults (cf. also Matt 17:21 and 1 Cor 7:5).

 

Can you prove that He hasn't?? :smilewinkgrin:

 

So I guess God goofed up, and somehow the Devil won and was able to corrupt His Word after all?

But then again, people get saved through the ESV, the NIV, the NKJV so maybe the Devil messed up after all?

Stop giving the Devil credit for God's work.

 

While "corrupt" is not a word I would use for the CT, I would say that the textual philosophy behind it is flawed based on the "test-tube" nature of the text (thank you Dr. Robinson ). There are many places in the CT that have no Ms support for their readings. At least w/ a Byzantine priority perspective, there is a transmissional stream of texts that can be followed... that is assuming that one wants a transmissional history of the text.

 

Correct.....


Did you note WHERE Apollos was from?

 

Not to mention that it was the believers in Antioch that were first called "Christians". That doesn't mean we must all be called Christians. Count the non-sequiturs in that post you responded to... there were a bunch.

 

I love you guys. Seriously. Amid all the ignorance being flaunted in this thread I was able to find these gems. Thanks as I needed that.

Oh, and as for "proof", all you will ever get is conjecture and hearsay. For example the bovine excrement/red herring about Alexandria, as well as the same about Wescott & Hort. Neither have any substance other than being circumstantial evidence at best, using twisted "logic" to try and prop up the "beliefs" of a few. One cannot worship Nehushtan without finding some way to elevate it above the chunk of common metal that it actually is.

 

Steve,I went over this with you back in March. Philip Comfort says:

The documentary support for the shorter reading far exceeds that for the longer reading.It was typical for scribes to expand such titles,especially in identifying the Father as being the Father "of the Lord jesus Christ" (or some such expression --see 1:3) such expanded titles enhance oral reading.
__________________________________________________________

The Net note says in part:

...but such an edifying phrase cannot explain the rise of the reading that lacks it,especially when the shorter reading is attested by early and important witnesses...(then many are cited --Rip)

 

You are such a conspiracy theorist.

 

The typical one or two sentence defense of the critical text reading of Eph 3:14 is woefully inadequate if not totally laughable. Sometime last year when studying this passage I read a very convincing and cogently-argued 15-page defense of the traditional reading in Johann Georg Reiche, Commentarius Criticus in N.T. (3 vols.; Göttingae: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1853-1862), 2:154-68. I was totally convinced and had to wonder at those who are so easily persuaded by treatments as superficial and simplistic as what one finds in Metzger's and Comfort's comments on this verse.

 

Haha, you're funny. The fact is that the orthodox here and there were in a much better position to tamper with Scripture and obviously much more successful in doing so than were the heretics. Nearly all textual critics will agree, which is why the more orthodox reading found in only a few manuscripts of this location or that will almost always be rejected, and rightly so.

The real conspiracy theorist is the one who claims that all scribes from all over the world except two succeeded in forcing the doctrine of fasting on the church in Mark 9:29, without explaining or proving who started it, coordinated it, and accomplished such an amazing feat.

 

I can't think why you don't find this perfectly clear. Yes, Paul bows his knees to the Father, but the family of Christians is, obviously, named after Christ. Therefore the phrase 'From whom the whole family.....is named' refers to Christ qed. Therefore to leave out the phrase 'Of our Lord Jesus Christ' makes the whole verse something of a nonsense.

Bottom line, 95% of all extant texts do have it. Also, to my mind it is a ridiculous and irreverent teaching that the most unlikely and unfeasible reading of a text is probably the correct one. It comes straight from secular textual criticism. Well, we're not talking about Homer or Tacitus here, who may well have written silly things or non sequiturs; we're talking about the word of the Living God which word we are to follow to the letter. He does not make mistakes.

Steve

 

Sorry I didn't get to answering this. Lost track!

I believe I can prove that the NT is inerrant whether you use a CT or MT Greek NT. And the only doctrine, major or minor, that I know of that might be affected depending on which NT you use is snake handling. :laugh:

Having said that, I would say about your last statement that I believe the MT/Byzantine tradition reflects the original mss much better than the CT.

 

Perhaps I'm explaining this really badly. Let me try again. Here's the NIV reading of Eph 3:14-15 again.

'For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.'

Now the point I'm trying to make is that the whole family in heven and on earth does not derive its name from the Father. Once again, we are Christians, not Fatherians. If that is the genuine reading, then there is a mistake in the Bible.

But when we come to the KJV or NKJV, the verses make perfect sense:-

'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.'

Paul is praying to the Father, but the whole family is named after the Lord Jesus Christ. The verse makes perfect sense.

Now to say, as Rippon and his man Philip Comfort do, that the extra words were a later emendation by a scribe, means that The Holy Spirit made a mistake originally which a man had to correct. I do not find that acceptable as a point of view.

Approximately. Call it 92% if it makes you feel happier.

No. I think it is much more likely that the error occurred very early on and has been corrected a little later and so the reading in the huge majority of manuscripts is the true one.

Let me just add that this text makes no theological difference to the reading of Eph 3. Paul is praying to the Father. I was responding to the original question. To me these verses are a proof that the C.T. is erroneous because to think otherwise requires you to believe that God made a mistake in the original which a man had to correct later on.

Steve