Galatians 3:1

Sista, be thou forewarned that to suppose the Scriptures--even the very meanest translations thereof--to be Thugs is wholly unbecoming of the saints.

rememberest thou not the words of the serpent in the garden, who calleth into question the word of the Lord ("Yea hath God said")? Moreover Michael the archangel himself doth not bring a railing accusation even when disputing with Satan; wherefore dost thou rail against the words of the Almighty?

as to the TR, why repenteth it not against the preponderence of the putative 500 at 1 John 5:7? why dost thou not heed the form of thine own words? hast thou not considered how the TR receiveth its name over against the Majority Text?

why dost thou therefore uphold a minority text (TR) against the Majority when it appeareth expedient for thee so to do?

 

Lil sis, just a couple of points because you have been lied to (although I won't say which side has lied to you).

1. Fallacy: the KJV is the standard by which all other english versions should be judged. That is like starting with the answer and then proving it.

2. I have long known of his fascination with the cultic KJVO view.

3. This is just horrible. The Textus Receptus is made up of 5-8 manuscripts, none of which are the entire N.T. and which disagree in places also. Erasmus had to translate a portion of Revelation INTO GREEK FROM LATIN, to complete the T.R. He didn't include 1 John 5:7 until his third edition (after much pressure from the CATHOLIC group).

4. That rules out trusting the TR and subsequently the KJV.

Btw, the passages makes perfect sense without the bold part.

Don't make me open a can on the KJVO position.

 

Do you trust the Syriac Peshitta as a witness?

It agress with Aleph and B in Gal 3:1.

Do you trust the old latin? Many of those agree
with Aleph and B as well in Gal 3:1.

According to the NA 27th edition the following
witnesses omit the clause in question:

Greek witnesses: Aleph, A, B, D, F, G, 6, 33, 81, 630, 1739 among a few others.

Versions: Some of the old latin and vulgate (excepting the clementine edition), syriac peshitta, coptic versions.

There exists early and geographically diverse witnesses to the modern text reading. It stands
on more than just Aleph and B.

-kman

 

I just checked the Greek and had no problem understanding it at all. Not sure why he did.

It is more an example based on either not knowing the truth or defending a position. When you read the Greek, it makes perfect sense.

Morris is a scholar, just not in textual issues.

But if those 500 are all incorrect, why trust them??? That is the issue. No one should care "how many;" what we should care is "how accurate." One hundred copies of an error does not make it less an error.

Your warning is unnecessary. The entire Scripture is found in modern versions.

 

Which makes more sense: 1) a text was removed making the Greek more difficult to read, or 2) someone inserted an additional phrase to "fix" the grammar making it easier to read? Texual critics say #2, this is why the TR is rejected here.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

You should visit the Other Religions forum and see the Catholics parlay this same logic. Which would you rather trust, a massive religious organization with a strong moral code, long tradition, and almost uniform discipline of opinion or the conflicting protestant sects that cannot agree with each other... or even the conflicting Baptist sects?

The Bible gives a long history of the "minority" frequently being right. We are never commanded to seek the majority opinion and make it our own. We are commanded to seek the truth.

 

Indeed it is a matter of choice in the final analysis.

Somewhere in the equation comes faith because that which is not of faith is sin.

So, FWIW, I allow my brother/sister to exerecise choice blended with faith in the how and the where concerning the preservation of the Word of God on earth.

May we all profit from His Word.

HankD

 

Not Wyclif's work. It was a translation of a translation, the Latin Vulgate.

OK, but what then do you call us?

Whatever it is you'll have to stand in a long line of others who have come before you.

HankD

 

Are you just as concerned about the omissions in the KJV? Compare Jn. 14:14, Ac. 4:25, Ac. 16:7, Rom. 1:4, Rom. 8:34, 1 Jn. 3:1, and Jude 25 in both the KJV and the NIV to see some of the things your KJV is missing.

 

It is also found in the MKJV, WEB, and the YLT.

kman said:

It is true that the varient reading is supported by others than Aleph and B, but you must also agree that, by far the most weight is placed on these two. If just these two had the phrase and the rest of all extant mss did not, the phrase would have been included. That shows an unhealthy dependence upon one or two "best ancient MSS." To make these two the standard would be as Daniel David stated:

 

Douay-Rheims
Galatians 3:1 O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth: before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?

 

Yes, I would agree to the modern textual critic
Aleph and B would carry more weight than the
other witnesses listed.

How do you know that? Modern textual critics use external and internal evidence to determine the best reading. The evidence that best meets those criteria is accepted.

I can provide examples where Aleph and B agree and the reading is rejected by modern textual critics:

The first is Matthew 27:49. In Aleph and B there is a harmonization to John 19:34. It is recognized as a harmonization (internal evidence) and rejected.

Another example is Romans 5:1 where Aleph and B and alot of the early witnesses have the subjunctive "let us have peace with God". Based upon internal evidence this is rejected and the indicative "we have peace with God" is retained.

Just because Aleph and B agree does not mean the reading is automatically accepted.

-kman