-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How can you be honestly a KJVONLYIST?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
I wouldn't say Luke 4:4 proves your position as scholars disagree. There are good arguments for the TR and for the older source texts.
Those who view older texts as better readings view the TR as omitting words. They criticize the TR for its age (it was written in the 16th century), the methods used in translation, a Catholic tradition, and its use of few source texts.
I see no reason to prefer one over the other. I believe God has preserved His Word in both sources.
My point with the KJV is that the translators relied on Latin texts when Greek texts were not avaliable.
37818
Well-Known Member
Doesn't change the facts that the majority of the used TR readings agree with the Byzantine priority text.
You mean the Byzantine text (Byzantine priority is a theory held by a minority of translators).
And I agree. Since the TR used the Byzantine text (all but one of his avaliable manuscripts were Byzantine text) it is expected that the TR align with the sources used. These were the texts accepted by the Catholic Church, and they were what was avaliable.
That said, portions of the TR (not much....6 verses) were translated from the Latin because it is not in the Byzantine manuscripts (and were translated from Latin to Greek to create a Greek source).
The Byzantine text dates from the 4th to the 12th century.
The Alexandrian text dates from the 2nd century.
They agree 99% of the time (completely when taken as a whole on issues).
37818
Well-Known Member
00.4% of manuscripts to be taken over 90.7% of manuscripts calls in question all the readings that are 100% the same to be in reality to not actually to be trusted.
I am not sure what you are saying.
Probably me. I hit my head at work and got 7 stitches. You may have to dumb that down for me.
With the Byzantine text we are talking about manuscripts dating from the 4th to the 10th century. The TR Greek departs from the Byzantine text in over 1800 places.
But I'm not sure what you mean by "00.4% of manuscripts to be taken over 90.7% of manuscripts calls in question all the readings that are 100% the same to be in reality to not actually to be trusted".
I believe God's Word has been preserved in both the Byzantine text and the older sources.
37818
Well-Known Member
Denying God's word.
If one of two variants are God's word in a given text. Then denying one or the other will be denying God's word. You would think God would reveal which is His given word. I think Luke 4:4 would be easy. Matthew 4:4 proves what was said. The Orthodox Church Greek has Luke's account reading the same as Matthew. But less than 8% versus 90.7% of Luke's manuscripts.
If one of two variants are God's word in a given text. Then denying one or the other will be denying God's word. You would think God would reveal which is His given word. I think Luke 4:4 would be easy. Matthew 4:4 proves what was said. The Orthodox Church Greek has Luke's account reading the same as Matthew. But less than 8% versus 90.7% of Luke's manuscripts.
Last edited:
Again....maybe the mild concussion....but I do not understand your reply.
My point is that we should discount neither the Byzantine text-type (5th-16th century), the Alexanderian text (2nd-4th century), or even the Western text-type (3rd-9th century).
I am saying there are no doctrinal differences. God's Word prevails.
If you are saying that not to accept the Byzantine priority theory, then you are right...I do deny that (I do not prioritize the text-types).
I cannot see a reason to look at older manuscripts as invalid because they do not perfectly align with newer manuscripts in a few non-doctrinal words.
I believe it is profitable to consider all text-types. In fact, that is one reason we know we can trust the later Byzantine text-type (there are no doctrinal differences when compared to earlier manuscripts).
Again....that is IF that's what you mean by your one word reply.
I think the Byzantine Text, Majority Text, Family 35 the most accurate. Then the Textus Receptus (there are different editions, but based on each other). After that the Critical Text.
Of course one is not always right against the others. What I think best does not mean always perfect. It is a plain fact that scribes from all ages made mistakes. God has even allowed some mistakes to pass into printed Greek New Testaments.
I am really liking this New Testament, while based on the Byzantine Text, it records all the differences from other Greek New Testaments. So if the correct reading is not in the text, but will be found in the footnotes.
If one held to the Textus Receptus/KJV, he could still read this NT, and when the TR/KJV differed he would have the TR reading in the footnotes. Same with the Critical Text. In the main Text he would be reading the Byzantine Text, but when the CT differed he can read it in the footnotes.
The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version
Amazon.com
Of course one is not always right against the others. What I think best does not mean always perfect. It is a plain fact that scribes from all ages made mistakes. God has even allowed some mistakes to pass into printed Greek New Testaments.
I am really liking this New Testament, while based on the Byzantine Text, it records all the differences from other Greek New Testaments. So if the correct reading is not in the text, but will be found in the footnotes.
If one held to the Textus Receptus/KJV, he could still read this NT, and when the TR/KJV differed he would have the TR reading in the footnotes. Same with the Critical Text. In the main Text he would be reading the Byzantine Text, but when the CT differed he can read it in the footnotes.
The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version
Amazon.com
37818
Well-Known Member
.
Two different variant readings, for one Scripture. One reading is believed the other is denied. If the reading denied is the word of God? Then the word is being denied. It is one or the other or neither. Then of the two are wrong. In any case a reading is being denied.
37818
Well-Known Member
Will you please list the doctrines that are in question (the doctrines that the older text-types deny, or the Byzantine text-type denies)?
I think it would help to discuss how these text-types differ in terms of denying doctrines.
Mine reads:
Luke 4:4 :And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’
I believe that is probably the extent of the verse in the original (it fits with how Jesus referenced the OT in the rest of the passage). The Byzantine text probably added to the text as a teaching point (carried the reference over into the verse).
Both teach the same thing (both refer to this as a reference to Deut 8:3).
But as far as the text itself goes, I'd say it was probsbly an addition in the Byzantine text (perhaps a note that made it's way into the text over the centuries).
One, obviously, is not denying the other.
37818
Well-Known Member
It is a fundamental disagreement on God's word. 00.4% being a few manuscripts against 90.7% of the known manuscripts of Luke's Gospel. This is not a small issue. This is worse than the Arminian Calvinist division.
It is a small issue.
The reason is that none of these differences make a difference in doctrine.
Take Luke for example. Luke wrote it. It was copied over and over and distributed within congregations.
The earliest copy we have disagrees with a later copy. But most of the later copies agree.
You say because most later copies agree the late copy must be right.
Others argue that the earlier document is correct.
My argument is it does not matter because there is no actual change in doctrine (God's Word in both are identical).
But it makes more sence to me that a congregation would add a note, or clarity, instead of remove something from a document.
37818
Well-Known Member
#1 it is an issue of what is actually God's word. Not merely one verse.
Luke 4:4.
John 1:18, Two Gods or explicitly the Son in the OT, Genesis 12:7, etc.
The KJVO myth has no Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself, which automatically renders it false. Even KJVO advocate Will Kinney(Brandplucked) admits this ! But yet he still hawks the KJVO myth as much as ever ! He's BADLY in thrall to that myth ! "THE KJVO MYTH-PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !"
37818
Well-Known Member
Agreed. So why do you feel you need to state what this thread presumes?
Both are accurate.
The verse is Jesus quoting the OT to Satan.
Most likely the older manuscript is verbatim to the actual words and the Byzantine text an addition (carrying forward more of the OT quote).
We do not know. There could be lost older manuscripts. This is why Byzantine priority is a theory (as are other positions that prioritize texts).
The text you rely on here is from the 5th century while the text I present is from the 2nd century.
But as far as accuracy, both are equally accurate.