JWs & NIV Agree : Verses missing from the NIV

The NIV says "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". This is pretty clear English, I'm sorry you have trouble with it.

 

James is not a scholar because a man confronted him and asked him some questions, but James is not able to answer these questions. James White is incorrect to deal against the KJV.

Go to the website here:
The Greek New Testament

 

The NIV says "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". This is pretty clear English, I'm sorry you have trouble with it. </font>[/QUOTE]Incorrect! "our" God AND Saviour" refer to 2 personalities.

 

How did I know that somehow Ruckman would be mentioned at this link????

 

No, it refers to two roles, two descriptions of the same person. When the KJV says "Lord AND Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pet 1:11, 2 Pet 2:20, 2 Pet 3:18) , do you believe it is talking about two gods? A little consistency would be nice.

 

How did I know that somehow Ruckman would be mentioned at this link????
</font>[/QUOTE]I am not here to defend Ruckman, but I agree with Ruckman concerning the word, "gnostics."

Look at James' quotation here:

James is absolutely incorrect because history disagrees with him. As you read Robert's answer to James concerning the gnosticism, I have another scholar who refuted James White on the website here:

The History of the Controversy

 

James is not a scholar because a man confronted him and asked him some questions, but James is not able to answer these questions. James White is incorrect to deal against the KJV.

Go to the website here:
The Greek New Testament [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Identity as a scholar is totally irrelevant. Anyone in middle school could compile the same table using a couple of good concordances and a KJV-NIV-NASB parallel NT.

I forget the exact details, but in something like a dozen example verses, the KJV was ambiguous about the deity of Christ a couple times, significantly stronger on it a couple times, and significantly weaker on it like 8 times, when compared to the NASB and NIV.

 

The NIV says "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". This is pretty clear English, I'm sorry you have trouble with it. </font>[/QUOTE]Incorrect! "our" God AND Saviour" refer to 2 personalities. </font>[/QUOTE]As I indicated earlier, the KJV error in this matter comes from its translators' ignorance of a grammatical point that has come to be known as Granville Sharp's Rule.

I'm going on memory here, but if I have it right, when in Greek a noun having a definite article and a possessive pronoun is linked to a noun having no article by a conjunction such as 'kai' (and), the possessive pronoun refers fully to both linked nouns. So "the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ" is best translated into English as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

 

Askjo said:

NIV said "Our..God AND saviour." This verse in the NIV means 2 Gods.

Oh, wow. Just when you thought the KJV-onlyists couldn't make even more absurd claims for the modern versions, now they're trying to tell us that the NIV affirms that Jesus is two gods.

Only a KJV-onlyist could torture plain English this far. No one else could tolerate the screams.

You gotta laugh.

 

3,036 according to Hoskier. </font>[/QUOTE]To paraphrase Hoskier's own words, "it is high time that the bubble of Hoskier's 3,000+ disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should be pricked."

First of all, it needs to be noted that *all* Greek MSS disagree with each other. Compare any two Greek copies and you will find that they disagree in hundreds if not thousands of places.

Secondly, a closer examination of Hoskier's data reveals that a high number of the the so-called "real differences" are not significant at all. For example, Hoskier notes twelve disagreements between the two MSS in the first ten verses of Mark chapter 1. However, on closer inspection seven of those twelve disagreements are questionable. One is a redundant pronoun, two are redundant prepositions in dative expressions, and four involve the conjunction και with no significant change in meaning. Hoskier overstates his case.

Thirdly, even if there *were* over 3,000 significant disagreements (and there are not), it would mean nothing since it is the AGREEMENTS between them which are important for establishing the original text. When two MSS share a high proportion of agreements, the only plausible explanation is that both are descended from an earlier common archetype. So agreements in two 4th C. MSS like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus bear witness to an even earlier form of the text. The early existence of that text has since been confirmed by the discovery of P75 (c. 200 A.D.), which now moves that form of the text into the late 2nd C.

 

James is absolutely incorrect because history disagrees with him. As you read Robert's answer to James concerning the gnosticism, I have another scholar who refuted James White on the website here:

The History of the Controversy </font>[/QUOTE]I read the article, and note that *nowhere* does he actually *prove* that specific differences in specific MSS were introduced by specific heretics. His argument is completely circumstantial: "Gnostic heretics were active in certain regions; certain readings found in certain MSS could be interpreted to support Gnostic teachings; therefore, the Gnostic heretics must have introduced those readings into these MSS." Try that argument in court sometime and see how far you get: "Your Honour, the insurance company claims my Rolex couldn't have been stolen because I never owned a Rolex to begin with. That's simply not true, Your Honour, and I'll prove it with this irrefutable argument: I have no Rolex, and we all know there were thieves burglarizing my neighbourhood at the time; therefore thieves stole my Rolex."

 

P66 (also 200AD) and other papyri support the Byzantine text type.

http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter10.html

HankD

 

I don't claim to know all of their personal biographies but here is a list of their names:

http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbtrans.php

And here is the doctrinal statement they all agree to:

http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/tlf/tlfabout.php

"By the way, if you use the KJV, do you know who the actual translators of the KJV were?"... or more importantly, who they were not and never claimed to be?

 

Yes. Every bit as much as the KJV was completed without reliance on the late RCC Latin Vulgate.

The real answer comes from the fact that the modern CT (critical texts) do not rely on a single mss or even family of mss. As you know they evaluate data and provide alternatives with grades corresponding to the evidence that supports them. It is true that textual criticism gives more weight to older mss. This is a perfectly legitimate approach. The more generations a hand copied document is from the original, the more likely it is to contain some errors.

 

3,036 according to Hoskier. </font>[/QUOTE]To paraphrase Hoskier's own words, "it is high time that the bubble of Hoskier's 3,000+ disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should be pricked."

First of all, it needs to be noted that *all* Greek MSS disagree with each other. Compare any two Greek copies and you will find that they disagree in hundreds if not thousands of places.

Secondly, a closer examination of Hoskier's data reveals that a high number of the the so-called "real differences" are not significant at all. For example, Hoskier notes twelve disagreements between the two MSS in the first ten verses of Mark chapter 1. However, on closer inspection seven of those twelve disagreements are questionable. One is a redundant pronoun, two are redundant prepositions in dative expressions, and four involve the conjunction και with no significant change in meaning. Hoskier overstates his case.

Thirdly, even if there *were* over 3,000 significant disagreements (and there are not), it would mean nothing since it is the AGREEMENTS between them which are important for establishing the original text. When two MSS share a high proportion of agreements, the only plausible explanation is that both are descended from an earlier common archetype. So agreements in two 4th C. MSS like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus bear witness to an even earlier form of the text. The early existence of that text has since been confirmed by the discovery of P75 (c. 200 A.D.), which now moves that form of the text into the late 2nd C. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure whether it is the same manuscript, but the book Eyewitness To Jesus presents a compelling argument that a gospel fragment dates to within Paul's lifetime.