JWs & NIV Agree : Verses missing from the NIV

P66 (also 200AD) and other papyri support the Byzantine text type.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, they don't. The early papyri have many uniquely Byzantine READINGS, but none has a Byzantine TEXT (i.e., a text where those characteristically Byzantine readings are found together in a single document.)

 

glad to know that u're still keeping an open mind n willing to consider!

btw, in the interest of a balanced diet, i was wondering what ur reading sources r on this issue. some of the allegations u've posted sound familiar; many have been refuted a long time ago. just mainly wondering also if u've had the opportunity to look at BOTH sides.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I think you misunderstand this verse reflecting 2 words, "the" and "our."

 

that's why i'm always interested in what sources KJBOs read. why keep trusting "scholars" who've hoodwinked them w partial truth (=lies)?

the sad thing is that even elementary stuff like the Granville Sharp rule, one of the clearest testimonies to the Scripture's affirmation of Jesus' deity, is hidden away. n a false understanding of English seems to be peddled.

one of the best explanations of how Titus 2:13 works grammatically is found here: http://bible.org/docs/soapbox/sharp.htm

read it n compare its honesty w the approach of ur usual sources.

 

Interesting article... mostly for what was not said. For instance, it was not said that Marcion was from the Black Sea region (Byzantium area). Nor was it said that Basilides was opposed by Clement... an Alexandrian. Nor was it said that Valentinus was never declared a heretic and was almost voted as Bishop in Rome.

It was not explained that the "Received Text" and "Majority"/Byzantine texts are different things.

Nor is it mentioned that the first "attackers" against the KJV were Baptists, Separatists, and Independents... some of whom endured persecution in part because they refused the king's Bible in favor of the Geneva.

Nor is it mentioned that the way the KJV became universally accepted is that all other English versions were outlawed by the Church of England with the king's authority within the British Empire... which during the late 1600's and 1700's included virtually every place that spoke English as the common language.

The author's agenda and selective presentation of the facts are all too obvious.

 

I don't think so, I think the misunderstanding is on your end. Observe:

In Titus 2:13, the NIV says "...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ".

In 2 Pet 1:11, the KJV says "...of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

Yet, you think the NIV is talking about two persons, while you think the KJV is talking about one - while both use the exact same grammar structure, and even the same words "our" and "and".

 

Askjo, the folks here have been incredibly patient in dealing with your grammar since you started posting... but this post is absolutely ridiculous.

Anyone, even you, should see the inconsistency. You have done what you condemn others for doing... you have changed the words of the KJV. It does not say "also" nor "likewise" nor "even". It says "and", which isn't even the error.

The error is that "the Great God" and "our Savior" would normally be read to mean two different persons. The average reader would definitely get this impression and question the meaning.

"our Great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" as the NASB has it is two declarations about one person- Jesus. The average reader would have no problem recognizing this.

 

P66 agrees with TR more than B and Aleph!

 

How do you know? Have you read and compared them?

 

This website that you gave me is that I disagree with grammatical problem on Titus 2:13 because I grow up with 2 mother tongues: English and ASL. ASL is similiar to Greek language. I agree with the KJV and Greek TR on this verse.

 

I don't think so, I think the misunderstanding is on your end. Observe:

In Titus 2:13, the NIV says "...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ".

In 2 Pet 1:11, the KJV says "...of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

Yet, you think the NIV is talking about two persons, while you think the KJV is talking about one - while both use the exact same grammar structure, and even the same words "our" and "and". </font>[/QUOTE]2 Peter 1:11 in the KJV is correct. Titus 2:13 in the KJV saying, "THE great God" refers to ONE person.

THE God, OUR Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

I agree, but that's not the point. OK, one more time: The point is 2 Pet 1:11 in the KJV uses *the exact same grammar* as Titus 2:13 in the NIV. If 2 Peter 1:11 means ONE person in the KJV, the same grammar in Titus 2:13 means ONE person in the NIV. You can't have it both ways. Your continued inconsistency is obvious to everyone except you.

You left out an important word. The KJV actually says "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". JW's don't mind this reading, because they see it as talking about 1. "the great God", and 2. "our Saviour Jesus Christ". They do NOT like the NIV's reading, because simple English grammar demands it to be understood as only talking about ONE person.

"the" (KJV) vs. "our" (NIV) in this verse does not mean the difference between one and two persons. The word "our" carries no number, and has nothing to do with the singularity or plurality of what it refers to. What determines number is the grammar of the rest of the sentence, which in the NIV can ONLY be understood as referring to a singular, just as you see it does in 2 Pet 1:11 in the KJV.

 

"The Great God" = "our Savior"
"And" means "=".

That means one person.

OUR 1) great God and 2) Savior are 2 persons.

 

So in other words, you're just going to ignore all my comments?

OK. Simple, direct question: is "of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" in 2 Pet 1:11 in the KJV talking about 1 person or 2 persons? Why?

Why???????????????? Just because you so desperately want this to be wrong, that you're willing to chuck simple grammar and logic and consistency out the window, and not provide any explanations?

 

Not in overall patterns of genetically significant readings characteristic of the major text types. P66 is a mixed text, but overall its textual character is more Alexandrian than anything else. For example, P66 agrees with Aleph-B-P75 in places like Jn. 1:18 (μονογενης θεος), 3:13 ("who is in heaven" absent), 5:3b-4, (the angel stirring the water absent), and 7:53-8:11 (story of the adulterous woman absent).

 

Lord and Savior Jesus -- no problem!
God and Jesus -- yes, problem is here because you think they are adjective, do you?

I would, for example, say, "good and bad people." Is that problem?

On contrary I would say, "boy people and girl people" Is that problem?

 

What is problem is you debate of grammar with no knowing of grammar. That is problem. Me go now.

 

Let's try this one more time...

If you said, "We are awaiting the arrival of the teacher and my friend Jack" most people would assume you were talking about two people. However if you said, "We are awaiting the arrival of my teacher and friend, Jack" most people would recognize that Jack is both your teacher and friend immediately.

This really isn't difficult or even arguable. You are simply making yourself look foolish by keeping up this line of argument.

 

Askjo: Rendered word for word, the relevant text of Titus 2:13 reads: "of the great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ."

2 Peter 2:20 reads in part: "in full-knowledge of the Lord of us and Savior Jesus Christ."

2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18 contain the phrase, "of the Lord of us and Savior Jesus Christ."

And 2 Peter 1:1 reads in part, word for word: "of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ."

A literal translation of these phrases, rather than a paraphrase, following the basic point of Greek grammar (Granville Sharp's Rule) and avoiding distortion of the original wording, would consistently render them:

"of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ"
"of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
"of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

How does the KJV render each of these phrases in each of these verses?

 

I used the word support. Some studies have shown that P66 is supportive of the Byzantine text while P75 is supportive of the Alexandrian Aleph/B.
Both have both types.

Some time ago, I posted and documented some evidences of this fact illustrated with the variant lines of Scripture.

It appears that neither P66 or P75 is exclusively Alexandrian, Byzantine (or Western). The one thing it does strongly indicate is that both these text types existed at the time of their creation. I thought it proper to show that Aleph and B are not alone in "early" evidences.

Personally and IMO, the historic evidence is not sufficient to say definitively which is the "true" representation of the "pure" Word of God or even if the sky would fall one way or the other.

In the final analysis (IMO) it comes down to faith. Even if a vault or some treasure of ancient documents were unearthed one way or another it could never be the decisive element.

"The just shall live by faith".

No other book on earth has such a "miraculous" historical story and witness. The witnesses of the Uncials ALONE are monumental compared to the manuscript evidences of other ancient works.

Having said that, I agree with Burgon that a small number (less than 10) of Uncial mss (Aleph, B C and D in the forefront) are poor choices for W&H to base a reconstructed text (1881) upon over and against the "younger" thousands of traditional mss, Early Church fathers and Ancient translations witnesses.

In his book which I have recently purchased by John Burgon The Traditional Text (More of his works are scheduled to be reprinted.) he shows pre-Aleph/B overwhelming support of early witnesses of the Traditional text in the following sections:


The Antiquity of the Traditional Text

I. Witness of the Early Fathers
II. Witness of the Early Syriac Versions
II. Witness of the western or Syrio-Low-Latin Text.


Some of the older Alexandrian Uncials contain whole chapters and sections of Byzantine Text type (not just supportive).

So, several documented areas of evidences show that the text types existed together from the earliest times. To me, the fact that the Traditional Text type arose from the geographical areas of the Apostolic Church weighs heavy against the authority/accuracy of the Alexandrian/African origin of mss Aleph and B.

Others believe otherwise (such as W&H), that the Byzantine text was "touched up" to allow it to read better and provide smoothness while (on the other hand) some believe the Alexandrian type mss are representative of a text which was amended to provide doctrinal support of heresies or at very least the result of poor scribal skills or both.

Amother deciding factor for me - According to Burgon in his book The Revision Revised, Aleph, B C and D (W&H favorites) are not only "hopelessly" in disagreement with the Byzantine mss (D being the "wildest" of all) but with each other.

Peace to all.

HankD