Oldest is best?

No, it just means by the dedication of intelligent men that the fact was strengthened by the efforts of NW who even thought it was best to make his own translation.

I haven't called you any names, but since you insist it be that way, sorry, I still haven't concurred with you. That is your own business.

 

I'm so glad you consider the words of NW to be advanced revelation and are more inspired than the word of God.

I advocate the use of his dictionary, you advocate his words in authority over the very word of God.:thumbs:

 

And as usual, you cannot see the meaning because of the words that give you the meaning.

NW's efforts were to render a more understandable Bible version according to his thinking, alone.

What you, and others are espousing is that NW was inspired of God to correct the Bible.

 

The tool is not the object being worked upon either, but I won't expect you to realize that for an indeterminable amount of time.

 

Sal , no one here has espoused the idea that Noah Webster's translation was inspired of God . We would no more say that than to say that the KJV ( in its many forms ) was inspired of God . Only the original autographs were inspired . Faithful translations are used by the Lord most certainly .

I would think that the 1833 would meet with your approval . It's just a shade or two ( from what I've heard ) different from Benjamin Blayney's version of 1769 .

BTW , how long have you held to your particular KJVO beliefs Sal ? Were you a Christian before your current understanding took hold ?

 

"Oldest is best" is not necessarily true.

Especially when it comes to hand-written copied manuscripts of the Scripture in the original langauges.

Hebrew is less problematic than Greek.

The scribal family and their copying skills is what is the utmost importance.

It is true that the "oldest" extant mss are Alexandrian.

John Burgon for one claimed that the Byzantine scribes were much more careful than their Alexandrian counterparts. The quality of the Byzantine work is of a much higher order. Byzantine mss are in much greater agreement among themselves than the Alexandrian "older" mss.

Byzantine mss come down from the original apostolic churches in the Macedonian-European areas.

Alexandrian mss descend from non-apostolic northern African churches where heresy reigned supreme (in spite of the influence of Athanasiuis).

These and several other factors must be considered when one makes a decision concerning mss families.

Age (older vs younger) is not the most important factor.

Do I use modern translations with a bent torward an alexandrian influence? Yes all the time.

But I still prefer my KJV/NKJV.


HankD

 

Originally posted by Salamander:

In Response, originally posted by franklinmonroe:

Originally posted by EdSutton: (who can't get in trouble on the BB by whatever he may happen to think, but only by what he does actually post)

Originally posted by Salamander:

In response, originally posted by franklinmonroe, who was quoting Salamander:

Originally posted by EdSutton, in response to the head-to-head public posts between Salamander and franklinmonroe:

In response to my post, I presume, originally posted by Salamander:

I was not commenting on the tool, per se, but I do find it amusing when one's own words are used against them. I admit, I enjoy watching someone else open their mouth and 'change feet'.

But I also found these two additional quotes, as well. They are found in the Word of God! Maybe you have heard of them.

Originally 'posted' by God, the Holy Spirit, and Matthew?:

I kinda' like seeing those quotes "in action".

"So keep them letters and cards comin' in, folks!" as the old radio evangelist used to say!

Ed

​

 

Are you here saying that the 1833 Edition of the Bible, by Noah Webster, is not the word of God?

Or only that his version is not trustworthy because it was not "done by committee"?

Also, what is the difference between Noah Webster being "inspired of God to correct the Bible", in 1833, and the revisers of1611 "being inspired of God to correct the Bible"? Should I be seeing a difference between "correct" and "correct", somehow?

FTR, I haven't been "esposing" anything, but merely asking questions of another.

[Snipped and edited by EdSutton, in order to save C4K the trouble!]

Ed

 

And So It Goes..

True

The question, of course, is not only a problem with Burgon's methodology of stating OPINIONS as though they were proven FACTS - how does he know what the Byzantine copiers did to make such an asinine generalization?

And of course LATER mss. are in more agreement - this is the same in all text-types generally speaking. The REAL question, of course, is why we count the majority ONLY of Greek mss - and WHY a mss. from the fifteenth century is given equal weight in determining the orignal as a second century mss. Burgon's method is little more than nose counting.

And the FACT that the FIRST known possessor of the Byzantine text was an Arian heretic named Asterius pretty much turns this argument on its head, doesn't it?

 

It's interesting that the most Alexandrian Father, Origen, is about 77% Alexandrian in 1 Corinthians. So even the most Alexandrian Father in the 3rd century is still 25% removed from what most consider the best texttype. Origen is about 60% Byzantine in 1 Corinthians. The fascinating thing about this is that Aleph B C are only about 50% Byzantine there. This means that Origen is about 10% more Byzantine than the best Alexandrian MSS. Origen did the best he could with the MSS he had. But why is Origen more Byzantine than the best Alexandrian MSS? Why does his text admit more Byzantine readings than the Alexandrian MSS themselves? If anything, Origen, being earlier than the best Alexandrian MSS, should be less Byzantine than the Alexandrian MSS, not more.

And to point to an actual example of scribal habits and archetypes, I wonder, when it is generally assumed that the combination of Aleph B C L present the oldest form of text attainable (i.e., the early 2nd century if not the autograph itself), why is the Byzantine text deemed to be even older by everyone in Mt 27:49, where the MSS in question insert 13 words borrowed from Jn 19:34? And here I repeat again, the oldest is the best, and in this case it is very clear, the Byzantine Consensus represents the oldest form of text.

 

Ok, so have it your way. But one problem, who inspires you to say that the world can only have the inspired words of God in the original autographs?

I beg to differ that only the originals are inspired. God is bigger than your box you try to put Him in and according to what you believe, has provided His inspired word in many versions, but then that would make even the brightest lightbulb to flicker in confusion.

 

The only problem you have is that you're trying to make my words say something they don't.

Straight from the heart straight towards the heart without any avenue or media to cloud the intent.

 

My questions challenge your intellect. My answers are straight forward and reveal your ideals.

NW used his notes to try and substancaite what he later produced but yet his own dictionary contradicts some of his own statements, but when taken in context, the 1611 KJB doesn't have the fallicies of men incorporated into their text.

I doubt you'll understand this, not for a long time anyway. You decide on how long that is to be?

 

Not at all. I have not tried to make your words say anything at all. I have merely quoted them, here. Blame what they may or may not say on yourself, not me.

Your intent (elsewhere stated in so many words which I will not bother to dig up, at this minute), is that the so-called KJV (note you do not say "which" edition of the KJV) is "the word of God" and other versions are not the word of God, but may perhaps "contain"(some parts of) the Word of God. That is nothing more or less than merely re-stated "neo-orthodoxy", albeit from a different angle than what is usually seen.

My views are entirely orthodox, in contrast to "neo-orthodoxy". Not to mention they are also in line with both the letter of and the spirit of this forum, as posted on the BB, one the rules which I will thoughtfully quote for you (since I like to be so helpful), since you do not seem to be completely aware of what you have agreed to, as a member of the Baptist Board.

I seem to recall some mentioning, or at least implying, other versions are/were making an attempt at "correcting" the Bible.

Ed

 

I wonder who gave you the insight and ability to challenge my (or any other's, for that matter) 'intellect'? I certainly have not claimed any ability to challenge any one else's. And I don't recall mentioning before what my 'intellect' is or is not, or could possibly even be or not be.

But I did somehow manage to achieve grades good enough to pass and graduate grade school and high school, and receive a B.A. in college, FTR. So only now do you and everyone else know the same thing that I know about my own intellect, or lack of the same.

BTW, how do you know what are my "ideals", either?

Oh yeah, one more thing. How do you know the "fallacies of men" are not in any way incorporated into the 1611 KJV? I don't recall seeing that claim about the translators in any of the text of the KJV (of any edition), nor that claim in the words of the translators of the KJV aboput the KJV, and I have read every word of the Introduction and the "To the reader", which is something I have also done with some (but not all) other versions (and editions) of the Bible, as well. Did I somehow overlook it?? I did notice these statements, however.

'Nuff said, in their own words, not those that be yours or mine!

Ed

 

One more thing:

Hmmm! Marginal readings?? Necessary?? Did someone change this from the 1611 version??

Ed

 

The oldest demonstrable reading is the best and original reading, plain and simple. All rules of textual criticism are based on this principle.

 

KJV is best

The other translations are good translations of the wrong text. Their translated from the Alexandrians who were the latter day Jehovah's witness's they took the bible and changed it and added and subtracted as they seen fit to make it mean what they wanted. check out this video on different translations its only about 6 minutes but gives a quick history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0 GOD BLESS

 

Mormon JWs! What will they think of next?