Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

non-sequitur

God promised to preserve His word and his word he has preserved. If it has to be in one version, He didn't preserve it them because there is no perfect version. Now, you say that the KJV is this version. What about before the KJV. You say the received text, but the kjv doesn't agree with any particular received text except the one from 1884. Then what about before the received text(which has roots to the 1500's)? Was the Bible preserved them? If so, then according to your view, where. See, my view says the WORDS are preserved and it doesn't matter if they were copied down correctly in any particular manuscript, nor if they were translated correctly. I know the words are here on this earth. I have an ESV with me and I know I have the Word of God. I have a KJV at home along with a NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB and I know I have the word of God. Praise his for the ABUNDANCE of sources in English to read his Word!

 

I'm not uncomfortable about it at all. But the debate is far more evolved than the Lucian Recension theory of Hort. Lucian was touted because of the time frames which haven't been dismissed matches. It doesn't change the Fact that John Chrysostum and Austerius only agrees with 75% of the text. So we're talking about a later date the peshitta arangement gives it the date that Wescott and Hort alluded to. Lucian was a theory it can be proven or disproven but the dating seems to have support. So not as uncomfortable as you might think. Try reading Silva.

 

You must not be aware that multiple thousands of words (in the Greek) are missing from the Critical Text. Here is an article on this:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped5.html

 

Hello Trotter

I can’t believe you said this, in response to winman’s call to trust “one” Bible version.....

How can you even know about God, without “what men have put to paper”?!?

We have faith in the one true living God, that has given us His Word.
(And His Word has be preserved for us, by “what men have put to paper”.)
--------------------------------------------------
But.....the Bible repeatedly warns us about deceivers, who will try to destroy our faith, by casting doubt upon God’s Word.

This is the whole reason for this part of the BB...........
(1) Some of us say, that having multiple versions of the Bible in any one language, is part of Satan’s attempt to cast doubt upon God’s Word.
(2) While others say, that “they like having multiple versions”, because they have been told, that they all say the same thing; (If this is true, why even have them.)

But winman found this verse the other day, that shows just how dangerous multiple versions can be........
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 AV)

“"To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of you] from your iniquities."” (Acts 3:26 NKJV)

Subtly casting doubt upon the Deity of Christ.
(Now multiply this by a thousand, and how are people’s faith effected?)

 

Multiple Greek words are missing from the KJV also- so your point is invalid.

 

Servant, Son- same difference in the Greek. It's a translator's choice issue. Servant fits the context of the sermon better.

 

You believe:

God the Father
God the Servant
God the Holy Spirit.

I believe:

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit.

 

You must not have ever read the book of Mark.:rolleyes:

 

As Dr. Roberson used to say, "I don't need you to tell me how I believe the Bible." And he wasn't KJVO either.

 

The Book of Mark is NOT the Book of Acts.

 

Oh I see! You follow a man's step.

 

Circular reasoning. You are assuming that the words in the TR were not added. You have made the TR the standard and the CT, when it has a shorter reading, must have "removed" the words. Could it not be that the TR has added words?

In textual criticism(something that Erasmus did and others with the TR text over the years) the trend is that readings will grow over the years. That is why in textual criticism, the shorter reading is generally preferred as being original. (this is the case in any textual criticism, not just when it is dealing with biblical texts) Copyist tend to add words than remove them. Usually this happens when a Scribe puts something(like an explanation) in the text, and the next Scribe thinks it is part of the text.

But over all, you missed the point of my post. Or you ignored it because you might realize that I'm right. Not about shorter vs longer, or majority vs older, but that my view of preservation is correct. You might notice that I do use the KJV and I have not asked you one time to switch from the KJV. I have no problem with somebody that disagrees with me over which is the better text(TR vs CT). What I do have a problem is the bad reasons for kjvo. There are good reasons, but there are bad. Promoting the KJV as a "perfect" versions is one because it simply isn't true. Saying one must have a perfect versions isn't true. It isn't supported by Scripture and people mislead others by pretending to use "faith" as a support. It isn't faith, well it isn't faith in the Bible. As I said, if it must be in one translation, then you need to tell us where this "perfect" copy was prior to the KJV. Or was it not in a perfect copy then? And if it wasn't, was it still preserved?

 

The Book of Mark is NOT the book of Romans.

And your point?

Mark presents Jesus as a servant.

 

Yes, I agree with that. 150 Byzantine readings were there prior to the 4th century.

 

Acts 3:26 is not in the Book of Mark.

 

I never said it was. You didn't like the term servant being in reference to Jesus and I wasn't showing how Mark shows Jesus.

in Acts 3:26, the term is pais which can be either servant or son.

 

I read the Book of Mark concerning Jesus as a Servant. The KJV translators were so wise to translate a right word on Acts 3:26 because of the doctrinal clarification.

 

Fine, if the Critical Text is correct, then the TR did add words and the authors of those extra words and I suppose those who trust it like myself would come under God's curses shown in Revelation 22:18-19.

But either way, you can't say both the CT and the TR are the preserved and pure Word of God. One of them is corrupt.

I believe the TR is correct and the CT is corrupt, what do you believe?