There exist between all the manuscripts and 100% reading. What would convince you a 0.5% reading is better than 99.5% reading? Show me an exception.
Did you know the words "into salvation" in 1 Peter 2:2 is really the MT reading? 65% mss suport the reading. Yet it is rejected because it is commonly held not to be the MT reading.
The Bible wars.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by 37818, Oct 25, 2018.
Page 3 of 8
-
The long reading of Mark's epilogue, 99.8%. Compare Colossians 1:23 to Mark 16:15. -
In this discussion are you defending readings which are to be understood to beGod's inerrant word. Because that is what is at issue.
The AV has had a long run. The ASV to the RSV. The JW NWT, NWT 2013, and all the other popular modern translations.
Which side are you on?
What turned me off on the NASB 1977 was "begotten God" in John 1:18. (NWT "begotten god") And John 6:47 omitting without note "in Me." Also I later noticed "resulting in" used in Romans 10:10 twice. (NIV 1978 "so that" in Acts 2:38)
Translation choices turned me off on the NKJV. How something is translated is a different issue than manuscript reading choices.
The KJV as "bad" as some think is over all yet better. I know its problems. -
-
-
So, what 37818 happens when the early bad manuscripts join the Byzantine text against the Textus Receptus? Do the bad manuscripts become the word of God on those occasions? Does the Textus Receptus become bad then? How about when the bad manuscripts and the Textus Receptus agree against the Byzantine Text. Does the Byzantine Text become bad?
Don't all manuscripts have errors in them?
What happens when a modern Bible corrects an error in the KJV? Is it a good thing then? -
In John 6:47 again some variant readings have "believe in Me" and others "believe in God" but the earliest and best witnesses do not contain the "object" and so once more many scholars adhere to the shorter rendering.
As far as translating "eis" as "resulting in" at Romans 10:10 I do not see any difference in meaning from "into." You are still righteous whether you believe into righteousness or you believe resulting in righteousness. -
-
-
-
37818, you have NO Scriptural support for your KJVO myth. Now, you just CANNOT get by that fact.
Just WHERE in Scripture is God limited to just one English translation of His word ?????????????????????????? -
-
It really depends on which methodology, given the evidence and arguments, a person finds persuasive. If someone is a majority text advocate, primality it all comes down to numbers. If one is a critical text advocate, then a majority reading (in and of itself) is not convincing given other important criteria. CT advocates live by the mantra "manuscripts (or witnesses) must be weighed, not merely counted."
For those interested here are a few articles addressing key issues concerning the majority text (three by Gordon Fee, three by Daniel Wallace, and one by Michael Holmes).
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-1/21-1-pp019-033_JETS.pdf
http://library.mibckerala.org/lms_frame/eBook/Nodern 1.pdf
[Eldon J. Epp, Gordon D. Fee] Studies in the Theor(bookos-z1.org)
See Fee chapter 10, p. 183-208
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org
Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text | Bible.org
The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue - The Gospel Coalition
Also check out Michael D. Marlowe comments concerning Fee's critique of Pickering.
What about the Majority Text? -
God's word is immutanble, Psalms 119:89. Man corrupts God's word, Luke 4:4.
". . . God, who is in the bosom of the Father, . . ."
versus
". . . Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, . . ."
One reading is of God the other is not of God. -
Jesus argued to those who did not listen to God saying, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
Either the words, ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." is God's word or ". . . God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." but not both. -
-
Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority -
Now either the words of John 1:18 being God's word as, ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." or ". . . God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ." but not goth.
Now remember Jesus argued against those who do not listen to God's words saying, John 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -
-
Each textual issue must be takine one at a time. While the problems may be mostly this or that, it is never an all or nothing choice to be made. My general choice has proven to me to be the KJV. I am not a KJonlyist.
What is and what is not the word of God is at issue. Luke 4:4.
Page 3 of 8