Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, corrupted manuscript copies - proof

Then why don't you show a case where I am wrong. You have yet to show one. Start going through the 6000 posts and show me the "usual" wrong.

The truth is that textual criticism involves a knowledge of the language and a knowledge of the manuscripts. It requires no spiritual discernment. You can look at the issues right in front of you on paper and go from there. This is so basic; how is it confusing to you?? Textual criticism is not about salvation or doctrine. It is about what is on the page. Any unsaved person can understand the words of Scripture. What they cannot understand, according to 2 cor 2:14, is the significance of those words ... i.e., how those words apply to themselves.

 

I'm sorry,but as usual,you are wrong. If a man falls under the catagory of 2 cor 2:14,how on earth can you expect him to determine what is of God when comparing the various manuscript evidence and trying to draw a conclusion about which is most likely to be the original reading? I say 2 cor 2:14 has EVERYTHING to do with it. </font>[/QUOTE]Please apply this same standard to Erasmus and the KJV translators. I doubt that you can show that Erasmus was closer to us doctrinally than the various modern textual critics you demean and probably not the KJV translators either.

The worst accusations I have seen here toward W&H, Metzger, et al. fall well short of imprisoning Baptists for holding services together or cutting a Puritans nose off because he refused to bow to prelacy.

 

I realize that this is a bit off the main thrust of the thread but...

Within the generation of the KJV of the Bible John Bunyan suffered imprisonment for 12 years (in spite of the fact that he had 5 children - one of them blind) via the Anglican Church because he preached the gospel without a license and practised total immersion of believers (not infants).

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps086.shtml

HankD

 

When did God die and leave David Cloud in charge of deciding who is saved and who isn't???

David Cloud is not a credible source on the Bible version issue. He is mislead and is misleading others.

But more to the point, no one has yet to say why this matters. Textual criticism is not a matter that needs spiritual enlightenment. The spiritual condition of a textual editor is irrelevant. So whether Metzger is saved or not does not matter one little bit for purposes of this discussion. It is simply an attempt to prejudice the issue because other tactics won't work. </font>[/QUOTE]A teacher and a student, for example, are different in view.

After a student answered some questions what a teacher asked, will a teacher NEVER check if a student answer right or wrong ?

Other word, a client said negative something. will a Doctor call him, "mental ill"? Never?

David understands what Metzger said. Therefore he called Metzger an unbeliever.

 

What in the world are you talking about?? This makes no sense. It seems you are making statements about students and teachers but it has no real point to this discussion.

David Cloud has lied about people before and there is no reason to think he is not doing so this time. He makes things up, twists people's words, and says things that he clearly misunderstands.

However, whether Metzger is a believer or an unbeliever still doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. You just can't get that through your head for some reason. It is beyond me why you keep beating this dead horse. We teachers are checking your answers and finding them false (assuming that is what you were trying to say in your previous confusing comments). Your answers are false. No matter how many times you repeat false answers, they will not be right.

 

It looks like David Cloud is as good as a liar because hius site is filled with opinions stated as fact with few references.

His website looks like he is of the opinion that his tradition is right and all others are all wrong.

So if he is right I wonder who is living for Jesus Christ because of his life,

I assume that David Cloud would see Jesus as a liberal just like the Pharisees did. Jesus along with many others quoted from different Septuagints.

[ July 16, 2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

Please show me, who are people whom david Cloud lied about? What did he say about people?

 

If he is a liar or wrong, please correct him! :rolleyes:

 

He does not ask in humility for guidance or corection. He simply spews out his ignorance. Men like that are not teachable. The Bible tells us to avoid empty chatter and men like him. His words are divisive and empty. I have known men who would say exactly what David Cloud said about Metzger.

So many of the things he writes are simply his opinion and not any fact at all.

When you wrote about Metzger, to quote someone else's opiniuon is not good work. It is second hand information. If you truly believe that Metzger is not a Christian you should have called him yourself. For years he was at Princeton. Many I know speak very highly of him as a very godly man. I have read a large number of his writings and am very impressed with his integrity and efforts to get at the truth. To disagree with someone happens a lot. But to shun the person as an unveliever without first hand information is wrong.

When non-believrs read David Cloud I have little doubt what they would say about him.

 

David Cloud writes on his website about Metzger, "Metzger questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter, and in many other ways reveals his liberal, unbelieving heart."

So what if a person doesn't believe all of the American Canon. Perhaps you may know of some countries where the Christians don't have Revelation in their Bible. Martin Luther questioned James. Would you call them non-believers. Ehtiopia is an example of one country that does not have Revelation in their Bible. If I remember right John Calvin was another that did not accept the book of Revelation.

The only qualification for salvation is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I have done this on numerous occasions here on this board. I have documented the evidence, shown blatant dishonesty, and revealed that I had questioned him directly about it. I will give you just one example. YOu can look up the others using the feature and see that I have told the truth about this.

A recent article he wrote took the title of "CONVERSATION WITH A FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST TEXTUAL CRITIC: THOSE WHO BELIEVE THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THEIR BIBLE ARE CALLED DANGEROUS HERETICS." In the very same article we see what this professor actually said: "BECAUSE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THEIR PRESENT BIBLE HAS ADOPTED, WHETHER THEY RECOGNIZE IT OR NOT, A HERETICAL POSITION." Any truthful person can see a major difference. I know this seminary professor and I know what he believes about inerrancy. Cloud lied, plain and simple, to try to bolster his weak case. I wrote and confronted him about it. His response was "I disagree."

I have seen him slander other men that I personally know. I have copies in my files of email correspondence between Cloud and another man where Cloud makes outright false statements about this man. That is unacceptable. It has been proven time and time again.

 

Why is it that people in support of textual critics, that are saved or otherwise, believe that a man can correct God's word when God has promised to perserve it perfect for all time? When a textual critic(TC) claims, directly or indirectly, to be able to correct God's word, that man has called God a liar. Well as scripture says, "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

I know someone out there will make some claim either that TCs do not correct God's word or that Erasmus was a TC, or even erroneously claim that modern TCs are the preservers of God's word. So let us divide them into their respective groups. You have your anciet TCs, which had no intention of correcting God's word, but merely compiled God's word using the respected manuscripts, and not the corrupted manuscripts. And you have modern TCs, starting with Tregelles, and most notoriously Wescott & Hort, up until today, who claim to be able to correct the errors in God's word and bring back to us the "true" text that was lost these 1700+ years. This claim alone descredits their entire position. These modern TCs use the corrupted texts and claim for them inspiration. A modern TC is nothing more than a man who wishes to sit in judgement of the word of God, and as Jehudi, cast into the fire that which they do not like.

Modern textual criticism is nothing more than man once again trying to be his own God.

 

Most of these examples are of obvious scribal slips of the pen found in *any* MS. They are much like the printing errors in the 1611 KJV. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between the copyist and what he copied, or to recognize that a poor copy can be made of an otherwise excellent underlying text.

This example has been given many times of an alleged "corruption" in Sinaiticus (AKA Aleph) and Vaticanus (AKA B). And it has been refuted many times. Mr. Kinney is simply wrong on much of his data. Yes, "in the prophets" is the reading of the later majority of Greek copies. However, a quick glance at the NA27 or UBS4 apparatus tells the whole story: is not found in *any* Greek, versional, or patristic witness before the 4th C. (with one notable exception in Irenaeus, which we will get to presently.) Mr. Kinney claims that Tertullian cites it; I would be interested to know where, as I am unaware of any such citation. He also claims that Irenaeus cites it, which is misleading. In fact, Irenaeus has *both* readings -- "in the prophets" (Against Heresies, 3.10:5) and "in Isaiah the prophet" (Against Heresies, 3:11:8). Because it stands alone against all other early evidence including what Irenaeus himself wrote elsewhere, this sole pre-4th C. exception may well be a case of a later Byzantine-era scribe changing the text of Irenaeus to match the standard text of his day. As well, it is easy to see why a later scribe would change the harder "Isaiah the prophet" to the easier "in the prophets" in order to avoid an "error" in the text, especially if that scribe were unaware of the convention of citing a minor prophet under a major prophet's name (cf. Mt. 27:9-01, where Zech. 11:12-13 is attributed to Jeremiah). Such "orthodox corruptions" appear elsewhere in the MS tradition -- the scribe of the 12th C. minuscule 22 changed "Jeremiah" to "Zechariah" in Mt. 27:9 to protect Matthew from the accusation that he made a mistake by quoting the wrong prophet.

 

They don't. They attempt to remove corruptions from God's word and restore it to the way it was when God originally gave it.

He was, as the following references from his own writings attest.

(1) Erasmus on using the oldest and best MSS -- "Origen read thus at any rate. And I found it written this way in the Pauline manuscript, the oldest and most correct text...." (Rom. 5 note 16).

(2) Erasmus on the value of corrupt MSS in determining the true reading -- "Granted that the Greek books are just as corrupt as the Latin ones, yet by collating manuscripts that are equally corrupt one can often discover the true reading, for it frequently happens that what has been corrupted by chance in one is found intact in another." ("Capita contra morosos" 69)

"Now granted that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are as corrupt as ours, does it follow that we are deprived of any hope of ever emending what is found to be corrupted n our manuscripts? Does it not happen frequently that from several faulty manuscripts - though not faulty in the same way - the true and genuine reading is found?" (LB IX 88C-D)

(3) Erasmus on "the harder reading is to be preferred" -- "And whenever the ancients note a variant reading, the reading that appears absurd at first glance always tends to be the more suspect one, in my opinion; for it stands to reason that a reader who lacked either education or concentration was offended by the absurdity of the expression and changed what was written here." (1 Cor. 15 note 44)

"it is not at all unlikely that some half-learned copyist changed "mneias" to "chreias," especially since the former yields an odd meaning." (Rom. 12 note 23)

 

I see you failed to understand that the logic of TCs is flawed. God has promised to preserve his word. The Tcs claim he did not do this for 1700+ years and that they may do it. I also notice you failed to read the differences between Erasmus and the modern Tcs.

 

You fail to understand that the evidence used by TC's is part of God's providential preservation of His Word. God promised to preserve His Word but He didn't say He would do it in word for word fashion. The evidence from over 5000 mss that all differ from one another is that He preserved His Word without respect to a single set of perfect words.

Wrong. They recognize that many mss were preserved and some of them are very ancient.

 

And you failed to list the more pertinent ones regarding this subject.

Erasmus was RCC and from all evidence died with his allegiance to the doctrines and traditions in tact. He was trained and operated in a culture where the Latin Vulgate was accepted as the preeminent version of scripture... not unlike some KJVO's, the RCC held that the LV had superceded the originals due to church acceptance, use, and tradition. His effort in the first two editions of the TR to follow the Greek evidence for I John 5:7-8 against the Latin Vulgate's inclusion of the trinitarian formula was defeated. This one case illustrates that he would not have been allowed to deviate greatly from the Latin Vulgate.

What Erasmus did was, at the time, radical. He stretched academic freedom to its maximum by publishing a full Greek text when virtually everyone accepted the LV as the only acceptable version and had completely discounted the worth of the original tongues. He parallels modern scholars. His opposition parallels KJVO/TRO. Even so, he knew the limits. Had he gone with the oldest evidence, he would have departed too greatly from the LV.

Erasmus was bound by limits that later TC's were free from.

 

Sorry, but Scott is correct. The bottom line here is that 100% of MSS disagree. No two MSS agree completely.

 

Sorry, but Scott is correct. The bottom line here is that 100% of MSS disagree. No two MSS agree completely. </font>[/QUOTE]Where did I ever claim that two did agree completely? I suggest you reread my post, think a bit, and then after a good bit more you post. Obviously you didn't read my post.