ALL of Bible translating has involved man's decision as to what is supposed to be there and what is not. Man makes errors. It is clear in the manuscripts that there are errors. It is most likely that the earlier the manuscript, the less chance of errors there will be but that is not always the case. It takes wisdom to be able to decipher what is supposed to be there and what is not - and every single person who ever translated the Bible has had to do this. God didn't give us an autograph in English where we can say "This is how it's supposed to be" so we need to be wise, use our God given hearts and brains and translate it as best we know how. As time goes on, and we gain more and more insight into the textual criticism issue, we may fine-tune the translations we have to better reflect what is true.
I have never seen a person say "oldest is best" when it comes to textual criticism. I HAVE seen "oldest is closer to the originals and therefore had less of a chance of passing on error". So I think the premise of this thread is false.
Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Eliyahu, Apr 9, 2009.
Page 2 of 12
-
-
This thread is not false or wrong, but nevertheless MV supporters do not admit either way. They should admit the Oldest are false in this case or they should still insist " the Oldest are correct and therefore we delete them !"
If you think the decision cannot be made only by one criterion and you find the other reasons to accept those 2 paragraphs as the Bible, then you should admit that those Oldest mss were wrong in those 2 issues.
By this kind of approach, we can clarify the controversial issues, one by one.
So, would you admit that the Oldest mss were wrong in case of Marks 16 and of John 7:53- 8:11 ? -
Simple question:
Do you believe 2 Paragraphs( Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11) are the Bible? -
Why don't you give that a read tonight and then let's interact on the substance of it rather than all this blather you are putting out.
Here are some highlights from a fairly long paragraph on the pericopae:
-
Basically, my questions are these.
If they don't assert the claim that the Mark's longer ending is not the part of the genuine Bible, then they should admit that the Oldest mss are wrong in that case. The same applies to Pericope Adulturae as well. ( I know ca. 20 omit it while ca. 900 have it)
If we admit these types problems one by one, then we can reach a good consensus. We may check many controversial verses, then reach a certain conclusion, and that has been my conclusion too. My conclusion is that Aleph is too much erroneous, and B is a little systematic but wrong in many spots too.
The later manuscripts are not the newer inventions, but their ancestor mss were much older than the Oldest ones which are extant now.
Eventually, I believe that one should admit the Oldest mss are wrong in those 2 paragraphs, and otherwise delete them from the Bible completely.
In case of John 7:39, there is no reason to support MV there because even the Oldest mss p66 support KJV in addition to the absolute majority supporting KJV. Therefore MV are wrong there. -
-
Maybe, isn't the principle of criticism a technique of deception deceiving the readers?
Also, except Aleph and p75, no other mss omitting hagion has been brought so far, and even Vatican B states " dedomenon hagion"
I think Modern Versions are too much stubborn to reject the minority texts because they belong to Roman Catholic. I often questioned what if those minority texts were not preserved or claimed by RCC, will the modern versions still stick to the minority texts?
Behind this whole argument, there is a matter of following the pagan religion. -
Borchert, in the NAC says this:
-
To my knowledge, none of the important Biblical papyrii out of more than 70, are even located anywhere near the Roman Catholic Church, much less do they belong to her.
And of the major uncials usually cited, ONLY B is at Rome. If one were to assume that location equals 'belonging' to any church, the largest number of the major lettered uncials 'belong' to the Church of England, as most of Aleph, A, D, and E(a), are in London, Oxford, or Cambridge. Some less often cited MSS, including L(ap), S & T are located at Rome, as well, but this number of the uncials is far fewer than the number that are located in areas of (and ostensibly influenced by) various "Protestant" or other "Orthodox" Churches, such as in England (including F(p), G(e), H(e),Y,Γ, Λ, & Ξ), France, Russia, Germany, Greece, (each of whom also possess a half dozen or so, of these major lettered uncials), and others, and not so much by the Church at Rome, where she was not historically overly concerned with these various Greek MSS.
WHY is this likely?
The believed and taught that they already possessed the perfect and flawless translation of the written Word of God (Where have we heard this claim, before?) , namely the Vulgate, thus did not need any further versions or MSS. I really did not want to actually get into this thread, so I will now back out once again, after refuting the historical inaccuracy implied.
Ed -
I have no desire to join in KJVO argumentation.
But, for what it's worth, there is at least one Johannine trait in the Pericope Adulterae. See, e.g., Alan F. Johnson, "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9:2 (1966): 91–96. He notes in his article a personal correspondence from E.C. Colwell, one of the more influential American textual critics of the 20th century, apparently confirming the observation. -
In reality what are the underlying bases for the Modern Versions?
They are basically only 2 texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, then a little A and P75 etc.
Only Vaticanus and p75 are preserved by Vatican, but we must remember that British Museum didn't modify anything of the Aleph or Alexandrinus.
Aleph was copied by the monks of the Greek Orthodox and preserved by the Greek monastery which has maintained the most of the Catholicism, similar to RCC.
If Vaticanus disagree with A, then Modern Versions followed B. If you have ever read thru Greek NT, checking the manuscript support, then you must remember this point. Someone may say MV are based 90% on B, 7% on Aleph, 3% on A.
Alexandrinus may have been preserved in upper Egypt which was full of gnosis and paganism, and Roman Catholic is nothing but a paganism! which prays to many gods!
For example, Mark's Ending is a matter of only 2 mss, B and Aleph.
You may want to point out the all the locations of the papyri, but that's not important, and we must see the forest instead of trees.
Here are the lists of the papyri and locations
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_papyri_du_Nouveau_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html
I have never claimed that any text or translation is perfect. Neither TR nor KJV is perfect. Please don't address such refutation to me. -
Here are some more examples of the John's style in the Pericope Adulturae
8¨2 βαθεωςThis is a good contrast to the verse 12, I am the Light of the world
8¨5 νομω ημων– This is a typical Johannine Style
8¨6 κατηγοριανκατ– Johannine Style appeared in John 5:45
τουτο δε ελεγον πειραζοντες αυτον
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
8¨11 μηκετιαμαρτανε Johannine appeared in 5:14
I think A Farstad and Zane Hodge made some good study on this and listed on their book Majority Texts, including some dialects or variances in the mss. -
It is not too difficult to discern this matter if you read the Greek Bible, but this kind of CT brain-wash the people with the wrong ideas. That's why I don't want to trust them. Bible itself has an immense power to prove what is right and what is wrong. -
P66 (Bodmer Papyrus II) is here:
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/p66.html -
-
-
However, MV do not correct it, despite the 99% mss, despite the Oldest mss. Why are they doing that?
Do you think John 7:53 shoud not be included in the Bible?
Then MV are wrong ! Because they included somthing in the Bible that is not Bible. How can you trust them?
Do you believe It is the Part of the Bible? Why do you argue about it?
Do you want to keep it in an ambiguous situation or controversial argument?
Ya! that may be the points of the Modern Versions.
What is your conclusion clearly? -
Do this: Take the comments of the textual commentary as a starting point and interact with it and then we will have something to talk about.
-
Page 2 of 12