Not really.
Not reputable ones, no.
WHy Would Anyone Think That...
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Dec 1, 2011.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So tell me, where are the paraphrases? What you are describing with these examples are not translation problems but part of the Synoptic Problem. And futhermore, you mistook the reference in the 1st one, which should have been Mal. 3:1, and you didn't even give the address for your last Matthew quote. Sloppy. If this is the best you have, cease and desist. I don't have time to keep looking up the LXX. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
I have a theory about the autographs and why God may have caused them to disapear. Perhaps He knows us better than we know ourselves and understood that we would bow down and worship the books instead of the God they point to? I suspect it is so, much like the Ark of the Covenant, which He also made go away until the time when He deems it necessary once again.
Can't prove my theory until I meet God face-to-face, but it has merit. -
-
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But isn't that true of either side? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I have no idea why you are saying my position comes from tradition. What in the world that I have said gave you this idea? My grandfather and father were actually on the CT side. Dad was actually taught Greek at Wheaton in the 1940's using Westcott and Hort.
I was originally a CT man, trained with the UBS text at BJU and Tennessee Temple. In 1986 I decided to research the issue and came out on the Majority text side after reading many scholarly books on both sides. More recently I have read and come to agree strongly with the Robinson/Pierpont methodology (as compared to the Zane Hodges approach). -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I've come to the Dr. Fred Afman viewpoint- he would often say, "There are good men on both sides of this issue", give us the facts as he knew them and let us choose. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Matt 17:21-- touto de to genoV ouk ekporeuetai ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia (touto de to genoV ouk ekporeuetai ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia)
Mark 9:29--kai eipen autoiV touto to genoV en oudeni dunatai exelqein ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia (kai eipen autoiV touto to genoV en oudeni dunatai exelqein ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia)
Note: the final phrase is identical in both Matt. and Mark, but the first half of the verse is quite different. Matt. ekporeuetai, but Mark has exelqein, and so forth. If Matthew is harmonizing to Mark's wording, why did he deliberately "disharmonize" the first part of the verse? Logically there is no reason to do so. Granted, Comfort is a far greater scholar than I am, but his view here just does not fit the bill.
Now, Rippon, for you to prove harmonization in the Byzantine, pleas provide a passage, parallel in two Gospels, that doesn't just deal with leaving out or including words, but that you feel is a definite attempt by the Byzantine to harmoize so that the two passages are identical. -
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Even TR folk don't usually take the position that the devil inspired the other mss. Read the writings of David Otis Fuller or Edward F. Hills (who was actually a genuine textual scholar on the Caesarean text type). -
Page 2 of 5