Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 04-07-2019, 09:00 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
the Michael Marlowe material

Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
...If you want to go any deeper for the honest purpose of knowing the truth. I recommend you read through many articles from bible-researcher.com, which is a compilation of high quality articles about all this stuff. For instance, about textual criticism (MT, RT, CT, rules, etc..., it is very deep, take your time) http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html, and here comments on all many translations: http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html.
While Michael Marlowe is quite good in factual and variant compilations, and has done excellent work in a couple of areas, especially John 1:18 and monogenes, in terms of textual criticism he still is simply another one of the critical text dupes.

Caveat emptor.


If there is some article there that you find compelling, share away, and I would share the specific strengths and weaknesses.

Note: his section involving Francis Turretin and the heavenly witnesses is a total disaster. And I did send him the major correction and the reasons why, and I believe the counterpoint is on the purebibleforum.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-07-2019 at 09:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:23 AM
Ehud Ehud is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 538
Re: Which translation do you enjoy?

I ask because I am most literally ignorant in this realm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
In those sections where Vaticanus is lacuna, Sinaiticus (an 1800s production, pretended to be 300s) is the primary text.
Is it widely accepted/known that this is a more recent production? I don't recall ever hearing this before. (Again, I am very unstudied in this area.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
This is truly an absurd claim. There are about 45 verses that are not in the Critical Text that are in the Reformation Bible (Received Text.)
Why is it more likely that these verses are 'omitted from the Critical Text' as opposed to having been 'added to the Majority Text'?

Thank you in advance for your time.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:16 AM
Scott Pitta's Avatar
Scott Pitta Scott Pitta is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Wisconsin Dells
Posts: 2,941
Re: Which translation do you enjoy?

All critical texts are pieced together readings from manuscripts. This is the common factor.

Critical texts made in the last 100 years include manuscripts not included in critical texts from 200 plus years ago.

The computer age has had a profound impact for researchers to compile and access Greek manuscripts of the NT.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:48 AM
coksiw coksiw is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,014
Re: the Michael Marlowe material

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
While Michael Marlowe is quite good in factual and variant compilations, and has done excellent work in a couple of areas, especially John 1:18 and monogenes, in terms of textual criticism he still is simply another one of the critical text dupes.

Caveat emptor.


If there is some article there that you find compelling, share away, and I would share the specific strengths and weaknesses.

Note: his section involving Francis Turretin and the heavenly witnesses is a total disaster. And I did send him the major correction and the reasons why, and I believe the counterpoint is on the purebibleforum.
Brother, it seems to me that your whole premise is that if the greek text or translation was popular in the Reformation period then it must be the "pure one".

The text or translation can be popular and serve the purpose but still imperfect. The LXX was popular during the apostles time, and they used it, and it served the purpose, yet Paul "improved" the translation in several occasions. For instance in 1 Cor 2, he started with the LXX and ended with its own translation. In total his letters contain about one hundred OT quotations. About half are from LXX, four are direct translations of the standard Hebrew text where it clearly differs from the LXX, and the rest are similar but not identical to the LXX (you can find this in Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 96). This sets a precedent for us the Church of how to deal with translations.

Regarding manuscripts, you can also find the problem of dealing with multiple manuscripts and different readings in these quotes from Augustine, Jerome and Erasmus: http://www.bible-researcher.com/notnew.html

And regarding the Majority Text, which differs with the Received Text less than the Critical Text,

Quote:
One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html
The Received Text itself had also differences between editions, and it was based upon different manuscripts they had at the time.

If God gave us a variety of impure new testament manuscripts for us, I think it is best to just accept it. The fact that there are so many manuscripts preserved from different areas of the world, and most of them agree in over 90% of the text, is an assurance for many people of the accuracy of what we have. There are definitely original manuscripts, however we don't have them. But what we have indicates a really high level of accuracy.

Brother, I don't understand how can you say that there is such a thing as "pure" manuscript or that a compilation (e.g., RT, MT or CT) is "pure", when in fact it is a compilation of "impure" manuscripts. They can be popular and useful in specific periods of times but yet imperfect. The CT is the best effort as of today to reconstruct the original text.

What I read from your responses in this thread is that you have the premise that the Reformation event was the indicator of what's pure and what is not. I don't think as long as you have that premise, any edifying discussion to increase knowledge between you and me regarding translations will be fruitful.

Last edited by coksiw; 04-07-2019 at 12:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 04-07-2019, 12:00 PM
Scott Pitta's Avatar
Scott Pitta Scott Pitta is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Wisconsin Dells
Posts: 2,941
Re: Which translation do you enjoy?

Sinaiticus is not a modern production.

Textual criticism is more complex than is commonly expressed or understood.

I seldom see any individual manuscript mentioned or described by debaters other than 2 of the great uncials.

The majority of people who debate Bible manuscripts online do not have the ability to read either Greek or Hebrew. In college, we learned Greek before we gave serious thought to textual criticism. Little time was spent on textual criticism.

Understanding the grammar and translating issues are more beneficial for interpretation than textual criticism.

Since most scholarly works on textual criticism assume readers can read Greek, I do not know how non speakers fully understand books on TC issues. Greek quotes are not translated for the reader.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 04-08-2019, 07:47 AM
Godsdrummer's Avatar
Godsdrummer Godsdrummer is offline
Loren Adkins


 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kennewick Wa
Posts: 4,669
Re: Which translation do you enjoy?

As I see it most of the translations are used by different organizations that have some doctrinal difference, and the translation that they use reads to their individual liking.

But put aside the differing theology's and get down to the express things that Christ taught in his ministry and it does not matter which translation you use to get your point across.
__________________
Study the word with and open heart For if you do, Truth Will Prevail
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:18 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
Sinaiticus - an 1800s relic

For Sinaiticus, see:

Sinaiticus Problematicus
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=49647

By the grace of the Lord Jesus, I will add some updates later this week.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-08-2019 at 10:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:35 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
the question of premises

Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
Brother, it seems to me that your whole premise is that if the greek text or translation was popular in the Reformation period then it must be the "pure one".
Nahhh.

Years back, I studied carefully the theories (starting with the Daniel Segraves book 25+ years ago) and the supports given for many dozens of variants, over many years. From careful study I discarded my NAS and NIV and switched only to Bibles from the pure Received Text line.

Over more years I began to understand more deeply both the preservational imperative and the superb and supreme excellence of the AV. (Thus I then put aside alternate Reformation Bible and Received Text based editions.)

Hope that clafies my Bible history and approach to our search for the pure word of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
What I read from your responses in this thread is that you have the premise that the Reformation event was the indicator of what's pure and what is not. I don't think as long as you have that premise, any edifying discussion to increase knowledge between you and me regarding translations will be fruitful.
You seem to like to mix up premises and conclusions.

Unless and until you get that straightened out, edifying discussion is unlikely.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-08-2019 at 12:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:47 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
trying to ignore the huge TR-CT differences

Quote:
Originally Posted by Godsdrummer View Post
As I see it most of the translations are used by different organizations that have some doctrinal difference, and the translation that they use reads to their individual liking. But put aside the differing theology's and get down to the express things that Christ taught in his ministry and it does not matter which translation you use to get your point across.
This simply pretends that the huge differences between the two main competing texts does not exist. You would do better to become educated as to the differences.

If one of the two texts is the pure word of God, the other is abjectly corrupt and essentially worthless. Only the pure one of the two should be used as the Bible, God’s word.

And if you really think words like:

“God was manifest in the flesh...”.

do not matter, I suggest that you study deeper Christian doctrine, history and faith.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-08-2019 at 12:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:55 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
the Hortian fog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta View Post
Textual criticism is more complex than is commonly expressed or understood.

I seldom see any individual manuscript mentioned or described by debaters other than 2 of the great uncials.
This is because modern scientific textual criricism is basically a scholastic farce, built upon the many blunders of the spiritually buffeted Fenton Hort.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-08-2019 at 11:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do You Preach From Another Translation? Scott Hutchinson Fellowship Hall 20 03-10-2007 11:54 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.