Which translation do you enjoy?

[chad87]

All scriptural memorization that I have is KJV, so I sometimes feel somewhat "annoyed" when I'm reading other versions and I get to a verse I have memorized, as stupid as that may be.

Be that as it may, I sometimes feel like I'm missing the intent of some scriptures because of differences in modern English and KJV English. What translation would you suggest as an easier to read, but still very accurate translation of the scriptures?

All answers welcome, even "the Message Bible" :foottap , which is as accurate as a slingshot at 300 yards.

[Esaias]

Be that as it may, I sometimes feel like I'm missing the intent of some scriptures because of differences in modern English and KJV English.



Can you post an example? Thanks!

[Praxeas]

That depends on what you mean by accurate. You mean which Greek text is used or do you mean an accurate translation of any Greek text?

[Michael The Disciple]

KJV is my go to Bible. If I were young starting out today it would be the New King James. Memorization is very important so to have a consistent, regular Bible is good.

If and when the World English Bible comes out in print form I will be getting a copy.

[n david]

I enjoy the Amplified version for studying. I go back and forth between the ESV, NLT and KJV. When I preach I'll use either the KJV or Message Bible, depending on scripture and audience.

[n david]

All answers welcome, even "the Message Bible" :foottap , which is as accurate as a slingshot at 300 yards.
When the Message Bible first came out, I admit I thought it was close to heresy. Then I had to remind myself that the Message Bible is just an interpretation. There are translations and there are interpretations; the Message Bible is just an interpretation.

I've since purchased a Message Bible and do enjoy reading it to see what Peterson's interpretation of a verse is.

There are some verses which have been interpreted very well; and then there are others which, as you said, are completely inaccurate....way way off.

[Esaias]

If you agree the Textus receptus is the correct NT text, then either the KJV or the 1560/1599 Geneva Bible, or Young's Literal.

If you agree the latest revision of the NA/W-H text is the correct NT text, then there is only 1 choice - the latest edition of the NASB.

If you'd like to compromise between the two, get a NKJV which uses a modified 'Majority text' (so-called).

Personally, I'd recommend Berry's Interlinear NT or Green's Interlinear Bible.

[MawMaw]

I have King James Version Bibles.

[RandyWayne]

So which version is the MOST accurate?

[Esaias]

So which version is the MOST accurate?

In regard to the Textus Receptus, I'd say Young's, Berry's, or Green's.

As far as the 'critical text', I'd have to say the NASB would be the most accurate or else some interlinear... Of course, the NASB does have it's issues like most translations.

[seekerman]

All scriptural memorization that I have is KJV, so I sometimes feel somewhat "annoyed" when I'm reading other versions and I get to a verse I have memorized, as stupid as that may be.

Be that as it may, I sometimes feel like I'm missing the intent of some scriptures because of differences in modern English and KJV English. What translation would you suggest as an easier to read, but still very accurate translation of the scriptures?

All answers welcome, even "the Message Bible" :foottap , which is as accurate as a slingshot at 300 yards.

NASB.

[mizpeh]

I like the ESV.

[Jason B]

New Living Translation

[Originalist]

1560/1599 Geneva Bible

[Luke]

KJV

[renee819]

KJV

[Ferd]

All scriptural memorization that I have is KJV, so I sometimes feel somewhat "annoyed" when I'm reading other versions and I get to a verse I have memorized, as stupid as that may be.

Be that as it may, I sometimes feel like I'm missing the intent of some scriptures because of differences in modern English and KJV English. What translation would you suggest as an easier to read, but still very accurate translation of the scriptures?

All answers welcome, even "the Message Bible" :foottap , which is as accurate as a slingshot at 300 yards.

Chad, I am like you. My memorization is all KJV. When I preach or teach, I read from the KJV most of the time and that is the bible (Thopson Chain) that I carry.

However most of my study is now online so I have access to a wide range of versions. I have at various times used as many as 10 or 15 versions to to gain the broadest understanding of particular passages.

I also use Vines and strongs quite a bit as well.

I guess my answer is KJV as the reference with ALL THE ABOVE as assists... As you point out there are versions like The Message that have their limitations so, it is good to know strengths and weaknesses but that doesnt mean they dont have their place.

[Real Realism]

New Living Translation

Same here.

[Praxeas]

ESV, NET, NKJV, LITV...anything other than the KJV

[Esaias]

ESV, NET, NKJV, LITV...anything other than the KJV

That explains some things... :heeheehee

[Praxeas]

That explains some things... :heeheehee
That I wasn't born with a wooden spoon in my mouth?

[houston]

If the KJV was good enough for the Apostles then it is good enough for me!!!




*laughs*

[Praxeas]

Thou must worshippeth in thine own house only. Doest not build for thine ownself a building to worshippeth in and lo, thou shalt surely do well :smack

[Esaias]

Prax, we've been e-friends for a long time. So I say this with only the best intentions...

I still think you need to quit being a-feared of the good ole King James.

:)

[Praxeas]

Prax, we've been e-friends for a long time. So I say this with only the best intentions...

I still think you need to quit being a-feared of the good ole King James.

:)Im not a feared of it :-). I can't stand it as a translation. It's old and outdated language that few understand and many people wrongly believe they DO understand it.

[Esaias]

Im not a feared of it :-). I can't stand it as a translation. It's old and outdated language that few understand and many people wrongly believe they DO understand it.

That's weird. All my kids were raised on it, and neither they nor I have any big trouble understanding the English used therein.

Of course, we also prefer pre-20th century authors as far as their style and depth of intellectual content, but hey that's just us.

[houston]

I do not like the KJV. It is antiquated. But it is easy to read.

Not everyone understands it. I have met people that rejected the NIV because they render

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

to say

John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

The point of contention is that (to them) being MADE free and SET free have different meanings.

[RandyWayne]

If thine family and thy can understand the language of Gondor, thou can understand thine version of the holy writ as scribed by King James.

[Praxeas]

That's weird. All my kids were raised on it, and neither they nor I have any big trouble understanding the English used therein.

Of course, we also prefer pre-20th century authors as far as their style and depth of intellectual content, but hey that's just us.
Most people I personally know don't.

I'll give an example

Php 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Many believe that word conversation is how we use it today...two people dialoging

Php 1:27 Only let your conduct be as becomes the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you, or else am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, striving together with one mind for the faith of the gospel,

πολιτεύω
politeúō; fut. politeúsō, from polítēs (G4177), citizen. To live as a free citizen. In the NT, a pass. deponent politeúomai, to be a citizen of a state, to live as a good citizen, to conduct oneself according to the laws and customs of a state. It generally means to live or to order one's life and conduct in accordance with a certain rule. With an adv. in Phi_1:27, to behave worthily of the gospel. With a dat. in Act_23:1, to live worthily of or for God or according to His will.

[Originalist]

16 Mert úgy szerette Isten e világot, hogy az õ egyszülött Fiát adta, hogy valaki hiszen õ benne, el ne vesszen, hanem örök élete legyen.

[Disciple4life]

I used the New King James Version growing up. I was raised Assemblies Of God.
When I started attending a UPCI church they told me the King James Version was the only dependable bible. I switched to the KJV and used it for the last couple of decades. Recently I have started using the World English Bible online. It reads like the KJV with out all the the's and thou's.

When I want to look up a specific verse that needs further study I go to Young's Literal Translation. I have always done this. Even in my KJV only days.

I have recently been using the Amplified Bible to look up certain verses. People who believe in easy believe-ism should look up Romans 10. It brings on a whole different meaning when you read it in the Amplified version.

When there it a verse that speaks about eternity I like the Weymouth translation. It correctly talks about ages.

Below I have shown some examples of how different some verses read in the different translations.

World English Bible
Mathew 18
9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna[a] of fire.
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 18:9 or, Hell

Amplified Bible
Romans 10
8 But what does it say? The Word (God’s message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is, the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach,
9 Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justified (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms [his] salvation.
11 The Scripture says, No man who believes in Him [who adheres to, relies on, and trusts in Him] will [ever] be put to shame or be disappointed.

Young’s Literal Translation
Mathew 12
31 Because of this I say to you, all sin and evil speaking shall be forgiven to men, but the evil speaking of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men.
32 And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.

Weymouth
John 3
16For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.

[crakjak]

My foundation is the King James, due to so much invested in reading and studying over the years.
But now I would much rather read the Good News Translation, its accuracy is very good, and the modern language is easy.
I use Young's Literal Translation to reinforce the original intent.

[coksiw]

Resurrecting old thread....

I use the NASB and sometimes I check out the ESV. If you read David K Bernard books you will see how critical he is to the KJV for being old English and using words that may mean something else that what come to your mind. For example, the word "kind" and sometimes "after" in the KJV has a different meaning than todays use of them.

In the UPCI, KJV is the main reading translation still, but NKJV is becoming popular.

If you read KJV because you enjoy that old english that is perfectly fine. But being KJV-only (the movement) is the result of ignorance, or tendency to believe in conspiracies, or just fear of change. Not to say that putting a person or group of people on pedestals (like some people do to the KJV translators) is usually the beginning of cults. Examine everything retain what is good. KJV did the same thing good literal translation teams do nowadays: improve upon somebody else work, using the best manuscripts available and the contemporary language. The bible books weren't written in an ancient or embellished language, but very commonly use at their time. KJV adds an extra complexity to the reading that it is not necessary, especially for new converts. That being said, I don't read or recommend any dynamic equivalence translation like NIV, NLT, etc... because I see danger in the approach.
I hope I didn't offend anybody.
To have a good deep study of translations I recommend this web site: http://bible-researcher.com.

[hometown guy]

Do worry your ignorance on the subject didn’t offended me. I use KJV as my primary bible and only use others as references.

[coksiw]

Do worry your ignorance on the subject didn’t offended me. I use KJV as my primary bible and only use others as references.

Lol, I’m glad my ignorance didn’t offend you :highfive

[Esaias]

KJV adds an extra complexity to the reading that it is not necessary, especially for new converts.

Nonsense, my kids learned phonics and how to read using the KJV as a primary reading text. My ten year old reads it every day.

[Praxeas]

Resurrecting old thread....

I use the NASB and sometimes I check out the ESV. If you read David K Bernard books you will see how critical he is to the KJV for being old English and using words that may mean something else that what come to your mind. For example, the word "kind" and sometimes "after" in the KJV has a different meaning than todays use of them.

In the UPCI, KJV is the main reading translation still, but NKJV is becoming popular.

If you read KJV because you enjoy that old english that is perfectly fine. But being KJV-only (the movement) is the result of ignorance, or tendency to believe in conspiracies, or just fear of change. Not to say that putting a person or group of people on pedestals (like some people do to the KJV translators) is usually the beginning of cults. Examine everything retain what is good. KJV did the same thing good literal translation teams do nowadays: improve upon somebody else work, using the best manuscripts available and the contemporary language. The bible books weren't written in an ancient or embellished language, but very commonly use at their time. KJV adds an extra complexity to the reading that it is not necessary, especially for new converts. That being said, I don't read or recommend any dynamic equivalence translation like NIV, NLT, etc... because I see danger in the approach.
I hope I didn't offend anybody.
To have a good deep study of translations I recommend this web site: http://bible-researcher.com.
I like the NET, LEB and NKJV

The KJV uses archaic words

[Praxeas]

Do worry your ignorance on the subject didn’t offended me. I use KJV as my primary bible and only use others as references.

Most new concerts weren't raised reading the kjv

[Esaias]

Most new con(v)erts weren't raised reading the kjv

Can't for the text lingo version, should be coming out soon.

Genesis 1:1-2
"At 1st, G did THATE. & all sucked. n dark n stuff. n G Spirit wuz on da h20s."

We gotta stay relevant and modernized, after all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I use the KJV, my wife and oldest daughter use Greek Bibles.
My youngest uses KJV.

[coksiw]

I use the KJV, my wife and oldest daughter use Greek Bibles.
My youngest uses KJV.

What a blessing to be able to read koine greek!

[votivesoul]

Can't for the text lingo version, should be coming out soon.

Genesis 1:1-2
"At 1st, G did THATE. & all sucked. n dark n stuff. n G Spirit wuz on da h20s."

We gotta stay relevant and modernized, after all.

Until then, you can enjoy the LOLCat Bible:

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

[Tithesmeister]

I like the KJV.

To me it is poetic, at least in some portions, and that cadence is sometimes missing in other versions. Besides I have always used it, so I remember key words from it that make it easy to look up specific verses. I am not KJV only, but it is my preference. I don’t find it difficult to understand, but I can understand how some people would.

[coksiw]

At the end, KJV, NKJV, NASB or ESV, or any other conservative literal translation is, for practical, reasons, the word of God for you. God can use the ESV to talk to you if you read the ESV instead of the KJV. You can find the same oneness doctrine in the NASB as you find it in NKJV. It is the same Word of God. The same way the Apostle Paul used in some places the LXX, and in others he made his own translation because he thought he could do a better job to get its reader to understand it, the same way you may use KJV for some part of your study/preaching and NASB in others. Translating is hard.
Nowadays we don't have many preachers able to read and speak Koine Greek or Hebrew, like many people did in the early church, but, thanks God we have tons of translation and great resources like Strong concordance to study and compare. We may not have a Paul in our church that would translate things at time a little different for us so we can get the point better, but we have many literal versions that we can use for the same purpose. I honestly see the plurality of literal translations as a blessing for us, who are so far away from the koine Greek and Hebrew.

Like I just read this morning:
[1Co 2:14-15 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

[1Co 2:14-15 NASB] 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

The words in bold are the same one word in greek but the NASB is the only translation of the ones I have that keeps contextual consistency in this case and does a better job connecting the dots between those two verses.

[n david]

Until then, you can enjoy the LOLCat Bible:

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

:spit

[Esaias]

At the end, KJV, NKJV, NASB or ESV, or any other conservative literal translation is, for practical, reasons, the word of God for you. God can use the ESV to talk to you if you read the ESV instead of the KJV. You can find the same oneness doctrine in the NASB as you find it in NKJV. It is the same Word of God. The same way the Apostle Paul used in some places the LXX, and in others he made his own translation because he thought he could do a better job to get its reader to understand it, the same way you may use KJV for some part of your study/preaching and NASB in others. Translating is hard.
Nowadays we don't have many preachers able to read and speak Koine Greek or Hebrew, like many people did in the early church, but, thanks God we have tons of translation and great resources like Strong concordance to study and compare. We may not have a Paul in our church that would translate things at time a little different for us so we can get the point better, but we have many literal versions that we can use for the same purpose. I honestly see the plurality of literal translations as a blessing for us, who are so far away from the koine Greek and Hebrew.

Like I just read this morning:
[1Co 2:14-15 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

[1Co 2:14-15 NASB] 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

The words in bold are the same one word in greek but the NASB is the only translation of the ones I have that keeps contextual consistency in this case and does a better job connecting the dots between those two verses.

I am always mildly surprised when people DON'T prefer a better written piece of literature. But then, comparing the sales of Harry Potter to say Ovid's Metamorphoses, I guess I shouldn't be?

Discern means to exercise judgment in regards to what is observed, in order to distinguish between things, valuations, truthfulness, etc. Judge means essentially the same thing but when applied to the spiritual man judging the things of God in a spiritual manner, the word "judge" might be too strong, for it carries with it a connotation of censuring that which is judged. This is why the KJV translators chose to use "discern" in the first instance, and "judge" in the two following instances.

"Appraised" means to asses the value of something, and seems a bit too limited for words of the "krino" family.

Besides which, the KJ in this passage simply reads better than the NASB. "Accept" vs "receive", for example: which has a greater depth of meaning and more fully expresses what God is trying to say? Accept implies a mere mental affirmation, whereas receive implies more. Do you "accept" strength from God? Or do you receive strength from God? Do you accept pardon? Or receive pardon? Do you accept the Holy Ghost? Or receive the Holy Ghost?

The natural man cannot understand the things of God? Or cannot know them? Understand seems limited to mental grasping of a mental concept, whereas know - in the context of the KJV usage of knowing - implies more, as when a man knows his wife. That is to say, the natural man cannot know the things of God by experience and interaction. Whereas, the natural man can indeed "understand" many of the things of God on a mere intellectual level.

And so forth.

Reading literature should elevate the reader, in all areas. That's why we progress from Dick and Jane to Homer and Hemingway.

[Ehud]

Discern means to exercise judgment in regards to what is observed, in order to distinguish between things, valuations, truthfulness, etc. Judge means essentially the same thing but when applied to the spiritual man judging the things of God in a spiritual manner, the word "judge" might be too strong, for it carries with it a connotation of censuring that which is judged. This is why the KJV translators chose to use "discern" in the first instance, and "judge" in the two following instances.

"Appraised" means to asses the value of something, and seems a bit too limited for words of the "krino" family.

Forgive me for showing my ignorance, but was there no other word that could have been used to make the distinctions you have mentioned? Or is the word used in the Greek so broad that the original recipients would simply have understood the distinction based on context? I ask because I must admit that if I saw the same word used multiple times in such a short span, my instinct would be to say they meant the same thing each time.

[Esaias]

Forgive me for showing my ignorance, but was there no other word that could have been used to make the distinctions you have mentioned? Or is the word used in the Greek so broad that the original recipients would simply have understood the distinction based on context? I ask because I must admit that if I saw the same word used multiple times in such a short span, my instinct would be to say they meant the same thing each time.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. The same word can have slight changes in its meaning depending on context and usage. Thus, krino has been translated as:

Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish: - avenge, conclude, condemn, ........, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

So simply picking one word in English to represent all occurrences of a particular Greek word would actually hinder understanding, not promote it. Hope that makes sense?

[Ehud]

I'm not sure what you are asking here. The same word can have slight changes in its meaning depending on context and usage. Thus, krino has been translated as:

Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish: - avenge, conclude, condemn, ........, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

So simply picking one word in English to represent all occurrences of a particular Greek word would actually hinder understanding, not promote it. Hope that makes sense?

That is exactly what I was asking. If someone had asked me which is better, I would have said, "use the same English word because the same Greek word is used." However, from what you have stated, the Greek word has a much broader use that the original recipient would have understood.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. I truly do appreciate it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'm not sure what you are asking here. The same word can have slight changes in its meaning depending on context and usage. Thus, krino has been translated as:

Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish: - avenge, conclude, condemn, ........, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

So simply picking one word in English to represent all occurrences of a particular Greek word would actually hinder understanding, not promote it. Hope that makes sense?

:clap

[coksiw]

I'm not sure what you are asking here. The same word can have slight changes in its meaning depending on context and usage. Thus, krino has been translated as:

Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish: - avenge, conclude, condemn, ........, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

So simply picking one word in English to represent all occurrences of a particular Greek word would actually hinder understanding, not promote it. Hope that makes sense?

The word translated as "appraise" NASB is ἀνακρίνω, and if I see the word repeated three times and on purpose being used to make the reader understand by contrasting then why do you think they should be translated differently?

Isn't it clear that the apostle is saying "they are XXXXXed but the spiritual XXXXXX all things and he is not "XXXXXXed by anyone."? Don't you think you should be using the same word if they are used in the same block? You would lose the contrast the writer is trying to express otherwise.

In fact that word in the KJV is translated in the following manner: examine (6x), judge (6x), ask question (2x), search (1x), discern (1x). Guess what, that only single time discern is used is on that passage.

The Strong definition of the word is not 100% the definition you posted: ἀνακρίνω anakrínō, an-ak-ree'-no; from G303 and G2919; properly, to scrutinize, i.e. (by implication) investigate, interrogate, determine:—ask, question, discern, examine, judge, search.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G350&t=NASB


I am always mildly surprised when people DON'T prefer a better written piece of literature. But then, comparing the sales of Harry Potter to say Ovid's Metamorphoses, I guess I shouldn't be?


Are you saying it because of me? When it comes to the Bible, I prefer the utility value of understanding the message from the original Greek and Hebrew, (because you know, it is the Word of God) than the literacy beauty an English translator put into it that didn't have in the first place, because you know, the Bible wasn't written in English. Anyway, just preferences, I guess. I would rather be "elevated" as you said by the understanding of the word of God than by the beauty of an English text that hides techniques the original writers used to express an idea.

The word translated as "appraise" is the same word that was used to describe examining, not necessarily to determine if it is right or wrong as you said. Probably "examine" would've been better.

Regarding Accept and Receive, well, it depends how you look at it. I accept a Job, vs I receive a Job. Accept implies my willingness to take it.

You also say that "to receive" implies more and "to know" implies more, but do you really know if those "more meanings" you are referring to is what the greek was actually meaning? I think you are assuming before hand the KJV perfectly uses the right words in all instances, because you don't see you starting from the greek text itself.

Anyways, I should've kept the conversation at a higher level because arguing about these details is a never ending thing. I really enjoy when translations keep the parallelism and contrasting the Bible writers used to express something. I was hoping somebody else would also enjoy it, but oh well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Forgive me for showing my ignorance, but was there no other word that could have been used to make the distinctions you have mentioned? Or is the word used in the Greek so broad that the original recipients would simply have understood the distinction based on context? I ask because I must admit that if I saw the same word used multiple times in such a short span, my instinct would be to say they meant the same thing each time.

Amen, what translators are looking for is more an interpretation. Meaning that the word in Greek to English they need to know how that Greek word was used in the time of the 1st century. Not how it is understood ecclesiastically through the centuries till now. But how did the Romans and Judeans understand those Greek words. The KJV translators worked towards that understanding the best they could. Not looking for the ecclesiastical meaning but how the word was originally used by the people of the time of the Gospel.

Shu Iesu Kirisuto no na ni yotte! :)

[Scott Pitta]

Like CS Lewis, I do not have a preferred translation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Like CS Lewis, I do not have a preferred translation.

CS Lewis?

I think that guy got lost in the wardrobe.

[Scott Pitta]

:)

[Esaias]

The word translated as "appraise" NASB is ἀνακρίνω, and if I see the word repeated three times and on purpose being used to make the reader understand by contrasting then why do you think they should be translated differently?

Isn't it clear that the apostle is saying "they are XXXXXed but the spiritual XXXXXX all things and he is not "XXXXXXed by anyone."? Don't you think you should be using the same word if they are used in the same block? You would lose the contrast the writer is trying to express otherwise.

In fact that word in the KJV is translated in the following manner: examine (6x), judge (6x), ask question (2x), search (1x), discern (1x). Guess what, that only single time discern is used is on that passage.

The Strong definition of the word is not 100% the definition you posted: ἀνακρίνω anakrínō, an-ak-ree'-no; from G303 and G2919; properly, to scrutinize, i.e. (by implication) investigate, interrogate, determine:—ask, question, discern, examine, judge, search.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G350&t=NASB



Are you saying it because of me? When it comes to the Bible, I prefer the utility value of understanding the message from the original Greek and Hebrew, (because you know, it is the Word of God) than the literacy beauty an English translator put into it that didn't have in the first place, because you know, the Bible wasn't written in English. Anyway, just preferences, I guess. I would rather be "elevated" as you said by the understanding of the word of God than by the beauty of an English text that hides techniques the original writers used to express an idea.

The word translated as "appraise" is the same word that was used to describe examining, not necessarily to determine if it is right or wrong as you said. Probably "examine" would've been better.

Regarding Accept and Receive, well, it depends how you look at it. I accept a Job, vs I receive a Job. Accept implies my willingness to take it.

You also say that "to receive" implies more and "to know" implies more, but do you really know if those "more meanings" you are referring to is what the greek was actually meaning? I think you are assuming before hand the KJV perfectly uses the right words in all instances, because you don't see you starting from the greek text itself.

Anyways, I should've kept the conversation at a higher level because arguing about these details is a never ending thing. I really enjoy when translations keep the parallelism and contrasting the Bible writers used to express something. I was hoping somebody else would also enjoy it, but oh well.

Don't clutch your pearls too tight. Gee whiz, what is it with people nowadays?

:throwrock

[CC1]

New International Version and New King James Version

[Ehud]

Amen, what translators are looking for is more an interpretation. Meaning that the word in Greek to English they need to know how that Greek word was used in the time of the 1st century. Not how it is understood ecclesiastically through the centuries till now. But how did the Romans and Judeans understand those Greek words. The KJV translators worked towards that understanding the best they could. Not looking for the ecclesiastical meaning but how the word was originally used by the people of the time of the Gospel.

Shu Iesu Kirisuto no na ni yotte! :)

My googling tells me that is in Colossians? Am I close?

And that is exactly how I feel. I want to know what was actually being said in those letters. Deciding how it applies to my life 2000 years later can be a matter of further study, but when I pick up an English translation, I want to to know that it was translated in a way that expresses original intent, not someone else's view on its application. I can review other sources for that sort of commentary.

[Praxeas]

New International Version and New King James Version

Heretic

[coksiw]

Heretic

Accurate and literal

[CC1]

Heretic

LOL!!!

[navygoat1998]

NKJV, NASB and ESV.

[Godsdrummer]

Message

[Evang.Benincasa]

Message

How are you doing? Let me start off with giving you a welcome back.

What do you like about the Message translation? What verses do you like above other translations?

[diakonos]

I don’t consider The Message a legitimate translation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don’t consider The Message a legitimate translation.


I don't use it, it is like the J.B. Phillips New Testament or the The New Living Translation. But what verses do you see that are a problem?

[diakonos]

I don't use it, it is like the J.B. Phillips New Testament or the The New Living Translation. But what verses do you see that are a problem?

I don’t recall which verses. I began reading one of the gospels. I don’t know how far I got before I set it down. :nah

[diakonos]

I found it very distasteful. Now I think I know why.
———

The Message – Translation Method
The Message is not a translation, nor can it strictly be said to be a paraphrase of the original languages of the Bible. Peterson’s goal in creating The Message, in his own words, was to “bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become ‘old hat’.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/The-Message-MSG.html

[coksiw]

Just to give an example:

The reader who mistakes this cavalier treatment of the text for a reliable translation is in danger of being misled at many points. This danger is well illustrated by the following paragraph from a review of The Message which recently appeared on a religious homosexual website:
What about the passages against homosexuals, you might ask? Well, although we found his translation of Romans 1:26-27 a bit off, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 have been liberated from their heterosexual bias and are translated in ways that are much more inclusive and truer to their original intent. The text of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 reads as follows:
"Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom"
The text of 1 Timothy 1:9-10 reads as follows:
"It's obvious, isn't it, that the law code isn't primarily for people who live responsibly, but for the irresponsible, who defy all authority, riding roughshod over God, life, sex, truth, whatever!"
We at Spirit & Flesh say, nicely done!

But these passages really do condemn homosexuality, as may be seen in any reasonably accurate translation:

Full analysis here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/themessage.html

[Godsdrummer]

How are you doing? Let me start off with giving you a welcome back.

Thank you. Doing well, some days are better than others. Worked the last two day quite late, although I was tired I don't feel bad now. But for someone that has not taken much medication, all his life, I am on six pills a day. Blood pressure, cholesterol, and two or three blood thinners.

What do you like about the Message translation? What verses do you like above other translations?


The Message? I really don't have any opinion, lol just thought I would say the "message" because it is to controversial. Personally I don't find any thing wrong with any translation. (pretty out there for someone that was a King James only person for over half my life lol.)

[Steven Avery]

Just a note that I have not yet read this thread.

The title turned me off.

First, I think of my Authorized Version as the pure Bible that I read, not the "translation" that I read, as if there is a smorgasbord of translations that are the word of God, and I should choose my meal.

Second, reading the Bible should not be weighed by the level of enjoyment, as if it was an entertainment video.

That said, I may go back and look through the posts.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Just a note that I have not yet read this thread.

The title turned me off.

First, I think of my Authorized Version as the pure Bible that I read, not the "translation" that I read, as if there is a smorgasbord of translations that are the word of God, and I should choose my meal.

Second, reading the Bible should not be weighed by the level of enjoyment, as if it was an entertainment video.

That said, I may go back and look through the posts.

Steven

Please go back and read the entire thread (if time permits) and give us your honest view. Thank you in advance. :)

[Steven Avery]

I use the KJV, my wife and oldest daughter use Greek Bibles. My youngest uses KJV. Are they native Greek? (At least, as the first language.)

Have they ever looked at the Critical Text Greek of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 and gag at the solecisms?

Thanks!

Steven

[Steven Avery]

There are a number of people in this thread who try to straddle the Reformation Bible, as in the AV, and the Westcott-Hort corruption versions.

They should consider that if the Reformation Bible (from the Received Text) is the pure word of God, then the modern versions are abjectly corrupt. And vica versa.

And I suggest they should seek out which one is God's pure word.

[coksiw]

There are a number of people in this thread who try to straddle the Reformation Bible, as in the AV, and the Westcott-Hort corruption versions.

They should consider that if the Reformation Bible (from the Received Text) is the pure word of God, then the modern versions are abjectly corrupt. And vica versa.

And I suggest they should seek out which one is God's pure word.

Which text do you consider "pure"? What "corruption" means to you? The Textus Receptus is what you consider pure? The KJV did not follow the TR. TR is "guilty" of as much "corruption" as the Westcott one.

My references here: http://bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

Regarding the KJV:
In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version. (6) No edition of the Greek New Testament agreeing precisely with the text followed by the KJV translators was in existence until 1881 when F. H. A. Scrivener produced such an edition (though even it differs from the King James Version in a very few places, e.g. Acts 19:20). It is Scrivener's 1881 text which was reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976. This text does not conform exactly to any of the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as the textus receptus.

Last paragraph:
These sober and sensible judgments stand in marked contrast to the almost manic hysteria found in the writings of some detractors of critical texts who write as though those texts were a Pandora's box of heresy. In truth, all text families are doctrinally orthodox. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion.

There is not perfect translation, there is no pure manuscript.

I would rather be honest to myself and not hide the truth to me or anyone that there is not such a thing as "pure" manuscript, and just accept what God gave us. The way I see it is that God gave us tons of manuscripts with minor errors to confirm that, yes, there were human errors (intentional or not) in the copying but yet the main doctrine was not affected in any of them. You don't make a doctrine or topic study out of one verse, but you must use several, a little bit here, a little bit there. That's your best defense against translation errors as well.

[Steven Avery]

The Textus Receptus is what you consider pure? The KJV did not follow the TR. Sure it did. Doug Kutilek's article does not say otherwise, it simply says that the AV did not specifically follow one edition of the Received Text.

Yes, I consider the AV and the Reformation Bible in general as the pure word of God.

My point was simple, the least sensible position is straddling. If you think the modern versions from Westcott-Hort are pure, like Hort claimed, you should have nothing to do with the AV or the NKJV.

And vica versa. If you embrace the AV as God's pure word, you should have nothing to do with the NIV, NAS, NLT, ESV, etc.

And if you do not know, that is the question that you should be seeking out. The search for the pure word of God.

[coksiw]

Sure it did. Doug Kutilek's article does not say otherwise, it simply says that the AV did not specifically follow one edition of the Received Text.

Yes, I consider the AV and the Reformation Bible in general as the pure word of God.

My point was simple, the least sensible position is straddling. If you think the modern versions from Westcott-Hort are pure, like Hort claimed, you should have nothing to do with the AV or the NKJV.

And vica versa. If you embrace the AV as God's pure word, you should have nothing to do with the NIV, NAS, NLT, ESV, etc.

And if you do not know, that is the question that you should be seeking out. The search for the pure word of God.

I don't see it black and white, I prefer to embrace the truth. The difference between TR, Westcott-Hort, Critical Text, Majority Text are not significant enough to affect doctrine. Most modern translation are based on the Critical Text (not in Westcott-Hort), which in itself indicates the differences in manuscripts on the actual passages.
I don't use dynamic equivalence translation like NIV, or NLT. I stick to literals. I actually use NKJV and NASB the most. I don't criticize people that use dynamic equivalence ones, I just personally see danger in the approach all together. Just me.

[Steven Avery]

The difference between TR, Westcott-Hort, Critical Text, Majority Text are not significant enough to affect doctrine .Nonsense.

[coksiw]

Nonsense.

Counter example that I'm wrong?

[Steven Avery]

Counter example that I'm wrong? Why do you think the ebionites and low Christology unitarians fought tooth and nail against "God was manifest in the flesh .. " in 1 Timothy 3:16?

It was very important to them that Jesus was NOT "God manifest in the flesh.." because they wanted to emphasize only his humanity, often claiming he was the son of Joseph.

The claim is simply absurd. Do you really think the thousands of differences, the 45 verses missing, have no doctrinal significance?

In fact, many of the larger variants are precisely on doctrinal battleground verses and sections. Even a small variant, physically, like in 1 Timothy 3:16, can have ginormous doctrinal impact.

[Scott Pitta]

Most variant readings have nothing to do with theology. Names have variations in how the are spelled. Word order variations. Other reasons escape my memory.

Some variations are unusual. There are 2 versions of Acts. One is 8% longer than the other.

Remember, no 2 Greek NT manuscripts are identical. They all have variant readings in them.

[coksiw]

Why do you think the ebionites and low Christology unitarians fought tooth and nail against "God was manifest in the flesh .. " in 1 Timothy 3:16?

It was very important to them that Jesus was NOT "God manifest in the flesh.." because they wanted to emphasize only his humanity, often claiming he was the son of Joseph.

The claim is simply absurd. Do you really think the thousands of differences, the 45 verses missing, have no doctrinal significance?

In fact, many of the larger variants are precisely on doctrinal battleground verses and sections. Even a small variant, physically, like in 1 Timothy 3:16, can have ginormous doctrinal impact.

Well, you are right, the newly discovered manuscripts tend to hurt the lie that Jesus wasn't God, like for instance "Spirit" vs "Spirit of Jesus" in Act 16:7. However, it is not my fault that they hang on one verse to prove a whole doctrine. There are many other verses in the Bible that can be used to prove the truth that Jesus is God manifested in flesh.
I can show the diety of Jesus with God or He, with only begotten God or Son, with Spirit or Spirit of Jesus. The truth is still findable. There is only one absolute truth.

[Steven Avery]

Most variant readings have nothing to do with theology. However, hundreds have a very significant effect. So the fact that the majority by number are not so consequential is simply a diversion from the simple fact that the Reformation Bible and CT are radically different, inclufing 45 full verses omitted from the historic Bible.

And the modern versions even have a dozen or two hard errors as well.

In a sense I actually have more respect for a modern version dupe who rails against the King James Bible than I do for those who try to straddle oil and water, sweet and bitter. The lukewarm approach to the Bible.

[Steven Avery]

I can show the diety of Jesus with God or He, with only begotten God or Son, with Spirit or Spirit of Jesus. The truth is still findable. There is only one absolute truth. This is a self-centered approach. My truth is what I think is important.

The issue is whether there are huge differences in the Reformation Bible and the Critical Text that affect doctrinal understandings. There are. Huge differences.

The fact that you feel you can "find" the truths that you think are relevant to you really means nothing.

[coksiw]

This is a self-centered approach. My truth is what I think is important.

The issue is whether there are huge differences in the Reformation Bible and the Critical Text that affect doctrinal understandings. There are. Huge differences.

The fact that you feel you can "find" the truths that you think are relevant to you really means nothing.

Well brother, if you put a lot of pressure in me I would tell you that I have more trust in the Critical Text than in others. The different between MT and CT, including misspellings and punctuation is around 6%, the other 94% is the same (you can google this). However, I, as somebody that tries to witness to the lost and help people to grow, should be able to teach about Jesus, its nature, salvation, sanctification, spiritual disciplines, and all the core doctrine of our profession with whatever Bible is available or what they want to use, as long as it is literal. I should be ready to teach doctrine with the most used ones.

For those reading this thread. I found these links good summaries of the Critical vs Majority methodology:
https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-text.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/majority-text.html

[Esaias]

In what way is the critical text superior to the Received Text? And in what way is a critical text version superior to the KJV?

[Evang.Benincasa]

In what way is the critical text superior to the Received Text? And in what way is a critical text version superior to the KJV?

Very good question. :thumbsup

[Scott Pitta]

Both the critical text ( whatever that is) and the Received text are birds of the same feather.

Let me explain.

A critical text is a compilation of NT manuscripts. The older critical texts were based on fewer manuscripts. Modern critical texts have access to all available Greek manuscripts.

Different critical texts place priority over certain manuscripts. The process is the same, but the outcome is different.

[coksiw]

In what way is the critical text superior to the Received Text? And in what way is a critical text version superior to the KJV?

The links I posted in my previous post explain it. Not very long an exhaustive but gives a good accurate summary of the different methodologies. They are short, I recommend you spend a time reading it, worth it.

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.

[Steven Avery]

Both the critical text ( whatever that is)
All the Critical Texts are minor off-shoots of the Westcott-Hort recension. This was a text that was given to the Revision Committee secretly in 1871 and published in 1881. It is largely a Vaticanus-primacy text, despite the fact that Vaticanus is like a Reader's Digest corruption version, full of omissions and with many errant blunders.

In those sections where Vaticanus is lacuna, Sinaiticus (an 1800s production, pretended to be 300s) is the primary text.

and the Received text are birds of the same feather. 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.)
There are thousands of differences, hundreds that are major. Plus the Critical Text has dozens of hard errors that are not in the pure Reformation Bible.

That is like saying a stork and a hummingbird are birds of the same feather.

Let me explain.A critical text is a compilation of NT manuscripts. The older critical texts were based on fewer manuscripts. Modern critical texts have access to all available Greek manuscripts. Different critical texts place priority over certain manuscripts. The process is the same, but the outcome is different. The simple fact is that the critical texts used today actually IGNORE the mass of manuscripts that have been discovered in the last couple of hundred years. (They even developed a number of tricks to dupe readers of the apparatuses.)

The great mass of Greek mss support the Reformation Bible against the critical text on most variants. Plus the Reformation Bible uses auxiliary evidences, like the Latin lines, the early church writers, and style and internal and grammatical evidences, in a far more sensible way than does the critical text methodology. And the paradigms used are faith-consistent, while the critical text works with unbeliever and false paradigms like lectio difficilior and lectio brevior, grossly abused to try to support the corrupt text.

So the paragraph above from Scott turns logic on its head.

[Steven Avery]

...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.

[Ehud]

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

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.)

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.

[Scott Pitta]

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.

[coksiw]

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,

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.

[Scott Pitta]

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.

[Godsdrummer]

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.

[Steven Avery]

For Sinaiticus, see:

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

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

[Steven Avery]

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.

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.

[Steven Avery]

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.

[Steven Avery]

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.

[Steven Avery]

Why is it more likely that these verses are 'omitted from the Critical Text' as opposed to having been 'added to the Majority Text'?The mass of historic Greek, Latin and Syriac mss, and early church writers, are reflected in the Reformation Bible. And this text was settled and sure for the AV 1611.

The 1871-81 corruption critical text would ignore the mass of mss. in all the languages to choose an omission variant of Vaticanus and hardly anything else.

This insipid methodology thus omitted many hundreds of fine words, phrases and verses and sections that are the historic pure Bible.

Shortened corruptions are trivially easy to occur by tired scribes with a reader’s digest ‘let’s get it done’ approach. Often the corruption is obvious, so they use lectio difficilior to pretend that it was the apostles and NT authors of the 1st century who were bumbling idiots, when it was simply some likely-gnostic Alexandrian scribe who made those errors hundreds of years later.

The dynamic is actually quite easy to understand, even in short-hand, as here.

[Esaias]

Sinaiticus is not a modern production.



I'd like to see you actually interact with the evidence that Sinaiticus is, indeed, a modern production.

[Scott Pitta]

No such evidence exists. It is, shall we say, urban legend.

To be fair, textual critics do debate issues near and far in the field of TC. But I have never read a journal article suggesting Sinaiticus is modern.

[Esaias]

The CT is the best effort as of today to reconstruct the original text.


I have yet to see any evidence of this being the case. The CT (which one? NA? UBS? WH?) is plagued with problems, not least of which is the amount of blatant dishonesty practiced by the promoter$ of "new improved translations" of the Critical Text(s). That alone, in my opinion, renders the whole thing highly suspect.

Your statement about the LXX is somewhat misleading. An apostle paraphrasing (or even using a text no longer in evidence except via NT quotations) is hardly precedent for the whole CT theory whereby we presume occultists and near-infidels are apostolically qualified to "retranslate (much less "reconstruct") the received text(s) of Scripture".

By received text(s) I mean that which is generally received by the church as authoritative, as opposed to that which is generally received by Bible publishing businesses and university clerics as authoritative.

[Esaias]

No such evidence exists. It is, shall we say, urban legend.

To be fair, textual critics do debate issues near and far in the field of TC. But I have never read a journal article suggesting Sinaiticus is modern.

Urban legend? I guess this means you won't be looking at the evidence then, much less interacting with it. My loss, I suppose.

[Scott Pitta]

I have seen no such evidence from a textual critic. The entire notion of a late date is not found in any literature I am familiar with.

Are there journal articles on this subject ?? Like from SBL ??

[Esaias]

I have seen no such evidence from a textual critic. The entire notion of a late date is not found in any literature I am familiar with.

Are there journal articles on this subject ?? Like from SBL ??

You do realize the probability of modern forgery was raised practically from Day One of the appearance of Sinaiticus? By the very people involved in its alleged discovery?

Also, appeals to authority are, technically, logical fallacies. The authorized official "journals" are not the final word on anything, they are just publications (and as one scientific Journal editor recently claimed, the vast bulk of "peer reviewed published science" is pure fraudulent junk).

[Esaias]

I always find it strange that I, who actually prefer the LXX old testament, am always defending the AV against what I can only say are disingenuous and/or ill-informed attacks by proponents of modern translations. Strange world we live in. :)

[Scott Pitta]

If textual critics are not the ones we look to when seeking data about a given NT manuscript, who then is the expert we should look to ??

I do not have a preference for any text, text type or English translation. But when questions come up about a given manuscript, I look to those actual scholars for guidance.

Who else am I to ask ?? The milk man ?

[Esaias]

If textual critics are not the ones we look to when seeking data about a given NT manuscript, who then is the expert we should look to ??

I do not have a preference for any text, text type or English translation. But when questions come up about a given manuscript, I look to those actual scholars for guidance.

Who else am I to ask ?? The milk man ?

Brother Avery has rather extensive documentation concerning the provenance of the Sinaiticus manuscript, detailing the debates current among scholars at the time it was brought forward.

I don't think he, nor they, are milk men.

[Scott Pitta]

Steve is one remarkable man. But neither he nor I am a textual critic.

Which published textual critics are of the opinion Sinaiticus is late ? Where are those journal articles ?

[Esaias]

Steve is one remarkable man. But neither he nor I am a textual critic.

Which published textual critics are of the opinion Sinaiticus is late ? Where are those journal articles ?

Do you only buy bread after securing an official pronouncement from a professional baker? Or are you able to examine evidence and make a decision for yourself?

I invite you to read this:

http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?279-why-do-we-know-that-the-Sinaiticus-ms-is-an-1800s-production

[Esaias]

textual criticism noun
Definition of textual criticism
1 : the study of a literary work that aims to establish the original text
2 : a critical study of literature emphasizing a close reading and analysis of the text

textual critic noun
Definition of textual critic
: a practitioner of textual criticism


So who is a "textual critic" again?

[Scott Pitta]

The data contained in the link is unimpressive.

Which textual scholars provide evidence for a late date for Sinaiticus ???

[Esaias]

The data contained in the link is unimpressive.

Which textual scholars provide evidence for a late date for Sinaiticus ???

Took you 7 minutes to come to your conclusion? Well, never mind then. Clearly, since you are "not a textual critic", your lack of impress is, shall we say, unimpressive. :thumbsup

[Steven Avery]

Took you 7 minutes to come to your conclusion?touche!

Nice to have a hearty morning laugh :) !

[coksiw]

It is hard to reason with KJV only people. It is almost like a cult. They think they know it all and figured all out. I’m thankful my Church and my denomination is not.

[Esaias]

It is hard to reason with KJV only people. It is almost like a cult. They think they know it all and figured all out. I’m thankful my Church and my denomination is not.

I am not KJV only. Your response here indicates YOU might be the unreasonable one. The know it all attitude, by the way, I have seen far more often with the anti KJV crowd than otherwise. At least the majority of KJ defenders are willing to actually interact with the data, whereas so far in this thread I haven't seen much from the other side.

[Rose]

WOW, completely ignorant here on this topic...so, what is the consensus on the truest bible translation that we should be reading? Really interested.

[Scott Pitta]

Whatever translation one actually reads is the best one for you.

[coksiw]

WOW, completely ignorant here on this topic...so, what is the consensus on the truest bible translation that we should be reading? Really interested.

David Bernard, UPCI superintendent, theology book author, who wrote a book about all this topic called Infallible Word of God (Amazon, great reviews) recommends, from more literal to more idiomatic KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT. He also recommends that for devotional and such, stick with a conservative literal translation: KJV, NKJV, NASB or ESV. He also says that if you go with the KJV you may need a dictionary to fully understand the archaic meaning of old English words. You can find this information also in his book Interpreting God’s Word.

[Scott Pitta]

Which translation depends on the reading skills of the person doing the reading. If a person is bilingual also impacts translation selection.

[coksiw]

Your statement about the LXX is somewhat misleading. An apostle paraphrasing (or even using a text no longer in evidence except via NT quotations) is hardly precedent for the whole CT theory whereby we presume occultists and near-infidels are apostolically qualified to "retranslate (much less "reconstruct") the received text(s) of Scripture".



Esaias, I was talking about translation there, not about manuscripts, keep reading so you see I said right after “regarding manuscripts”. I believe Paul set a precedent of how you deal with translation by doing that.

In my whole argument I never went trying to discredit anyone by calling them occultists, and such. I hope you are not talking about the dishonest accusations against Westcott, because the occultist one was W.W. Westcott not BF Westcott which was the one that built that Text. Anyway, why KJV-only folk are so quick to attack the credibility of the people and shout “conspiracy”?

[coksiw]

The mass of historic Greek, Latin and Syriac mss, and early church writers, are reflected in the Reformation Bible. And this text was settled and sure for the AV 1611.

The 1871-81 corruption critical text would ignore the mass of mss. in all the languages to choose an omission variant of Vaticanus and hardly anything else.

This insipid methodology thus omitted many hundreds of fine words, phrases and verses and sections that are the historic pure Bible.

Shortened corruptions are trivially easy to occur by tired scribes with a reader’s digest ‘let’s get it done’ approach. Often the corruption is obvious, so they use lectio difficilior to pretend that it was the apostles and NT authors of the 1st century who were bumbling idiots, when it was simply some likely-gnostic Alexandrian scribe who made those errors hundreds of years later.

The dynamic is actually quite easy to understand, even in short-hand, as here.

There are other explanations to that Ehud. Steve’s argument is the typical argument against Alexandrine type text. There is another side with good arguments too. I recommend you read from reliable peer reviewed sources about it.

[Scott Pitta]

There are more than 2 sides. There are different ideas and assessments of text types. Not every manuscript fits into 1 or 2 or 3 text types. Some manuscripts have readings from different text types.

[Ehud]

There are other explanations to that Ehud. Steve’s argument is the typical argument against Alexandrine type text. There is another side with good arguments too. I recommend you read from reliable peer reviewed sources about it.

Any suggestions on where to start? Google isn’t always the greatest tool for sorting thru credible versus non-credible sources.

[coksiw]

Any suggestions on where to start? Google isn’t always the greatest tool for sorting thru credible versus non-credible sources.

Ehud, my two main sources, which are not KJV-only (or Received Text-only), are bible-researcher.com (multiple authors from different backgrounds) and David Bernard books and articles on the topic.

[Esaias]

WOW, completely ignorant here on this topic...so, what is the consensus on the truest bible translation that we should be reading? Really interested.

KJV is, in my opinion, the best general purpose English Bible. My kids learned how to read using a KJV. Will you come across words you aren't familiar with? Yes, which is good, it causes you to question, think, and learn things.

For the critical text versions, the ASV or the NASB are probably the most accurate.

[Scott Pitta]

Pick up a few translations from the used book store and read them for a while.

[Ehud]

Ehud, my two main sources, which are not KJV-only (or Received Text-only), are bible-researcher.com (multiple authors from different backgrounds) and David Bernard books and articles on the topic.

Thank you; much appreciated!

[Steven Avery]

the occultist one was W.W. Westcott not BF Westcott which was the one that built that Text.You are correct that one AV writer, Gail Riplinger, did mix these two together, which was shabby.

On the other hand, the letters of Fenton Hort refer specifically to a seance attendance with Augustus and Sophia DeMorgan. Augustus was a mathematician and mesmerist, and Sophia was a super heavy-duty occultist.

And if you read how Westcott practiced his “communion of the saints”, you will see that it was a spiritualist praxis.

The two men were spiritually buffeted, over many decades. They were motivated from a young age by a hatred towards the pure Bible, which Hort called “vile” and “vicious.”

Thus it is easy to understand the laughable absurdity of the Hortian theories and the abject corruption of the Westcott-Hort recension.

[Scott Pitta]

Gail Riplinger has no college level training in textual criticism, Koine literature, or any other areas related to literature or history.

She lacks any credibility.

There are dozens of scholars whose voices and writings deserve consideration. Focusing on a handful at the expense of the others, limits perspective.

[Godsdrummer]

Pick up a few translations from the used book store and read them for a while.

My daughter and son in law use the message a lot. When they preach I have used the KJ or NKJV all of my life. I read along in the KJ when the other version is read most times. When it comes down to meaning there is not one difference as far as I have found.

[coksiw]

The two men were spiritually buffeted, over many decades. They were motivated from a young age by a hatred towards the pure Bible, which Hort called “vile” and “vicious.”


My sources tell me that he called "vile" and "vicious" the Textus Receptus, not the "pure bible". You keep calling the TR the pure bible. Like if you want to hammer the idea by repetition.
My sources tell me that he had a bias against the TR because of unreliability without much evidences. Typical human being behavior.

From: https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html
"In truth, both men held to several ideas that modern conservative Christianity would consider heretical. Then again, the same can be said for church fathers such as Origen, Jerome, and Augustine. And, it’s worth noting that the King James translators themselves were, variously, supporters of Anglicanism, infant baptism, and so forth."

Erasums was a Catholic, yet you appreciate its work. Reina and Valera were Catholics, yet we appreciate their work in the Spanish translation. Think about Catholicism, idolatry, praying for the death, paying to get out of purgatory, and all kind of crazy stuff. Isn't it sinful?

Other sources indicate that the TR was sent to the printing facility unfinished, with just bare notes, suggesting that it was done in a rush to publish before the work that was being done in Spain already. If you think about it, I can also have negative thinking and say Erasmus was motivated by filthy lucre which is the root of all evil and/or fame, and discharge all his work because of it.

Steve, if we go that route you are going to find all kinds of sins.

Anyways, we are far from W-H work at this point. There have been plenty of new manuscripts, and the theory in use today is not the Westcott and Hort one but much better. The only two things left from them that is still used today is the use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as well as the principle of “shorter is earlier.”

[Steven Avery]

There have been plenty of new manuscripts, and the theory in use today is not the Westcott and Hort one but much better. The only two things left from them that is still used today is the use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as well as the principle of “shorter is earlier.”Please share a couple of major variants where the critical text changed from the Westcott-Hort recession of 1881, whether due to “new manuscripts”: new theories or any reason at all.

Thanks.

[Steven Avery]

Gail Riplinger has no college level training in textual criticism, Koine literature, or any other areas related to literature or history. She lacks any credibility.. Did you notice that I pointed out a specific major error she made?

And that she is rarely, if ever, used as a source.

She does make a good diversionary target for contras pushing the decrepit Westcott-Hort recension.

[Steven Avery]

the message ... the KJ ... not one difference as far as I have found. Your Christian understanding and discernment must be quite shallow.

[Steven Avery]

WOW, completely ignorant here on this topic...so, what is the consensus on the truest bible translation that we should be reading? Really interested.There is a consensus from those that believe we have in our hands God’s pure and perfect word ... that it is in the Authorized Version.

There is a separate pseudo-consensus that we simply have to accept and embrace corruptions galore. Those folks mostly jump around, using a couple of dozen contradicting modern versions from the critical text. NIV, NLT, ESV, NAS, Message, Amplified, Emphasized and dozens more.

The greatest level of confusion is reached when an attempt is made to mix the Reformation Bible with the Westcott-Hort recension.

[coksiw]

There is a separate pseudo-consensus that we simply have to accept and embrace corruptions galore. Those folks mostly jump around, using a couple of dozen contradicting modern versions from the critical text. NIV, NLT, ESV, NAS, Message, Amplified, Emphasized and dozens more.

Wasn't the TR the result of multiple manuscripts that differed? isn't that what you call: corrupted?

Are you with the assumption that the manuscripts used in TR were special and the ones used for the CT were "corrupted" with false doctrines? What false doctrine? Don't you believe the Deity of Jesus? that's what the CT makes more evident according to what I read. Isn't that a good indication of the truth getting clearer from earlier manuscripts?
When you say "corrupted" do you mean differences? errors? false doctrines? could you clarify please?

Regarding your question:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html
"Though the Westcott-Hort text was the "standard" critical text for a generation or two, it is no longer considered such by anyone, and has not been for many years. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). The last two editions of each of these sport an identical text, a new "received text," so to speak. It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth. (13) The UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as their starting point and departed from it as their evaluation of manuscript evidence required. (14)

None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. (15)"

Even though, it doesn't say explicitly that there are new manuscripts, it says that UBS had to evaluate other "manuscript evidence" and that Nestle used three editions, including Westcott-Hort. I didn't follow the reference to figure out what it means, but I think they are using the same two sources (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) as Westcott-Hort, as you probably are suggesting. You are right that my sentence was incorrect, and I take it back. But I am right that the critical text is not Westcott-Hort but edited because of the new evidences (whatever that means), different source editions and the differences in theory used for the CT.

[Steven Avery]

Please share a couple of major variants where the critical text changed from the Westcott-Hort recession of 1881, whether due to “new manuscripts”: new theories or any reason at all.

Thanks.

Regarding your question:

...I didn't follow the reference to figure out what it means ...I am right that the critical text is not Westcott-Hort but edited because of the new evidences (whatever that means), different source editions and the differences in theory used for the CT.Putting aside the dancing and quote-snippets, reread my question and try to give an answer to the question.

Also ... what are “differences in theory” that produce these unspecified changes on the major variants.

Thanks!

[Scott Pitta]

The common mistake is combining textual criticism with theology. Textual critics focus on words and manuscripts, not theology.

That is why issues important to a textual critic are overlooked by nontextual critics.

[Steven Avery]

The common mistake is combining textual criticism with theology. Textual critics focus on words and manuscripts, not theology. That is why issues important to a textual critic are overlooked by nontextual critics. Any examples?

Thanks!

[Scott Pitta]

συμπληροῦσθαι reads sumpsaphein in Codex Bezae. This is in Acts chapter 1:26. The scribe for the Codex Bezae reading uses a more common word.

Acts 2:6 reads ἤκουον. Or is it akpuen ?

Since I cannot type in Greek, I cut and paste what I can and transliterate the rest.

What about Acts 2:7 ? is it Οὐχ or is it ouki. The difference is the final iota.

Then there is Acts 2:17. Is it kurios or theos ??

On a lager issue, are all variants found in Codex Bezae (in Acts) as a group correct ?

What about the defining characteristics of family 13 ?? Inspired or not ??

Is this the sort of example you wanted ??

[coksiw]

Putting aside the dancing and quote-snippets, reread my question and try to give an answer to the question.

Also ... what are “differences in theory” that produce these unspecified changes on the major variants.

Thanks!

Steven, the quotes I gave you are already telling you that there are differences. I'm not an expert in Text Criticism, are you? Did you write an article about Text Criticism that have been published and that other Experts in the area have reviewed and praised, and included in their must-read list for textual criticism students? The source I gave you are of good quality and I trust them much more than your writings in this forum for sure.

If it weren't for the people watching and reading this thread, that need to be exposed to the truth and honest reality, I would have stopped this argument a long time ago. This is not going anywhere. You won't change your mind, and me either.

[Scott Pitta]

But others do read these posts, even if they do not contribute to the discussion.

Interesting posts, Coksiw.

[Charnock]

An Bíobla Naofa

[Steven Avery]

Steven, the quotes I gave you are already telling you that there are differences. If you can not name one major difference, then you are in over your head, or the quotes are trickery, or both.

[coksiw]

If you can not name one major difference, then you are in over your head, or the quotes are trickery, or both.

Don’t you know the definition of “edition”? Are you making all those teams that made those editions, and the translator that used them liars?
If you are curious just search it yourself. It is public information. I'm just getting tired of posting quotes and references, and you not posting much of it, but instead a lot of questioning and rhetoric. Hint: NA, for example, has 558 differences to WH. And yes there have been new manuscripts discovery after WH work. Again you can find it yourself if you search for truth.

But anyway, what's your point? I already told you I'm not a TC expert, and the Critical Text is originally based on WH work, so they will be similar, with variations. Are you an expert?

[Esaias]

An Bíobla Naofa

I have than on e-sword. :thumbsup

[Godsdrummer]

Your Christian understanding and discernment must be quite shallow.

People in glass houses should not through stones. You want the word to be harder on things that are not spelled out in so many words. So if in your perception a new translation comes out that seems even weaker on certain things, than it must be wrong or not accurate.

After being a KJV only for 2/3 of my life, I have found that we hold to much emphasis on our pet peeves instead of the true message of Christ.

[Godsdrummer]

But others do read these posts, even if they do not contribute to the discussion.

Interesting posts, Coksiw.

That is right others do read these post.

[Steven Avery]

People in glass houses should not through stones. You want the word to be harder on things that are not spelled out in so many words. So if in your perception a new translation comes out that seems even weaker on certain things, than it must be wrong or not accurate. After being a KJV only for 2/3 of my life, I have found that we hold to much emphasis on our pet peeves instead of the true message of Christ. The Message is an incredibly bad version, even by the low bar standards of modern versions. And it does have new age wording. Doctrinal point after point is mangled. It is barely worth even discussion. Even by the super-low bar standards of paraphrases, it is horrid.

If a person can not see the differences, they are scholastically and spiritually in a very difficult place. I say this to you as your best friend, trying to lead you back to the Bible.

===================

(Sidenote:
One of the indications at Homestead Heritage that they were departing from the pure Christian faith was that individuals were reading The Message in home version reading. However, it was still kaboshed from usage in the fellowship meetings, in a rebuke from Blair Adams when this abomination was quoted at a meeting. This was some years back, I'll try to get a more recent report. They were also trying to come out with their own version.)

[Steven Avery]

Are you making all those teams that made those editions, and the translator that used them liars?hmmm.. I have no idea what you are talking about here with the straw man accusation.

Using inferior and counterfeit versions is definitely a scholastic and spiritual problem, but it is not lying.

If you are curious just search it yourself. I've done that and you can study and see how you have been duped by studying the articles referenced here:

Pure Bible Forum
the Westcott-Hort recension - source for modern versions and Critical Texts
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?848-the-Westcott-Hort-recension-source-for-modern-versions-and-Critical-Texts

Try to read whole articles, or good chunks, rather than searching out quote-snippets.

Also I highly recommend searching out (including your own insights) at least five to ten studies on specific variants, mostly major, so you get an idea of how the game is played. eg. "Father, forgive them.. " in Luke 23:34, "God was manifest in the flesh ...", Acts 8:37 with the baptism testimony, and more. Try to read and understand the differing positions.

Thanks!

[Steven Avery]

The common mistake is combining textual criticism with theology. Textual critics focus on words and manuscripts, not theology. That is why issues important to a textual critic are overlooked by nontextual critics.Any examples? Thanks! συμπληροῦσθαι reads sumpsaphein in Codex Bezae. This is in Acts chapter 1:26. The scribe for the Codex Bezae reading uses a more common word.So .. what do you think I "overlooked"?

Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots;
and the lot fell upon Matthias;
and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And why do you care about quirky singular Greek readings in Codex Bezae?
(likely involving a retro-version process, a piddle scribal faux pas.)

There is massive evidence for:
συγκατεψηφίσθη
ἕνδεκα

And Bezae has two piddle corruptions.
συμψηφίσθη
δώδεκα

Which you can see on:

Laparola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=51&rif2=1:26

That is the type of nonsense that let to the mangling of this beautiful verse in some modern versions:

Mark 1:41
And Jesus, moved with compassion,
put forth his hand,
and touched him,
and saith unto him,
I will; be thou clean.

Now they are attacking the integrity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simply because Codex Bezae has a piddle retro-version corruption, an abomination, saying that Jesus was angry, rather that being moved with compassion.

Our top brainiac textual critics (to whom our posters think we should do proper obeisance) think this attack on Jesus must be original simply because it is "harder" (lectio difficilior), which turns logic and sense upside down. This type of lunacy was ridiculed by Martin Litchfield West, but irrationality and lack of faith and Bible belief rules the modern textual criticism roost.

So .. what do you think I "overlooked"?

[coksiw]

hmmm..
Try to read whole articles, or good chunks, rather than searching out quote-snippets.



That's a great compilation of references to evaluate. Thank you. I'll check them out. And no, I don't go around looking for quotes. I read the articles, and if long I download them to my Kindle Paper.

I'm currently reading thru http://enigstetroos.org/pdf/PickeringWN_TheIdentityofTheNewTestament%2520II.pd f.

I'm finding some issue already with the exposition. He goes and uses specific example to make a point but he fails to show general data to make the point that it is a general problem. You don't throw the baby with the tub.
Then in section "Their quality judged by the ancient Church" I was hoping to see some testimonies from the early church, but no, the title is misleading. It is not that "ancient", my guess is that he is talking about the Orthodox church. Sentences like " But the evidence indicates that the
earliest MSS are the worst" right there when he failed to generalize the problem before, sounds to me like bad rhetoric.
Then it says that "the Church universal simply refused to copy or otherwise propagate that type of text" (again, the orthodox church), however few paragraphs later he says that:

"The case
of P66 is dramatic. The first hand was extensively corrected, and both hands are dated around A.D. 200.
The 1st hand is almost half "Byzantine" (a. 47%), but the 2nd hand regularly changed "Byzantine" readings
to "Alexandrian" and vice versa, i.e. he changed "Alexandrian" to "Byzantine", repeatedly. "

No copies but there are commonalities that the author without proper argumentation starts right off the bat saying that are Byzantine. That Byzantine is the source. He clarifies his claim without good argumentation here:

"Consider the case of Codex B and P75; they are said to agree 82% of the time (unprecedented for
"Alexandrian" MSS, but rather poor for "Byzantine"). But what about the 18% discrepancy? Most of the time,
when P75 and B disagree one or the other agrees with the "Byzantine" reading. If they come from a common
source, that source would have been more "Byzantine" than either descendant. Even the Coptic versions
agree with the "Byzantine" text as often as not."

What if P75 and B were both the source of the Byzantine reading he is talking about? and that's why when they disagree one of them tents to agree with the Byzantine? Or who knows how many other possibilities can be.

The interesting thing is that the Byzantine text disagrees more often with the early church writings than the Alexandrian text.

The author is not doing an objective sober analysis, but instead he is trying to persuade the readers to his own position using faulty rhetoric in my opinion.

I do find interesting his hypothesis: that there are not earlier Byzantine MSS because they got destroyed because of the continuous copying. It makes sense. The Orthodox church stayed with the original greek as their official scripture language. The Western church switched to latin. The Orthodox church probably did tons of copies.

I'll keep reading your sources. Thank you for collecting them.

[Steven Avery]

yw, I'll try to make some improvements. It is also meant to include helpful analysis as well as being a compilation.

The interesting thing is that the Byzantine text disagrees more often with the early church writings than the Alexandrian text. This is another false claim that is popular from the textual criticism dupe crew. Keep in mind that they are masters of word-parsing claims.

There are so many false claims that I try to place the actual truths on sites like purebibleforum so that I do not have to type again, and again, and again and again.

John William Burgon did a massive compilation, with statistics, writer by writer. And there is lots of follow-up. The ECW support is generally for the Received and Byzantine texts against the ultra-minority Alexandrian variants. The Ante-Nicene pct is probably about 65-35% overall, post-Nicea the pcts would be higher on the Byzantine end.

[coksiw]

yw, I'll try to make some improvements. It is also meant to include helpful analysis as well as being a compilation.

This is another false claim that is popular from the textual criticism dupe crew. Keep in mind that they are masters of word-parsing claims.

There are so many false claims that I try to place the actual truths on sites like purebibleforum so that I do not have to type again, and again, and again and again.

John William Burgon did a massive compilation, with statistics, writer by writer. And there is lots of follow-up. The ECW support is generally for the Received and Byzantine texts against the ultra-minority Alexandrian variants. The Ante-Nicene pct is probably about 65-35% overall, post-Nicea the pcts would be higher on the Byzantine end.

On Burgon's work: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-4/38-4-pp519-530_JETS.pdf

The summary:

No one can doubt Burgon’s assiduousness in studying the Church fathers and amassing the vast number of patristic quotations appearing in his
published and unpublished works. But his theological presuppositions and
his lack of access to modern critical patristic texts lessen the objectivity and
accuracy of his work. In addition Burgon frequently presumes that explanatory comments or vague allusions by the Church fathers are de˜nite references to certain verses and are thereby authoritative in establishing their
Biblical text, which is an invalid assumption. His use of the medieval
Church fathers, while enlightening, provides little evidence for the earliness of the Byzantine text. Undoubtedly some of the early fathers do cite
isolated readings that later were assimilated into the Byzantine text, but
even this does not demonstrate the existence of an early Byzantine text, as
Burgon hoped.

[coksiw]

Keep in mind that they are masters of word-parsing claims.

Brother, when people get passionate about a topic, they become masters of words. They all want to persuade you to their side with all they have.

That's why it is so important for a critical thinker to understand the Art of Rhetoric, so you can do an effective criticisms of somebody's work, and not let them persuade you unless they have good arguments. But its your responsibility to identify the good arguments and discharge the false propositions and invalid reasonings.

Rhetoric was a must-have skill at the time of the apostles and Paul used it a lot. Nowadays it is only taught at collage level, so a lot of our young people don't know how to deal with persuasion :/. I don't know how they can be critical thinkers without learning rhetoric. Oh well, sidetrack.

[Steven Avery]

On Burgon's work: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-4/38-4-pp519-530_JETS.pdf The summary: I've often discussed this Mark Heuer paper, which makes a couple of points but itself is very unbalanced.

The difference, my friend, is that on many of the variants I have actually looked at the specific quotes. And documented the supports. And often give corrections to the Critical Text apparatus. (Some I sent over to Laparola, since the administrator there is one of the few who would actually care about accuracy.)

My studies have simply overall affirmed Burgon, with a couple of exceptions (e.g. Barnabas on 1 Timothy 3:16, where it probably could be considered as neutral.)

Here is one spot where I discuss Burgon, and the Heuer paper.

Pure Bible Forum
Matthew 5:22 - Salvian apparatus omission "without a cause" ?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?215-Matthew-5-22-Salvian-apparatus-omission-quot-without-a-cause-quot

Steven

[coksiw]

I've often discussed this Mark Heuer paper, which makes a couple of points but itself is very unbalanced.

The difference, my friend, is that on many of the variants I have actually looked at the specific quotes. And documented the supports.

My studies have simply overall affirmed Burgon, with a couple of exceptions (e.g. Barnabas on 1 Timothy 3:16.)

Steven

What did you use for your study?

[coksiw]

I've often discussed this Mark Heuer paper, which makes a couple of points but itself is very unbalanced.

The difference, my friend, is that on many of the variants I have actually looked at the specific quotes. And documented the supports. And often give corrections to the Critical Text apparatus. (Some I sent over to Laparola, since the administrator there is one of the few who would actually care about accuracy.)

My studies have simply overall affirmed Burgon, with a couple of exceptions (e.g. Barnabas on 1 Timothy 3:16, where it probably could be considered as neutral.)

Here is one spot where I discuss Burgon, and the Heuer paper.

Pure Bible Forum
Matthew 5:22 - Salvian apparatus omission "without a cause" ?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?215-Matthew-5-22-Salvian-apparatus-omission-quot-without-a-cause-quot

Steven

Brother, I will read thru your review of Heuer article, but please don't take it personally, but unless you show me more of evidences I can't give you much creditability of your writings. I would rather have some references to articles of someone that is considered an expert in the TC area with already built reputation.

[Steven Avery]

Brother, I will read thru your review of Heuer article, but please don't take it personally, but unless you show me more of evidences I can't give you much creditability of your writings. I would rather have some references to articles of someone that is considered an expert in the TC area with already built reputation. And I am more interested in finding the truth of the matters.

What you really should do is study some of the actual variants.

Right now you are only a researcher dilettante hoping to find support for the modern version textual confusions, contradictions and errors. You are trying to parse quotes rather than facts. Learn how to do the factual study. Once you do five, you should understand the game.

As for Heuer, that is not a review. I simply point out some of the problems en passant. Even on his main example, Papias and the ending of Mark, he grossly misrepresented Burgon.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

What did you use for your study?On 1 Timothy 3:16 I have used a huge number of resources, ranging from historical studies of the debate which is mostly from c. 1690 to today, looking up ECW quotes, some in the apparatus, many not, a linguist in Germany, native Greek speakers, a study of the development of hymn theory, which became a popular attempt to account for the solecism in the CT, discussions with a variety of folks one of whom emphasized Origen, and much more, over many years.

As for the specifics of Heuer, Burgon and Barnabas on 1 Timoithy 3:16, there is now a link on my purebibleforum page that goes to a NTTextualCriticism discussion on Facebook. That is probably the one good discussion on the net.

[Scott Pitta]

There are lots of variant readings in First Timothy. I do tire of discussing the one usually discussed.

[Steven Avery]

There are lots of variant readings in First Timothy. I do tire of discussing the one usually discussed. Feel free to start new threads.

[Scott Pitta]

:)

[coksiw]

And I am more interested in finding the truth of the matters.

What you really should do is study some of the actual variants.

Right now you are only a researcher dilettante hoping to find support for the modern version textual confusions, contradictions and errors. You are trying to parse quotes rather than facts. Learn how to do the factual study. Once you do five, you should understand the game.

As for Heuer, that is not a review. I simply point out some of the problems en passant. Even on his main example, Papias and the ending of Mark, he grossly misrepresented Burgon.

Steven

Brother, in some fields, because of the complexity, you have to be an expert to get any deeper, or you just have to trust their work and criticize it according to basic principles of logic and rhetoric. If you try to be at their level you are going to end up with false propositions and invalid reasoning because you are not a trained expert. It is like when they bring experts into a jury. The jury is not an expert in the area. They are there to judge according to propositions (or claims) verification by other experts (you don't verify them yourself) and valid reasoning. Your ignorance and lack of proper training in the area can lead you to the wrong conclusions otherwise. If you really try without the proper training you may think you know what you are doing and you may feel confident of your conclusion but you don't.

I'm an expert in my area. I hold a bachelor and two master degrees on the same area. I currently work in the profession I studied for. My first master degree is for practitioners, but my second one is a research one. I've been a research paper reviewer of European conferences in my expertise. I have publications in national and international academic conferences. I also have publications in academic journals, including first quantile ranking ones. I'm an expert in my area. Now imagine somebody that is not an expert, no proper training, coming to me and trying to critique my work at my same level.

I can perfectly fine critique biblical doctrine because I have training in it, even though I'm not a theologian, because the complexity is not that high. But I can't go any deeper in TC because of its complexity, data availability, tooling, foreign unspoken language and required time for proper training. And I don't think I need to. I rely on the experts with reputation in the area as a jury does. And there are a lot of them in this case, which makes it even easier for me. Then I pronounce a verdict.

[Scott Pitta]

It is best to leave textual criticism to the real experts. It is extremely technical.

I am not one of them.

[Esaias]

Sounds like the fallacy of appeal to authority, with some bandwagonning thrown in for good measure. If a common plebe points out an error by one of the experts, it should be quite simple to point out the plebe's mistake, no? Instead of all this tut-tutting about how dare the plebes question self-appointed authority.

[coksiw]

Sounds like the fallacy of appeal to authority, with some bandwagonning thrown in for good measure. If a common plebe points out an error by one of the experts, it should be quite simple to point out the plebe's mistake, no? Instead of all this tut-tutting about how dare the plebes question self-appointed authority.
The "authorities" are conspiring against all of us :paranoid

[Esaias]

:paranoid

He looks shifty, if you ask me.

:happydance

[Scott Pitta]

It is technical work. The professionals do critic each other. No one is above review.

It is my casual observation nonprofessionals almost exclusively focus on a very limited range of topics that are not the focus of contemporary textual critics.

[Steven Avery]

Sounds like the fallacy of appeal to authority, with some bandwagonning thrown in for good measure. If a common plebe points out an error by one of the experts, it should be quite simple to point out the plebe's mistake, no? Instead of all this tut-tutting about how dare the plebes question self-appointed authority. Exactly right.

This is commonly used in fields like establishment science against creationary understandings.

Or the appeal to "science" to try to compel vaccinations that are crippling a generation of the young (when in fact the vaccine skeptics and resistors are far better informed about the actual science.)

In point of fact, you are dealing with pseudo-sciences. As in the pseudo-science of textual criticism, which is a play area of atheists and unbelievers and clearly an enemy of Christian faith.

And, once again, the flaws in the pseudo-sciences are easily missed in the forest by the hireling twigs, and the bandwagonning rah-rah shills.

Whole industries are developed, like the Pharma Complex, and the Textual Version Complex.

Those with insight learn to discern real sciences from the pseudos.

Steven

[coksiw]

Exactly right.

This is commonly used in fields like establishment science against creationary understandings.

Or the appeal to "science" to try to compel vaccinations that are crippling a generation of the young (when in fact the vaccine skeptics and resistors are far better informed about the actual science.)

In point of fact, you are dealing with pseudo-sciences. As in the pseudo-science of textual criticism, which is a play area of atheists and unbelievers and clearly an enemy of Christian faith.

And, once again, the flaws in the pseudo-sciences are easily missed in the forest by the hireling twigs, and the bandwagonning rah-rah shills.

Whole industries are developed, like the Pharma Complex, and the Textual Version Complex.

Those with insight learn to discern real sciences from the pseudos.

Steven

This is my response to the accusation that I'm saying the "appeal to authority" fallacy because I don't want to go any deeper than analyzing the experts articles and testimonies.


Steven, Esaias, you believe that God preserved his word through the Orthodox Church, I believe that God gave us tons of manuscripts and other evidences to cancel out errors and get what it is if not the originals, very close to the originals.
You pretend to know what you are talking about when you go deeper into TC itself. You pretend to know how to handle and interpret the low-level text facts correctly and how to come to the right conclusions. I instead acknowledge my ignorance in the topic, because I see that the more I know, the less I realize I know. And because I'm an expert myself in other areas and I know how ignorant people can be and how naive when they think they know.

What I do is not "appeal to authorities" and blindly believe them, but instead call the expert in the area as witnesses, as courts, since ancient times, do, so I can see what verdict I can come up with. Which is the reasonable thing to do in my opinion when it comes to TC and analysis of historical text evidences. That's why I read their condense articles that are just summaries of their findings. I contrast them and analyse their exposition of findings and reasoning of conclusion. I filled this thread with quotes from experts and their references. There are more witnesses in my side that in yours. I perceive my side more sober, less "conspiracy-minded", and less obsess with attacking credibility by pointing out authors personal life and believes. My judgement tells me I would rather stay with my side. That being said, Steven, I'll check out your links in the purebible forum that you posted before.

[Ehud]

This is my response to the accusation that I'm saying the "appeal to authority" fallacy because I don't want to go any deeper than analyzing the experts articles and testimonies.


Steven, Esaias, you believe that God preserved his word through the Orthodox Church, I believe that God gave us tons of manuscripts and other evidences to cancel out errors and get what it is if not the originals, very close to the originals.
You pretend to know what you are talking about when you go deeper into TC itself. You pretend to know how to handle and interpret the low-level text facts correctly and how to come to the right conclusions. I instead acknowledge my ignorance in the topic, because I see that the more I know, the less I realize I know. And because I'm an expert myself in other areas and I know how ignorant people can be and how naive when they think they know.

What I do is not "appeal to authorities" and blindly believe them, but instead call the expert in the area as witnesses, as courts, since ancient times, do, so I can see what verdict I can come up with. Which is the reasonable thing to do in my opinion when it comes to TC and analysis of historical text evidences. That's why I read their condense articles that are just summaries of their findings. I contrast them and analyse their exposition of findings and reasoning of conclusion. I filled this thread with quotes from experts and their references. There are more witnesses in my side that in yours. I perceive my side more sober, less "conspiracy-minded", and less obsess with attacking credibility by pointing out authors personal life and believes. My judgement tells me I would rather stay with my side. That being said, Steven, I'll check out your links in the purebible forum that you posted before.

Pardon the crude analogy, but I think what you have said is this: "If I need my car worked on, I'm calling my mechanic, not asking the guy at Hardees." It may very well be that my mechanic diagnoses the problem wrong, and the guy at Hardees was spot on, but I simply have no reason to trust the guy at Hardees.

[coksiw]

Pardon the crude analogy, but I think what you have said is this: "If I need my car worked on, I'm calling my mechanic, not asking the guy at Hardees." It may very well be that my mechanic diagnoses the problem wrong, and the guy at Hardees was spot on, but I simply have no reason to trust the guy at Hardees.

Of course nothing is black and white. I fix my car problem as long as I can, but I don’t do a open heart surgery on myself or trust the butcher to do it. It depends on the required training to do it right, tooling, complexity, availability of data, etc... There are other factors like degree of trust in certain individual based on past services performance and also conflict of interest.

That’s why I said that it is in the case of TC.

[Ehud]

Of course nothing is black and white. I fixed my car problem as long as I can, but I don’t do a open heart surgery on myself or trust the butcher to do it. It depends on the require training to do it right, tooling, complexity, availability of data, etc... That’s why I said that it is in the case of TC.

Me trying to fix a car would be very much like a butcher performing open heart surgery.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I instead acknowledge my ignorance in the topic, because I see that the more I know, the less I realize I know. And because I'm an expert myself in other areas and I know how ignorant people can be and how naive when they think they know.

Please allow me to point something out that has interested me of late. You bring up a point that is true, and because it is true you shouldn't say that Esaias, and Steven are "pretending" to know. Bad mechanics, work on ignorance of the client. They flourish in large populations because of the amount of car owners to work for. The little you know, enables the bad mechanic to tell you anything. Your car will run, and you may even feel the problem fixed, but to me it is still running lousy. It still doesn't brake properly. It is still using fuel inadequately. Let's take the cars I hate, GERMAN cars. While they are built quite well, they are plagued with a interesting problem. They are electronically over designed. Meaning, I can walk up to any German late model no matter what brand, and plug in my computer, and codes will pop up like New Years Eve countdown. Yet, the customer is running around with the car noticing very little. Even can sell the car to someone which has a list of issues and the buyer won't realize it until too late. Eternal life is more important than our transportation. Bibles were translated by interpretations of the translators. Also way back you just couldn't translate or interpret outside the group think. Therefore the KJV translators informed us living after them to continue their work. They would turn over in their graves to witness the KJV Onlyists, because it was never their purpose to stop the work in 1611. Yet, to find truth one must find it through examining all the information that is out there. No one pretends to know, they know because they did the heavy lifting. British motorcycles and old Harley Davidson's worst enemy was the mechanic who worked on them, and their owners. Machines utterly falling apart because of cutting corners in maintenance, disregarding specifications, using non OEM parts. taking things apart without the skill, or proper training. Like homeowners to it yourselfing a home to disaster. Not that I'm trying to say that you shouldn't work on you own lawnmower, or fix a leak under the sink. What I am saying is find the expert way of doing it.

Now, concerning the Bible, the experts while being experts in manuscripts still are controlled by factors which include colleagues, their religious bias, or lack of religious bias, or whatever Christian movement they are a part of. We have a thread here in the forum concerning Matthew 28:19, that the author of the thread believes it should be reinterpreted because of findings in history, and personal religious prejudice. Going over the thread, you will find there is a lack of wanting to find the truth. Also the point must be made that if we change one verse, what about the others? Also a proposition was made that the Gospel account was originally written in Hebrew, and that the LXX was some botched up Greek rendering of the OT, which was inserted into the New Testament. That no respecting first century Judean would of ever emploted Greek to convey their very Hebrew message. These present problems, not small ones but quite humongous ones If the use of GOD, and Jesus is questioned and replaced with YAH, and Yahshua. The whole war against God and Jesus being used is new, and for the last 2,000 years was never an issue. But, people just use what sounds go to them. They pick from authorities who agree with their findings. They go to one mechanic who tells them bad news, so they bring it to other mechanics until they find the one who will work on the vehicle. Only to find that they have ended up paying huge amounts of money, to the point of never really getting the machine to work correctly. Sadly the try to use the machine to the best of its ability. Do the research, consider the arguments you have read here in this thread. Keep asking questions of the brothers. Do you own heavy lifting until you find the truth. Truth irrefutable.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Me trying to fix a car would be very much like a butcher performing open heart surgery.

Fixing a car was an absolute must in the 1900s. It was part of the territory of owning any machine. A woman owning a sewing machine knew how to work on it. Homeowners understood how to do repairs. Latin, Greek, was taught in schools, and universities were built to primarily study the Bible. Today we have become the United States of Opinion. Pastor Google, and Bishop YouTubes has led us into a plethora of whatever we want to believe. Giving us good arguments why we should believe it. Good because we know enough to be dangerous.

[Scott Pitta]

Textual criticism of the New Testament begins with learning the language. Preferably in a college classroom.

There is something to be said for having a professor providing direction and correct errors early on.

Few ever learn the language. Let alone learning lexical semantics. Toss in some text linguistics. After college try and stay caught up on the literature.

30 years later, I defer to known textual critics. I will never be a textual critic.

Let the specialists do their research. Read their articles, Thank God for their unique contribution to society.

[Steven Avery]

Then there is Acts 2:17. Is it kurios or theos ??
Just check the pure Bible, God == theos.

Acts 2:17 AV
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,
I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams:

This is what the mass of Greek mss read. There are some mss. where it says "saith the Lord", which we can smile at and ignore. John Gill has good commentary, and mentions offhand that some Vulgate and Ethiopic mss have the Lord.

It looks like you are only trying to make the point that you do not know what the Bible actually reads in 1000s of places. That you have become thoroughly confused by the faux science of textual criticism.

Do you attack Jesus as being angry in Mark 1:41? That was my last post.

So .. what do you think I "overlooked"?
....'

That is the type of nonsense that let to the mangling of this beautiful verse in some modern versions:

Mark 1:41
And Jesus, moved with compassion,
put forth his hand,
and touched him,
and saith unto him,
I will; be thou clean.

Now they are attacking the integrity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simply because Codex Bezae has a piddle retro-version corruption, an abomination, saying that Jesus was angry, rather that being moved with compassion.

Our top brainiac textual critics (to whom our posters think we should do proper obeisance) think this attack on Jesus must be original simply because it is "harder" (lectio difficilior), which turns logic and sense upside down. This type of lunacy was ridiculed by Martin Litchfield West, but irrationality and lack of faith and Bible belief rules the modern textual criticism roost.

So .. what do you think I "overlooked"?

[Steven Avery]

Let the specialists do their research. Read their articles, Thank God for their unique contribution to society. However, they have paradigms of the text that are false and anti-God. Their basic tude is doubt and lack of faith and man over God. So you are thanking God for the dark-side,

[Evang.Benincasa]

However, they have paradigms of the text that are false and anti-God. Their basic tude is doubt and lack of faith and man over God. So you are thanking God for the dark-side,

:thumbsup

[Steven Avery]

Steven, Esaias, you believe that God preserved his word through the Orthodox Church, A very off-base analysis.

The Reformation Bible utilized the Greek and Latin manuscripts (also the Syriac line played a supportive role), as well as the wealth of early church writer scripture referencing, as well as sound textual principles.

This led to the beautiful, pure Bible translated around the world. And the apex edition, the Authorized Version, which remains today the one edition not to be excepted against.

And I have no idea who you mean by the "Orthodox Church". The Catholics have been fierce enemies of the Reformation Bible, and NEVER print an edition, since the Council of Trent and the Index of Forbidden Books.

The Greek Orthodox have done better, allowing a couple of the major Reformation Bible corrections to correct their Greek manuscripts. (Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses, especially.) However, their Orthodox Church Greek manuscripts was only one constiuent part of the preservation, and had some problems.

You pretend to know what you are talking about when you go deeper into TC itself. You pretend to know how to handle and interpret the low-level text facts correctly and how to come to the right conclusions. If you are going to bandy about petty insults, then I challenge you to give actual examples where I 'pretend'.

Lacking that, your most honorable path would be an apology.

[Ehud]

Today we have become the United States of Opinion. Pastor Google, and Bishop YouTubes has led us into a plethora of whatever we want to believe. Giving us good arguments why we should believe it. Good because we know enough to be dangerous.

I don’t think I have ever agreed with anything more in my entire life.

I do a lot of self-study, but I am a slow reader and it takes me a great deal of time to make any headway. One reason I wanted to join this forum was because you folks say things and bring up points that I don’t encounter in my usual studies. It’s also why I ask so many questions. I fully recognize that I might not be right, but my hope is to get right if i’m not.

The last thing I want is to get so entrenched in something that I become part of Pastor Google’s congregation. So to each of you who has taken the time to respond to my often times poorly posed questions, I truly do appreciate it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
Steven, Esaias, you believe that God preserved his word through the Orthodox Church,


Where did I say that? What do you mean by "Orthodox Church"?

I do believe the Scriptures have been preserved by Christians. I don't see God allowing antichrists and infidels to safeguard His Word.

Please explain. BTW, I am not KJ Only, as I mentioned previously.

[coksiw]

Textual criticism of the New Testament begins with learning the language. Preferably in a college classroom.

There is something to be said for having a professor providing direction and correct errors early on.

Few ever learn the language. Let alone learning lexical semantics. Toss in some text linguistics. After college try and stay caught up on the literature.

30 years later, I defer to known textual critics. I will never be a textual critic.

Let the specialists do their research. Read their articles, Thank God for their unique contribution to society.

I wonder how many of us actually can read and write koine Greek. BTW, everyone that can read and write koine is suspicious of conspiring or heretic :heeheehee

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
Steven, Esaias, you believe that God preserved his word through the Orthodox Church,


Where did I say that? What do you mean by "Orthodox Church"?

I do believe the Scriptures have been preserved by Christians. I don't see God allowing antichrists and infidels to safeguard His Word.

Please explain. BTW, I am not KJ Only, as I mentioned previously.

Wasn't the TR based on Byzantine manuscripts? and wasn't the Byzantine manuscripts from the Eastern church, which is known today as the Orthodox Church?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I wonder how many of us actually can read and write koine Greek. BTW, everyone that can read and write koine is suspicious of conspiring or heretic :heeheehee

https://media2.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

[coksiw]

However, they have paradigms of the text that are false and anti-God. Their basic tude is doubt and lack of faith and man over God. So you are thanking God for the dark-side,

That's your opinion, your attack on people's credibility by calling out what you think their intentions and believes are. Again, do you really think Erasums knew the true God and walked his ways?

[coksiw]

I don’t think I have ever agreed with anything more in my entire life.

I do a lot of self-study, but I am a slow reader and it takes me a great deal of time to make any headway. One reason I wanted to join this forum was because you folks say things and bring up points that I don’t encounter in my usual studies. It’s also why I ask so many questions. I fully recognize that I might not be right, but my hope is to get right if i’m not.

The last thing I want is to get so entrenched in something that I become part of Pastor Google’s congregation. So to each of you who has taken the time to respond to my often times poorly posed questions, I truly do appreciate it.

We live in the age of Information (Tower of Babel 2.0), without the wisdom to process it. Being critical thinkers, having good judgment and knowing how to identify the good quality source of information is a must to not fall into the rabbit hole.
This is also the age of Conspiracies. People find conspiracies everywhere, and they get together thanks to the means of communication and hold conferences in the topic. See the flat earth theory and their groups and their conferences. Unbelievable.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Wasn't the TR based on Byzantine manuscripts? and wasn't the Byzantine manuscripts from the Eastern church, which is known today as the Orthodox Church?

Are you saying Byzantine type text?

[Evang.Benincasa]

We live in the age of Information (Tower of Babel 2.0), without the wisdom to process it. Being critical thinkers, having good judgment and knowing how to identify the good quality source of information is a must to not fall into the rabbit hole.
This is also the age of Conspiracies. People find conspiracies everywhere, and they get together thanks to the means of communication and hold conferences in the topic. See the flat earth theory and their groups and their conferences. Unbelievable.

Do you believe that is what is happening in this thread?

[coksiw]

Are you saying Byzantine type text?

Yes, I am.

[Evang.Benincasa]

That's your opinion, your attack on people's credibility by calling out what you think their intentions and believes are. Again, do you really think Erasums knew the true God and walked his ways?

Are you asking if Erasmus was an Apostolic Pentecostal?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes, I am.

Well then, that's also debatable.

[coksiw]

Do you believe that is what is happening in this thread?

When people start attacking others credibility by getting personal instead of looking at their credentials to talk in the topic, that's what comes to my mind.
When I read about the KJV-only arguments, and the emotionally charge rhetoric and the attacking on individuals, that's what comes to mind.
A lot of the discussion here has been very good and insightful, some not.

[Evang.Benincasa]

A lot of the discussion here has been very good and insightful, some not.

Then welcome to the forum. :heeheehee

[coksiw]

Are you asking if Erasmus was an Apostolic Pentecostal?

If you followed the thread and what I have said before you would see what I'm talking about. Attacks on the people that worked on the CT thru history are legit and highlightable, but no for Erasums, the one that worked on the TR was a Catholic, also believing in false doctrines, idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead, etc.., also rushed to publish his paper. There is no questioning of its credibility for KJV-only people. Do you think that's fair?

[Esaias]

I see $$ involved with all the "need" for "new and revised translations". I mean, seriously, how is the ESV a necessary replacement for the NASB, or whatever the latest fad version is?

I also see serious problems with text criticism itself. Paleography is hardly an exact science. It *might* be able to say a document was NOT written before X century, but to suggest it can pinpoint WHEN a document WAS written is really stretching credibility in most cases.

Then there is the question of provenance, especially for example with DSS manuscripts and texts. Some Bedouin desert pawn shop guy has a 2000 year old parchment or papyrus he "found" in the Cave of Wonders he'll sell you for 50 bucks? Yeah, no questions of legitimacy involved here, for sure. [/sarc]

Found a 4th century Bible in a trash can at a desert monastery? Oh look what we found in a cardboard box in the basement of the Vatican? Might as well pull out the Shroud of Turin and host pilgrimages.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, there is the whole Masoretic Text issue vs Greek "Septuagint" readings. I find it just as hard to believe that medieval antichrist rabbinical Jews steeped in kabbalah and numerology have "preserved God's Word faithfully" as to believe a bunch of sodomite closet satanist catholic monks have "faithfully preserved original and superior copies" of the Bible.

The manuscript tradition underlying the Textus Receptus family of texts has been pretty much in the open from the beginning. No secret file cabinets in the Vatican, or monastery trash cans, no closed door meetings of rabbis, no hidden scrolls in Possum Holler, etc.

So, to my mind, the correct text of the NT is pretty much established. And the KJV is, according to my research, the best English translation of that text.

The OT, however, requires more investigation. The Greek OT readings found in the New Testament itself lend serious authority to an authoritative Greek Old Testament text (or family of texts). Sadly, almost all copies of the Septuagint available are texts based on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, the Alexandrian text, and some other "critical" editions. The Greek Orthodox, according to the priests I have queried, do not actually have an official old testament text, they instead go by various readings found in the lectionaries, prayers, early church "fathers", traditional hymnody, etc. I believe there have been attempts to generate a text from those, but lately most Greek Orthodox Bibles are either modern Greek translations of the Masoretic Hebrew (corrected from the lectionaries when necessary) or are based on Brenton or Rahlf's texts (both based on critical texts/codices like Vaticanus et al).

The Russian Synodal is based on a Greek old testament but I am not sure what the underlying Greek actually is, whether it is a reconstructed "Patriarchal Greek Orthodox" text or from somewhere else.

Almost all discussions of the subject of "which Bible" leave me feeling like certain important points are mussed or glossed over by all sides, honestly.

And the "trust the experts" plea is just nonsense, especially in this day and age.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If you followed the thread and what I have said before you would see what I'm talking about. Attacks on the people that worked on the CT thru history are legit and highlightable, but no for Erasums, the one that worked on the TR was a Catholic, also believing in false doctrines, idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead, etc.., also rushed to publish his paper. There is no questioning of its credibility for KJV-only people. Do you think that's fair?

When the beliefs are brought up of a translator like Erasmus. We would first need to find out where in his translation/interpretation is his doctrine worded in Greek, or Latin? Keep in mind that Erasmus had to watch what he was doing. If he deviated from what was normal (the Western Church) it would cost him. Yet, I personally don't find where Erasmus incerts Roman false doctrines, idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead, etc. into his translation.
Could you help me by showing me where and if he did?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I see $$ involved with all the "need" for "new and revised translations". I mean, seriously, how is the ESV a necessary replacement for the NASB, or whatever the latest fad version is?

I also see serious problems with text criticism itself. Paleography is hardly an exact science. It *might* be able to say a document was NOT written before X century, but to suggest it can pinpoint WHEN a document WAS written is really stretching credibility in most cases.

Then there is the question of provenance, especially for example with DSS manuscripts and texts. Some Bedouin desert pawn shop guy has a 2000 year old parchment or papyrus he "found" in the Cave of Wonders he'll sell you for 50 bucks? Yeah, no questions of legitimacy involved here, for sure. [/sarc]

Found a 4th century Bible in a trash can at a desert monastery? Oh look what we found in a cardboard box in the basement of the Vatican? Might as well pull out the Shroud of Turin and host pilgrimages.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, there is the whole Masoretic Text issue vs Greek "Septuagint" readings. I find it just as hard to believe that medieval antichrist rabbinical Jews steeped in kabbalah and numerology have "preserved God's Word faithfully" as to believe a bunch of sodomite closet satanist catholic monks have "faithfully preserved original and superior copies" of the Bible.

The manuscript tradition underlying the Textus Receptus family of texts has been pretty much in the open from the beginning. No secret file cabinets in the Vatican, or monastery trash cans, no closed door meetings of rabbis, no hidden scrolls in Possum Holler, etc.

So, to my mind, the correct text of the NT is pretty much established. And the KJV is, according to my research, the best English translation of that text.

The OT, however, requires more investigation. The Greek OT readings found in the New Testament itself lend serious authority to an authoritative Greek Old Testament text (or family of texts). Sadly, almost all copies of the Septuagint available are texts based on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, the Alexandrian text, and some other "critical" editions. The Greek Orthodox, according to the priests I have queried, do not actually have an official old testament text, they instead go by various readings found in the lectionaries, prayers, early church "fathers", traditional hymnody, etc. I believe there have been attempts to generate a text from those, but lately most Greek Orthodox Bibles are either modern Greek translations of the Masoretic Hebrew (corrected from the lectionaries when necessary) or are based on Brenton or Rahlf's texts (both based on critical texts/codices like Vaticanus et al).

The Russian Synodal is based on a Greek old testament but I am not sure what the underlying Greek actually is, whether it is a reconstructed "Patriarchal Greek Orthodox" text or from somewhere else.

Almost all discussions of the subject of "which Bible" leave me feeling like certain important points are mussed or glossed over by all sides, honestly.

And the "trust the experts" plea is just nonsense, especially in this day and age.

:thumbsup :highfive

[Esaias]

Wasn't the TR based on Byzantine manuscripts? and wasn't the Byzantine manuscripts from the Eastern church, which is known today as the Orthodox Church?

There is no "Orthodox Church", there are "Orthodox Churches" (plural), along with "Oriental Orthodox Churches", as well as Byzantine Catholic communities in communion with Rome. The "Byzantine text(s)" are so called because they have been widely used by Greek speaking communities in the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire.

Those communities were using Greek from day one on through the Reformation and to today. So their manuscripts and texts have never been hidden or out of sight (unlike the so called "early and best" manuscripts cited by the critical text proponents, in most cases).

The idea, by the way, of Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Christians preserving God's Word out in the open for two millennia makes a lot more sense than the idea of a small cabal of Jewish rabbinical families doing the same. And BOTH of those ideas make a lot more sense than the idea God's Word was preserved in a monastery in the desert completely out of sight until the mid 1800s.

[coksiw]

When the beliefs are brought up of a translator like Erasmus. We would first need to find out where in his translation/interpretation is his doctrine worded in Greek, or Latin? Keep in mind that Erasmus had to watch what he was doing. If he deviated from what was normal (the Western Church) it would cost him. Yet, I personally don't find where Erasmus incerts Roman false doctrines, idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead, etc. into his translation.
Could you help me by showing me where and if he did?

He didn't as far as I know. So you think the CT inserts false doctrines? If so where? I want to see how they got away with inserting text not backed by other manuscripts.

[coksiw]

I see $$ involved with all the "need" for "new and revised translations".
...
And the "trust the experts" plea is just nonsense, especially in this day and age.

So you are demonizing people that make their salaries out of dedicating their time and effort to do a good job. I see.

No, I didn't say "trust the experts". You didn't get what I said. You are interpreting what you want to, so you can make a point of total distrust on all testimonies from people that know what they are talking about.

[Esaias]

So you are demonizing people that make their salaries out of dedicating their time and effort to do a good job. I see.

No, you don't see. I am talking about the marketing and publishing industries associated with Bible sales.

I notice you responded to that, but cut out and did not respond to the main points I made. Interesting.

No, I didn't say "trust the experts". You didn't get what I said. You are interpreting what you want to, so you can make a point of total distrust on all testimonies from people that know what they are talking about.

Apparently, you are a "true believer" in whatever crusade you are on. Once again, I discover rational discussion of this subject is beyond the reach of many.

[Esaias]

When the beliefs are brought up of a translator like Erasmus. We would first need to find out where in his translation/interpretation is his doctrine worded in Greek, or Latin? Keep in mind that Erasmus had to watch what he was doing. If he deviated from what was normal (the Western Church) it would cost him. Yet, I personally don't find where Erasmus incerts Roman false doctrines, idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead, etc. into his translation.
Could you help me by showing me where and if he did?

Erasmus could say "I liked your letter" over 100 different ways yet his detractors can't seem to understand basic forum posts. :)

[Ehud]

And the "trust the experts" plea is just nonsense, especially in this day and age.

Help me understand this if you can. Are you meaning this in general or with regards to this thread in particular?

I don’t think we should trust ‘experts’ blindly, but if I am ignorant on a given subject, why would I not weigh the experts’ opinions more heavily than ‘random guy on a forum’? As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate all of the feedback, opinions, and sources that are provided here, but I have no reason to simply take anyone’s word for anything.

I am a CPA by trade. I readily admit there are some CPAs who are as worthless as the day is long. But in general, if you have a complex situation, you are much better off asking a CPA than searching the internet. Pointing to a time when your accountant charged you too much and gave you the wrong answer doesn’t negate that the average CPA knows more on the topic than the average joe, and far more than the Google. Access to all the information known to man is worthless if one doesn’t know what they are actually looking at.

[Esaias]

Help me understand this if you can. Are you meaning this in general or with regards to this thread in particular?

I don’t think we should trust ‘experts’ blindly, but if I am ignorant on a given subject, why would I not weigh the experts’ opinions more heavily than ‘random guy on a forum’? As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate all of the feedback, opinions, and sources that are provided here, but I have no reason to simply take anyone’s word for anything.

I am a CPA by trade. I readily admit there are some CPAs who are as worthless as the day is long. But in general, if you have a complex situation, you are much better off asking a CPA than searching the internet. Pointing to a time when your accountant charged you too much and gave you the wrong answer doesn’t negate that the average CPA knows more on the topic than the average joe, and far more than the Google. Access to all the information known to man is worthless if one doesn’t know what they are actually looking at.

I am saying there are people, both on this thread, as well as in the doctor's office, on TV, in Congress, in university class, in high school, etc, who themselves don't understand a subject, who defer to "experts", and (most importantly) who think you are insane or dumb for daring to question what the "experts" claim.

Subject matter experts are experts, but not infallible, nor above inspection, even by us plebians. :)

[coksiw]

I notice you responded to that, but cut out and did not respond to the main points I made. Interesting.

Oh Brother, I have posted so many things here before you guys came back in pack and a lot of things I said didn't get responded. Why do you find that "interesting"?

[Ehud]

I am saying there are people, both on this thread, as well as in the doctor's office, on TV, in Congress, in university class, in high school, etc, who themselves don't understand a subject, who defer to "experts", and (most importantly) who think you are insane or dumb for daring to question what the "experts" claim.

Subject matter experts are experts, but not infallible, nor above inspection, even by us plebians. :)

Thank you for the explanation; this makes much more sense to me.

As someone who has questioned many of your statements in my short time here, I appreciate the fact that you are always willing to try and clarify when asked to do so.

:thumbsup

[Esaias]

Oh Brother, I have posted so many things here before you guys came back in pack and a lot of things I said didn't get responded. Why do you find that "interesting"?

Because in this thread you have seemed focused on disparaging the opposition rather than dealing with issues that go beyond forum personalities.

But it's all good. :thumbsup

[Esaias]

Thank you for the explanation; this makes much more sense to me.

As someone who has questioned many of your statements in my short time here, I appreciate the fact that you are always willing to try and clarify when asked to do so.

:thumbsup

Absolutely, you're welcome. You seem very sincere and I appreciate your diligence in examining all sides of whatever issue you look at. :highfive

[coksiw]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

My sense of humor sometime is not the best, sorry about that.

[coksiw]

Because in this thread you have seemed focused on disparaging the opposition rather than dealing with issues that go beyond forum personalities.

But it's all good. :thumbsup

Wut?? Oh well.

[Esaias]

My sense of humor sometime is not the best, sorry about that.

Don't worry, we're a wacky bunch, you'll eventually fit right in. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

My sense of humor sometime is not the best, sorry about that.

No problem

[Esaias]

Don't worry, we're a wacky bunch, you'll eventually fit right in. :heeheehee

Wut?? Oh well.

See? It's already happening, you are being assimilated. Resistance is futile.

[coksiw]

I am saying there are people, both on this thread, as well as in the doctor's office, on TV, in Congress, in university class, in high school, etc, who themselves don't understand a subject, who defer to "experts", and (most importantly) who think you are insane or dumb for daring to question what the "experts" claim.

Subject matter experts are experts, but not infallible, nor above inspection, even by us plebians. :)

You still don't understand my point. I'll repeat it. I didn't say anything about "don't dare to question the expert", what I said is, "let the experts question each other and you judge". I used the analogy of a Court calling for expert as witnesses in front of a jury. Don't you understand that?

Steven himself did that in many of his purebibleforum posts. My thing about the expert started when they wanted to go deeper in to TC itself and bring greek and all that stuff to argue about it.

[coksiw]

See? It's already happening, you are being assimilated. Resistance is futile.

:happydance

[Steven Avery]

Wasn't the TR based on Byzantine manuscripts? and wasn't the Byzantine manuscripts from the Eastern church, which is known today as the Orthodox Church?Not only Byzantine mss.

The Received Texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza were based on the Greek Byzantine mss and the Latin mss and the early church writers, all looked at using sound textual principles, exercised by men of Christian faith (current "Textual Criticism" welcomes atheists and unbelievers of all stripes and works with anti-Christian principles.)

If you want an edition "based on Byzantine manuscripts", then you choose from one of the Byzantine or Majority texts that have been put together since about 1980. These have about 1,000 differences from the Received Text, a few of which are super-major. A version that does not have in the text the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 should immediately be discarded, or used only for collation and placed on a distant shelf.

The proponents of such texts do often do very respectable issue writing on the geek level, showing absurdities in the writings of the modern version Westcott-Hort recension pushers. This includes Wilbur Pickering and Maurice Robinson. However, the texts have no real use. You will find zero oneness churches actually using these one-dimensional texts. A similar count for trinitarian churches and any other doctrines.

If you are going to bandy about petty insults, then I challenge you to give actual examples where I 'pretend'. Lacking that, your most honorable path would be an apology. You really need to respond to the above.

[Steven Avery]

However, they have paradigms of the text that are false and anti-God. Their basic tude is doubt and lack of faith and man over God. So you are thanking God for the dark-side,That's your opinion, your attack on people's credibility by calling out what you think their intentions and believes are. Again, do you really think Erasums knew the true God and walked his ways?You are falsely accusing again. As I go into great detail explaining the false paradigms and theories. You never engage on that level, instead you always seek the superficial.

The gross abuse of lectio difficilior is one of many examples.

The only two things left from them that is still used today is the use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as well as the principle of “shorter is earlier.” You are so cornfused by your various sources that you made this absurd claim, and even left out lectio difficilior.

Plus you never came up with even one significant variant that changed from the supposed new theories and the new manuscripts.

It is interesting, you like the idea of a "Bible" that changes every year, so that no verse is sure. This is one of the principles of the probability text approach. Any verse can change tomorrow based on a new dig or a new theory. And you do not believe God to have an inspired and preserved text, you only do obeisance to the textual critics who can change any verse on any day.

====================

And I did point out the seance mentioned in the letters by Hort, and the occultism of Westcott's communion of the saints. Occult dabbling by people trying to sell you a new Bible text is far more significant than specific doctrinal standards. Unless you show specific tampering.

George Vance Smith, basically an ebionite, wrote an interesting book lauding the doctrines of the Revision, the first English text based on the Westcott-Hort recension.

You really need to either stop the false accusations, or dig a lot deeper than your dabbling.

[Steven Avery]

but no for Erasums, the one that worked on the TR was a Catholic, also believing in false doctrines, idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead, etc.., also rushed to publish his paper. You are totally ignorant about Erasmus, you have been duped by agit-prop.

There is a new vicious anti-Eramsus segment, just from the last 20 years or so, simply because of the hatred of the AV and the Reformation Bible.

In real Christian history, Erasmus is called the intellectual father of the Reformation ... Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.

Early in his life, Erasmus wrote "In Praise of Folly", a truly scathing attack on false Catholic elements.

Then he put his life on the line to give a pure Bible text. Read about Valladolid.

At Trent, his writings were considered a threat to the Catholic establishment, and his books and his Bible edition were put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books.) They stayed there at least till the 20th century, and it unclear what is their current status.

And Erasmus was, overall, a truly superb scholar. And the Reformation Bible then was subject to almost a century of refinement through the editions of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.

Then, you have to show that Erasmus believed in the doctrines you list above. Using the words of Erasmus, in context. Else you are simply bearing false witness, which is your new motif as you avoid specific detailed discussions.

There is no questioning of its credibility for KJV-only people. And I have no idea what this means.

[coksiw]

You really need to respond to the above.

Sorry I missed that. I did not mean to insult. What I meant was that "you think you know and you can but I don't think you really have enough understanding to correctly judge the evidences as a TC expert would do". That's my opinion.

If my wording transmitted a different message, which I think it did because of your words, I absolutely apologize for it. I'll try to be more careful of how I say things. I'm sorry brother.

[coksiw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
However, they have paradigms of the text that are false and anti-God. Their basic tude is doubt and lack of faith and man over God. So you are thanking God for the dark-side,
Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
That's your opinion, your attack on people's credibility by calling out what you think their intentions and believes are. Again, do you really think Erasums knew the true God and walked his ways?
You are falsely accusing again. As I go into great detail explaining the false paradigms and theories. You never engage on that level, instead you always seek the superficial.



I'm referring to thinks like this that you said: "However, they have paradigms of the text that are false and anti-God. Their basic tude is doubt and lack of faith and man over God. So you are thanking God for the dark-side,".
Taking into account that most people that work on TC and translations nowadays are Christians, I find that statement pretty hard, almost offensive, and definitely a judgement on their spirituality to diminish their credibility.

[coksiw]

Then, you have to show that Erasmus believed in the doctrines you list above. Using the words of Erasmus, in context. Else you are simply bearing false witness, which is your new motif as you avoid specific detailed discussions.


Brother, Erasmus was Catholic, even during the Reformation. He didn't join it. He did criticize things inside the Catholic church but he didn't join Luther in a doctrinal change. You can find that fact anywhere.

[coksiw]

Quote:
The only two things left from them that is still used today is the use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as well as the principle of “shorter is earlier.”

You are so cornfused by your various sources that you made this absurd claim, and even left out lectio difficilior.

My claim is not absurd, it is correct, and in fact, it is not my conclusion but from one of my sources.

[Steven Avery]

Reform and Conflict: From the Medieval World to the Wars of Religion, AD 1350-1648, Volume Four (2006)
Rudoph W. Heinze, Tim Dowley
https://books.google.com/books?id=_40qBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137

Almost as happy as the theologians are those men who are commonly called "religious" and "monks"—though both names are quite incorrect, since a good part of them arc very far removed from religion.. . . Everyone despises this breed of men so thoroughly that even a chance meeting with one of them is considered unlucky, still they maintain a splendid opinion of themselves. Desiderius Erasmus p. 43

....the second quotation is taken from Erasmus’s In Praise of Folly, a scathing attack on monks, parish priests, theologians, the hierarchy of the church, and religious practices. p. 44

This chapter began with an example of Erasmus's attack on monasticism, taken from In Praise of Polly, which was written in 1511 when he was at the height of his popularity. Although Erasmus poked fun at the weaknesses and vices of men in all walks of life and satirized the superstitious practices of contemporary popular piety, he was particularly critical of the clergy. He lambasted the papacy for ostentatious living, pursuit of power, and failure to imitate Christ. His criticism of cardinals and bishops for imitating the lifestyle of secular rulers was equally devastating, and even lowly parish priests were not spared Erasmus's sarcastic witticisms. They were accused of pursuing their own material gain with the same fervor as their superiors and of neglecting their spiritual responsibilities. Some of his wittiest comments were reserved for the scholastic theologians, whom he accused of being so "incredibly arrogant and touchy" that he was reluctant to write about them. He feared "they might rise up en masse and march in ranks against me with six hundred conclusions and force me to recant. And, if I should refuse, they would immediately shout heretic." Erasmus straddled a couple of worlds in a volatile time. You have been reading the modern diatribes against Erasmus. This new genre only came in vogue because of his connection with the Reformation Bible. It is unscholarly, even childish writing. You need better sources.

=====================

And if you do not have specific words from Erasmus supporting, eg. purgatory, and idolatry, and praying to the dead, and whatever was your "etc." then you should retract your accusations. Show some integrity in writing.

[Esaias]

Too often we moderns form one dimensional views of people in the past.

Also, we like to read about people in the past, instead of actually reading their own writings.

We miss a lot doing that.

[coksiw]

I think it is time for me to change to another topic/thread. This is turning into an arm wrestling event.
:bolt

[Steven Avery]

My claim is not absurd, it is correct, and in fact, it is not my conclusion but from one of my sources.Then they simply lied to you. To make it easy, I even gave you one example above... lectio difficilior is the foundational method of supporting absurd and corrupt readings, including the many hard errors in the modern versions. It was used by Westcott and Hort and it is used today.

Like I said, you need much better sources. You should give your sources, too, so that we can see who lies to you. James White?

One of your problems is that you are a dilettante. It seems that you have never discussed the specifics of even one variant, like "God was manifest in the flesh.." or the incredible baptism testimony of Acts 8:37, or the new claim that Jesus was angry in Mark 1:41. If you had some real sense of the Bible issues, you would have some depth.

[Steven Avery]

I think it is time for me to change to another topic/thread. You have unsupported accusations against Erasmus standing.

You should make that right before leaving the discussion. At least tell us who you were parroting without attribution.

[coksiw]

Then they simply lied to you. To make it easy, I even gave you one example above... lectio difficilior is the foundational method of supporting absurd and corrupt readings, including the many hard errors in the modern versions. It was used by Westcott and Hort and it is used today.

Like I said, you need much better sources. You should give your sources, too, so that we can see who lies to you. James White?

One of your problems is that you are a dilettante. It seems that you have never discussed the specifics of even one variant, like "God was manifest in the flesh.." or the incredible baptism testimony of Acts 8:37, or the new claim that Jesus was angry in Mark 1:41. If you had some real sense of the Bible issues, you would have some depth.

I already gave my sources. You can find them in previous posts.

[coksiw]

You have unsupported accusations against Erasmus standing.

You should make that right before leaving the discussion. At least tell us who you were parroting without attribution.

I'm not accusing Erasmus. I'm stating that Erasmus was Catholic. Don't you know what Catholic believe? Anyway, my point of bringing Erasmus is because KJV-only people keep attacking the people that work on CT and modern translations because of their believe and staying that they follow an "anti-God" and "lack of faith" approach to their work. Even though, Erasmus was Catholic, as also Reina and Valera and other Catholics, I still appreciate their work, and use them. Something that KJV-only people refuse to do the same with W-H, and all the Protestant Christian that work on CT and modern translations, because they are accused of lack of faith, anti-God theory followers, and beyond, like if their "heroes" were perfect people walking in God's way in all truth. <- That's my point, and that's why I brought Erasmus. But I honestly don't mind the fact that he was Catholic. He did a good job and it was very important it its time. And the Byzantine type text is a great contributor in my opinion, and the Easter Church did an excellent job preserving their copies. I just don't stop there. I'm not discharging or diminishing the impact of their work by any means. Or the historical value of the KJV translation.

You pointed out that I "insulted" you before. And I apologized for it in case you missed it.
How do you think I'm going to feel with your statement that I'm "parroting"?

[coksiw]

Seriously, there is nothing edifying at this point.

[Steven Avery]

but no for Erasums, the one that worked on the TR was a Catholic, also believing in false doctrines, idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead, etc.. This is the specific accusation. You have to support that from the writings of Erasmus. And you never gave the source, since it seems clear that you have not read any primary sources about Erasmus.

idolatry, purgatory, praying for the dead,

Maybe one or more of those accusations is true. However, it is not enough to simply say "Erasmus was a Catholic:" when you know that he wrote scathing denunciations of much RCC praxis.

Again, sources, and quote supports, or retractions, are in order. Since you do not follow up, liking pablum attack sources, I'll see what I can find.

========================

On praying, this book gives some of the Erasmus approach, which seems rather equivocal, with some joking about praying for the dead on false reports of the Mark Twain style death of a friend, leaving it out of his prayer book, but also some indication that he found it acceptable (as, did, apparently, Luther.)

Conversing with God: Prayer in Erasmus' Pastoral Writings
By Hilmar M. Pabel
https://books.google.com/books?id=mPLyQnOWVewC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164

Most of the prayers that Erasmus composed are addressed to Christ. In them his readers seek Christ's help, dedicate themselves to his glory, and acclaim their love for him. When it comes to prayer, Christ is 'princeps noster'80 the one who teaches Christians how to pray through word and example. In Erasmian piety, Christ stands out as teacher and exemplar for the life one must lead in order to imitate him. Yet Erasmus' philosophy of Christ does not forget that Christ is also Redeemer and Saviour. To preach about Christ means not only to preach about the virtues he wishes his followers to embrace but also to confess him as the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who died so that the sins of all might be forgiven, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit upon the apostles.81

[Steven Avery]

From Erasmus' The Praise of Folly
http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/102/Erasmus.htm

Desiderius Erasmus (1466? – 1536) was a Dutch humanist and theologian. He was one of the most important humanists and known to be an inspiration to Martin Luther and the Reformation. First printed in 1511, his essay "The Praise of Folly" is a satirical reproach of pious superstitions and practices in the Roman Catholic Church, and the folly of supposedly learned scholars (including Erasmus himself). It was written after he had returned, from Rome, where he had turned down offers of advancement and had become deeply disillusioned. The essay is written in the persona of the goddess of folly (or foolishness), but Folly increasingly takes on Erasmus' own voice. In the representative selections below, Folly criticizes popular held beliefs, the scholastics (i.e., theologians), and the office of the Pope.

On Popular Piety.

Now what shall I say about those who find great comfort in soothing self-delusions about fictitious pardons [indulgences] for their sins, measuring out the times in purgatory down to the droplets of a water-clock, parceling out centuries, years, months, days, hours as if they were using mathematical tables? Or what about those who rely on certain little magical tokens and prayers thought up by some pious imposter for his own amusement or profit? They promise themselves anything and everything, perpetual health, a long life, flourishing old age, and finally a seat next to Christ among the saints, though this last they don't want for quite a while yet -- that is, when the pleasures of this life, to which they cling with all their might, have finally slipped through their fingers, then it will be soon enough to enter into the joys of the saints. This is an example of how sad it is that you quote writers that mock the real historical turths about Erasmus. You are parroting the anti-Erasmus rants that are only published because of his heritage connection to the Reformation Bible and the AV. It is so sad that a seemingly intelligent person ends up going down that route, fighting their own Christian historical foundations.

[Steven Avery]

Seriously, there is nothing edifying at this point. Seriously, my goal is to learn. You should try that approach. Learn how to seek out primary sources. I have seen James White lie about Erasmus, so I am going to conjecture that he is one of your sources.

Thus I have gone to a couple of solid sources to try to learn about the specific issues you raised. Erasmus himself, and a good book directly about Erasmus and prayer. In the past I have read from John Jortin and other biographers. And I have sent some notes over to John Cereghin, hoping that he would update his reasonably good but dated article.

And you would do well to avoid parroting weak and deficient authorities who like to make accusations, and that you will not name. Erasmus should be honored and respected for his historical contributions. This new idea of attacking Erasmus, in a grossly unfair manner, is only about 25 years old. And it is so silly, simply because he helped develop the Reformation Bible, which led to the Authorized Version.

Try to find these types of anti-Erasmus articles before 1990. Virtually all the writings were done respectfully.

You could still attack the Reformation Bible, the Authorized Version, you could still push dozens of contradictory modern versions.

At least you would not be tearing up your own spiritual foundation.

[coksiw]

From Erasmus' The Praise of Folly
http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/102/Erasmus.htm
This is an example of how sad it is that you quote writers that mock the real historical turths about Erasmus. You are parroting the anti-Erasmus rants that are only published because of his heritage connection to the Reformation Bible and the AV. It is so sad that a seemingly intelligent person ends up going down that route, fighting their own Christian historical foundations.

He was a Catholic brother:

http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/102/Erasmus.htm (your source):

"Some saints have a variety of powers, especially the virgin mother of God, to whom the ordinary run of men attribute more almost than to her son....

What a huge flock of people light candles to the virgin mother of God -- even at noon, when there is no need! But how few of them strive to imitate her chastity, her modesty, her love for the things of heaven! For, in the last analysis, that is true worship, the kind which is by far the most pleasing to the saints in heaven...."

That's idolatry. Also, the quotes you give don't really say that he doesn't believe in purgatory. But that's subjective, it doesn't say that he does believe it either. But the fact that he was Catholic gives my argument more possibility of true.

I do respect Erasmus and honor his work. People can be sinners and still respect them and honor them. Why do you think that if I say Erasmus was a Catholic that believes in what Catholics believe I'm being disrespectful to him? Why do you perceive that as an accusation? Brother I think you are putting people on pedestals, like if your whole foundation depends on it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I think it is time for me to change to another topic/thread. This is turning into an arm wrestling event.
:bolt

Just put a little more chalk on your hand.

Redo your grip and hang in there. :thumbsup

[Steven Avery]

I do respect Erasmus and honor his work. People can be sinners and still respect them and honor them. Why do you think that if I say Erasmus was a Catholic that believes in what Catholics believe I'm being disrespectful to him? Simply because he was known as a cutting-edge satirical sharp critic of many Catholic problems. And he did in fact bypass many of their dubious practices and doctrines. With Erasmus, too, it often helps to read in context, whole sections, I think he picked up a bit of the droll understatement style from the Brits.

And his writings were put on the Index of Forbidden books.

And he ran a very thin edge, as you would know if you knew about Valladolid.

Christian historians understand this. I find the out of context rants that come from modern version Christians to be a joke, exhibiting their ignorance and animus, undercutting their own heritage.

If Erasmus was not a contributor to the Reformation Bible (followed by the very non-Catholic Reformation giants Stephanus and Beza, who mightily built upon and greatly enhanced and improved his work) these same critics would be lauding his spiritual and literary and historical contributions, and his scathing denunciation of Catholic follies.

e.g. If he had given the corruption text instead of the Reformation Bible. All the wicked animus you are trying to ride was simply because he contributed to the Reformation Bible. You had no interest at all in a fair evaluation of Erasmus until after about five chastisements.

===========

And the fact is that you got yourself in this mess simply because I pointed out the seance in Hort's letters and the spiritualistic nature of Westcott's communion of the saints. You wanted a diversion rather than consider that the evidence is in fact clear that they were spiritually buffeted, enemies of the Reformation Bible even before knowing anything much about the Bible text. Check the "vile" and "villainous" Hort quote, the full context. Read it in the primary source, not through your handlers.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Sorry I missed that. I did not mean to insult. What I meant was that "you think you know and you can but I don't think you really have enough understanding to correctly judge the evidences as a TC expert would do". That's my opinion.

If my wording transmitted a different message, which I think it did because of your words, I absolutely apologize for it. I'll try to be more careful of how I say things. I'm sorry brother. To claim twice that I was "pretending" was very strange.

Thanks for the apology.
Gratefully accepted.

===============

And I am still waiting for any actual examples where you think I am not up to speed.

Let's get specific.

===============

When you read the 24 verses of the Mark ending plus the Pericope Adulterae, do you know if you are reading scripture?

Or is it the abominable tampering of man?

Or do you simply not know.
(It is all simply some sort of muddy probability.)

Please give a straight-forward and honest answer.

Thanks!

[Scott Pitta]

No 2 Greek manuscripts are word for word identical. Every manuscript has unique readings.

How does the unique readings in each manuscript square off with the idea of manuscript transmission being preserved by God ??

[Steven Avery]

No 2 Greek manuscripts are word for word identical. Every manuscript has unique readings. 0How does the unique readings in each manuscript square off with the idea of manuscript transmission being preserved by God ?? We do not read manuscripts, the word is preserved in texts and Bibles that are the product of the providential process of inspiration and preservation.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

When I read my AV, I am reading SCRIPTURE.

If there is no pure word of God, then there is no plumb-line of Christian faith.

[Ehud]

We do not read manuscripts, the word is preserved in texts and Bibles that are the product of the providential process of inspiration and preservation.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

When I read my AV, I am reading SCRIPTURE.

If there is no pure word of God, then there is no plumb-line of Christian faith.

This seems easily done these days, but I am horribly confused now. Are you saying the AV is scripture, not because the underlying manuscripts are the closest to the original, but because God simply ordained it so?

[Scott Pitta]

If providential preservation resulted in manuscripts with different readings, why must the English translation be uniform ?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Chinese Bible or Creole Bible anyone? :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

No 2 Greek manuscripts are word for word identical. Every manuscript has unique readings.

How does the unique readings in each manuscript square off with the idea of manuscript transmission being preserved by God ??

Scott I’ve read posts by you making this statement. Which manuscripts are you talking about?

[Steven Avery]

This seems easily done these days, but I am horribly confused now. Are you saying the AV is scripture, not because the underlying manuscripts are the closest to the original, but because God simply ordained it so?Basically, the answer is both.

However, the AV does not have specific underlying manuscripts. It was translating from the superb Received Text printed editions. Since those editions had some variations (minor compared to what came forth with the modern versions), the learned would choose from the editions. The whole process was scholarly, and providentially guided.

There were some manuscripts in Oxford and Cambridge (e.g. Codex Bezae) but they were not a significant part of the process.

[Ehud]

Basically, the answer is both.

However, the AV does not have specific underlying manuscripts. It was translating from the superb Received Text printed editions. Since those editions had some variations (minor compared to what came forth with the modern versions), the learned would choose from the editions. The whole process was scholarly, and providentially guided.

There were some manuscripts in Oxford and Cambridge (e.g. Codex Bezae) but they were not a significant part of the process.

Thank you for the response, Mr. Avery!