Which translation do you enjoy?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Sinaiticus is not a modern production.

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

[Steven Avery]

For Sinaiticus, see:

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ??

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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.