Byzantine or Alexandrian

DeaconDean · Jun 24, 2018

Now you can say what you will, but the notion of "Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, or Caesarian", didn't even exist until two individuals who are very hated proposed the notion.

Prior to 1881, rather than examining texts based on "type", the formula was based entirely on "variants".

For example, in John Mills work "Novum Testamentum Graece, when he compared his Greek MSS (103) against Stephanos 1550 edition, (TR) he listed some thirty-thousand (30,000) variants. And this was to continue until 1881 and two individuals (Westcott and Hort).

A fact that greats like Johann A. Bengal, Johann Jakob Griesbach, and Richard Bentley picked up on.

Whether you agree or disagree, they did advance textual criticism in that they introduced the "texttype" theory. (Westcott and Hort)

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean · Jun 26, 2018

Basically, what does this boil down to?

I read recently that the Alexandrian MSS are older, and are characterized by typically shorter reading. Which ended sometime around AD 500. They are also the texts underlying the Critical Text.

Western Texts are somewhat of the same era, maybe a few years later, are characterized by longer readings.

Byzantine texts are what is described as a "interpolation" of both short and long readings, an "inbetween" if you will. And the Byzantine texts used in the Majority text. And while they are in the majority, the reasoning is very simple. After a certain time, the Alexandrian way of copying became antiquated. Especially when the center of Christianity shift to Istanbul/Constantinople. (Byzantium, AD 330-1204)

Textus Receptus is a somewhat confused term. It has over the last 400 years been used in conjunction with the KJV and used synonymously with the Majority Text. This should not be as the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Majority text almost 2000 times.

I know this isn't the best example, but it fits the situation well. I have been a carpenter for over 40 years. When building floors, we always set floor joists 24" apart, then ran two sub-floors. Modern engineering now says the you can set floor joists 16" on center and run one sub-floor. The added joists make up for the less sub-floor.

The same applied for roofs. We would "hand-cut" rafters ()2 x 6, or 2 x 8's) and nail then to a center-beam 24" on center. It was a long, hard, and hot process especially in the summer. Years later, enter roof-trusses. Pre-engineered, made of 2 x 4's. No bigger wood, but engineered to take the same loads at less cost.

Seriously though, any student of the Bible/Scriptures should at least look at what the Greek read. Whether or not its Alexandrian/Western/Byzantine shouldn't matter. Look back at the Greek word, study what it originally meant, study its usage at the time of writing, consider which is best suited, and pray the God will led to the best conclusion.

If you follow what the KJVO crowd says, you will not be true to studying God words. According to them, that's not pertinent that has already been done for you in the KJV.

And its just my own personal opinion, but if you do that, follow blindly what they say, I would not be surprised if you woke up one day and you had a glass of "kool-aid" in your hand.

God Bless

Till all are one.

now faith · Jun 26, 2018

DeaconDean said:
Basically, what does this boil down to?

I read recently that the Alexandrian MSS are older, and are characterized by typically shorter reading. Which ended sometime around AD 500. They are also the texts underlying the Critical Text.

Western Texts are somewhat of the same era, maybe a few years later, are characterized by longer readings.

Byzantine texts are what is described as a "interpolation" of both short and long readings, an "inbetween" if you will. And the Byzantine texts used in the Majority text. And while they are in the majority, the reasoning is very simple. After a certain time, the Alexandrian way of copying became antiquated. Especially when the center of Christianity shift to Istanbul/Constantinople. (Byzantium, AD 330-1204)

Textus Receptus is a somewhat confused term. It has over the last 400 years been used in conjunction with the KJV and used synonymously with the Majority Text. This should not be as the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Majority text almost 2000 times.

I know this isn't the best example, but it fits the situation well. I have been a carpenter for over 40 years. When building floors, we always set floor joists 24" apart, then ran two sub-floors. Modern engineering now says the you can set floor joists 16" on center and run one sub-floor. The added joists make up for the less sub-floor.

The same applied for roofs. We would "hand-cut" rafters ()2 x 6, or 2 x 8's) and nail then to a center-beam 24" on center. It was a long, hard, and hot process especially in the summer. Years later, enter roof-trusses. Pre-engineered, made of 2 x 4's. No bigger wood, but engineered to take the same loads at less cost.

Seriously though, any student of the Bible/Scriptures should at least look at what the Greek read. Whether or not its Alexandrian/Western/Byzantine shouldn't matter. Look back at the Greek word, study what it originally meant, study its usage at the time of writing, consider which is best suited, and pray the God will led to the best conclusion.

If you follow what the KJVO crowd says, you will not be true to studying God words. According to them, that's not pertinent that has already been done for you in the KJV.

And its just my own personal opinion, but if you do that, follow blindly what they say, I would not be surprised if you woke up one day and you had a glass of "kool-aid" in your hand.

God Bless
Till all are one [ Qoute]

Always 16 '"centers for 2x6 floor joist.
Always 16 " centers for rafters pinned into a double 2x12 ridge pole, cut with birds mouth at double top plate walls.

You have seen it all when a frame carpenter is skipping like Indiana Jones with trusses crashing like dominos behind him, then one leap and he makes it.

But I have been in the flooring business for forty years as well, my Brother had me on top of houses at 15 and have rebuilt a lot of floors.
Now my Son is a master Wood Installer who does finish work as well, crown chair rail 6 inch base ETC.
God Bless

anna ~ grace · Jun 27, 2018

I was hoping this would be a discussion on liturgy. :clap:

God bless you guys! Stay conservative, love God's Word more than secular values, and continue to insist that Hell is real! Love from a Catholic.

now faith · Jun 27, 2018

OzSpen said:
now faith,

Walter Veith's presupposition is KJV-only and he concludes in support of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text-type. That's circular reasoning.

Erasmus in compiling the Textus Receptus used only 7 manuscripts: 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817. They were all that were available to him and they dated from the 11th-15th centuries. They were late copies.

Not one of those 7 manuscripts had the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate to the Greek. Since that time not one Greek MSS has been found that matches Erasmus's translation exactly.

I don't understand all the huffing and puffing over the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types because NO Christian doctrine is affected - to my knowledge.

The supporters of the KJV say the NIV and ESV deleted verses of Scripture. Supporters of the NIV and ESV say the KJV added to Scripture.

All the doctrines, including salvation, are not affected by the slight differences in MSS because of variants (changes by copyists).

Oz

The last six verses:

Revelation 22: 16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Odd they use the same terminology as the beginning chapters of Revelation.
One thing stands out is the curse , for adding to or taking away.
It would seem if Erasmus would have had more manuscripts, the last 6 verses may look different.
As far as Veith goes He needs to give his sources, or we could watch 8 hrs or so of his series to find out.

My main question is what is God's Word?
Is it fallible?
For most people it is impossible to use a dichotomy of Bibles and presume they are all in one accord.
What is truth?
God Bless.

now faith · Jun 27, 2018

Gracia Singh said:
I was hoping this would be a discussion on liturgy.

God bless you guys! Stay conservative, love God's Word more than secular values, and continue to insist that Hell is real! Love from a Catholic.

One thing I believe, is God has a sense of humor.
I work with every denomation in the course of my duties
I have learned with most you can find common ground.
You may need this thread to build a house one day, but in the the next life we will walk on streets of gold, adorned with Jasper Onyx and Rubies.

DeaconDean · Jun 27, 2018

now faith said:
The last six verses:

Revelation 22: 16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Odd they use the same terminology as the beginning chapters of Revelation.
One thing stands out is the curse , for adding to or taking away.
It would seem if Erasmus would have had more manuscripts, the last 6 verses may look different.
As far as Veith goes He needs to give his sources, or we could watch 8 hrs or so of his series to find out.

My main question is what is God's Word?
Is it fallible?
For most people it is impossible to use a dichotomy of Bibles and presume they are all in one accord.
What is truth?
God Bless.

Here again, is a classic example of where neither the MT or TR have "book of life".

As a matter of fact, absolutely no Greek MSS has the last 6 verses.

What comes to us today especially in the TR, comes from Erasmus and his "back translation" from The Vulgate.

Here I cite:

"Because Codex 1r was missing its last page and thus the last six verses of Revelation (22:16–21), Erasmus retranslated these verses from the Latin Vulgate, and he honestly admitted in the Annotationes that he had done so.(55) But again, this produced, by my count, twenty errors in his Greek NT which are still in the TR today.(56)

55 Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament, p. 193, n. 15.

56 v. 16: insertion of tou’ before Dauivd and ojrqrinov" instead of prwi>nov"; v. 17: aorist tense e[lqe twice instead of the present e[rcou, aorist tense ejlqevtw instead of the present ejrcevsqw, insertion of kaiv after ejrcevsqw, present tense lambanevtw instead of the aorist labevtw, and insertion of tov before u{dwr; v. 18: summartuvromai gavr instead of marturw’ ejgwv, present tense ejpitiqh’/ instead of the aorist ejpiqh’/, pro;" tau’ta instead of ejp¾ aujtav, and omission of tw’/ before the last occurrence of biblivw/; v. 19: present tense ajfairh’/ instead of the aorist ajfevlh/, omission of tou’ before the first occurrence of biblivou, ajfairhvsei instead of ajfelei’, biblivou instead of tou’ xuvlou, insertion of kaiv before tw’n gegrammevnwn, and omission of tw’/) before the last occurrence of biblivw/; v. 21: insertion of hJmw’n before ÆIhsou’ and insertion of uJmw’n after pavntwn. See Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 382, n. 2; Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 100, n. 1."

"Erasmus and the Textus Receptus", William Combs, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring 1996, p 47

God Bless

Till all are one.

OzSpen · Jun 27, 2018

DeaconDean said:
As a matter of fact, absolutely no Greek MSS has the last 6 verses.

Dean,

So, which is the last verse of Revelation 22 in the Greek text? In my United Bible Societies' Greek text, v21 is the last verse, as it is in the SBL Greek NT and the Textus Receptus.

The Latin Vulgate concludes at verse 21.

An AV1611 site acknowledged this of Erasmus:

The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus to produce his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two. It is thought that Erasmus took the Latin Vulgate and retranslated these verses back into Greek (source).

My understanding is that v21 is the last verse.

Oz

DeaconDean · Jun 27, 2018

OzSpen said:
My understanding is that v21 is the last verse.

I said and cited:

DeaconDean said:
the last six verses of Revelation (22:16–21),

Shall we count?

v. 16
v. 17
v. 18
v. 19
v. 20
v. 21

Question?

God Bless

Till all are one.

OzSpen · Jun 27, 2018

now faith said:
My main question is what is God's Word?
Is it fallible?
For most people it is impossible to use a dichotomy of Bibles and presume they are all in one accord.
What is truth?
God Bless.

now faith,

If you want 100% certainty with any historical document, it's not possible because we have records that have been passed down to us for thousands of years. We weren't there to see what happened. Even if we were there, our vision and hearing are imperfect.

If we pick up any NT translation based on the Textus Receptus or the United Bible Societies' Greek text, we have God's word as he wants us to know it. Then it's translated into English which, again, is God's word to us. They may vary marginally, but that's what one expects from translations from various texts. There will be no perfect translation.

I have a AU$20 in my wallet right now that I'll use to pay for something tomorrow. That note is as good as if I hand over the AU$20 note in the Commonwealth Mint in Canberra. I've never seen this note in the Mint, but only a copy that sometimes is scratched and torn - and that's more than good enough for purchasing anything.

So, we've never seen the original documents for OT and NT but the copies - no matter how many variants, tears and scratches - are all we need to have God's word in print for us today.

The original documents, breathed out by God, are infallible because they come from the God of perfection who does not lie. Translations are fallible as they are done by fallible human beings who still have sinful natures.

I don't know what you mean by 'a dichotomy of Bibles and presume they are all in one accord'. Are you saying that various Bible translations of, say, a given verse read differently when compared? That may be so, but the meaning should be approximately the same - except for some controversial words and grammatical constructions.

I teach a Bible study where the people in the group use the KJV, NIV, NLT and ESV. Sometimes one helps to explain the other. Is that what you are questioning?

What is truth? It's contained in the Bible you read.

Oz

OzSpen · Jun 27, 2018

DeaconDean said:
I said and cited:

Shall we count?

v. 16

v. 17

v. 18

v. 19

v. 20

v. 21

Question?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Please don't treat me as a foolish one who can't count.

My point was: Is v21 the last verse or are there 6 more verses AFTER v21?

Seems as though I didn't make that clear enough.

Oz

DeaconDean · Jun 27, 2018

OzSpen said:
Please don't treat me as a foolish one who can't count.

My point was: Is v21 the last verse or are there 6 more verses AFTER v21?

Seems as though I didn't make that clear enough.

Oz

Can you show me where I "implied" there were any verses after v. 21?

No?

Then I assume your just questioning me to "nit-pick".

My quote and source were very precise, v. 16-21. That is six verses.

God Bless

Till all are one.

now faith · Jun 27, 2018

OzSpen said:
now faith,

If you want 100% certainty with any historical document, it's not possible because we have records that have been passed down to us for thousands of years. We weren't there to see what happened. Even if we were there, our vision and hearing are imperfect.

If we pick up any NT translation based on the Textus Receptus or the United Bible Societies' Greek text, we have God's word as he wants us to know it. Then it's translated into English which, again, is God's word to us. They may vary marginally, but that's what one expects from translations from various texts. There will be no perfect translation.

I have a AU$20 in my wallet right now that I'll use to pay for something tomorrow. That note is as good as if I hand over the AU$20 note in the Commonwealth Mint in Canberra. I've never seen this note in the Mint, but only a copy that sometimes is scratched and torn - and that's more than good enough for purchasing anything.

So, we've never seen the original documents for OT and NT but the copies - no matter how many variants, tears and scratches - are all we need to have God's word in print for us today.

The original documents, breathed out by God, are infallible because they come from the God of perfection who does not lie. Translations are fallible as they are done by fallible human beings who still have sinful natures.

I don't know what you mean by 'a dichotomy of Bibles and presume they are all in one accord'. Are you saying that various Bible translations of, say, a given verse read differently when compared? That may be so, but the meaning should be approximately the same - except for some controversial words and grammatical constructions.

I teach a Bible study where the people in the group use the KJV, NIV, NLT and ESV. Sometimes one helps to explain the other. Is that what you are questioning?

What is truth? It's contained in the Bible you read.

Oz

The only conclusion would be to walk by Faith and not by sight.

Its profound that in God's Word you have the verse (God is not the author of confusion)
1 Corinthians 14: 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

It seems since our text do not match, then prophetic
utterances would take priorities over the different types of of text.
This would be a manafestation of the Holy Spirit as he gives utterance.
Otherwise there could be no common ground to be expounded on.

It must be the purpose of the gifts of the ministry in Ephesians.

OzSpen · Jun 27, 2018

DeaconDean said:
Can you show me where I "implied" there were any verses after v. 21?

No?

It was I who stated: 'My point was: Is v21 the last verse or are there 6 more verses AFTER v21?'

now faith · Jun 27, 2018

I do not think that any one truly considers the sources of their translation.
When you consider the moral character of Alexandria, and the contempt from Rome, when any othe text was translated the Translaters were hunted down and burned.
So not being able to stamp out the Antioch / Byzantine completly it was corrupted.

The Alexandrian school is a collective designation for certain tendencies in literature, philosophy, medicine, and the sciences that developed in the Hellenistic cultural center of Alexandria, Egypt during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.[1]

Alexandria was a remarkable center of learning due to the blending of Greek and Orientalinfluences, its favorable situation and commercial resources, and the enlightened energy of some of the Macedonian Dynasty of the Ptolemies ruling over Egypt, in the final centuries BC. Much scholarly work was collected in the great Library of Alexandria during this time. A lot of epic poetry, as well as works on geography, history, mathematics, astronomy and medicinewere composed during this period.

The name of Alexandrian school is also used to describe the religious and philosophical developments in Alexandria after the 1st century. The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix and much mystical speculation. The Neoplatonists devoted themselves to examining the nature of the soul, and sought communion with God. The two great schools of biblical interpretation in the early Christian church incorporated Neoplatonism and philosophical beliefs from Plato's teachings into Christianity, and interpreted much of the Bible allegorically. The founders of the Alexandrian school of Christian theology were Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Source Wikipedia.

It's common knowledge that the Alexandrian text has a focus on the metaphysical aspect of Christ..

Westcott and Hort were commissioned by a Roman Catholic defector.
Does that make a difference?
Ask Jan Huss.
Indeed, no one does more injury in the church than he who acts perversely and yet has the name and order of sanctity. Jan Hus

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century."85

(Chic publication )

now faith · Jun 27, 2018

Considering the enemy's of God's Word, it makes you wonder why the need for a critical text?

Compared to Alexandrian text-type manuscripts, the distinct Byzantine readings tend to show a greater tendency toward smooth and well-formed Greek, they display fewer instances of textual variation between parallel Synoptic Gospel passages, and they are less likely to present contradictory or "difficult" issues of exegesis.[12] For example, Mark 1:2 reads "As it is written in the prophets..." in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." in all other early textual witnesses. Since the quotation introduced is partly from Malachi, the Byzantine form of the verse avoids the difficulty that might be adduced were it to be concluded that Mark was presenting a factual inaccuracy.

Another characteristic is the grammar (e.g., οι δε ειπον; in Alexandrian text: οι δε ειπαν) and the different order of words. For example:

John 6:49

εν τη ερημω το μαννα – codices B, C, D, T, W, Θ
το μαννα εν τη ερημω – codices ﬡ, A, L, Ψ, f1, f13, mss. of the Byzantine text-type
Mark 1:9

εις τον Ιορδανην υπο Ιωανου – codices ﬡ, B, D
υπο Ιωανου εις τον Ιορδανην – codices A, W, and manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type
Also, the Byzantine text does not contain verses included by Textus Receptus: Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; 15:34.

There are no consistent Byzantine witnesses amongst the early New Testament papyri. Nevertheless, instances of distinctive Byzantine readings are not unusual in the earliest texts — even though they otherwise conform more to other text-types or none. Hence, many (and possibly most) distinctive Byzantine readings are likely to be early in date. Two broad explanations have been offered for this observation:

that the Byzantine text-type transmits a text closest to the primary form of the New Testament books; whose early manuscript witnesses have not survived, as this text-type predominated in regions where the climate did not favour the preservation of papyrus;
that the Byzantine text represents a consistent exercise in textual compilation and correction from around the 4th century, the editors having eclectically selected those readings from a range of early manuscripts, that best conformed to their presupposed standards of the characteristics to be expected in the New Testament text.
Wikipedia

OzSpen · Jun 27, 2018

now faith said:
The only conclusion would be to walk by Faith and not by sight.

Its profound that in God's Word you have the verse (God is not the author of confusion)
1 Corinthians 14: 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God being not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) is a verse applied to the expression of the gifts in the ekklesia in 1 Cor 14.

It seems since our text do not match, then prophetic
utterances would take priorities over the different types of of text.
This would be a manafestation of the Holy Spirit as he gives utterance.
Otherwise there could be no common ground to be expounded on.

Lord help us if we are to rely on the gift of prophecy to take priority over the text-types that lead to the written word of God. I'm a supporter of the charismatic gifts, but I've heard some crazy content in alleged prophecy that is contradicted by other prophecy given in church and is contradicted in Scripture.

It is rare for me to hear a prophetic gift where the church follows Paul's exhortation: 'Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said' (1 Cor 14:29 NIV).

We would never know that 'God is not the author of confusion' if it weren't for the Scriptures.

We would never know of Jesus' ministry on earth, including his death, burial and resurrection, and how salvation is available for everyone, if it were not for Scripture.

The common ground is Scripture and not some of the confusing manifestations of some gifts of the Spirit.

Oz

OzSpen · Jun 27, 2018

now faith said:
Considering the enemy's of God's Word, it makes you wonder why the need for a critical text?

Compared to Alexandrian text-type manuscripts, the distinct Byzantine readings tend to show a greater tendency toward smooth and well-formed Greek, they display fewer instances of textual variation between parallel Synoptic Gospel passages, and they are less likely to present contradictory or "difficult" issues of exegesis.[12] For example, Mark 1:2 reads "As it is written in the prophets..." in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." in all other early textual witnesses. Since the quotation introduced is partly from Malachi, the Byzantine form of the verse avoids the difficulty that might be adduced were it to be concluded that Mark was presenting a factual inaccuracy.

Another characteristic is the grammar (e.g., οι δε ειπον; in Alexandrian text: οι δε ειπαν) and the different order of words. For example:

John 6:49

εν τη ερημω το μαννα – codices B, C, D, T, W, Θ
το μαννα εν τη ερημω – codices ﬡ, A, L, Ψ, f1, f13, mss. of the Byzantine text-type
Mark 1:9

εις τον Ιορδανην υπο Ιωανου – codices ﬡ, B, D
υπο Ιωανου εις τον Ιορδανην – codices A, W, and manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type
Also, the Byzantine text does not contain verses included by Textus Receptus: Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; 15:34.

There are no consistent Byzantine witnesses amongst the early New Testament papyri. Nevertheless, instances of distinctive Byzantine readings are not unusual in the earliest texts — even though they otherwise conform more to other text-types or none. Hence, many (and possibly most) distinctive Byzantine readings are likely to be early in date. Two broad explanations have been offered for this observation:

that the Byzantine text-type transmits a text closest to the primary form of the New Testament books; whose early manuscript witnesses have not survived, as this text-type predominated in regions where the climate did not favour the preservation of papyrus;

that the Byzantine text represents a consistent exercise in textual compilation and correction from around the 4th century, the editors having eclectically selected those readings from a range of early manuscripts, that best conformed to their presupposed standards of the characteristics to be expected in the New Testament text.

Wikipedia

Don't you understand that word order is important in English but not in koine Greek, except if a word needed to be emphasised? It was placed at the beginning of the sentence.

However, there were no distinct sentences in Greek as there were no spaces between words in the MSS. There were no such things as punctuation marks in Greek.

now faith · Jun 27, 2018

OzSpen said:
Don't you understand that word order is important in English but not in koine Greek, except if a word needed to be emphasised? It was placed at the beginning of the sentence.

However, there were no distinct sentences in Greek as there were no spaces between words in the MSS. There were no such things as punctuation marks in Greek.

That is my point.
The word order as translated by the king James, maintains the correct intention of the Narratives, or the Authors motives.

As far as motives go, when you read a complete bio. On Westcott and Hort, it's mind boggling.
As well much credit is given to Erasmus but his story has some flaws as well.
He was not as biased as Hort , and John Calvin agreed with his work.
The arrival of the critical text translated by Westcott and Hort, came much more recently and oddly enough the majority of new Bibles are based on their work.

I proposed prophetic words, because we cannot understand all the different types of translations.
I personally believe it is for profit.
I do not believe that all of us should be so divided in The Body of Christ.
When you compare the texts, you cannot find even dynamic equivalents but rather major changes in meaning.
Example Paul on Mars Hill, is it superstitious or religious?
We know they have a idol to many God's and a no name God.
We know they were philosophers who aspired to mythology.

How can you tell a student they were very religious when they had no religon?
Yet the N.K.J. tells us this.
I do not bash people for their translation, but I think the Devil is involved in this separation.
One of my favorite preachers has to Apologize for the King James.
He starts out...
I'm reading from the Old King James , I like it because it is poetical and easy to remember.
I would bet most of the people here found the Lord, and were called to preach and teach using the King James.
This will never change, so I guess we will find out when the time comes.

DeaconDean · Jun 28, 2018

now faith said:
The word order as translated by the king James, maintains the correct intention of the Narratives, or the Authors motives.

Now I have to disagree with you on that.

Study in that area shows that the men King James commissioned were instructed:

"Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. And "the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.

James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them.

The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, "

Main Source

So I go back to a previous point.

The Third Person of the "Trinity" is in the scriptures called the holy "Spirit". Greek word: "pneuma".

A "ghost", the disembodied spirit/soul/whatever you choose to call them in the Greek is "phantasm".

The word "ghost" being used in conjunction with the Holy Spirit first appeared around the mid 1300's in "Wycliffe's Bible".

And, though the centuries since, it has stayed. History has shown and proved that now, "ghost" and "spirit" are used virtually identically when referencing the third person of the Trinity.

When and where the change happened is a matter for somebody to search out. But I do know that prior to Wycliffe, as mush as I sometimes disagree with the ECF's, there are no records of even them using "ghost" inconnection with the Holy Spirit.

Where does that bring us?

Seems to me that remember reading:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men," -Col. 2:8 (KJV)

History has proven that the KJ Translators made very little use of any Greek MSS that had. In fact, they were told to follow what was already printed.

"The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

And, other than occasionally looking at Theodore Beza's Codex D, and occasionally the Greek text of Stephanos 1559 version:

"hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them... The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible."

It is amazing what one can find and learn IF they are willing to study.

Turns out, the KJ Translators did follow after the "traditions of men". (Especially on the point o0f the third person of the Trinity as I have shown)

And yet, I am wrong for consulting the Greek.

:sigh:

God Bless

Till all are one.

Byzantine or Alexandrian

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Veteran

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Regular Member

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Regular Member

Regular Member

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Veteran

Regular Member

Veteran

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Veteran

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Similar threads