An Impossible Challenge for KJVOs

[James Is Back]

thankfulttt, what do You think of Wilbur N. Pickering New Testament Collection (2 vols.)? $21.95 on pre-pub in freeware Bible Study software:

Hey thanks for the link Unix

 

[thankfulttt]

thankfulttt, what do You think of Wilbur N. Pickering New Testament Collection (2 vols.)? $21.95 on pre-pub in freeware Bible Study software:

Here is the advertisement for Pickering's collection. Would you trust somebody that makes the claim that the text they used is error free?

That archetypal form has been empirically, objectively identified by a wide comparison of family representatives, and it is indeed error free. As Pickering expected, that error-free text is not seriously different from some of the other “good” Greek texts. Nevertheless he has done an English translation based on it.

Terry

 

[sculleywr]

Here is the advertisement for Pickering's collection. Would you trust somebody that makes the claim that the text they used is error free?

That archetypal form has been empirically, objectively identified by a wide comparison of family representatives, and it is indeed error free. As Pickering expected, that error-free text is not seriously different from some of the other “good” Greek texts. Nevertheless he has done an English translation based on it.

Terry

Hence the reason I don't trust KJV Onlyists...

 

[sculleywr]

You take the text that the King James translators mostly followed and give it a bottom reading of V. You do this if you consider the King James Bible vile, and want to get rid of it. By giving the Alexandrian text a premier rating of I, you assure yourself that only the Alexandrian text will be used in your Greek text.

Text type Catagories

New Testament Manuscripts in Greek are categorized into five groups, according to a scheme introduced in 1981 by Kurt and Barbara Aland in Der Text des Neuen Testaments

1 Description of categories
1.1 Category I – Alexandrian
1.2 Category II – Egyptian
1.3 Category III – Eclectic
1.4 Category IV – Western
1.5 Category V – Byzantine

This is the system the NA/UBS translators used. Then they got to vote on what was actually in the text using the Alexandrian manuscripts.

You don't believe there is any bias here?

The fact that the Alexandrian Texts are different from the texts you think are best does not mean there is bias in selecting them. Are you not biased against the Alexandrian Texts? The Byzantine Texts are from the 1500s, maybe as early as the 1400s. But the Alexandrian Texts are from many dates ranging all the way back to 200 AD. Was the third century biased against the as-yet-nonexistent Byzantine Texts?

According to Wikipedia this is what P45 contains.

(two of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and 13 of Acts). All of the pages have lacunae(Gaps), with very few lines complete. According to Wikipedia there is only 30 fragmented partial pages.

You state it includes everything except James, Jude and Revelation. Do you have evidence that contradicts Wikipedia? I do not believe everything in Wikipedia, but they are right sometimes.

Best regards Terry

Umm, I have evidence that Wikipedia can be edited by every moron from here to Luxembourg. Please go shopping elsewhere, you're getting your evidence from every moron with a computer that also types "First!" at the top of every new Youtube video.

 

[James Is Back]

LOL Wikipedia and Textual Criticism doesn't mix.

 

[thankfulttt]

Hence the reason I don't trust KJV Onlyists...

I never said the KJB was error free.

Terry

 

[thankfulttt]

The fact that the Alexandrian Texts are different from the texts you think are best does not mean there is bias in selecting them. Are you not biased against the Alexandrian Texts? The Byzantine Texts are from the 1500s, maybe as early as the 1400s. But the Alexandrian Texts are from many dates ranging all the way back to 200 AD. Was the third century biased against the as-yet-nonexistent Byzantine Texts?

If the Byzantine texts are from the 1500's how do you account for the Byzantine text within the Alexandrian manuscript. That manuscript being dated to the fourth century.

Umm, I have evidence that Wikipedia can be edited by every moron from here to Luxembourg. Please go shopping elsewhere, you're getting your evidence from every moron with a computer that also types "First!" at the top of every new Youtube video.

I don't accept a lot of what is in Wikipedia either. So can you present your source for what is in p45?

 

[sculleywr]

If the Byzantine texts are from the 1500's how do you account for the Byzantine text within the Alexandrian manuscript. That manuscript being dated to the fourth century.

Correlation does not equal causation. The existence of similar forms does not mean they built off eachother. It can, as easily, mean that the Byzantine Text took portions from the Alexandrian Text.

I don't accept a lot of what is in Wikipedia either. So can you present your source for what is in p45?

Asked and answered three pages ago, in a link that I posted. I was wrong on one thing: P46 was what they use for most of Romans through Hebrews. James and Jude come in P72 and Apocalypse comes in P47.

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

 

[thankfulttt]

Correlation does not equal causation. The existence of similar forms does not mean they built off eachother. It can, as easily, mean that the Byzantine Text took portions from the Alexandrian Text.

It is possible.

Asked and answered three pages ago, in a link that I posted. I was wrong on one thing: P46 was what they use for most of Romans through Hebrews. James and Jude come in P72 and Apocalypse comes in P47.

In the study of the new translations one thing becomes immediately obvious. It is obvious that the translators set Codex Vaticanus(03) and Codex Sinaiticus(01) at the pinnacle. All of their decisions were based on what those two manuscripts contained, with few exceptions.

You first brought up p45.

In evaluating p45 you will find, that of the 32 notable readings only three agree with both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That means 29 disagree. There were two other times when Sinaiticus agreed with p45 and Vaticanus did not.

What amazed me was that of those three disagreements, the King James only disagreed one time. The change was from "Lord" to "God" which really changes nothing.

We can trust our Bible.

 

[sculleywr]

It is possible.





In the study of the new translations one thing becomes immediately obvious. It is obvious that the translators set Codex Vaticanus(03) and Codex Sinaiticus(01) at the pinnacle. All of their decisions were based on what those two manuscripts contained, with few exceptions.

You first brought up p45.

In evaluating p45 you will find, that of the 32 notable readings only three agree with both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That means 29 disagree. There were two other times when Sinaiticus agreed with p45 and Vaticanus did not.

What amazed me was that of those three disagreements, the King James only disagreed one time. The change was from "Lord" to "God" which really changes nothing.

We can trust our Bible.

The changes are immaterial if they change no doctrine. If there are no meaningful differences, then it doesn't truly matter which translation you use.

 

[robycop3]

We see JESUS HIMSELF slightly changed the wording of some Scriptures, and He is the Master of God's word, carrying the title "The Word" among His many titles.

A good example of this in in Luke 4:16-21 where Jesus reads aloud from Isaiah 61:1-3 & Isaiah 42:7. I believe God has presented His word to us in the forms HE chose.