Bibical Texts: to be or not to be

[His_disciple3]

we are moving a discussion on bibical texts that started in a thread about calvinism. I can't get all the post here so I will post some of the last post so as to pick up the discussion here, may all that post here be lead of the Holy Spirit, with love for God and His Holy Word and love for one another!

 

[His_disciple3]

Originally Posted by Epiphoskei

This is a common misconception. The eclectic text is a repository of the readings of all known texts, and determination of which text is the original is made on the basis of the rules governing textual criticism. There are specific means by which texts become corrupted - dittography, haplography, the compounding of honorifics, glossing, and making readings easier, to name a few. This isn't a dispute over whose texts are right, it's a dispute over whose readings are right. And readings cannot be traced to a specific city.
​

Following the principle of lectio difficilior potior, or "the more difficult reading is the stronger," it seems pretty clear that the Byzantine transmission has heavily edited the text by making the rougher Greek of other versions smoother, and standardizes parallel language in the gospels, which varies in other texts. While one may make a rough text smooth, no one would take a smooth text and try to make it rougher.

And, the point remains, there are no textual variances in the verses we are using. The Greek - in all text types - and your interpretation of the KJV are in conflict.

I also do not consider "Jimmy" disrespectful, but diminutive. I have no interest in using dignified language to refer to kings of old, who were, after all, just men who deserved no higher dignity than any other man.
​

well then the only misconception we have is when you said : QUOTE:

So when your King James disagrees with what came from the pen of the Apostles, who was right? The Apostle or King Jimmy?
​

 

[His_disciple3]

so you lied your text came from all other text and the orginality of those text didn't even have to be proven as orginal text, so JOHN didn't pen your text much less the Apostles, you just said that to make it look like you have a better text. Wow! simply unbelieveable. the Alexandria Text which was used in eclectic text was an minority text( Minority due to the fact that 99% of scholars would not use it when translating) which was considerd by most scholars in those days as corrupt text. It came out of Egypt( You know the sin/evil City of the Bible days) have you not read a corrupt text mixed in with all true text will result in a corrupt text: A little leaven will leaven the whole Lump, you have already pointed out that it says IF Jesus returns what other proof do you need??

 

[His_disciple3]

Originally Posted by DeaconDean

You known brother, the Codex Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, along with most of the Papyrus fragments do not include Mark 16:9-21.
​

Most of these can be found here.

And yet, we are wrong.

Go figure.

God Bless

Till all are one.
​

the sinaiticus and the catholic Bible, really brother, well that certain clears up alot of things about you!! But we all have broken the rules of the forum here, we have gotten off the subject in this thread so I will start a new one about bibical texts hope to see you all there!

 

[His_disciple3]

Originally Posted by Epiphoskei

I have absolutely no idea how you got that from what I said.

All texts say "ean." All of them. Byzantine says "ean." TR says "ean." Alexandrian says "ean." Western says "ean." The Apostle wrote "ean," and there is no dispute to that fact.

The text I use, because you do not seem to understand how an eclectic text works, is not derived from all other texts, it in and of itself is all texts. It gives the undisputed reading when all texts agree. When texts disagree, it gives both readings, listing which manuscripts read which way, and allow the reader to perform textual criticism on the spot. If there were a textual variance concerning this verse, we could have a dispute over which reading the Apostle wrote. There is no textual variance on this verse, therefore the Apostle wrote "ean" and the KJV translators made an interpretation decision to change it from an "if" to a "when" because persons such as yourself misunderstand "if" to imply uncertainty of the protasis, whereas "if" simply implies conditionality of the apodosis on the protasis.

I see no evidence for the popular conspiracy theory that asserts that Egypt is somehow inherently sinful and can't produce accurate copies of the Bible. It's disrespectful to the Egyptian Church, the saints of whom we owe respect given the fact that, were it not for the likes of Athanasius, the Byzantine Church would have continued to go on its merry Arian way teaching that, among other things, Christ was a created being. We owe the fact that we are Trinitarians to Egyptians.

On top of which, the text type is merely called "Alexandrian" because the texts were found in, not produced in Egypt. Egyptian climate preserves texts better, so the oldest manuscripts are found there, whether they were written there or not. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both very well could have been written in Rome.

You argue that scholars would not use the Alexandrian texts because they were corrupt, but you proffer no evidence. On the contrary, they didn't use them because they didn't know they existed. The Alexandrian texts have largely been uncovered recently, or, if found earlier, were in the keeping of persons who did not interact much with western European scholarship. Cf. Sinaiticus, kept in St. Kate's at Mt. Sinai until the 18th-19th century. In the 19th century, we both drastically increased our number of second and third century texts and refined our understanding of Koine Greek as a specific period, not bound by quite the same rules as governed Classical Greek. Since that time, it has been clear to (nearly) all textual critics that the older translations, which were based on blind adherence to the Byzantine text type and mistaken understanding of the peculiarities of Koine Grammar, required reform.

 

[His_disciple3]

Originally Posted by Epiphoskei

I have absolutely no idea how you got that from what I said.

you said that your text was penned by the hand of john in one post and in another they were penned by the hands of the Apostles,

All texts say "ean." All of them. Byzantine says "ean." TR says "ean."
Alexandrian says "ean." Western says "ean." The Apostle wrote "ean," and there is no dispute to that fact.

no dispute

The text I use, because you do not seem to understand how an eclectic text works, is not derived from all other texts, it in and of itself is all texts. It gives the undisputed reading when all texts agree. When texts disagree, it gives both readings, listing which manuscripts read which way, and allow the reader to perform textual criticism on the spot. If there were a textual variance concerning this verse, we could have a dispute over which reading the Apostle wrote. There is no textual variance on this verse, therefore the Apostle wrote "ean" and the KJV translators made an interpretation decision to change it from an "if" to a "when" because persons such as yourself misunderstand "if" to imply uncertainty of the protasis, whereas "if" simply implies conditionality of the apodosis on the protasis.

the process Of when there is a dispute in texts that your bible give all and let's the individual reader make the call is very unbibical within itself ;
2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
KJV
second you said that your bible says in 1John 3:2 "IF jesus comes back " and the KJB says "when he shall appear" you didn't say anything about it showing other manuscripts saying "when". so which one would you say is correct, yours ( if He comes back) or mine ( When He shall appear) you said KJB changed the greek word "Ean" to "when" it should be "if", "ean" can also mean when. So they didn't change the meaning they just choose the right definition, based on other verses saying He is coming back and with other verses of the Bible also saying that He is coming back to say "if" He comes back" would be Bibical wrong such as your bible is!!

I see no evidence for the popular conspiracy theory that asserts that Egypt is somehow inherently sinful and can't produce accurate copies of the Bible. It's disrespectful to the Egyptian Church, the saints of whom we owe respect given the fact that, were it not for the likes of Athanasius, the Byzantine Church would have continued to go on its merry Arian way teaching that, among other things, Christ was a created being. We owe the fact that we are Trinitarians to Egyptians.

again you try to twist what I say to tear me down, I said that egypt was the evil City of the Bible days , we gentiles were the evil people of the Bible days, No disrespect of any Church or people was given from me , nice try though!

On top of which, the text type is merely called "Alexandrian" because the texts were found in, not produced in Egypt. Egyptian climate preserves texts better, so the oldest manuscripts are found there, whether they were written there or not. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both very well could have been written in Rome.

the Alexandrian text was assc. with Alexandria, that would be a far stretch for someone to prove that they came from any where besides Egypt, again nice try though!!

You argue that scholars would not use the Alexandrian texts because they were corrupt, but you proffer no evidence. On the contrary, they didn't use them because they didn't know they existed. The Alexandrian texts have largely been uncovered recently, or, if found earlier, were in the keeping of persons who did not interact much with western European scholarship. Cf. Sinaiticus, kept in St. Kate's at Mt. Sinai until the 18th-19th century. In the 19th century, we both drastically increased our number of second and third century texts and refined our understanding of Koine Greek as a specific period, not bound by quite the same rules as governed Classical Greek. Since that time, it has been clear to (nearly) all textual critics that the older translations, which were based on blind adherence to the Byzantine text type and mistaken understanding of the peculiarities of Koine Grammar, required reform

.

The "Alexandrian Text"
However in Alexandria, Egypt, a group of "scholars" thought they could do better. When they made their copies, they made "corrections" that they thought better presented what the Scriptures should say. Some of their errors were gross blunders (like quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah) but others were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ). They removed verses they didn't like. The Alexandrian copyists had one more characteristic … they couldn't agree with each other! Their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but even from each other. A very small number of these manuscripts exist today. This is called the Alexandrian Text.
Textual history of the Bible


9. THE MINORITY TEXTS


There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority.

The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts

because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?




The answer is:

• The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
• The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
• The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!
• The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
• The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

Proof of these astonishing allegations will follow in Part Two where we will take a close look at some 80+ Bible verses corrupted by the Minority Text.

BIBLE VERSIONS ... Minority Texts

 

[Epiphoskei]

you said that your text was penned by the hand of john in one post and in another they were penned by the hands of the Apostles

Something you clearly do not disagree with, as you have agreed that in all cases the verse in question was written with "ean."

second you said that your bible says in 1John 3:2 "IF jesus comes back " and the KJB says "when he shall appear" you didn't say anything about it showing other manuscripts saying "when". so which one would you say is correct, yours ( if He comes back) or mine ( When He shall appear) you said KJB changed the greek word "Ean" to "when" it should be "if", "ean" can also mean when. So they didn't change the meaning they just choose the right definition, based on other verses saying He is coming back and with other verses of the Bible also saying that He is coming back to say "if" He comes back" would be Bibical wrong such as your bible is!!

I didn't say anything about manuscripts reading "when" because they do not exist. All read ean, and ean is "if," plain and simple. The ean + subjunctive protasis forms what's called the third class conditional. The third class conditional used to express in Classical Greek what is called the "future more probable," or a conditional sentence wherein the protasis is probably going to happen. Because the semantic range of conditionals began breaking down in Koine, the third class conditional expresses not only the simple conditionality that I explained for you earlier, but also the future more probable and future hypothetical and even, to some extent, the future less probable which used to be expressed only with 4th class conditionals. In other words, it expresses the simple conditionality of an apodosis upon a protasis which either will, or may, or might not, or will not happen in the future. Because it expresses all levels of possibility, it expresses no distinct kind of possibility in particular. Likewise, the simple English conditional, If... Then... , also can express the concept of simple conditionality, without making any comment on whether the protasis will or will not happen. The translators of the KJV decided not to use that construction, but made a theological, interpretational edit to the text, to express certainty, where the Greek only expresses contingency, and does not comment upon the probability of the event.

I will also remind you that the third class conditional was used in Matthew 18 where you inistsed it be translated "if." A theological, interpretation decision can be made there too to change it to "when" to express conditionality upon the definite, as opposed to simple conditionality. What doesn't make any sense it to demand one reading of a third class conditional in one text, but exclude the possibility that another text may be expressing the same reading.

again you try to twist what I say to tear me down, I said that egypt was the evil City of the Bible days , we gentiles were the evil people of the Bible days, No disrespect of any Church or people was given from me , nice try though!

We will come back to this when you slander Egyptian Church people later on in your post.

the Alexandrian text was assc. with Alexandria, that would be a far stretch for someone to prove that they came from any where besides Egypt, again nice try though!!

Texts of the Alexandrian text type are not all from Egypt. Many are, because the climate naturally helps preserve texts better, so the original reading, the so-called Alexandrian text type, can be found more readily in Egypt where the oldest texts survive. In the rest of the Mediterranean, mostly later, highly edited texts survive. When very old texts do survive outside Egypt, like Vaticanus, they display an Alexandrian type text.

The "Alexandrian Text"
However in Alexandria, Egypt, a group of "scholars" thought they could do better. When they made their copies, they made "corrections" that they thought better presented what the Scriptures should say. Some of their errors were gross blunders (like quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah) but others were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ). They removed verses they didn't like. The Alexandrian copyists had one more characteristic … they couldn't agree with each other! Their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but even from each other. A very small number of these manuscripts exist today. This is called the Alexandrian Text.
Textual history of the Bible

Ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, there are no historical records of the Egyptian church doing what you say it did. Rather, you have assumed that the Alexandrian text family was edited, and then attributed motivations to an imaginary band of editors. Those differences between texts are the primary reason we believe the Byzantine text was an edit of the Alexandrian type. The Byzantines added verses they felt were necessary for the clarity of the text. They edited over verses they considered embarrassing - like when a gospel referenced Isaiah, and the Byzantine copyists thought they were really quoting Malachi.

And since their copies are a good century older than the earliest Byzantine copies, it's absurd to say their copies disagreed with the vast majority of other copies, as if the Byzantine was already being mass produced.

9. THE MINORITY TEXTS


There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority.because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?

The Protestant reformers were not aware that the Alexandrian text type even existed.

The answer is:

• The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!

Slander of the Egyptian Church.

• The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.

It is a Jewish myth that the textual transmission process was so perfect that mistakes and changes were never made in the text. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were at least two, perhaps more than two major recensions of the scriptures in Jesus' day - and the Bible, by quoting the Septuagint, endorsed the one the King James was not translated from.


"Alterations" were made to the texts in the sense that scribes would do the medieval equivalent of footnoting when they had two texts next to each other that read different things.

• The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!

The Byzantine text invents verses and added them to the scriptures when they weren't there in the original, so called "minority" texts. Pause and consider that.

• The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.

Not last time I checked, but if scribes thought they contradicted each other, that would be good cause to believe that they tried to fix the text, and the Byzantine reading was the product. The harder reading is the stronger.

• The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

The Byzantine text was "fortified" by scribes who added verses to shore up what they blasphemously thought was deficient in the word of God.

 

[His_disciple3]

Originally Posted by Epiphoskei

I have absolutely no idea how you got that from what I said.

All texts say "ean." All of them. Byzantine says "ean." TR says "ean." Alexandrian says "ean." Western says "ean." The Apostle wrote "ean," and there is no dispute to that fact.

The text I use, because you do not seem to understand how an eclectic text works, is not derived from all other texts, it in and of itself is all texts. It gives the undisputed reading when all texts agree. When texts disagree, it gives both readings, listing which manuscripts read which way, and allow the reader to perform textual criticism on the spot. If there were a textual variance concerning this verse, we could have a dispute over which reading the Apostle wrote. There is no textual variance on this verse, therefore the Apostle wrote "ean" and the KJV translators made an interpretation decision to change it from an "if" to a "when" because persons such as yourself misunderstand "if" to imply uncertainty of the protasis, whereas "if" simply implies conditionality of the apodosis on the protasis.

I see no evidence for the popular conspiracy theory that asserts that Egypt is somehow inherently sinful and can't produce accurate copies of the Bible. It's disrespectful to the Egyptian Church, the saints of whom we owe respect given the fact that, were it not for the likes of Athanasius, the Byzantine Church would have continued to go on its merry Arian way teaching that, among other things, Christ was a created being. We owe the fact that we are Trinitarians to Egyptians.

On top of which, the text type is merely called "Alexandrian" because the texts were found in, not produced in Egypt. Egyptian climate preserves texts better, so the oldest manuscripts are found there, whether they were written there or not. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both very well could have been written in Rome.

You argue that scholars would not use the Alexandrian texts because they were corrupt, but you proffer no evidence. On the contrary, they didn't use them because they didn't know they existed. The Alexandrian texts have largely been uncovered recently, or, if found earlier, were in the keeping of persons who did not interact much with western European scholarship. Cf. Sinaiticus, kept in St. Kate's at Mt. Sinai until the 18th-19th century. In the 19th century, we both drastically increased our number of second and third century texts and refined our understanding of Koine Greek as a specific period, not bound by quite the same rules as governed Classical Greek. Since that time, it has been clear to (nearly) all textual critics that the older translations, which were based on blind adherence to the Byzantine text type and mistaken understanding of the peculiarities of Koine Grammar, required reform.

Something you clearly do not disagree with, as you have agreed that in all cases the verse in question was written with "ean."


I didn't say anything about manuscripts reading "when" because they do not exist. All read ean, and ean is "if," plain and simple. The ean + subjunctive protasis forms what's called the third class conditional. The third class conditional used to express in Classical Greek what is called the "future more probable," or a conditional sentence wherein the protasis is probably going to happen. Because the semantic range of conditionals began breaking down in Koine, the third class conditional expresses not only the simple conditionality that I explained for you earlier, but also the future more probable and future hypothetical and even, to some extent, the future less probable which used to be expressed only with 4th class conditionals. In other words, it expresses the simple conditionality of an apodosis upon a protasis which either will, or may, or might not, or will not happen in the future. Because it expresses all levels of possibility, it expresses no distinct kind of possibility in particular. Likewise, the simple English conditional, If... Then... , also can express the concept of simple conditionality, without making any comment on whether the protasis will or will not happen. The translators of the KJV decided not to use that construction, but made a theological, interpretational edit to the text, to express certainty, where the Greek only expresses contingency, and does not comment upon the probability of the event.

I will also remind you that the third class conditional was used in Matthew 18 where you inistsed it be translated "if." A theological, interpretation decision can be made there too to change it to "when" to express conditionality upon the definite, as opposed to simple conditionality. What doesn't make any sense it to demand one reading of a third class conditional in one text, but exclude the possibility that another text may be expressing the same reading.

We will come back to this when you slander Egyptian Church people later on in your post.

Texts of the Alexandrian text type are not all from Egypt. Many are, because the climate naturally helps preserve texts better, so the original reading, the so-called Alexandrian text type, can be found more readily in Egypt where the oldest texts survive. In the rest of the Mediterranean, mostly later, highly edited texts survive. When very old texts do survive outside Egypt, like Vaticanus, they display an Alexandrian type text.


Ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, there are no historical records of the Egyptian church doing what you say it did. Rather, you have assumed that the Alexandrian text family was edited, and then attributed motivations to an imaginary band of editors. Those differences between texts are the primary reason we believe the Byzantine text was an edit of the Alexandrian type. The Byzantines added verses they felt were necessary for the clarity of the text. They edited over verses they considered embarrassing - like when a gospel referenced Isaiah, and the Byzantine copyists thought they were really quoting Malachi.

And since their copies are a good century older than the earliest Byzantine copies, it's absurd to say their copies disagreed with the vast majority of other copies, as if the Byzantine was already being mass produced.


The Protestant reformers were not aware that the Alexandrian text type even existed.




Slander of the Egyptian Church.

It is a Jewish myth that the textual transmission process was so perfect that mistakes and changes were never made in the text. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were at least two, perhaps more than two major recensions of the scriptures in Jesus' day - and the Bible, by quoting the Septuagint, endorsed the one the King James was not translated from.


"Alterations" were made to the texts in the sense that scribes would do the medieval equivalent of footnoting when they had two texts next to each other that read different things.

The Byzantine text invents verses and added them to the scriptures when they weren't there in the original, so called "minority" texts. Pause and consider that.

Not last time I checked, but if scribes thought they contradicted each other, that would be good cause to believe that they tried to fix the text, and the Byzantine reading was the product. The harder reading is the stronger.

The Byzantine text was "fortified" by scribes who added verses to shore up what they blasphemously thought was deficient in the word of God.

bottom line in regards to if verses were omitted or verses were added depends on what manuscripts you use. It is not my opion but by scholars hundreds of years before you or me, consider the Alexandria text as corrupt text, and even you said yourself that your bible, put doubts that Jesus will come back, that is not a bible that I would want to have anything to do with

NT:1437
NT:1437
<START GREEK>e)a/n
<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

KJV - before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-) soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, [who-] so (-ever). See NT:3361.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

"ean" means if or when so you pick, which one the Word Of God should say about the return of Jesus. if or when

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Oh, my, my, my, my, my. (sigh)

Well, I've made my position and understanding on this issue known elsewhere and I'll just throw it in here for newbies that might come across this thread and haven't seen the others.

THERE ARE NO TRANSLATIONS, NOT THE KJV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, ETC. THAT ARE BLESSED AS PAUL TELLS US THE ORIGINAL MSS ARE! THEY ARE ALL REASONABLY ACCURATE AND LEAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OUT THAT GOD WANTS HIS PEOPLE TO KNOW IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY KNOW THE TRUTH AND COME TO SALVATION THROUGH HIS SON, JESUS!!

HD3 one issue of your argument which you posted:
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!

That is not a fair argument. It is deceptive to make an argument that the total of missing verses would be equivalent to not having 1 and 2 Peter. Peter wrote some very important instructions and warnings to us and there is a great difference in our not having 1 and 2 Peter in its totality and our not having a verse that says, "And Jesus wept." And then some other place scattered about, "And a great storm arose." And some other place that is missing, "An angel of the Lord was dispatched to stir the waters." Etc. Etc. Etc.

Pause and consider that stunning fact!


God bless you all, I'm out of here.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Epiphoskei]

Bottom line is that scholars have never rejected the Alexandrian text type. The only people who didn't use it were people who didn't know it existed.

I have explicitly stated multiple times that "If he returns" does not express any doubt that Jesus comes back, but only that people who don't know their own language think that it does. "If" expresses simple conditionality. The third class conditional expresses the entire spectrum of possibility concerning future conditionality. They make a good translation of each other.

You will notice that your translation does not say the word can be translated "when." Your concordance says it has been translated "when" by the KJV, but the KJV's authority to do so is the point in contention, so you're begging the question.

 

[His_disciple3]

Hi all,

Oh, my, my, my, my, my. (sigh)

Well, I've made my position and understanding on this issue known elsewhere and I'll just throw it in here for newbies that might come across this thread and haven't seen the others.

THERE ARE NO TRANSLATIONS, NOT THE KJV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, ETC. THAT ARE BLESSED AS PAUL TELLS US THE ORIGINAL MSS ARE! THEY ARE ALL REASONABLY ACCURATE AND LEAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OUT THAT GOD WANTS HIS PEOPLE TO KNOW IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY KNOW THE TRUTH AND COME TO SALVATION THROUGH HIS SON, JESUS!!

HD3 one issue of your argument which you posted:
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact!

That is not a fair argument. It is deceptive to make an argument that the total of missing verses would be equivalent to not having 1 and 2 Peter. Peter wrote some very important instructions and warnings to us and there is a great difference in our not having 1 and 2 Peter in its totality and our not having a verse that says, "And Jesus wept." And then some other place scattered about, "And a great storm arose." And some other place that is missing, "An angel of the Lord was dispatched to stir the waters." Etc. Etc. Etc.

Pause and consider that stunning fact!


God bless you all, I'm out of here.
In Christ, Ted

ted I think you have missed the point entirely the statement concerning 1st and 2nd Peter, of course I gave the source where I got it from, so it is not my website, but I think that it was stated as it was, so that someone could comprehend how much scripture have been omitted by the eclectic text, which uses the Alexandria manuscripts in it's translations, but as I stated we really should not focus on how much as been added or how has been omitted, that really depends on which manuscripts you use, but you can make the call also, not sure what translation Epiphoskei uses but they said that their text in 1 John 3:2 says "if Jesus comes back" when My Bible the KJB says "When Jesus shall appear", so which one do you think would be the correct word in that contents? also I would hope that God could use a newspaper article to bring someone to the Knowledge of Christ, but very much disagree That all translation are of God, ( not that He can't use them ) But God is not the Author of confusion, if two translations disagree in just one verse or contents, then that is confusion, and it can not be of God, Let me repeat that Confusion is not of God! Now one could be of God and one not, or even both could be not of God but unless they agree in every area then they can not be of God, and God has promised to preserve His Word, so there has to be a true Word of God in our presence,

 

[Epiphoskei]

Common KVJO nonsense. The NT uses two different OT versions, the tradition underlying the LXX and the tradition underlying the Mastoretic. Both are of God, as both were cited by the NT approvingly.

Having different Bibles does not mean we have confusion.

And it remains the case that there are no Greek texts which read "when" in I John 3:2. I would just accept that a conditional doesn't imply the protasis may not happen and move on.

 

[His_disciple3]

Something you clearly do not disagree with, as you have agreed that in all cases the verse in question was written with "ean."


.

I am not agreeing that you have the text that was penned by the Apostles, what don't you understand about Wow YOU LIED!!!!!!, here is a valid point That I wasn't going to post, but this shows from scriptures that your oldest text as you claim it, to be can not be a true text!!


What does the Bible have to say about the Alexandrian text? While never mentioning &#8220;alternate&#8221; Bible texts, the Bible warns much about false witnesses bringing conflicting testimony. The manuscripts of the Alexandrian text disagree very much, as explained in my article &#8220;Preserved in the Greek.&#8221; However, the chief Biblical testimony against the Alexandrian text is the doctrine of Scripture preservation.
There is a good reason why we place much emphasis on God's promise to preserve His Word. First, it confirms that we have the infallible Word of God today. Second, it is the strongest witness against the Alexandrian text. The promise of preservation gives us the confidence that we possess a perfect Bible. We can hold up a KJV and declare that to be the infallible Word. This can also be said of most formal equivalence translations of the Byzantine text. However, the doctrine of Scripture preservation is also the strongest witness against the Alexandrian text. Preservation dictates that the true Bible will have been passed down through the ages, and will be evident in all time periods. Preservation demands that the Alexandrian text, having a glaring 1,500 year gap in it's transmission, is not the preserved Word of God. The early death of the Alexandrian text shows that God did not preserve it. This is why I maintain a comprehensive list of the Scriptures on preservation: every passage on preservation is a nail in the coffin of the Alexandrian text, nailing the lid back on the coffin of a text which met it's demise 1,600 years ago. Yet modern &#8220;scholarship&#8221; has reanimated this text, and placed it on life support. Yet, it is still dead. It is the text that &#8220;was, and is not, and yet is&#8221; (see Rev 17:8).
A small gap in transmission, perhaps 100-200 years, is excusable. Manuscripts don't last forever, and periods of intense persecution may have greatly decimated the textual witness from these periods. But a gap of 1,500 years? To insist that the church has lacked the true text for ¾ of it's existence is clearly ludicrous. This clearly contradicts the doctrine of preservation. Preservation dictates that the true text will have no such gap in it's transmission. The Byzantine text HAS no such gap, but shows continuity back to antiquity.
Because preservation is a strong witness against the Alexandrian text, it's proponents DENY the notion of a literal, to the word, preservation. (They also reject the notion of heretics altering the Bible, as this would point to the heretical origins of their text.) Thus, Biblical preservation is the strongest witness against the Alexandrian text.

http://biblesupersearch.com/article.php?id=233

 

[Epiphoskei]

The supposed doctrine of preservation, as you understand it, is a man-made doctrine crafted for the express purpose of shoring up obviously defective texts. It doesn't stand the test of scripture, which tells us that not merely was one text tradition lost for many years, but the entire book of the law was lost in the temple for ages before rediscovery by Josiah. It does not stand the test of scripture which freely quotes from the LXX in one place and the Masoretic in the other.

The following dilemma remains for you, and you have tried to play both sides of the issue. There are no scriptures that use the Greek for "when." All texts without exception read "ean." Either you agree with me that ean was written by the hand of the apostle, or you have to imagine some lost Greek tradition wherein I John 3:2 once contained the word for "when." The last is silly and requires you to turn your back on the TR, and the former requires you to agree with me and abandon your notion that conditionality casts doubts on the possibility of the protasis.

 

[His_disciple3]

The supposed doctrine of preservation, as you understand it, is a man-made doctrine crafted for the express purpose of shoring up obviously defective texts. It doesn't stand the test of scripture, which tells us that not merely was one text tradition lost for many years, but the entire book of the law was lost in the temple for ages before rediscovery by Josiah. It does not stand the test of scripture which freely quotes from the LXX in one place and the Masoretic in the other.

The following dilemma remains for you, and you have tried to play both sides of the issue. There are no scriptures that use the Greek for "when." All texts without exception read "ean." Either you agree with me that ean was written by the hand of the apostle, or you have to imagine some lost Greek tradition wherein I John 3:2 once contained the word for "when." The last is silly and requires you to turn your back on the TR, and the former requires you to agree with me and abandon your notion that conditionality casts doubts on the possibility of the protasis.

what happened to the promise of moving on?? You keep arguing the same thing over and over, like a broken record, and at the same time you never answer my questions, Are you saying That IF is the only definition to "EAN" and that it can not mean something else?? question 2 Do you really believe that the Apostles meant IF( as in that He might not come back) when they penned "EAN" Jesus comes back In 1 John 3:2, are there other places in your text that says He will come back? if there are then "When" would be the correct definition of "ean" in the contents of 1 JOHN 3:2 before you leave I would like to thank you for sharing that your text teaches that He might not come back, for it gives me another reason to stay away from that text, but you could further help me by telling us which perversion of the bible says that Jesus might not come back so we all will know which one to stay away from!! it is really hard for me to believe that someone would argue that He might not come back and not only stand behind a text but claim it to be the true contents of the Disciples, But this is not a dream I just pinched myself and I am awake!

 

[Epiphoskei]

You really aren't following.

"If Christ returns" does not mean that Christ might not come back. The entire point of everything I have said, every key I have struck over the past two days, has been to point out to you that conditionals of this sort do not imply anything about the possibility of the protasis happening or not happening, whatsoever.

 

[miamited]

hi HD3,

Thanks for your response, however, no matter the source of the information if you are going to post it and use it in your argument then unless you specifically comment something like, 'I'm not necessarily in agreement with point 3', or whatever, then I think everyone understands that you are using that point to justify your stand. You did add your own words that it should be considered as a 'stunning fact'.

Listen, I agree with you on a lot of things, but I am absolutely not one to support the position that the KJB is any specially inspired work of God's Holy Spirit. I was teethed on the NIV and I can tell you that in many, many discussions on these boards that my faith is stonger and more sure than some who were raised on and believe that the KJB is the only true word of God that we have today. So, it is my testimony that God works through the heart of the one who sincerely seeks Him no matter the translation of His word they hold in their hands. It is my testimony that there is nothing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING!!!!!! That is in the KJB that is not in any of the other reliable translations that would prevent someone from knowing the will of their God and what He desires us to know that we may find His way of Salvation. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

People argue over this little word is different or this passage doesn't make clear the same way or issue that is made in another translation and I just don't support that at all. If there is a piece of Scripture that is different between the KJB and another reliable translation that does seem to have some affect on how that piece of Scripture might have bearing on some foundational doctrine of faith that God wants us to understand, trust me and check it out, it'll be clear as crystal somewhere else. So unless your faith rests on one single sentence of the whole Scripture, don't concern yourself with translational issues.

Now, that is absolutely not to say that there aren't some translations out there that I would surely steer people away from. The gender neutral translations and the ones that take great liberties in their work to be thought for thought translations are certainly to be set apart as careless work and probably don't glorify God's work in providing for us the truth of His word. But, there are many good and reliable translations. Further, and God knows this, the mss are gone. They are not likely to ever turn up and so all of our disagreement about whether this is what any apostle or writer of the original mss actually wrote, is pure speculation any way. We just don't know.

This is the issue that I have tried to point out in the passage of the healing at the pool of Bethesda in another thread. The KJB makes a declaratory statement that an angel stirs the water and one individual is healed. Most all other translations in retelling that account say nothing about any angel stirring the waters and nothing about it being 'true' that one person is healed. The man that Jesus is going to heal responds to Jesus' question of whether he wants to be healed, "Lord, every time the water is stirred someone else goes down in front of me."

Here's my question: Is it, in fact, true that John wrote in the declaratory imperative that an angel stirs the water and one person was healed each time it happened. Or, was it a belief of the people that such a thing happened, but God really wasn't in it? Even today people claim to see apparitions of Mary or use other artifacts such as holy water and claim that they contain healing power, but do they? So, I don't find it a bit odd that the Jews believed that this pool called Bethesda had some miraculous healing power, but the question is, did it and did John write to us that it did and that it was the work of angels?

The KJB claims that he did. Most all other translations don't support that declaratory imperitive claim. What is the truth? That's all I'm ever seeking. What is the 'truth'?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

And let me please quickly add that even if the KJB is incorrect in this one place of Scripture recounting the healing at the pool of Bethesda, it doesn't make that translation corrupt. It's a small thing and most people probably don't even notice the difference. And whatever the truth of the situation really was when John wrote his gospel, it makes absolutely no difference in the purpose of God's word delivered to us through His people, Israel. It's unimportant and of no value whatsoever, but it does certainly bring into question any claim that the KJB is somehow an especially blessed translation and all others are corruptions.

 

[miamited]

hi again HD3,

You wrote: But God is not the Author of confusion, if two translations disagree in just one verse or contents, then that is confusion, and it can not be of God, Let me repeat that Confusion is not of God!

I don't find that to be a true statement. It would only be confusion if the missing or changed passage were to support some other doctrine or position. The fact that a missing piece may not clearly support a doctrine as another translation might, but neither does it make some different point of doctrine is not, in my estimation, confusion. And, as I have already posted, God's word would only be confusion if, after reading the whole of it, you came away knowing that it taught something different than reading the whole of any other translation. Then you have confusion! But none of the missing or different pieces make any different claims as to what God wants us to know from the whole of His word. All of the supposed claims that the changes don't make clear some doctrine at that point, but are clearly spelled out in other places, absolves any translation of confusion.

Yes, if you can read through the NLT and find no place where you are taught and convicted that the blood of Jesus was shed for the sins of man, it is certainly a corrupt translation, but if there is one place out of 10 that make that point, that may be worded differently from translation to translation, that, my friend, is not confusion.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[His_disciple3]

hi HD3,

Thanks for your response, however, no matter the source of the information if you are going to post it and use it in your argument then unless you specifically comment something like, 'I'm not necessarily in agreement with point 3', or whatever, then I think everyone understands that you are using that point to justify your stand. You did add your own words that it should be considered as a 'stunning fact'.

Listen, I agree with you on a lot of things, but I am absolutely not one to support the position that the KJB is any specially inspired work of God's Holy Spirit. I was teethed on the NIV and I can tell you that in many, many discussions on these boards that my faith is stonger and more sure than some who were raised on and believe that the KJB is the only true word of God that we have today. So, it is my testimony that God works through the heart of the one who sincerely seeks Him no matter the translation of His word they hold in their hands. It is my testimony that there is nothing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING!!!!!! That is in the KJB that is not in any of the other reliable translations that would prevent someone from knowing the will of their God and what He desires us to know that we may find His way of Salvation. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

People argue over this little word is different or this passage doesn't make clear the same way or issue that is made in another translation and I just don't support that at all. If there is a piece of Scripture that is different between the KJB and another reliable translation that does seem to have some affect on how that piece of Scripture might have bearing on some foundational doctrine of faith that God wants us to understand, trust me and check it out, it'll be clear as crystal somewhere else. So unless your faith rests on one single sentence of the whole Scripture, don't concern yourself with translational issues.

Now, that is absolutely not to say that there aren't some translations out there that I would surely steer people away from. The gender neutral translations and the ones that take great liberties in their work to be thought for thought translations are certainly to be set apart as careless work and probably don't glorify God's work in providing for us the truth of His word. But, there are many good and reliable translations. Further, and God knows this, the mss are gone. They are not likely to ever turn up and so all of our disagreement about whether this is what any apostle or writer of the original mss actually wrote, is pure speculation any way. We just don't know.

This is the issue that I have tried to point out in the passage of the healing at the pool of Bethesda in another thread. The KJB makes a declaratory statement that an angel stirs the water and one individual is healed. Most all other translations in retelling that account say nothing about any angel stirring the waters and nothing about it being 'true' that one person is healed. The man that Jesus is going to heal responds to Jesus' question of whether he wants to be healed, "Lord, every time the water is stirred someone else goes down in front of me."

Here's my question: Is it, in fact, true that John wrote in the declaratory imperative that an angel stirs the water and one person was healed each time it happened. Or, was it a belief of the people that such a thing happened, but God really wasn't in it? Even today people claim to see apparitions of Mary or use other artifacts such as holy water and claim that they contain healing power, but do they? So, I don't find it a bit odd that the Jews believed that this pool called Bethesda had some miraculous healing power, but the question is, did it and did John write to us that it did and that it was the work of angels?

The KJB claims that he did. Most all other translations don't support that declaratory imperitive claim. What is the truth? That's all I'm ever seeking. What is the 'truth'?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

could you point out in which post that I added "stunning fact", and again It is not saying what you are seeing, it is a comparsion of something so that you can realize the actuality of it. such as 1&2 peter compared to all the verses that the Niv omits would be like saying I saw a rat as big as a small dog . I am not saying it was a dog but trying to show the size of it so you can realize how big that thing was. and I have thanked you for some of your post, but this one is a little disturbing in the fact you feel that your faith is stronger and more sure than others!!! and most people who would encourage anyone to veer from any translation, the NIV would be the one that they would say would be the most dangerous one to stay away from, one of the things that really bothers me is taking the word begotten from John 3:16 and then the same translation states that Adam was the son of God, So God so loved the Word that He gave His one and only Son? and then if it was important enough to put begotten in a foot note why take it out to start with, the worst thing is where they take Lucifer out and put in O morning star Isaiah 14:12 and the same translation says that Jesus is the Morning Star, so Jesus was cast out of heaven and weaken the nations, according to the NIV! and of course let's not forget it bearing false witness against Elhanan for killing Goliath :

2 Samuel 21:19

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)


19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim[a] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath[b] the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver&#8217;s rod.

Footnotes:

1. 2 Samuel 21:19 Or son of Jair the weaver
2. 2 Samuel 21:19 Hebrew and Septuagint; 1 Chron. 20:5 son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath

yeah most definitely the Niv would be one to tell people to stay away from, as well as many others. such as the NAS in John 4:29 says that Jesus is not the Christ, that would be another one I would stay away from also, but as I say I pray that God can use a newspaper to win people to Jesus, But I couldn't dare call that newspaper The HOLY Word God or even a Bible which is the HOLY Word of God !! keep seeking the truth as well as I will also!