• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Byzantine or Alexandrian

TCassidy

Active Member
Jun 24, 2017
375
287
79
Weslaco
✟52,265.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, it is the point. Prior to 1382, hagios spiritus" was always rendered "Holy Spirit.
Can you quote one bible translation, produced prior to 1382, that uses the term "Holy Spirit." I will wait, giving you time to do a Google search that you can copy and paste.

There are no references to "pneuma" as "ghost" in the original language of the scriptures.
That is because English is not the original language of the scriptures.

As far back as 456 BC, the Greek usage (Aeschylus) pneuma never supported "ghost".
That is because English did not exist in 456 BC. Or 456 AD for that matter.

As far back as the early 300 BC, the Greek usage (Herodotus) phantom never equated to "spirit".
That is because English did not exist in 300 BC. Or 300 AD for that matter.

Now, would like to say that the above material is lying?
It is moot as it does not address the English words "spirit" and "ghost" which is the topic of this discussion.

All your cut and paste just makes you look desperate to win an argument you are not qualified to engage in.

Now focus. In 1611 the English words "spirit" and "ghost" were synonyms. (That is a big word that means "meant the same thing.")

As they meant the same thing in 1611 it is an error to claim one or the other is a mistake.

They may not mean the same thing in early 21st century English but the KJV is not in early 21st century English. It is in early 17th century English when the two words meant the same thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: OzSpen
Upvote 0

TCassidy

Active Member
Jun 24, 2017
375
287
79
Weslaco
✟52,265.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Can you quote one bible translation, produced prior to 1382, that uses the term "Holy Spirit." I will wait, giving you time to do a Google search that you can copy and paste.
Here, let me help you a bit. This will give you a place to start looking.

The first known bible in English was the Lindisfarne Gospels dating to about 700 A.D. These were in Latin with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation added about 950 A.D.

In about 1000 A.D., Aelfric translated a condensed version of the first seven books of the Old Testament. However, due to the Norman invasion in 1066, French became the dominant language of England, and the Anglo-Saxon tongue became obsolete.

In the fourteenth century, English was again dominant, and by the fifteenth century French had almost disappeared.

In about 1300 the Ormulum appeared, translated by Orm, an Augustinian monk. This work was originally a commentary on the Gospels, but later Genesis and Exodus were translated into a form of very early Middle English.

About the same time, Richard Rolle translated the Psalms into Early Middle English, of which 170 manuscripts still survive.

And that brings us to Wycliffe and his Middle English "goost."

Good luck on your research.
 
Upvote 0

TCassidy

Active Member
Jun 24, 2017
375
287
79
Weslaco
✟52,265.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here. I will help you out just a little bit more.

Here is a line from the Gospel of Mark in Old English.

Ic fulliȝe eoƿ on ƿætere; he eoƿ fullaþ on Halȝum Ȝaste.

Now I know this is going to be hard for you, lacking as you do in formal education, and not being able to Google a lot of resources on Old English, but pay close attention and I will point out to you how serious your error is.

Note the last word in the Old English sentence above. The word I want you to take note of is "Ȝaste."

The Greek for this verse reads "εγω μεν εβαπτισα υμας εν υδατι αυτος δε βαπτισει υμας εν πνευματι αγιω."

In current English it reads "I baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit."

In Old English (this dates to about 700 AD) "Holy Spirit" reads "Halȝum Ȝaste." Halȝum means "holy" and "Ȝaste" means, wait for it, Ȝaste is Old English for "ghost."

-----Begin quoted material-----

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2018
Origin of ghost
before 900; Middle English goost (noun), Old English gāst; cognate with German Geist.

-----End quoted material-----

Now you have a starting point. Again, good luck. Remember the bible admonition, "Study to show yourself approved unto God." :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
What is the translation for this?

argumentum ad hominem

And what is the definition?

now faith,

I highly recommend this website that has the most extensive range of logical fallacies I have read on the Internet. It's called 'Logically Fallacious'.
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.

Example #1:
My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!

Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.

I hope you call a person out when this argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy is used.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
now faith,

I highly recommend this website that has the most extensive range of logical fallacies I have read on the Internet. It's called 'Logically Fallacious'.
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.

Example #1:
My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!

Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.

I hope you call a person out when this argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy is used.

Oz

OZ, I thank you.
This was my source for the Question, since it was a question I did not post my source.
The definition is common place, and so is demeaning another's educational background.

Have you ever studied Smith Wigglesworth?
One thing about him was his wife taught him to read.
He started working as a boy in a factory.
He learned to read the Bible and would not allow secular media in His house.
No commentaries, news papers nothing but the Bible.
Yes He was a bit crude not very polite, but still appeared seemingly out of nowhere around the World.
His gift was well documented and His life was Blessed.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
OZ if I may state my opinion without appearing to proslize here.
A Preacher does not need a Seminary degree to Preach.
Most Seminarys promote the doctrine of the founder, even to the point of placing doctrine above Bible.
Doctrines are full of logical fallacies , due to the dogmatic adherence of the founder's .
Many teach outside their proclamation of doctrine.

I cannot list examples, but the sword cuts both ways.
No matter what denomation your in there will be those who subvert the Gospel.
Paul had them in His day, and nothing has changed.


2 Timothy 2: 15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
 
Upvote 0

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,726
✟196,517.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The definition is common place, and so is demeaning another's educational background.

1 Corinthians 8:1

Matthew 11:25

Naturally, I agree. A good argument will stand on its own merits, and a good arguer can explain a point without ever mentioning his own expertise.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: now faith
Upvote 0

Newtheran

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2018
782
570
South
✟41,789.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What is God's word the majority text or the minority text?

I am leaning to the majority text since the Alexandrian ones are different and should not be trusted.

The TR/Majority text.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The TR/Majority text.

You do realize that the MT and the TR are different don't you?

"What is the Difference between the Majority Text and the Received Text?

The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text. The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text."

Source

When you use the term "Majority Text" what you are saying is that of the 5300 known to exist Greek MSS, the "majority" of then read like this.

In fact, the Textus Receptus disagrees with the MT over 1300 times.

In fact, in 1966 and the discovery of the p66, Gordon Fee's dissertation "THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PAPYRUS BODMER II AND PAPYRUS BODMER XIV-XV FOR METHODOLOGY IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM", shows that just in John chapter 4, there are some 46 disagreements with the TR.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: OzSpen
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes. My preference is the MT. I can deal with the TR.

Now here again, since your talking of the Bible, when you say MT, do mean "Majority Text" as in reference to the NT, or do you mean "Masoretic Text" for the OT?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Newtheran

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2018
782
570
South
✟41,789.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now here again, since your talking of the Bible, when you say MT, do mean "Majority Text" as in reference to the NT, or do you mean "Masoretic Text" for the OT?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, majority text.
 
Upvote 0

TCassidy

Active Member
Jun 24, 2017
375
287
79
Weslaco
✟52,265.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I should have been more clear, majority text.
Due to the fact there are so many different names given to Greek texts, text types, and textforms, it might be a good idea to agree on terms that describe the two primary textforms: Byzantine and Alexandrian.

The Byzantine textform is represented by those texts often called the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus (TR - at least 33 editions), The Traditional Text, The Ecclesiastical Text, The Constantinopolitan Text, The Antiocheian Text, The Syrian Text, and the Patriarchal Text.

The Alexandrian textform is represented by those texts often called The Neutral or Egyptian texts, The Critical Text, The Nestle Text, The NA text (Nestle/Aland - at least 28 editions), The UBS Text (United Bible Society - at least 5 editions) and others.

So, can we agree to use the two above bolded terms to avoid confusion?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Newtheran
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
OZ if I may state my opinion without appearing to proslize here.
A Preacher does not need a Seminary degree to Preach.
Most Seminarys promote the doctrine of the founder, even to the point of placing doctrine above Bible.
Doctrines are full of logical fallacies , due to the dogmatic adherence of the founder's .
Many teach outside their proclamation of doctrine.

I cannot list examples, but the sword cuts both ways.
No matter what denomation your in there will be those who subvert the Gospel.
Paul had them in His day, and nothing has changed.

Where did I state that a person needs a seminary degree to preach?

'I can't list examples', you say.

Then it would be better to remain silent unless you want to suffer the consequences stated by the Preacher of Wisdom: 'Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish' (Prov 18:13 NLT).
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
DO you think Spouting off is a poor description of what I stated.
IS Spouting off is a poor bible translation due to a bad choice of euphemism?
Is it a Bible translation?
Is this somthing found in a garbage can?


Proverbs 18: 13. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. Here is another way to quote the proverb what do you think?

Can you Keep in mind this is a old thread and you just replied to my post.
Are you baiting me into a warning?

Are you called to edify or exclude?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Who stoned Steven ?
Quote: Thought co.

Synagogue of the Freedmen members: These Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia had been freed from slavery. They argued with Stephen, secretly hiring false witnesses to accuse him of blasphemy. This echoed the false witnesses who tried to testify against Jesus in his trial. After stirring up the elders and teachers of the law, these Freedmen seized Stephen and hauled him before the Sanhedrin.
Unquote

Alexandrian people were a part of this , is it logical to follow a text written by them?
Odd do you see any origins from Antioch in this crowd?
Could it be possible the Alexandrian text was corrupt from the beginning?
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Alexandrian people were a part of this , is it logical to follow a text written by them?
Odd do you see any origins from Antioch in this crowd?
Could it be possible the Alexandrian text was corrupt from the beginning?

You do realize that there a few, not many, but there are a few Byzantine texts that date back to this period to?

Dr. Maurice Robinson points that fact out.

(cf. New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority, Maurice A. Robinson, points: #21, 38, 43; n42,63-65)

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0