Steven Avery

Naaah.. the one who says there is no god, would prefer a Bible text full of errors. They may convince themselves they are simply following "scholarship" however, what they really want is a Bible full of miscues.

I accept the King James Bible as the Scriptures. However, all TR and KJB differences put together are a very tiny fraction of what is involved in the Traditional text versus Westcott-Hort text family issues. Easily by an order of magnitude of 10,000 to 1 in terms of significance. (Actually millions to 1) You really need a microscope to find TR-KJB differences. And since we generally speak English, working with the English Bible solves a lot of communication difficulties as well :-)

Yes, all the TR textual analysis concepts are very different than NA-27 concepts, top to bottom, so variants were definitely "resolved differently".

Some simple general TR conceptions.
Overwhelming manuscript evidence is considered very important.
& two or three manuscripts will not override massive evidences.
Omission is more general text problem than conflation.
"Harder reading" has minimal application.

The text that you and Holding have is only a reconstruction.
The text that we use is the living and active Word of God.

See first paragraph.

I can understand your preference to discuss the errancy of the Bible with those who view their Bible as errant. Makes your job much easier.

Sure, they really believe the Bible :-)

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

However, you are wrong in your basic claim, they have very solid textual reasons as well. Perhaps you should read a little bit from Wilbur Pickering or Maurice Robinson or Thomas Holland before you assume they don't have very powerful, clear and solid textual reasons for accepting the Byzantine Text over the alexandrian mishegas.

Naah.. you miss the point entirely with this one.

Truth is far more important than conformity.

The underlying REASON (most) "everyone here" uses a modern textcrit version, rather than the historic Bible, is not because they have great textual insight, it comes down to the simple difficult truf... most everyone here WANTS an ERRANT Bible, and the textcrit versions of he month gives them exactly that....

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Lugubert

Not by a mile. There are, the way I see it, lots of people around here who really would like to have some trustworthy texts describing life and what happened in those days. One example is this thread: I want to know about the applications and interpretations of Jewish law around the beginning of the common era.
You should have seen by now that quite a few posters around here use and read Hebrew and Greek texts, and are very open to any reasonable interpretation. There being no such thing as a "historic Bible", we try to find the oldest possible versions. In fact, I think that us infidels generally are more open to unbiased interpretations, because they will have no bearing on our (dis)beliefs.

I won't comment on the KJV. There are already enough discussions on its reliability. I like the non-denominational Swedish "Bibel 2000". It was prepared following a government decree asking for a new translation, acceptable for all Christians, and there were linguists, poets, and representatives of different faiths and political parties on the project.

Vorkosigan

All of the texts are full of errors. So your point is moot.

Exactly. Makes scholarship possible. Anything else is just two religious believers shouting at each other, which, after a certain point, resolves itself in bloodshed.

I've read some Robinson. But unfortunately it's not really very convincing.

Again, all texts are errant, and there is no inherent preference for one over the other here.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

You do realize the "inerrancy debate" is precisely about this question, and your fiat declaration will be filed away as one side. We have seen on this forum how the atheists will insist upon the alexandrian text PRECISELY because it has errors that they can claim. When I used to bother more with JoeW's forum, again and again he would insist on an error, by showing the alexandrian blunder text.

That has not been the case on this forum. Look at the insistence that "Gerasa" (an error) is what NT says, and demonstrates Mark's geographical difficulty, and shows that Mark was written a century or so later !
......even though the great majority of manuscripts agree with the Traditional text reading, which does not have the error. The junque text is used as the foundationstone there of the skeptic position. GIGO

Similarly, we have seen again and again skeptic theories are BASED on the error of a Mark ending at verse 8. Yet all such theories are fatally flawed for the same reason, they INSIST upon the errant alexandrian text being "original". GIGO

You all mask your preference under the facade of "scholarship", but as I have demonstrated the very paradigms of modern scholarship MUST CREATE an errant text.

Therefore again and again the skeptics theories here are simply GIGO.

No, you are mistaken because then you would use the hallmark versions in English, Tyndale, Geneva and King James Bible (which are generally very, very close in the NT). What many INSIST on doing is basing their seeking of errors on NEWER versions, not older, largely based on TWO corrupt alexandrian manuscripts, that are OLDER simpler because they were discarded as junque, ergo preserved. They don't match each other, they don't match anything else, and it is trivial to show their state of scribal incompetence and corruptness. Folks on this forum INSIST on that text precisely because they can find ERROR after ERROR in the junque manuscripts.

I'm quite sure It is based on the underlying corrupt NA-27 text, so the best translators and poets will simply create a corrupt Swedish text.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

S.C.Carlson

So far the discussion seems rather hypothetical. Do you have a particular verse where the current critical text clearly violates inerrancy but the corresponding text of the KJV does not?

Stephen Carlson

Wallener

Nice position. In the future, then, I trust you will consult with the knowledgable Jews on this site and elsewhere before making reference to messianic prophecies currently coopted by Christians...?

Wait a minute - doesn't using this logic means the entire new testament has to be dumped from the bible? Come to think of it, since the original inerrantists are, in fact, Samaritans, we have to dump everything from Joshua onwards as well.

Lugubert

I'm quite flattered, praxeus, that two quotes from my previous post are labelled Vorkosigan in your 1:27 PM post. But Vork would have done better than that.
The basis is The Greek New Testament (3rd ed.) by United Bible Societies, 1975 (GNT3). But the Bible Commission has during its independent work in several cases come to other conclusions than GNT3.

And the "B2000" is a project started and financed by our government with its Social Democrat majority. The very clear object was, like I inferred, to create a scientifically sound Bible in modern language, acceptable to all Christians and Jews as well as to non-believers.

Steven Avery

Good question. Sure, a very simple example, which we have been discussing on forum, helpful precisely because it does not have doctrinal overtones but is simply geographical, is Gerasa.

The irony is that some commentators and biblical scholars themselves seem to understand that this was placed in by a later scribe, likely alexandrian, who simply did not know the location of Gergesa (and possbily not Gardara), and substituted Gerasa, a big well-known city of a similar name as Gergesa. Even understanding that, the modern versions in English, and NA-27 still retain the alexandrian text error, the harder reading.

Then we watch the skeptics use that later scribal alexandrian error as an example of both Mark's supposed lack of knowledge of geography (which can support their various auxiliary theories) and the errancy of the NT text.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Yuri Kuchinsky

If the purpose was really to "create a scientifically sound Bible in modern language", then they should have stayed as far as possible from GNT3, which is in fact 99.5% identical to Westcott & Hort, this weird 19th century pseudo-scientific aberration.

Westcott & Hort fraud
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/whfraud.htm

The Byzantine text is far preferable.

Here's another case where Byzantine text is far preferable,

Did Jesus Tell a Lie? (John 7:8)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/jn7jes.htm

Regards,

Yuri.

Steven Avery

And the one other supposed hard 'geography error in Mark', a recurrent theme in skeptic literature, is similarly fine in the TR / KJB.

Mark 7:31
And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.

Yuri even discussed this one at..
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/geogr.htm
problem with Mark's geography? Not quite... (Mk 7:31) by Yuri Kuchinsky

And Peter gave the actual text support ..

The Westcott-Hort reading ("he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee") is supported by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, 019, 037, 038, 33, 565, 700, 892, and some versions (including the Vulgate but also the Ethiopic and some Coptic manuscripts).

The Textus Receptus reading ("he went out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of Galilee") is supported by p45, Alexandrinus, 017, 032, 033, 041, 0131, 28, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, and some versions.

The alexandrian shell game becomes a major, even fundamental, motif of skeptics, infidels and mythicists in their attacks on the historicity and accuracy of the NT.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/[/QUOTE]