sugarhitman

While reading the Tacitus thread I couldnt help but read what Spin said concerning the stone casting story, asserting that it was added to the Gospels much later. I disagree. People are confusing the Minority Texts (Alexandrian Texts) as the originals but the early christians and the Protestant Reformers rejected them. The Roman Catholic bibles and Modern english Texts like the R.S.V. N.I.V and others are based on the Minority Texts which are filled with errors. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus which I believe were the accurate documents that christians had while reppressed by the Roman Church. These newer bibles often put this story in brackets saying not original. I believe the KJV got it right and this story is original and not a later addition.



I need to study more on this but I am calling those christians who are knowledgable to stand up for this story.


Sugarhitman

Keith&Co.

Why do you believe this?
You say you need to study it more, but you already have your conclusion. And invite others to agree with you.
What makes you so sure you'll be proven right?

Jeffrey Gibson

As opposed to those Christians such as yourself who are not knowledgeable when it comes to matters text critical and because of this stand up for it?

And just what "documents", especially of Eastern provenance, were actually suppressed by the Roman Church?

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

Starting another thread?

You have a long list of unanswered questions in your sad, crippled thread on Biblical Prophecy.

Gonna deal with those, or just pretend it never happened?

Jayrok

You disagree and believe the KJV got it right and this story is original and not added later by a scribe? Well, at least you admit you aren't as knowledgeable on this particular subject.

Recommend you read Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by textual critic Bart Ehrman. In the book he talks about the story of the adulterous woman who the Jews wanted Jesus to endorse her stoning. Instead, Jesus said the famous let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Ehrman gives the background on this story and others in early and later editions of the NT. He gives reasons why it is considered a later addition and not original to John. It's an interesting read, and not a long one.

sugarhitman

His attaks are targeted towards these modern versians which are based on the Minority Texts yes? If it is then it is understandable. I have notice that critics uses these modern translations to support their views....but they are not based on the Textus Receptus the Majority Text. They have so many ommissions and incorrect interpretations (like the translation of "Taphas" into rape in Deut. and others) that i am suprised that they are used in the christian world. If his attacks are not against the Textus Receptus only against the Minority Texts...then his criticism means nothing.

makerowner

You don't really know what 'critic' means do you?

Jayrok

Firstly, Bart Ehrman is not an atheist. He was a former evangelical Christian and now calls himself agnostic, IIRC.

His profession is textual criticism. He's a scholar on the subject. When I read his work I don't see him "attacking" Christianity at all. He is writing giving his expert opinion and factual commentary on the given subject.

That said, in Misquoting Jesus, Professor Ehrman talks about different versions of the Bible including the KJV and the source the KJV used. Textus Receptus Greek translation was considered the oldest reliable source at the time the KJV was written. But, IIRC, there have been more recent findings of manuscripts that were older. In theory, the older versions should be closer to the original version.

At any rate, Ehrman discusses the KJV and how it was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.

You can cry foul if you want but Ehrman is an expert. Feel free to take it up with him.

Even if God did divinely inspire the original texts, we don't have any of the original texts. We have copies of copies and if God chose not to inspire the copies selected by Christiandom, then what is the point? Which ones do you trust, the KJV? Surely not.

sugarhitman

"Faulty Greek Text?" By that you mean the Majority Text....which is not faulty that is an error. The so-called more accurate and ancient texts are those belonging to the "Roman Stream" Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Books translated from these two documents have thousands of ommissions and mistranslations. The Reformors did well in rejecting these corrupt texts.

Older is not better:

"It was written on fine vellum and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican library in 1481. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probaly left out on purpose." Barry Burton


And remember Rome did not permit the public to have bibles or any other scriptures. So if the true Christians had not Rome's versians than what did they have? They relied on the Majority Texts (although taken underground due to persecution) that did not have the Roman intentional perversions.


All modern bibles except the KJV are translated from the minority texts of Westcott and Hort which is why they have the same ommissions and other corruptions.....and they are the versians used by critics to criticise Christianity. (In one such case a skeptic on this site pointed out the story of Jesus in which He told His brothers that He would not go up into Jerusalem and later went making Him out to be a lier. The fact is the modern versions leaves out the word "yet" the KJV does not. "I do not go up YET" the ommission of this word makes Jesus a lier. These versians also translate the Hebrew word Taphas into rape, in Deut. making it appear as if God supports rape. I have yet to see a critic use the KJV in their criticisms because of the soudness of this book.)


"Faulty Greek text?" rather vague, which stream does this faulty Text come from? Remember there are only two, Roman Minority texts and Textus Receptus.

Sheshonq

Thus demonstrating again that you don't have a fucking clue what you're blabbering about.

how do you know if you don't have originals to compare with?

Says who?

Who says that any perversions existed? Oh, that's right -you've just picked up another fundibot tract or 4 page leaflet, and now consider yourself as fully informed on textual criticism as an actual text scholar.

Quite sadly wrong.

Also wrong. You seem to think that the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are the same thing.

Note - one would think that after all the other mistakes you've made, you wouldn't be so eager to embarrass yourself - but no, you plow right ahead, knowing merely a thimbleful about the topic and trying to lecture others in spite of that.
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling: