Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

In addition to my questions above for you, I do have one other question, not about the textual issues, but about your translation.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you,
I go away, and come again unto you.
If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said,
I go unto the Father:
for my Father is greater than I.

When there is no mou in your preferred text, why do you insert a definite article ? Do you believe this is required or simply your translation preference ? Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

This is the sort of issue that should warn you to learn something about Greek before saying anything. The answer's here:

oti o pathr meizwn mou estin

spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Why ? The question is simple. If it gets a good answer, so much the better.

If your answer is correct, thanks. The NAS online lexicon at crosswalk looks to omit the o. Not sure why. Perhaps two texts, perhaps an error,

Shalom,
Steven

spin

The expression "telegraphic punch" mean anything to you?

Rare is it. Everything we do -- including you -- is overdetermined.

That's certainly true, but in this case one wonders what "good" really implies.

If your thanks are sincere, you're welcome.

Try here.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

lets skip the fluff.

Then to substance.

Sure, you answered the question without a lot of dramatics. I looked at the John Hurt site later, apparently the Crosswalk - NAS site has an error.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

If everyone did that, you'd never get a response.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Vacuous dismissal diversion. Simply shows that a number of translators felt that the personalization of father-son given specifically in verse 19 in Greek cam properly brings that sense over to verse 17 in the English. NIV, NKJV, Webster and Weymouth are four. Context and sense and style. Why spin would think that their agreeing or not agreeing in 10,000 details with the KJB is remotely relevant is a puzzle in his understanding of logic only.

John 10:15-19
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Later in the chapter the situation is even simpler.

John 10:29-30
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

Now clearly in English, once a personalization relationship is established, switching to an impersonal definite article in speech can be awkward, even stilted. Definite articles do vary in sense and usage within languages, as do plurals and other grammatical features.

Any translation can be checked today and it can be seen that definite articles are not mapped linearly from Greek-->English. Such variation in article mapping is frequent in good translation. And in such cases, neither translation decision is necessarily "wrong".

Incidentally, Avi might want to note that the personalization to which he seems to vehemently object in one passage (in that case a 'literal' translation from TR to KJB - he objects to the Reformation Bible methodology as a whole) is confirmed in neighboring verses.

Oh, if any of our sensible scholarly types here know where this is discussed in a scholarly paper or book (either article mapping in general or the personalization of the Father-Son relationship in John) please share away.

One nice occasional event on this forum is those rare occasions when the politics is put down and good scholarly references are sought and viewed and studied.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

avi

The question I sought to address, answered by spin's accomplished manoeuvres, was this: For verses 14:28 and 10:30 of John, did the original manuscript contain "mou", given that we do not possess the original? Devotees of KJV insisted that the original composition, from the quill of "john" or whoever wrote John, contained "mou", and I think it is clear from the available evidence, that "mou" was most probably not found on those particular passages in the original composition.

I am still waiting for an apology from Steven, regarding his allegation that I misquoted him. The question raised, was NEVER about "the English translation" of Tertullian". We use English to communicate on this forum, therefore, we are casual about expressing an idea. However, I had made it very clear to you Steven, in particular, that my interest was "mou", and not "my", so the question I had raised was then whether or not an earlier writer, (I had suggested Tatian's Diatessaron, however, Tertullian was a suitable alternative,) may have had access to an earlier Greek manuscript, than the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus. As spin confirmed, the Latin text of Tertullian contained no "meus", the Latin equivalent of "mou", and English "my". You, Steven, misrepresented my query, by feigning ignorance of my question, and claimed, indignantly, that I had misquoted you, when in fact, you substituted "my" for "meus". I have, and had, no interest, zero interest, in knowing what the English version of Tertullian may or may not say on this question of "mou" for John 14:28, and 10:30, and you knew that, when you accused me of falsely quoting you.

You and aChristian need to acknowledge the facts, then you can proceed to attempt to discredit my underlying hypothesis: neighboring text had also been mutilated and redacted and exposed to insertions, i.e. altered from the original, during the hundred years between its first appearance, and Tertullian's copy.

Maybe the original, flowing from John, had "mou" everywhere. I don't know what it had, and neither does anyone else, because we do not have faithful reproductions of the original manuscript. "The" bible is a myth. There is no such object. All of the existing translations are mutilated versions of what the original authors penned. There is nothing unique, in other words, about John 14:28 and 10:30, they are simply convenient measuring instruments, designed to expose a fraud. The fraud in this case is KJV.

spin

Either you do lit crit or you deal with manuscripts.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Avi, I am still waiting for the list of "blatant falsehoods" you claim I wrote. The actual writings from my posts that you view this way. Thanks.

No. We said that in John 14:28 the Received Text has "mou", and that there is strong evidence for this in the manuscripts and in addition/omission theories. I made no quote about "original composition", that is solely your terminology.

You are welcome to that view. While I disagree with you on the verse we discussed, I would not call what you say here a "blatant falsehood", simply a standard textcrit-style view.

The word you used was my "presumption". That was clearly shown as false above. The mods should read the thread and see. (I have placed the discussion below.)

This is simply yet another error in your memory. That is why you are not giving any of my actual words.

You are hopelessly confused, avi. My point was simple, you claimed a "presumption" that was never remotely in my remarks about Tertullian, Cyprian, etc.

Here is the full post you accused.
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...8&postcount=89

It is hard to write more cautiously and accurately than this. Your "presumption" claim came later, on post #124.

It is trivially easy to see that my post #89 had no presumption whatsover. And unlike what you say here, I did not accuse you of a "misquote", what I wrote was simple and clear.

My statements in #89 were 100% accurate and truthful and even warned of "presumption" on the early church writers based on an English translation.

"On a smaller variant though, the error quotient is greater..."

Why you thought there was a "presumption" is quite curious. Later you made additional errors along the same line - "error begets error". - Here you switched to thinking I was accusing you of a "misquote".

You continued with a number of errors in the post leading to the worst, defacto calling me a liar for writing accurately !

Notice that you are accusing me of "blatant falsehoods" about "original manuscripts" (a phrase I avoid precisely for these reasons) when now, in this post, you yourself say we do not know what is in the "original manuscripts".

In post #129 I attempted once again to have you correct these accusations.
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=129

Earlier you were insisting you knew the originals, and even accused me of "blatant falsehoods" from a position you no longer hold !

The fraud in this thread is your accusation of "blatant falsehoods" and your accusation of "presumption" in my original careful and accurate sharing about what I had seen in the English translations with warnings that such translations have multiple difficulties on small variants. I even combined this with a careful explanation of why I did not consider the ECW as very significant on this verse, before any Latin was checked, and what evidences really seemed significant. The writing is all above and my understanding now on this textual question is 100% the same as what it was then.

The last three posts, with more accusation, and no addressing the false accusations, are. Notice that #134 totally contradicts #148, actually it contradicts itself as well, first supposedly stating a fact, and then qualifying as his judgment of "best evidence".

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=134
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=135
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=148 (the post responded to here)

Shalom,
Steven Avery