Steven Avery

Actually I do affirm the Hebrew/Aramaic Tanach of the Scriptures, same as the Traditional Jewish view, and Karaite view.

The problem arises when folks try to place the Greek OT over the Tanach... some early church writers did this, and it is done today by a variety of folks, even some "Messianics", good segments of the Orthodox Church (at least they are following their history), some scholarship, and often the Christian Identity (which is anti-Jewish and anti-Masoretes)

Obviously agreeing with the Scripture text does not mean agreeing with all the interpretations thereof, and I did not ask that of Vosk, either.

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

Steven Avery

Basically the same as NA-27, the descendent of the Westcott-Hort text.
Fairly minor, I am quite sure. If they put "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16 then I may be interested in looking at the differences :-)
.. "good intentions" I am quite sure. However the underlying text is simply corrupt. GIGO.

Your neighboring Finns have had a difficult time finding a readable Bible based on the Textus Receptus, and sometimes they simply use the King James Bible instead, even with limited English. I do have a Swedish friend who probably knows the ins and outs of the Swedish versions. (Well, ok, he is Finn, too, but he lives in Sweden :-)

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

yummyfur

Well that might work for Matthew, but all manuscripts of Luke and Mark(even Textus Receptus) have this as Gerasa or Gadara. So is Mathew the only one among these three Gospels that is inerrant?

Don't say, maybe Gadara is what is meant as the Textux Receptus of Mathew has Gergesa, So if true it would make Textus Receptus errant.

either way something in the NT will be errant

S.C.Carlson

It's still a little confusing to me what about the critical text you think is violating inerrancy in a way that the KJV text does not. Here is the evidence:

Matt 8:28 KJV: Gergesenes; NRSV: Gadarenes
Mark 5:1 KJV: Gadarenes; NRSV: Gerasenes
Luke 8:26 KJV: Gadarenes; NRSV: Gerasenes.

It appears to me that the critical text and the KJV are in about the same position as far as inerrancy is concerned.

I also cannot figure out how the claim that a later scribe changed Gergesa into Gerasa is consistent with any scenario of KJV/TR priority. Where the TR/KJV has Gergesa, the Alexandrian texts do not have Gerasa. On the other hand, where the Alexandrian texts have Gerasa, the KJV/TR does not have Gergesa. :huh:

Steven Avery

Nope. Two incidents.
One in the country of the Gergesenes, with the two demoniacs,
One in the country of the Gadarenes, one man healed.

Since I don't know if columns will work well here, I have archived this at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia.../message/10167
==============================================
COUNTRY OF THE GERGESENES - MATTHEW

Matthew
8:28 "two possessed with devils"
"the country of the Gergesenes"
"no man may pass by the way"
8:29 "what have we to do with thee"

=========================================
COUNTRY OF THE GADARENES - LUKE, MARK

Luke
8:27 "a certain man"
. "country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee"
. "when he went forth to land"
. "neither abode in any house"
8:30 "What is thy name? And he said, Legion"
8:27 "and ware no clothes"
8:28 "what have I to do with thee"
8:38 "Now the man out of whom the devils were departed
besought him that he might be with him"
8:39 " Jesus .. saying,
Return to thine own house,
and shew how great things God hath done unto thee...
8:39 And he went his way,
and published throughout the whole city
how great things Jesus had done unto him.

Mark
5:1 "a man with an unclean spirit"
"the country of the Gadarenes
5:2 "immediately there met him"
5:3 "his dwelling among the tombs"
5:7 "what have I to do with thee"
5:9 " What is thy name?
And he answered, saying, My name is Legion:.."
5:15 " and clothed"
5:18 "he that had been possessed with the devil
prayed him that he might be with him."
5:19 Jesus ..saith unto him,
Go home to thy friends,
and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee...
5:20 And he departed,
and began to publish in Decapolis
how great things Jesus had done for him:
==================================================

Here are the following agreeing aspects of the Gadarenes event that are not referenced for Gergesenes, or would fail in Gergesenes. I have put together a baker's dozen :-)

================================================== ==

MARK/LUKE MATTHEW 8
"Country of the Gadarenes" Gergesenes - different region
"a man"- two men
Decapolis (Luke only, applies to Gadara) wrong for Gergesenes
"over against Galilee" - wrong for Gergesenes
Immediately, when he went forth ----- (unspecified)
dwelled in tombs, no home ------ (unspecified)
naked, without clothes ---- (unspecified)
My name is Legion -----
--- No man may pass
First Jesus addressed by the man Jesus addressed by the demons
healed man besought Jesus to stay --- (unspecified)
Jesus told him to return and publish --- (unspecified)
healed man proclaimed what Jesus had done ---- (unspecified)

================================================== =====

Now I realize that others probably use these differences to develop complicated synoptic theories (and such may be useful or interesting between Mark and Luke). One who accepts the NT as Scripture will simply appreciate the beauty and detail and accuracy of the two similar but quite different events.

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

Steven Avery

Also we have Spin's table at
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...3&page=2&pp=25
The Aramaic is an actual example of "harder reading" smoothing btw :-)
And the Vulgate reading as well likely arose in such a "smoothing".

However it arises, Gerasenes is Gerasa/Gerash/Jerash, and a major error on face. There are simply no cliffs in the country of Gerash leading to Kinneret, it becomes the swine marathon instead. If you wish, I could show you the back and forth on this, including Holding's attempt to make the Gerash region as ok.. (it's not, Gerash is 30 miles away, and the region is never affiliated with the Kinneret in any way).

Truly the only people who could make such a blunder would have to be scribes far away. With Luke and Mark agreement in both the Traditional and alex text, any theories of Markan geographical incompetence have a very hard road to hoe. Far simpler is the TR reading being messed up by alexandrian scribes, well known for their sloppiness, and blundering incompetence. "You fool and knave..."

================================================== ======
If there is only one event, sure. However, see above :-)

I agree that the scenario I gave is too simplistic, and it is hard to figger out how the alexandrian errors arose (although the Vulgate would just be a "smoothing" of the alex error). Almost like a dart-board scenario, a stab in the dark. It would be interesting to have all the alexandrian evidence in a similar chart as Spin did.. is their uniformity between Aleph and B and any papyri ? And what about in the two Old Syriac manuscripts. That might help develop a cohesive theory :-)

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

Lugubert

B2000 writes (in my translation) "He was revealed as an earthly being", which very obviously refers to God, in my opinion in full correspondence with KJV as well as with my NA 22, but of course using modern Swedish, deviating from the ancient expression "in the flesh".

Steven Avery

Or it could say "the Messiah was revealed as an earthly being" "or Jesus was revealed in flesh", leaving open all sorts of ebionite and adoptionist and arian and angelic intrepretations other than "God". That is why so many groups insist on using "he" despite its paucity of evidence. (In the actual manuscripts Theos == God is overwhelming). The textcrits use "he" mainly because corrupt Vaticanus uses a pronoun there (not "he" but hey, they are not sticklers for accuracy anyway).

I really was simply focusing on the "God vs. he/who/which" issue although I doubt whether "earthly being" is a good representation of the Greek.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Shalom,
Praxeas

yummyfur

No offence, but if you want to believe that Jesus was in the habit of casting off demons who possesed humans, into pigs, that then fled off steep banks into the sea of Gallilee, then you have to probably accept all ancient texts as inerrant. In all three stories we have:

1. Demonic possesion

2. In the vicinity of tombs, (despite your long cut and paste post, all three storys have the demon possesed amongst the tombs, yes even in Textus Receptus)

3. Demons beg Jesus not to torment them

4. The demons implored to be sent into pigs

5. Jesus sends demons into pigs

6. Pigs rush down a steep bank into the Sea of Gallilee

If you believe there were TWO events that shared these details, and the TWO events just happened to occur in towns with fairly similar names, then I think I can prove all ancient texts to be inerrant in a similar manner.

Steven Avery

Actually you left out the most interesting syncronicity, the preceding story about the waves being stilled :-) I haven't checked the precise wording or the theories of chronology as to whether that occurred twice, perhaps we have some experts on Gospel chronology wording.

As to what you shared.. yep, I defintely have no problem seeing two events with those similarities, that Jesus actually twice sent demons into pigs into the cliffs. Or that demoniacs would be around tombs in both cases and that the demons would object in a similar manner.

However, I will be happy to grant that from an errancy approach you are welcome to offer differing theories, and to develop various calculations of probalistic synchronicity.

Just keep in mind that I have shown quite conclusively that there are many significant aspects of the account that agree in Luke and Mark, and are different in Matthew. And, very significantly, that two auxiliary geographic details matches this dualistic distinction. And that the other major "errancy" part of the dialog, (one or two demoniacs) is fully enveloped as well.

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