Steven Avery

Hatsoff, I do not think that Nazaroo is either KJB or inerrantist. I do hold those positions.

Shalom,
Steven

hatsoff

It's not. It is, however, a somewhat settled issue, with the majority of experts agreeing Markan priority is by far more likely than either Matthean or Lukan priority. Diogenes was either exaggerating or believes an exaggeration.

Interesting. You might consider adding that to your profile. It's helpful to see what biases folks may have when discussing such matters with them.

Diogenes the Cynic

Open up any entry level textbook on the New Testament.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think the question of Markan priority is settled beyond any credible debate.

Ben C Smith

I would be very interested in the arguments that you find strong enough to put the issue past credible debate. I am a strong Marcan prioritist, to be sure, but I certainly do not think it absolutely incredible that Matthew or Luke may claim priority. Both positions have been argued by competent critics.

Unless you know something about gospel attestation that I do not, we are stuck with literary criticism as our primary tool in the debate, and I do not think literary criticism very often rules out all alternate possibilities beyond credible debate.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Except those off the deep edge, such as Praxeus, the man who holds his faith despite FACT, no serious scholar, a scholar worth his salt, in this day and age believe Mark to not be first among the gospels. That is to say, Mark did not copy from Matthew nor Luke, and they, in turn, copied from Mark.

I mean, seriously, Prax worships an English translation and Nazaroo is an inventor. Oh what a strange breeding ground this is.

Steven Avery

You really should not make a false claim that I "worship" a "translation" or a "manuscript" .. in any language. It makes you look a tad .. well .. insecure, in addition to being untrue.

Steven Avery

Most folks here who are involved in these discussions pretty well know my positions. And I have explained some the dynamic, the studies, that brought me to those positions. e.g. My first many years reading the Bible my main version was the inept and errant and textually deficient NIV (I simply did not know any better until I studied the issues). Then for many years I was using other versions including 'The Scriptures (ISR)' and the NKJV and Jay Green's MKJV, or whatever he called it at the time. The move to the King James Bible was the result of considering many compelling issues, textual and spirtual and consistency all had a part. The decision was by no means 'a priori' to researching textual matters, in fact it was the result of many years study and careful consideration.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

What is bizarre -- and quite telling -- is to espouse the excellence (or, worse yet, "perfection") of the KJV translation while being illiterate in biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.

Steven Avery

Folks who are very literate and skilled in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic and Latin and Ugaritic take all sorts of differing positions about the Bible. So clearly that does not create any agreement. Some even make it their business to try to scratch out whatever "errors" they can contra-using their supposed skills.

And God has perserved his Received Texts in English, spoken and understood as the worldwide 'lingua franca' just as clearly and majestically as any other language. That is simply His providential blessing to us. In fulfillment of His promises of inspiration and preservation, two fundamental and linked concepts.

Preservation limited to little-used and understood dialects (largely dormant and defunct) would be a very minimal and weak mode of our having the inspired and preserved perfect word of God.

Such might also also tempt a 'language priesthood' that would be subject to pride and deception and would be against the essence of the fundamental teachings of Messiah and the beautiful 'ploughman' Reformation truth.

Shalom,
Steven Avery