Jan 31 2019, 02:50 PM
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Jan 31 2019, 11:35 AM)
KJV-Only-ism
There is a minority of Christians who think that God preserved His word in the KJV bible. Therefore they think that all other translation of the English bibles are corrupt.
- Scholars have classified the 5800 manuscripts into a few text type families.
- For the sake of brevity we will only consider 2 of them in this discussion, they are the Alexandrian text type and the Byzantine text type (also called the Majority texts)
- While the Byzantine text type manuscripts form the majority of the Greek manuscripts, the earliest copy that has Byzantine influence we have is from the 5th century
- No early church fathers (ante-nicene) demonstrated that they knew about the Byzantine manuscripts.
- Byzantine text type copies are also found to have paraphrases and conflation readings.
- The KJV translation was based on the Textus Receptus critical text, which was compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century who only had 6 predominantly Byzantine Greek manuscripts available to him
- On the other hand, the earliest papyri manuscripts (the P52 and P75 being in 2nd century, within decades of the apostle John's writing Revelations) are Alexandrian in nature.
- The most reliable manuscripts that contain the whole bible (the codex vaticanus and sinaiticus, 350AD) is almost identical to the earliest papyri, and Alexandrian in nature. They were copied by professional scribes.
- We know that Alexandria was a place that appreciated literature, the early church fathers also set up scriptoriums to produce the scriptures. (Origen)
- Scholars of the past 300 years (Tischendorf, Wescott and Hort, Nestle- Aland, Bruce Metzger) and their work in the field produced the critical Greek texts called the Novum Testamentum Graece.
- The english bible we have today (NASB, ESV etc) were translated from the critical Greek texts.
- There is simply no empirical data to suggest that the KJV is purer than the rest of the english bibles.
Just a few quick notes. I know someone is going to remove this post.There is a minority of Christians who think that God preserved His word in the KJV bible. Therefore they think that all other translation of the English bibles are corrupt.
- Scholars have classified the 5800 manuscripts into a few text type families.
- For the sake of brevity we will only consider 2 of them in this discussion, they are the Alexandrian text type and the Byzantine text type (also called the Majority texts)
- While the Byzantine text type manuscripts form the majority of the Greek manuscripts, the earliest copy that has Byzantine influence we have is from the 5th century
- No early church fathers (ante-nicene) demonstrated that they knew about the Byzantine manuscripts.
- Byzantine text type copies are also found to have paraphrases and conflation readings.
- The KJV translation was based on the Textus Receptus critical text, which was compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century who only had 6 predominantly Byzantine Greek manuscripts available to him
- On the other hand, the earliest papyri manuscripts (the P52 and P75 being in 2nd century, within decades of the apostle John's writing Revelations) are Alexandrian in nature.
- The most reliable manuscripts that contain the whole bible (the codex vaticanus and sinaiticus, 350AD) is almost identical to the earliest papyri, and Alexandrian in nature. They were copied by professional scribes.
- We know that Alexandria was a place that appreciated literature, the early church fathers also set up scriptoriums to produce the scriptures. (Origen)
- Scholars of the past 300 years (Tischendorf, Wescott and Hort, Nestle- Aland, Bruce Metzger) and their work in the field produced the critical Greek texts called the Novum Testamentum Graece.
- The english bible we have today (NASB, ESV etc) were translated from the critical Greek texts.
- There is simply no empirical data to suggest that the KJV is purer than the rest of the english bibles.
Well. Do you know why the Alexandrian text are the earliest. Maybe because no one uses them. Take Nokia vs Iphone for example. I am pretty sure 100 years from now. People might find a older Nokia phone as compared to say an iPhone. Does that mean the Nokia phone is a better phone compared to the iphone just because it is older? The thing is. People stop using Nokia phone and that is why Historian would probably dig out a Nokia phone that is old in age. Many people uses the iphone and so it is very likely that Historian would probably dig out an iphone that is say not that old. But then it is insanity to conclude that the Nokia phone is better then the iphone just because the Nokia phone is older.
Never knew that "literature" should be associated with Truth. I guess the Bible is just some kind of Shapesphere to you right?
Have you even research the background of those "scholars"
And that is why they are unreliable and corrupted
Defined empirical data.
I have prove that the so called "church father" used verses that were omitted from the Alexandrian text type.
That's the thing. You do not have understanding and you will not have this understanding until the day you die. You will be going to the same place as those text critics. And I am not attacking you. I am "complimenting" you.
Of course no "church father" is going to know about the Byzantine text because it was a non issue at that time. It is just like expecting people before world war 2 to know about world war 2.
As for "conflation" and paraphrasing. Well. I guess you are talking about uniform translation then. What does uniform translation got to do with the Byzantine text. See. You do not even know what you are talking about. Maybe I will suggest that you study further before you write so that you do not make yourself foolish. Any intelligent person would tell you that there is no way that uniform translation will work. But then you are not the most intelligent person in the world. For example. The word post. Post can mean later. Post can mean posting a letter. Translating post to mean letter all the time is obviously wrong. Depending on the context post can mean a posting a letter and post can mean later. See. Just like you accuse me of harassing you just because I sent you a single message. You will find all means to undermine the King James Version.
In fact. shouldn't the words codex VATICANUS give you a clue? That is why I think most people deserve it.
This reply is not meant for you btw. Because I know you have major comprehension issues. And you will be going to the same place as those textual critics. It's meant for the others though. So you do not need to reply to this.
BTW. Do you know you have sinned by calling those people church father? I thought the Bible says specifically to call no one father? Guess the Bible is not your authority huh. That's the thing. You will never learn. I thought in PM, I told you about this. Better not say further. Otherwise someone is going to say I am "attacking" him.
Do you even understand why the significance of MAJORITY text. Do you understand why having the majority manuscripts means it is reliable. And you claim you studied this issue for months. I told you that I am not going to be convinced in PM right.
This post has been edited by sylar111: Jan 31 2019, 03:19 PM
Quote
0.0300sec
0.73
7 queries
GZIP Disabled