Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E

[Sean]

I someone must create a new translation, then they must differ from most of these listed translations that are still copyrighted....



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8gZYUSgfqYfr7c



Keep in mind, that they must add, change or omit verses or passages to qualify and not violate copyright laws per most of these translations.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

Wonder what would happen if Erasmus would have compared his (5) Greek compilations to the Vulgate of his day ? Ohhh, never mind...why bother w. such contented delusion?

A very puzzling comment and awkward laughter.

Erasmus, of course, was very familiar with the Vulgate editions, as well as his Greek-corrected Latin edition, as well as individual mss Greek and Latin. He had been studying the mss in libraries, correspondence and the ones available on hand.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

It makes perfect sense for Bibles translated from different manuscripts to read differently.

A Christian working with wildly different Bible editions, where one has to be an abjectly corrupt version, is like a person wearing two watches that are 45 minutes apart.

Should he split the difference?

Use one today and the other tomorrow?

Should he hope that 95% accuracy is fine?

"Precision in time is not that important, as long as it is generally close, and the time-message is received."

Guess the time by a burning in the bosom or a any ethereal leading of the spirit?

Should he wax philosophical? - “we live in a world of uncertainties”

====

Or ... should he make every effort to determine which one tells the truth?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Did your research determine that the Westcott-Hort recension, the Critical Text, is superior and authentic compared to the Reformation Bible text? That the 45 verses, including the Mark Ending, the Pericope Adulterae, Acts 8:37, “father, forgive them”, the heavenly winesses, were dastardly interpolations rather than authenic scripture?

Originally Posted by rdp

[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Georgia"]*Again, I am well familiar w. your position. But, your info. is outdated (as demonstrated by your appeal to WH above)

You are wrong. Every Critical Text today is an edition of the Westcott-Hort recension.

Originally Posted by rdp

& agenda-driven (as demonstrated by your charge of "dastardly interpolations" above).

You did not understand? If you are rejecting those verses as not scripture, how else could you view the verses?

Originally Posted by rdp

Variants are individually weighed not counted (Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy).

Straw man fallacy.

Originally Posted by rdp

I would advise you to interact w. Munster, the world-hub of text-criticism proper (http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/index_en.shtml).

Why? Is there some paper you think they wrote that is the Bible textual truth?

Originally Posted by rdp

There is presently a massive collation being conducted in Munster from all Greek MSS for variants, etc. based upon the Coherence Based Genealogical Method:

Every computer model starts with fed-in postulates. Which can lead to GIGO.

Originally Posted by rdp

*Some evidences support Byzantine-Western readings - others Alexandrian renderings. This is where the very hard work of unbiased text-critical work enters the scenario.

So you are waiting for a new computer-generated Bible to throw out all your current editions?

Steven

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You are wrong. Every Critical Text today is an edition of the Westcott-Hort recension.

You did not understand? If you are rejecting those verses as not scripture, how else could you view the verses?

Straw man fallacy.

Why? Is there some paper you think they wrote that is the Bible textual truth?

Every computer model starts with fed-in postulates. Which can lead to GIGO.

So you are waiting for a new computer-generated Bible to throw out all your current editions?

Steven

*Ummm, okay - if you say so. I simply do not take KJVO seriously enough to merit a response (even though I caught several assertions in your post that are flat wrong).

*Oh, BTW, the collations from Munster are not "computer-generated" (you do realize you're posting on a...computer, don't you ?). Computers do not "generate" MS collations, text-critics do.

*Just ordered 10 more ESV for our church family. Simply, the KJV is an inferior translation - as the books & links I provided above well document. You simply do not interact w. serious academia & scholarship, but rather fringe scholarship at best in this area.

*Ohhh, never mind....KJVO's are like concrete - thoroughly set & all mixed up. Mind boggling how any one seriously believes this stuff .

[houston]

I got turned onto the ESV when I went Reformed. Love it. But I do love the antiquated KJV. Not sure which I prefer more.
In 3rd place is the NLT. I used it at home in my last years of high school. Reading the OT and the gospels flow like a story book. I recommend it to every teenager.

Oh, sorry. I tend to stray.,,

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Georgia"]*Oh, BTW, the collations from Munster are not "computer-generated"

Of course not. They are not using the methodology that you were praising.

Thanks for making clear for the readers a bit of the seminarian, modern version, Critical Text, Wescott and Hort recension, approach and tude.

You should however, be honest and tell your people that you believe the Mark ending, the woman caught in adultery, the baptism testimony of Acts 8:37, "God was manifest in the flesh..", "Father, forgive them...", and the heavenly witnesses, are dastardly interpolations. (I accept them all as pure and perfect scripture.) You might as well be honest with your position, right or wrong.

Unless you view all the variants in your edition as simply probability variants, in which case you can say "probably dastardly interpolations."

Steven

[Sean]

This is a "nice" foundation to build God's church on.....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xigLVWDhGlxbmh


AND.....




https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...FkBxp_Jzczkxot

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Of course not. They are not using the methodology that you were praising.

Thanks for making clear for the readers a bit of the seminarian, modern version, Critical Text, Wescott and Hort recension, approach and tude.

You should however, be honest and tell your people that you believe the Mark ending, the woman caught in adultery, the baptism testimony of Acts 8:37, "God was manifest in the flesh..", "Father, forgive them...", and the heavenly witnesses, are dastardly interpolations. (I accept them all as pure and perfect scripture.) You might as well be honest with your position, right or wrong.

Unless you view all the variants in your edition as simply probability variants, in which case you can say "probably dastardly interpolations."

Steven

*You once again betray that you don't understand text-critic issues like you feign (which I already knew). For the 2nd time now, textual-variants are weighed, not counted & merely being consigned to a particular genealogical MS family in a sweeping broad brush.

*Incidentally, I never praised the CBGM, but am excited about the collations forthcoming from the world's greatest text-critics.

*Oh, & BTW, I argue in favor of the LEM (cf. Snapp) & "God" in I Tim. 3.16 (cf. Burgon). So, once again, you're merely swatting at shadows....which is why I simply do not take KJVO's seriously (they simply don't know what they're talking about & are cult-like in their esoteric nature). Carry on .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sean

This is a "nice" foundation to build God's church on.....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xigLVWDhGlxbmh


AND.....




https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...FkBxp_Jzczkxot

*LOL - perfect object lesson of the cultic-absurd nature of KJVO's. Think I'll order some more ESV's now .