The End of the book of Mark?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Above, I was a little too soft on textual criticism, so I added a bit while you were responding. You asked me a question, it is my responsibility to reply honestly.

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

As to your thinking that translation and textual criticism are interlinked disciplines scholastically, you are simply wrong. Textual criticism does not care how a word is translated, and translators work with whatever source (usually Greek in the NT) text they are given. It could be the pure Reformation Bible text, or one from the corrupt Westcott-Hort recension, which origination I described above. They do not even have to support the text they are given, as with many of the NKJV translators.

Where they ally is in corroborative corruption of the modern versions. That is, a "Bible" like the NIV or the ESV or the Message is built on a specific Greek text that differs from the Reformation Bible (Received text) in thousands of places, including missing 45 full verses. This is the fundamental weakness of the modern versions.

Then, they add inferior translation, to magnify the corruption of the resulting versions. So, in that sense, translation and textual criticism are allies.

Steven

Steve, I'm sorry bud, but you are just speaking KJOnlyistically.

In Bible study with people whose birth language ISN'T ENGLISH, I must have them read from their translation. French, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Arabic, Greek, German, or Russian. Sitting with my KJV and an Italian or Turk reading from their language Bible. I have learned that the KJV has her limits. Westcott and Hort? I asked you once before about how all the KJVism translated into other language Bibles. You honestly (I respect that) didn't know. The KJV onlyism gets really bogged down in other languages, and it is most certainly an English speakers problem.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Steve, I'm sorry bud, but you are just speaking KJOnlyistically. In Bible study with people whose birth language ISN'T ENGLISH, I must have them read from their translation. French, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Arabic, Greek, German, or Russian. Sitting with my KJV and an Italian or Turk reading from their language Bible. I have learned that the KJV has her limits. Westcott and Hort? I asked you once before about how all the KJVism translated into other language Bibles. You honestly (I respect that) didn't know. The KJV onlyism gets really bogged down in other languages, and it is most certainly an English speakers problem.

Most all languages have superb Reformation Bible (Received Text) Bibles. I have no idea what you remember from before, but I would always encourage people working with foreign Bibles to make sure they are pure Bibles.

The first check is "God was manifest in the flesh.." If the Bible does not have God, but instead he or who or which, it is wrong. The heavenly witnesses is a good check as well. Any edition that has those two right will not be Westcott-Hort corruption recensions. Beyond that, it is easy to get more info.

e.g. In Spanish there are two or three good editions in competition. Many use the 1909 Reina Valera and some use the Reina Valera Gomez. Some might use a much earlier edition However, if the RV 1960 or a later modern version is used, that would be an error. (The RV 1960 is not as bad as American corruption versions, but it really is not acceptable.) This is from my Spanish friends who you might consider KJVO. The first question is the underlying text.

What I shared above about translation and textual criticism was simply factual, and had nothing to do with an AV position.

Steven

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Precisely where does Muenster list their top text critics and grammarians? What do they say? I did a web-site English search for Wallace and nothing showed up.

While I consider textual criticism a science of sand, I would still be curious as to where are the Muenster accolades.

Steven

*Honestly Mr. Avery - I just do not take your claims seriously enough to waste time engaging you. I have read & reviewed tons & tons & tons of info. on this topic &, again, it's always the same w. every-single KJVO I have ever met: They rant on & on w. an obsessive froth railing against modern textual criticism - even though you use the same methodologies to conclude your "pure Bible" ideology.

*I was not being rude earlier when I said it's like dealing w. the Yeshua camp - I was being serious. I note virtually identical paradigms & frantic behavior patterns.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Why don’t you see if you understand what is shared in the statistical illiteracy paper? It is my contention that elementary math blunders (that should be very easy to understand at the level of high school math) have been used in his paper for decades as a major part of his Critical Text apologia.

It would be quite easy to make corrections in that paper. Although it might viscerate his argument.

By ignoring the errors, the Daniel Wallace Critical Text scholarship becomes essentially worthless.

Steven

*While I cannot speak for Dr. Wallace, I have interacted w. him enough to know that he likely does not "make corrections" that you want him to make because (i) there are no corrections to make, or (ii) KJVO's represent such fringe scholarship that he doesn't take them seriously.

*Oh, incidentally, the reason I referenced Ehrman earlier is because he is a bona-fide textual critic who worked w. Metzger, et al. (I did not reference his personal belief-systems). He - and every other serious text-critic - would howl the assertions of KJVO out of the classroom.

*I actually posted a very lengthy paper on the many-many-many gross errors of the Textus-Receptus - and then deleted it since it will only fuel your already-existent fanaticism in this area. So, true to KJVO form, I will let you have the last word so you can feel vindicated. It's just too silly for me to waste any more time with.


*If anyone is serious about this topic, do yourself a favor & get this book: http://www.advanceministries.org/sto...word=searching

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You see Steve, not everyone is agreeing therefore the use of too many harsh adjectives cause people to not buy the story. Some would say that your arguments aren't really a search for truth but actually an agenda motivated campaign for one certain translation of English Bible.

*What he said^ .

[Steven Avery]

Re: statistical illiteracy

Originally Posted by rdp

*Honestly Mr. Avery -...

All this blah blah to say that Muenster does not actually reference Daniel Wallace.

Originally Posted by rdp

While I cannot speak for Dr. Wallace, I have interacted w. him enough to know that he likely does not "make corrections"

As I said, once he did make a partial correction.

If you don't like my corrections, then have him fix the ones from James Snapp. You said you would bring these issues to Daniel Wallace, apparently you got cold feet.

And I would say that the statistical blunder is the most important, since it is a key part of his anti-TR and Majority posturing. Thus it is more important than his errors on specific verses. Why not read the paper yourself?

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh, incidentally, the reason .. Ehrman

He teaches a lot of junk, has false theories and his textual work is nonsense. However, in many ways he is more honest about the fruits of the modern positions than the straddlers.

Originally Posted by rdp

*I actually posted a very lengthy paper on the many-many-many gross errors of the Textus-Receptus

If you deleted it, why mention it?

Originally Posted by rdp

If anyone is serious about this topic, do yourself a favor & get this book:

From what I've seen Jerry Ensey simply takes the normal confusing "we don't have a pure Bible" position. Along with "but be sure you don't believe your AV is the pure word of God."

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Some would say that your arguments aren't really a search for truth but actually an agenda motivated campaign for one certain translation of English Bible.

Sure, but "some" would be either ignorant or lying.

And I came to faith in the Lord Jesus with versions like the NAS and the NIV in my hands. Later, I did extensive studies about issues like the textual theories, apologetics, and the preservational imperative. The book by Daniel Segraaves, and some friends who had learned under him, was very helpful.

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

Here is a simple question for you. Do you have any book, in any languages, that you read, or can hold in your hands even if in a foreign language, that you accept and receive and defend as the pure and perfect word of God?

Steven

[rdp]

*Mr. Avery - I am only further engaging you because your assertions are simply too good to pass up. But, just as I said, you KJVO's are so blinded by your obsessive drive to defend your fictional "pure" KJV that you simply must have the last word. As I have said in this thread many times now, you're all the same .

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

All this blah blah to say that Muenster does not actually reference Daniel Wallace.

*It's Munster, not "Muenster" - you might want to learn to spell before you chide others for supposed "illiteracy."

*Actually, a few years back I was navigating on Munster's site & saw where they had referenced Wallace's work in text-criticism. But, since you've already affirmed that you count Munster as virtually worthless (so typical for KJVO cult-think) - I won't waste my time.

*The "blah, blah, blah" comes from the farcical claims of KJVO's like yourself. Your claims are taken about as seriously as Bigfoot by serious academia (& really don't even know why I'm wasting my time).

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

If you don't like my corrections, then have him fix the ones from James Snapp. You said you would bring these issues to Daniel Wallace, apparently you got cold feet.

*Another false assertion from the KJVO dugout. I did email Dr. Wallace, but, since he travels the world digitizing ancient Greek MSS (you know, the one's you deride ) - he could literally be in a monastery in Egypt right now for all I know. Have not heard back from him yet. So much for your "apparent" claim .

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

He teaches a lot of junk, has false theories and his textual work is nonsense.

*Why yes, of course it is to a KJVO like yourself. Ehrman - like Wallace - has actually studied the ancient papyri MSS...all the while you sit back & peck out KJVO nonsense from your computer (& you don't even know how to read Greek ). Absurd.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

If you deleted it, why mention it?

*I owe you no explanation whatsoever. Now see how easy that was ?

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

From what I've seen Jerry Ensey simply takes the normal confusing "we don't have a pure Bible" position. Along with "but be sure you don't believe your AV is the pure word of God."

*Funny - Elder Ensey would school you proper in text-critic matters. The subject has been his life's work.

*I have grown-up things to do now Mr. Avery. Been fun. Enjoy your contented delusion (will really let you have the last frothy word this time ).

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Mr. Avery - I am only further engaging you because your assertions are simply too good to pass up. But, just as I said, you KJVO's are so blinded by your obsessive drive to defend your fictional "pure" KJV

We defend our Bible as the pure and perfect word of God. This causes you to go into a Proverbs 2:3 style rage.

Originally Posted by rdp

*It's Munster, not "Muenster" - you might want to learn to spell before you chide others for supposed "illiteracy."

You might want to learn about the umlaut in German -- Münster.

Muenster, Germany
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-...Vacations.html

Originally Posted by rdp

*Actually, a few years back I was navigating on Munster's site & saw where they had referenced Wallace's work in text-criticism.

Now, it is gone? Why not check before you throw out a link and waste everyone's time.

Originally Posted by rdp

But, since you've already affirmed that you count Munster as virtually worthless (so typical for KJVO cult-think) - I won't waste my time.

I made no comment on the Muenster group. They do some interesting work with Old Latin manuscripts.

Originally Posted by rdp

*The "blah, blah, blah" comes from the farcical claims of KJVO's like yourself. Your claims are taken about as seriously as Bigfoot by serious academia (& really don't even know why I'm wasting my time).

The issue is simple. You do not have any Bible you defend as God's pure and perfect word, in any language. You are upset that I do have such a Bible. So you allow yourself to get duped by textual criticism false pretensions and go into rant mode.

Originally Posted by rdp

I did email Dr. Wallace ..

Good. Which topics?

Did you read the statistical illiteracy paper? Do you understand the statistics issues?

Originally Posted by rdp

*Why yes, of course it is to a KJVO like yourself. Ehrman - like Wallace - has actually studied the ancient papyri MSS..

Which obviously did not help him as he went from Christianity to atheism.

Originally Posted by rdp

.all the while you sit back & peck out KJVO nonsense from your computer (& you don't even know how to read Greek ). Absurd.

Why should I wasted years becoming a lexicom scholar who can not even speak a language? Just to become a self-appointed Bible corrector?

Originally Posted by rdp

Funny - Elder Ensey would school you proper in text-critic matters. The subject has been his life's work.

You can ask him to discuss here, or any aproopriate forum. Or you could try to defend the textual criticism positions. Your immaturity in posting, however, presents a problem.

Steven

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Here is a simple question for you. Do you have any book, in any languages, that you read, or can hold in your hands even if in a foreign language, that you accept and receive and defend as the pure and perfect word of God?

Steven

The whole debate has been rather confusing for me. I don't mean the Mark ending debate, I mean the "which bible" debate. The reason(s) is/are as follows:

1. The apostles used a text(s) that is NOT the base text used by the AV translators. Although there are several instances where the AV departs from the Masoretic text and seems more in line with the Greek "LXX" text(s), it is still rather obvious, to me anyway, that the apostles were not using a Masoretic text or "proto-Masoretic Hebrew" text. So therefore (see next point)...

2. Either the OT text with the stamp of divine, apostolic approval is a Greek "LXX" text (or text type or text family), OR the apostles had a different concept of "the word of God" than we do today with our issues of "which version is the correct version".

3. Both sides of the debate (for English bibles) seem to miss certain key points: the pro W/H text supporters seem to be oblivious to the implications of the always changing "in need of updating" text of the Bible, the KJV supporters seem to be lacking in providing an answer to the question "should we use the OT text the apostles used?", both seem to overlook the questionableness of relying on the Masoretic OT text to begin with*, and both seem to get involved in polemics when the discussion should be strictly about textual integrity and reliability**.

* Chain of custody is always a central issue in evidence. A text maintained strictly by the Vatican is, in my opinion, somewhat suspect. A text that was "discovered" in some monastery in the desert is likewise suspect, especially when it deviates from all known other texts and manuscripts. But likewise, a text maintained by a religious group specifically denounced in Scripture, the translation of which requires "assistance" from those particular denounced religious authorities, is also highly suspect.

** Polemics has its place, and I enjoy them as much as the next guy, but there is also a time not to be polemical, and yet it seems that every single discussion I have ever seen on this subject has descended into polemics. I won't say which side has struck me as the one more often instigating the polemics as such perceptions are always debatable.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

We defend our Bible as the pure and perfect word of God. This causes you to go into a Proverbs 2:3 style rage.

You might want to learn about the umlaut in German -- Münster.

Muenster, Germany
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-...Vacations.html

Now, it is gone? Why not check before you throw out a link and waste everyone's time.

I made no comment on the Muenster group. They do some interesting work with Old Latin manuscripts.

The issue is simple. You do not have any Bible you defend as God's pure and perfect word, in any language. You are upset that I do have such a Bible. So you allow yourself to get duped by textual criticism false pretensions and go into rant mode.

Good. Which topics?

Did you read the statistical illiteracy paper? Do you understand the statistics issues?

Which obviously did not help him as he went from Christianity to atheism.

Why should I wasted years becoming a lexicom scholar who can not even speak a language? Just to become a self-appointed Bible corrector?

You can ask him to discuss here, or any aproopriate forum. Or you could try to defend the textual criticism positions. Your immaturity in posting, however, presents a problem.

Steven

*You are simply not to be taken seriously & would be howled out of a classroom in a 1st year text-critical course. But sooo typical for KJVO's (incidentally, "immature" argumentation is the hallmark of KJVO's).

*I honestly cannot believe that there are logical thinking people who make such claims as you make (e.g., Sinaiticus is a late forgery !). Of course, I could sit here & refute every one of your factually untrue statements above, but would make more progress straightening out my sock drawer .

*Ohhh never mind....too crazy for me .