The End of the book of Mark?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

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,

You are quite welcome to post on this forum on the Sinaiticus Problematicus thread (as one obvious spot) and attempt to refute the evidence that Sinaiticus was created around 1840 at Mt. Athos.

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

As for the thread here, you do better at laughing than substance. You are a good example of my assertion that textual criticism has become the new religion based on the idea "I will be able to decide and change the word of God." One which tries to replace belief in the Bible we read (or any actual Bible in any languages) as the pure and perfect word of God with ... confusion. Thus your awkward attempts at mockery.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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)...

We had discussion on these topics earlier.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I do believe that the Pentateuch books were probably available in Greek editions in the 1st century. The historical and prophetic books, far less clear. Josephus seems to indicate that they were not circulating in his time.

Psalm 14 from Romans 3 shows that the Greek mss. could be heavily tampered, with a full section from the New Testament making it in to the Greek OT manuscript line. This type of smoothing of the OT, often by Egyptian scribes with Alexandrian and gnostic connections, was probably quite common, and is an elephant in the living room.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The key point, the socalled "LXX", thought of as 3rd century BC, has material from Christian times. ... .

Steven

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You are quite welcome to post on this forum on the Sinaiticus Problematicus thread (as one obvious spot) and attempt to refute the evidence that Sinaiticus was created around 1840 at Mt. Athos.

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

As for the thread here, you do better at laughing than substance. You are a good example of my assertion that textual criticism has become the new religion based on the idea "I will be able to decide and change the word of God." One which tries to replace belief in the Bible we read (or any actual Bible in any languages) as the pure and perfect word of God with ... confusion. Thus your awkward attempts at mockery.

Steven

*And you are an excellent example of the cult-think & translation-idolatry-paradigm for KJVO's .

*I used to be a KJVO - until those pesky things called facts & logic forced me to abandon my view. Again, as someone else told me, due to your outlandish claims you are simply not to be taken seriously (as is the case w. every other KJVO).

*I have wasted enough time w. this. But will certainly use your paradigm in teaching the church I pastor further against the inferiority of the KJV in comparison to other translations ().

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

But will certainly use your paradigm in teaching the church I pastor further against the inferiority of the KJV in comparison to other translations

Remember though, you consider the modern versions and their Critical Text as often false witnesses. As with the 12 verses of the Mark ending, and likely their not having “God was manifest in the flesh” and “Father, forgive them ... “. Thus you have your own moving, changing personal “probability text.” There is no edition anywhere in the world, in any language, that is God’s pure and perfect word.

It is from that scripturally and spiritually bankrupt position that your main Bible identity motivation becomes to attack the historic and pure English Bible, the AV-1611.

Steven

[rdp]

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

We had discussion on these topics earlier.

Steven

Was the question of NT quotations not matching the Masoretic ever fully addressed?

[Scott Pitta]

Esaias, great question !!!

There are no easy answers. The quotes do not perfectly match any text type. Not each and every time.

No two Hebrew OT manuscripts are identical. No two Greek NT manuscripts are identical.

The authors of the NT do not have a preference for a specific text type.

There is quite of bit of literature on the subject. The classic is Paul's Use of the Old Testament by E. Ellis.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Was the question of NT quotations not matching the Masoretic ever fully addressed?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Esaias, great question !!!

There are no easy answers. The quotes do not perfectly match any text type. Not each and every time.

No two Hebrew OT manuscripts are identical. No two Greek NT manuscripts are identical.

The authors of the NT do not have a preference for a specific text type.

There is quite of bit of literature on the subject. The classic is Paul's Use of the Old Testament by E. Ellis.

I think I will get Ellis' book. Thanks for the recommendation.

As for NT quotations matching text types, I had a survey (might have been by the guy who edited Josephus' works in English ... can't for the life of me rember his name...) of all NT quotations of OT texts, and apocryphal texts as well. Some 80% matched existing LXX manuscripts, a few matched Masoretic mss., and quite a few implied an unknown Greek text tradition currently not accounted for in the available texts of either Greek or Hebrew. And a few seemed to match Samaritan readings, I think.

The conclusion was that it seemed the NT writers had a Greek textual tradition that is close to existing LXX readings but not exactly, and indicates a possibly unknown or as yet undiscovered Greek OT text tradition. Plus, the NT writers seemed to be familiar with both an old pre-Masoretic Hebrew text stream, and several competing Greek text streams, and selected their texts depending on which "version" best suited their immediate needs. They also seem to have occasionally provided their own paraphrastic "free translation" of several OT texts.

I have a feeling the apostles would not really recognize today's "version debates" because those debates seem to imply paradigms that didn't exist back then.

[rdp]

*For serious text critics the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) is both the present & future methodology employed by legitimate academia. I have been researching this concept for the last few weeks. More here:

https://www.uni-muenster.de/INTF/Gen...al_method.html

https://www.amazon.com/New-Approach-.../dp/1628371994

http://booksandjournals.brillonline....85365-12341486

https://reformedforum.org/ctc476/