Minority Critical text shows GROSS Coruption
While the majority text does not.
How does a Critic determine what used to be in that Ink Blot?
I see them say a lot of could be, may be.
When are they gonna get the final Form of the text maybe in the 30th corrected Edition?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. But a document that is dated 80 AD is certainly as valuable as anything written in 800 AD."Corruption" is resolved via textual criticism.Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
So another words the best indicator of whether we are getting closer to the Original Form of the text is by how defiled they are!The more corrupt are their Natures the closer we are to the Original Form of your god!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I know this is confusing to some who are reading this debate. Maybe I will take time to present a reader-friendly brief article on this.Here are some facts. There are four "families" of documents that support the biblical text. Alexandrian, Syrian, something else and Byzantine. The latter is the more recent. The Byzantine family of docs include about 85% of all the evidence for the biblical text and are dated between 300 and 1400 or so. The other three families are first and second century documents. They will be "more corrupted" as Kevin likes to say because they were written by the early disciples of Christ who may or may not have had a grand educational background.The Byzantine documents were the possession and production of the Eastern Church, for the most part. Its bishopric and scribes translated unknown (for the most part -- or lost) greek documents into Latin, Gothic, Syrian and the like. Just as English bibles are translations, so is the Vulgate and other manuscripts within this Byzantine family. The Church fathers quoted from this family of documents -- after 300 AD.Translators are needed to restore the Byzantine documents. Textual critics are needed to restore the earlier and greek documents ...................... a much more difficult job.JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Oh yeah well I post the whole Internet Start at the root servers.... Don't you have any ideas of your own? You AVOID THE SUBJECT: Why don't you answer any of the following before running off in a new direction (one of which we have visted before and you have been shown to be misleadind AGAIN. What a shocker!) You hope to run down another BUNNY TRAIL to AVOID ANSWERING: 1) The corrupt Nature of Aleph & B and many of the Critical texts All texts have their problems -- all 2) The HONESTY of NIDA, the Next Pope and others on the Nestle/Aland greek text committe character assassination has nothing to do with intelligent discussion. 3) Why over 90% of ALL GREEK Texts are of the superior quality & internal agreement of the MAJORITY TEXT versus the vast disagreement amongst themselves even in the "oldest & best" Aleph & B 2000 disagreements in the gospels alone! Because they were influenced by the burgeoning RCC and or the Eastern church4) Why the NASV John 1:18 teaches a God who is reavealed by a second ONLY BEGGOTTEN God The text does not teach this at all. It is only an _expression_ of Trinity. 5) Why does the NASV match the HERETICAL JW New World translation Luck ??? and so what and prove it. 6) Why should God use Heretics like Wescott & Hort to restore the True Text of the Bible For the same reasons He used the evil Saul of Tarsus, I guess. Or Joseph's Pharoah. 7) Why didn't Jesus know to quote dut 8 in the NASV Luke 4:4 "every word of God" Huh ??? 8) Why the majority text appears thruout all ages, from ALL areas of the known world and is in the Majority and is in agreement Thye majority text dates from 300 to 1400 AD It was largely contolled by the Eastern Church. 9) why the Majority text does not show the signs nor the corruption of the Critical text Bec they do not predate 300 AB. and most do not predate 800 AD. 10) Why the overwhelming majority of Church fathers quoting scripture in their writings AGREE with the Majority Text Before 350 AD or so, no Church Fathers quoted from the Byzantine text. 11) Why the creeds AGREE with the majority text because they used the Byzantine texts !!! 12) Where was the Critical text before Wescott & Hort and the RV Nonexistent. Should I continue? (more ISSUES you have AVOIDED on request) I think you missed a point or two! Your NEWEST BUNNY TRAILS You have not shown anything in the way of EVIDENCE (what a surprise!) as far as Erasmus Yet we see that there is unmistakenly a possible Future POPE on the Nestle/Aland greek text committee. Hypocrisy abounds with you JD. Apocryhpha, Another straw man JD! FACTS The Apochryphal books are interspersed in Codex Aleph & B Not so the KJV Apocryphal books are not part of the Textus receptus As shown they a re an integral part of the "oldest & best"The Apocrypha were a part of the first two editions of KJV AND the TWO BIGGEST CORRUPTIONS are your beloved Aleph & B the easily shown tampered manuscripts which form the BASIS for ALL New Versions!Such is life. The textus receptus has as its foundations, texts that aren't even Greek !!!Erasmus had access to only 4 or 5 Greek text. Basically, what Erasmus did was to take exisitingversions (i.e. the LATIN Vulgate and others) and used them in his VERSION of the "greek text."In other words, Erasmus took 20 - 24 weeks to translate a latin "bible" into a greek bible !!!!!Big deal. OF COURSE IT IS GOING TO AGREE.The Byzantine text (which is all that Erasmus used) was controlled by the Eastern Church, itsmonarchical bishops and their pressure for textual unity. INOTHER WORDS - THEY HAD ALREADY"SOLVED" ALL THE TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF THE DAY IN THEIR TRANSLATIONS (VERSIONS). Erasmus wasfluent in both Latin and Greek -- so he (a Dutch Roman Catholic) created his own greek text bytranslating the Latin text into greek. Me -- I want to eliminate the middle man.< /STRONG> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm > > The above will give an opposing opinion to Kevin's thinking. > > Know this - that the KJV in its original state included the > Apocrypha - which remains in the RCC bible. The primary text of > the KJV was created by a Roman Catholic named Erasmus and much of his > work was based on the Latin Vulgate and NOT on a critical review of > the Greek text of the day. > > Textual criticism is extremely important because of the variations > that Kevin, in part, refers to. That the KJ text (textus receptus) > is in some agreement with the versions of the day (i.e. Vulgate) is > of no surp rise since Erasmus used these versions to create his greek > text -- and did it in record time -- about 20 weeks of work went > into the text that was the basis for the KJV. > > Anyway - corruption of the greek text abounds and the need for > scholarly review is well established. > > Enough said. > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:51:16 -0500 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor > > > All of this is from the web, written by KJVonlyists - a little > known and small wing of the Christian movement that believes the KJV > ------------ the translation itself -- is inspired. They reject > textual criticism or textual comparisons, believing, instead, that > the succession of biblical evidence came to an end with the last > original documents of scripture (perhaps John's writing of > Revelations) . The King James VERSION of the Bible IS THE WORD OF > GOD for modern man -- that is the cry of these cultists. > > They refuse to answer question about how the KJV came into being > because such answers put them in a box from which there is no > escape. They insist on moral standards that deny God's ability to > work through profane men to accomplish His purposes. They make fun > of those who ask questions about verbal/plenary inspiration when, in > point of fact, they deny such occasion themselves. They neither > understand or recognize God as a providential provider. And many if > not most, deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. > > Linda -- you are not going to believe anything I might say -- so > my advice to you is to talk to two or three pastor friends of yours. > Very few -- extremely few by comparison -- Christians believe > in this cultish notion. And most pastors accept at least the NASV. > I study from the NASV. I memorize from the NKJV. My devotional > times are often spent in the New Living Bible. > > If you decide to limit yourself to the KJV -- well, it is truly a > grand translation - just not the only really good translation. > But talk to your pastors about that. > > John > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
