|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Their being late puts them among all those that underlie the King James anyway, since they had no earlier mss and rejected the Alexandrian type that they knew to be corrupted They did have earlier manuscripts, Erasmus specifically avoided using the oldest one at his disposal (I think he found the script hard/annoying to read). Can you identify any manuscript, a copy of the Greek with no Latin insertions, where the Comma appears. When Erasmus put his text together there was only one codex - one that had insertions from the Vulgate translated into it - with unusual textual variants that some scholars believe are Orthodox corruptions (1 John 5:6) - that is Archbishop Ussher's text - located almost as far as away from Greece as it is possible to be in Europe. The Codex Montfortianus. Which was copied from an earlier manuscript that OMITTED the comma. It's not just the Alexandrian. It's not in the Byzantine majority either. It's odd that you reject stuff that's not in Alex but is in Byz because Byz is awesome. Except in this case?? The KJV has errors and divergences from the majority, you should accept that.
As Burgon argues, the mss being late is no evidence against their authenticity, nor is being early evidence for authenticity But - the reference not appearing equally well in all language traditions is evidence it was absent from the source. The earliest references being in the margins, is evidence it was brought into the main text by mistake/corruption.
in fact it proves the opposite, that the later ones were all that remain from a heavily used type of ms that the church recognized as authentic by their very heavy usage The heavily used ones got copied a lot. Hence why Byzantine is so common and Alexandrian fell out of favour in the 7th Century. And the church you are talking about is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Which almost certainly destroyed 'errant' manuscripts where they discovered them and probably destroyed 'errant' practitioners relying on Alexandrian texts.
while the older/earlier, for having survived so long, show that they were not used and therefore rejected by the church. The Alexandrian texts that survived destruction at the hands of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, were generally buried in hard to reach places (or kept in large libraries in out of the way places). Is being rejected by CATHOLICS evidence of their falsity?
The fact that the johannine comma appears in so few mss I'll grant is an argument against it, however. OK, good.
But the fact that it is there at all plus the fact that it appears in a very early Syrian translation, are evidence in favor of it. So, by this reasoning, the existence of Alexandrian texts, and that they are supported by numerous Syriac texts, are evidence in favour of them? I've looked high an low - and can find no Syriac manuscript with it on. The Peshitta omits it.
Even with scanty testimony, since it is perfectly consistent with doctrine that would be affirmed even without it, what's the big problem with including it? The same can be said of the Alexandrian texts, with only a handful of exceptions I can see as being argued.
what's the big problem with including it? I suppose lying about what St John in order to solidfy one's own theological argument might be considered wicked.
It really isn't necessary at all to the defense of the Trinity, handy but not necessary. Well not now - most modern Christians are already brainwashed into being Trinitarians, and many early texts that argued otherwise, or NT manuscripts that did not, were either destroyed or, upon being copied had the verses inserted. We know Christians of all shapes (Gnostics, Orthodox, Catholic etc) have tampered with the texts for some time. Fortunately for them, most people couldn't read, let alone read koine Greek, and those that could were not likely to have access to much reading material without the owners of the Word (often the CATHOLICS) consent. It does leave us wondering about how much changed in its earliest days, when there were fewer copies to proof and more sects than you can shake a stick at. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If anyone should worry about Revelation 22:19 it's the makers and defenders of the Alexandrian manuscripts And of course, those who made and defended the textus receptus - whom in fact took away the word 'tree' from that very verse. What you don't know of course is, whether the Alexandrian omitted stuff or the Byzantine added it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And of course, those who made and defended the textus receptus - whom in fact took away the word 'tree' from that very verse. What you don't know of course is, whether the Alexandrian omitted stuff or the Byzantine added it. Oh I personally have no doubt whatever that the Alexandrians are the corrupt ones, none whatever, and Burgon warns the revisers of their folly by quoting Rev 22:19. (p 409 RR) "Tree" is a perfectly idiotic word to put in that place where the Textus Receptus has "Biblos."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What you don't know of course is, whether the Alexandrian omitted stuff or the Byzantine added it. Oh I personally have no doubt whatever that the Alexandrians are the corrupt ones, none whatever, and Burgon warns the revisers of their folly by quoting Rev 22:19. (p 409 RR) I don't doubt that you don't doubt it. If it agrees with what you want to believe, you seem incapable of doubting it. But you don't know.
"Tree" is a perfectly idiotic word to put in that place where the Textus Receptus has "Biblos." Blame the author and (maybe with a few obscure exceptions) every human that penned a surviving copy of the text. Erasmus was the first person to put it into the Greek text, as he was copying from a Latin one with a 'typo' (ligno and libro got confused) Quite literally, every single manuscript that has survived in every single language the Bible had ever been translated to used the 'idiotic' word, except the occasional Latin version where, by chance someone wrote a different but similar looking word, reflecting a phrase earlier in the text, which just so happens to be the right one. And of course, everybody who slavishly copied Erasmus. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But you don't know. Sorry, I do know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
What "obvious lack of authenticity? Did you read the whole of my post? Did you even check my source? Here's another summary: Erasmus left it out of his new Greek Testament because it appeared in no known Greek manuscripts - no known mss. When he was finally presented with a Greek mss that had the phrase in it, he included it in his next revision even though he suspected that the mss. had been influenced by the Vulgate. Part of what influenced him was the pressure of being considered to having heretical sympathies. How does that make it authentic? It's not a question of being late or early, its a question of doctrine determining translation.
Their being late puts them among all those that underlie the King James anyway, since they had no earlier mss and rejected the Alexandrian type that they knew to be corrupted, the very ones the later revising committee decided to treat as authentic. As Burgon argues, the mss being late is no evidence against their authenticity, nor is being early evidence for authenticity, in fact it proves the opposite, that the later ones were all that remain from a heavily used type of ms that the church recognized as authentic by their very heavy usage, while the older/earlier, for having survived so long, show that they were not used and therefore rejected by the church. You do know that the "church" that protected and kept these manuscripts safe from mutilation was the Catholic Church. You do realize that Erasmus dedicated his Greek New Testament to the Pope - who you say is the Anti-Christ. I'm not sure how you think that these texts being in the hands of the evil Roman Catholic Church for ~1000 years could keep them pure.
The fact that the johannine comma appears in so few mss I'll grant is an argument against it, however. Good
But the fact that it is there at all How is this evidence in favor of leaving it in? It seems to have been taken from the Vulgate. Do you accept the Vulgate as uncorrupted?
Even with scanty testimony, since it is perfectly consistent with doctrine that would be affirmed even without it, But doctrine should not inform translation. The text needs to define doctrine. This is the problem with KJV-only sites, they judge the correctness of the text by doctrine taken from the KJV. The ideal would be to know what the original authors actually said and that is what should define doctrine.
what's the big problem with including it? It really isn't necessary at all to the defense of the Trinity, handy but not necessary You could make this same argument for the modern versions. As I said before, the doctrines are still sound, so what's the problem? Besides, you stated in Message 840 Faith writes: If anyone should worry about Revelation 22:19 it's the makers and defenders of the Alexandrian manuscripts, not someone who is not sure of the authenticity of a phrase. But somehow you overlooked Rev 22:18 which states:
quote: So by your own standards, adding the Comma when it doesn't belong there is just as bad as what you claim the Alexandrian mss have done. Why the double standard? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sorry, I do know. As they say, ' fools despise wisdom and instruction', and I'm willing to tolerate any 'vexation of spirit' - so please reveal what causes you to have such confidence in the hypothesis that you can categorically proclaim this as 'knowledge'? Bring your works into the light, 'that {your} deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.' So 'do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.' - after all your knowledge is rich and you should therefore be 'ready to distribute, willing to communicate'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
When I said I don't doubt it that means I am convinced I know.
Reasons: God's character and promise to preserve His word, but also to allow deception when the church falls into apostasy -- which was happening to the Anglican church under the influence of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century The character of Wycliffe, Tyndale and the KJV translators, all solid believers with a solid fear of God. The KJV translators carefully compared all available manuscripts and Bibles including all available foreign Bibles. This isn't strictly about the quality of the Greek mss but it seems to me to be all of a piece with the trustworthiness and superior English of the KJV versus the questionableness and ugliness of all the modern translations. The Holy Spirit guides those who believe and trust in Him, and the Holy Spirit shows the "wisest scholars" to be fools. The questionable character of Tischendorf and questionable circumstances of his discovery of Sinaiticus, which are acknowledged even by those who support the Alexandrians. The questionable circumstances of Vaticanus (see Pinto's film) The superior character and scholarship of J W Burgon The corrupt nature of the Alexandrians as ably shown by Burgon The inferior character and scholarship of Westcott and Hort The fraud committed by the revising committee against their instructions to do a minimal revision Some of the "wisest scholars" behind the Critical Text that includes the Alexandrians were unbelievers such as Metzger. Big red flag. Again, the Holy Spirit quides those who believe and trust in Christ, and shows the wisest unbelieving scholars to be fools. The modern Bibles have been produced on a marketing basis, even word choices in the various translations having been made to meet a certain quota in order to qualify for copyright. This is not the way the Bible should be treated. There should be a Bible authorized by the Church, not markets. It is the trust of the Church and belongs to the Church. (Strong argument on this point comes from Douglas Wilson). And there should not be a cacophony of different translations which interferes with our ability to memorize and quote and communicate about the meaning of scripture. This list is about more than why I know the Alexandrians are false, it's about why I know all the modern Bibles are false, which are based on the Critical Text which incorporates the Alexandrians. This includes the NKJV, which although it is supposedly based on the Greek mss of the KJV, incorporates thousands of changes that conform it to the translations based on the Critical Text. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The only big Red Flag there is your lying. You know perfectly well that Metzger was not an unbeliever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Metzger dated the book of Daniel past the events Daniel prophesied because Metzger didn't believe in prophecy. If you don't believe in prophecy you don't believe in much of anything in the Bible. That's an unbeliever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Here are some quotes from Metzger that show he was an unbeliever along with most other contemporary Bible scholars:
Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses." Exodus: "As with Genesis, several strands of literarytradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books" (Introduction to Exodus). Deuteronomy: "It's compilation is generally assigned to theseventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses' time." Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled duringthe persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes." John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, orindirectly (his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative supplement to the story of Jesus' ministry given by the other evangelists." 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in styleand vocabulary from Paul's other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul." James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord'sbrother, writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date." 2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letter of Paul as'scripture,' a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul's death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter's name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150." INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT:"The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ...The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the old Testament took its present form. ...The process by which the Jews became 'the people of the Book' was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ...The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth. ...Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic 'school' the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ...Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time." NOTES ON GENESIS: "[Genesis] 2.4b-3..24 ... is a differenttradition form that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ...7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delight in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris- Euphrates basin." NOTES ON JOB: "The ancient folktale of a patient Job (1.1-2.13; 42.7-17; Jas. 5.11) circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)." NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13: ...the meaning of the thirdline [they have pierced my hands and feet] is obscure." [Editor: No, it is not obscure; it is a prophecy of Christ's crucifixion!] NOTES ON ISAIAH: "Only chs. 1-39 can be assigned to Isaiah'stime; it is generally accepted that chs. 40-66 come from the time of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) and later, as shown by the differences in historical background, literary style, and theological emphases. ...The contents of this section [chs. 56-66] (sometimes called Third Isaiah) suggest a date between 530 and 510 B.C., perhaps contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah (520-518); chapters 60-62 may be later." NOTES ON JONAH: "The book is didactic narrative which hastaken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use." INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT: "Jesus himself left noliterary remains; information regarding his word and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples. At first this information was circulated orally. As far as we know today, the first attempt to produce a written Gospel was made by John Mark, who according to tradition was a disciples of the Apostle Peter. This Gospel, along with a collection of sayings of Jesus and several other special sources, formed the basis of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke." [Editor: The Gospels, like every part ofthe new Testament, were written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This nonsense of tying to find 'the original source' for the Gospels is unbelieving heresy.] NOTES ON 2 PETER: "The tradition that this letter is the workof the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. ...Most scholars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply indebted to Peter and who published it under his master's name early int he second century." [Editor: Thosewho believe this nonsense must think the early Christians were fools and the Holy Spirit on vacation.] Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I'm sure your sources say that. I"m also sure that they're lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You seem to have provided the wrong quotes. Do you actually have any that shoe that Metzger was an unbeliever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Anybody who talks about the Bible that way, which of course is typical of modern scholars, is an unbeliever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during
the persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024