Is this true?

Page 2 of 2 (33 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 32 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 2531
Milkman | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 17 2017 5:54 AM

Thanks Bradley that explains it.

mm. 

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife):

Milkman:

I tried to post to this thread and I got flagged for spam???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's going on?

We've deployed a filter to try to cut down on the volume of spam being posted in the forums. It's blocked over 100 spam posts, but incorrectly flagged three legitimate posts as spam; yours was one of them. I don't have insight into why yours was flagged, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably because most of the text of your post was hyperlinks; this is probably considered a red flag.

I've approved your post; it should be showing up now.

mm.

Posts 2667
Michael Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 17 2017 7:17 AM

Alex Scott:

Matthew 17:21           omit verse {A}

Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9:29.

 

That is right.  And the issue is, what was originally present in Matthew.  That requires scholarly textual study of the various Greek manuscripts, which is what any good translation of Scripture seeks to do.  It is extremely foolish to base one's assumption of what was in the original on the KJV.  The original article the poster quoted had some true statements combined with wild and wrong assumptions and interpretation.

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 8406
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 17 2017 8:12 AM

not DAL:

That is right.  And the issue is, what was originally present in Matthew.  That requires scholarly textual study of the various Greek manuscripts, which is what any good translation of Scripture seeks to do.  It is extremely foolish to base one's assumption of what was in the original on the KJV.  The original article the poster quoted had some true statements combined with wild and wrong assumptions and interpretation.

I did a tiny edit to your post, Michael. 'Extremely foolish' sounded like DAL (whom you justifiably tore in to recently), but it's really not DAL.

First, I like Metzger, but he displays much of the loosey-goosey logic that is embedded in the UBS/NA series. Need I mention the female apostle that recently showed up at their party. And if you make a close analysis of the eastern vs UBS/NA mellange, you'd be surprised at how modern Christian theology can be reversed, simply recognizing varients in the 'glue' words (prepositions, etc).. Lastly, the early descriptions of the gospels don't match what we have ... you may have great scholarship on the wrong ones.

I'm not a KJV-er but the scholars may not have the last (foolish) laugh?


Posts 2531
Milkman | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 17 2017 9:21 AM

Your sentence

"'And if you make a close analysis of the eastern vs USB/NA mellange, you'd be surprised at how modern Christian theology can be reversed, simply recognizing ...."

Has intriqued me. Care to elaborate. 

By the way I read part of the female apostle discussion between Metzger and others. Interesting.

mm.

Denise:

not DAL:

That is right.  And the issue is, what was originally present in Matthew.  That requires scholarly textual study of the various Greek manuscripts, which is what any good translation of Scripture seeks to do.  It is extremely foolish to base one's assumption of what was in the original on the KJV.  The original article the poster quoted had some true statements combined with wild and wrong assumptions and interpretation.

I did a tiny edit to your post, Michael. 'Extremely foolish' sounded like DAL (whom you justifiably tore in to recently), but it's really not DAL.

First, I like Metzger, but he displays much of the loosey-goosey logic that is embedded in the UBS/NA series. Need I mention the female apostle that recently showed up at their party. And if you make a close analysis of the eastern vs UBS/NA mellange, you'd be surprised at how modern Christian theology can be reversed, simply recognizing varients in the 'glue' words (prepositions, etc).. Lastly, the early descriptions of the gospels don't match what we have ... you may have great scholarship on the wrong ones.

I'm not a KJV-er but the scholars may not have the last (foolish) laugh?

mm.

Posts 8406
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 17 2017 9:42 AM

Well, we're tippy-toeing on forum guidelines. So, I'll be careful not to crush the thin eggshells of theological wandering.

The easy demonstration is with the existent greek versions (NA/UBS). 'Belief in vs of', etc. I'm sure you're familiar with that discussion. Or being 'in' Christ ... what does that mean in Ephesus, vs Antioch? I suspect it's not by accident, it took centuries just to decide on the basics, that today are treated as 'of course'.

But if you take early eastern texts (syriacs) and just go word for word, watch the glue-word differences. At each point, pose the question, how would this fit in Ephesus (or Alexandria) vs Antioch in terms of a greek vs semitic background. If the answer is no-difference, keep going. If a difference, just jot it down, and keep going. At the end, go back and look at the pattern of what you jotted down. You'll notice most are 50-50 propositions ... you assume an Ephesus outlook, or you assume a more semitic one. The NA/UBS with few exceptions will choose the western, and by necessity ... it's for the western theologies.


Posts 2531
Milkman | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 17 2017 10:04 AM

Well you've answered it very diplomatically/politically and i don't think any eggs were broken, maybe a slight hint of crackage, but the shell is still in tack. Thanks.

Denise:

Well, we're tippy-toeing on forum guidelines. So, I'll be careful not to crush the thin eggshells of theological wandering.

The easy demonstration is with the existent greek versions (NA/UBS). 'Belief in vs of', etc. I'm sure you're familiar with that discussion. Or being 'in' Christ ... what does that mean in Ephesus, vs Antioch? I suspect it's not by accident, it took centuries just to decide on the basics, that today are treated as 'of course'.

But if you take early eastern texts (syriacs) and just go word for word, watch the glue-word differences. At each point, pose the question, how would this fit in Ephesus (or Alexandria) vs Antioch in terms of a greek vs semitic background. If the answer is no-difference, keep going. If a difference, just jot it down, and keep going. At the end, go back and look at the pattern of what you jotted down. You'll notice most are 50-50 propositions ... you assume an Ephesus outlook, or you assume a more semitic one. The NA/UBS with few exceptions will choose the western, and by necessity ... it's for the western theologies.

mm.

Posts 107
Michael S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 17 2017 10:12 AM

Im thankful for both your information, and for your obvious thankfulness!

-Michael

Posts 2683
Tes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 19 2017 8:32 AM
I appreciate for the contribution of every one. Before updating the Bible's it would be good , if Faithlife would give us the chance to decide wether we want to update or not.

Blessings in Christ.

Posts 2531
Milkman | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 19 2017 10:07 AM

Well this conversation has made me go back to my Seminary texts and refresh my textual criticism skills. Forgot how much I enjoyed it and how much I forgot Embarrassed.

mm.

mm.

Posts 22089
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 19 2017 3:04 PM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

David A Egolf:

My son noted one of these omitted verses earlier this year and asked me if there was a way to find such verses using a Logos search.  Does anybody have an idea?

One idea is searching Metzger's Textual Commentary for:

"omit verse" OR ((verse,ver.) NEAR interpolation)

You can search the ESV for "some manuscripts add",  "some manuscripts insert", "some manuscripts omit", "some manuscripts include"

I have a Visual Filter with this, using a Box to enclose the footnote marker.

Note: as the text is in footnotes you will get spurious results if you try "some manuscripts" add, insert, omit, include

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 2683
Tes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 20 2017 3:55 PM

Dave Hooton:

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

David A Egolf:

My son noted one of these omitted verses earlier this year and asked me if there was a way to find such verses using a Logos search.  Does anybody have an idea? It would be good as well if you more elaborate it the its usage.

One idea is searching Metzger's Textual Commentary for:

"omit verse" OR ((verse,ver.) NEAR interpolation)

You can search the ESV for "some manuscripts add",  "some manuscripts insert", "some manuscripts omit", "some manuscripts include"

I have a Visual Filter with this, using a Box to enclose the footnote marker.

Note: as the text is in footnotes you will get spurious results if you try "some manuscripts" add, insert, omit, include

Hi Dave, could you please make it copyable ,so that it could be possible to see the result.

Blessings in Christ.

Posts 349
James McAdams | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 20 2017 4:21 PM

Tes:
Hi Dave, could you please make it copyable ,so that it could be possible to see the result.

Here you go: https://ref.ly/logos4/Search;kind=Basic;q=$22some_manuscripts_add$22,__$22some_manuscripts_insert$22,_$22some_manuscripts_omit$22,_$22some_manuscripts_include$22;match=stem 

Posts 3698
abondservant | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 20 2017 4:35 PM

As this is in its second page, you've probably already heard most of what I'm about to say. BUT different translations use different manuscript groups, and are more or less efficient (precise?) in their use of the english in translating from the biblical languages. PLUS I'm sure they are using the KJV as the standard by which they judge these new translations when in my opinion we should be judging them based upon the best possible greek copies of the scriptures.

Despite 7 semesters of language, I wouldn't consider my self knowledgeable enough to give a definitive opinion on each decision the translators make, but I'm sure there are some good textual criticism books in Logos that could help guide you.

For a time the theory was lets just use whatever greek text shows up in the most manuscripts. But they found that sometimes small errors were made, and then replicated a bunch. Plus it occurred to someone that there were more recent manuscripts than ancient ones and that the ancient ones were probably better. But then they found minor errors (lines duplicated and that sort of thing) in some of the older manuscripts that were not present in newer ones. So they came up with a set of rules that they use based on the five or six types of error we tend to find. Its a science, and an art.

Honestly (and text critics who devote their life to this would argue with me) the differences are small enough that I can heartily recommend ESV, HCSB, NKJV and even KJV (and some others) without worrying about your soul.  NIV (84) isn't bad. I don't know enough about the new NIV to say I like it. NET from Dallas is great too. I have a few people at my church (elderly) that will only read their KJV. Honestly, that's not the one I study nor preach from. But I'm glad they are diligent in their study of scripture (and that they aren't reading from some of the paraphrases as their primary bible).


Tes:

Some one sent me the text below.  I want to know if this is true,

VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!!
Hello beloved saints,
I'm sure you know that new international
version (NIV) was published by Zondervan but
is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also
publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of
Gay Sex.
The NIV and English Standard Version (ESV)
has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible
Including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and
Omnipotent to name but a few...
The NIV and ESV has also now removed 45
complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on
our devices and phones especially OLIVE TREE
BIBLE STUDY APP.
Try and find these scriptures in NIV and ESV
on your computer, phone or device right now if
you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,
9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37
...you will not believe your eyes.
Refuse to be blinded by Satan, and do not act
like you just don't care. Let's not forget what
the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (King
James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV and ESV,
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the
BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All
these changes occur when they ask you to
update the app. On your phone or laptop etc.
Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE
THEM.
There is a crusade geared towards altering the
Bible as we know it; NIV, ESV and many more
versions are affected.
We are living in the last days
And Jesus is soon to you come The Gospel has been preached almost
everywhere, all the prophecies has been
fulfilled. The devil is working very hard to
occupy Christians with the things of this world
so that the day will catch them unaware.
Please be prepared, there is no more time, Use
the advantage of sms, WhatsApp, BBM,
Facebook, twitter etc to send this message to
All your contact. Do not ignore. This is also
a source of evangelism, souls are dying. God
bless you!

L2 lvl4, L3 Scholars, L4 Scholars, L5 Platinum (etc),  L6 Collectors. L7 Baptist Silver

Page 2 of 2 (33 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS
Copyright 1992-2015 Faithlife / Logos Bible Software.