christ_undivided
Well-known member
My loss? It is obvious you don't want to discuss Acts 8:32.
Wallace on textual criticism....
- Thread starter christ_undivided
- Start date
Steven Avery
Well-known member
If you want to present the data, I will comment on it, but you have to include the "LXX" manuscripts with their theorized production dates and highlight the specific words of interest.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
So you can't compare Acts 8:32 to Isa 53:7 within your own translation of choice, the KJV? As we have discussed before, they are not the same and are noticably different.
Why don't you explain the differences and provide the "production dates" and etc? You continue to deflect. If you have a problem reading your own copy of the KJV, and insist upon me pointing out the obvious differences...... then why not start with how
1. Sheep and lamb are reversed from Isa 53:7 and Acts 8:32?
2. The pronoun problem of Isa 53:7 using "her" and Acts 8:32 using "it's".
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Acts 8:32 (AV)
The place of the scripture which he read was this,
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
and like a lamb dumb before his shearer,
so opened he not his mouth:
Isaiah 53:7 (AV)
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth:
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
so he openeth not his mouth.
Luke describes the spot read by the eunuch.
Now you can list all the Greek Old Testament manuscripts we have from before the 1st century with this Isaiah text.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
You're ignoring what Luke said they were READING....
Acts 8:32 specifically states... He READ.... What were they reading?
You did this last time.... You don't believe what you READ in the KJV.
By the way, I never read the KJV until I was child. As old as I am, I'm not claiming the KJV didn't exist until I READ it...
You're ridiculous Avery. So utter ridiculous. It is preposterous what you're peddling..
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that you can list all the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts from before the 1st century that you have with this Isaiah text and can you read them?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
No such suggestion.
We are comparing to the Masoretic Text, which is defined quite precisely in most all verses, including Isaiah 53:7, and is the source for the AV Old Testament.
The Codex Sinaiticus text is very interesting at Acts 8:32.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
Nonsense. The KJV OT contains LXX readings. You continue to prove you don't know this subject.
Please share what you find "interesting" about Sinaiticus in Acts 8:32.
Also, please explain how you KJVO teaching is true when the KJVO contradicts itself from Isa 53:7 and Acts 8:32...
Your position on inerrancy is suspect here...
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This is one of the spots where Sinaiticus shows familiarity and connection with the Hebrew Masoretic text. It matches the MT in the otder of lamb and sheep.
Differing from Vaticanus.
Each one of these Hebraic connection spots is interesting, and we plan to look at other prophetic fulfillment verses.
Last edited:
christ_undivided
Well-known member
I've reviewed all the sources for Acts 8:32 many times before. I don't know what you're reading but you're wrong. I just reviewed Sinaiticus again.
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Acts |
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the...
www.codexsinaiticus.org
From Sinaiticus @ Acts 8:32
As a sheep for slaughter was he led;
and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb
You posted the "AV" copy yourself.....
Isa 53:7
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
You might want to read it again....
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Every statement I have made has been accurate,
Still waiting for your exposition explaining the early Greek manuscripts.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
Not true at all. You just made a false statement about Sinaiticus and I proved the evidence proving it was false.
What do you want explained? Be specific.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The English text on the CSP site is frequently not the translation of the Sinaiticus text.
They took it from a hybrid book that made changes.
The Greek transcription is usually accurate,
Last edited:
christ_undivided
Well-known member
That is ridiculous. Provide your corrections to the English translation with evidence of inaccuracies.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I haven’t checked it, I am just teaching you that the CSP English is totally unreliable. James Snapp and I have pointed this out many times over the years.
You should be thankful to learn that about the CSP English.
Says it all right there.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
Teaching me.....
You made the blind claim. Why did you make this claim without validation?
While I have few issues with James Snaap, he isn't an authority on the subject. He is a man just like you are. We are all prone to mistakes. You should triple check any reference before you make such extraordinary claims. Don't waste my time with such bogus nonsense.
Just admit you're out of your element dealing with these ancient languages. You're obviously struggling with Acts 8:32. I go where the facts lead me. You have an illusion your need to maintain. Just walka away from the nonsense.and give in the truth. Your head will not explode to admit you're wrong and God will be pleased.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
This approach is not satisfactory to many people. It may not satisfy their fleshly desires.
There are many variants which are highly significant toward important doctrines which Christians have. I have noticed this is often misrepresented. For example, Wallace likes to argue that 99% of the variants are insignificant to try and minimize the problem and spin the facts to make things appear well and good. But this 99% is just counting every single spelling error and the like. Nobody cares about those things and this kind of spin misrepresents the reality. Let's talk about significant types of variants (like we have at John 1:18 for example). How about Wallace tells everyone how MANY significant variants like these do exist in their Bibles and which do indeed have a considerable degree of impact upon important doctrines (Wallace never talks about that problem). I have only started to make a list and its getting quite large. For example, there are at least two dozen highly significant variants (two dozen verses) which have huge impact toward the doctrine of the Trinity. That's just concerning one single doctrine. But nobody wants to mention THOSE facts concerning the variants.
People need to get with reality and quit playing games.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
Playing games?
Like pretending John 1:18 is the "cornerstone" of all Christianity? Take John 1:18 out of the book. Remove it completely NOTHING changes....
Just so you know, John is appealing to the LXX here from Exodus 3:14 to establish that Jesus Christ was "Uniquely" God.
It has been a while since I've interacted with you. From what I remember, you seem to believe you're just like Jesus. Do you care to point to some news articles confirming your "Unique" abilities that you share with Divinity? I mean everyone is still talking about Jesus accomplished thousands of years later. You.... not so much.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
Yes, like your next comment.
How did you manage to interpret my comment "like we have at John 1:18 for example" as the ""cornerstone"" of all Christianity?
Playing games? Yes, playing games.
And how did you manage to overlook THIS comment?....
"there are at least two dozen highly significant variants (two dozen verses) which have huge impact toward the doctrine of the Trinity."
Where did you get that from? Your imagination?
Well, we all now know that you like to play games.