Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

Theo1689

Well-known member
I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring.

I believe attacking modern translations to promote the KJV is a red herring.

I also believe attacking the manuscript evidence that doesn't support the KJV is a red herring.

Like I said I started this thread if you don’t like it move along or answer the question.

Just so you know, attempting to control the behaviour of posters (ie. trying to tell them what to do) is a breach of CARM rules. And if you get suspended for it, I won't be shedding any tears.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Nope, you got that backwards ! The minority texts are less than 5% of known texts with, deletions, additions, dropped verses, and fooled with by many scribes over many years not to mention the many disagreements between the minority texts. The minority texts are a product of Gnostics who never believed what they were translating.

I will look forward to you providing EVIDENCE for all your false claims.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The learned men of the Reformation Bible era were aware of Vaticanus and Bezae. They were correctly considered corrupt manuscripts.

1) What is your evidence that "they were considered such" by the "learned men"?

2) What is your evidence that they were allegedly "corrupt" manuscripts (ie. more "corrupt" than any other manuscripts, since ALL manuscripts have copyist errors)?

3) I won't hold my breath waiting for any answers from you...
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
1) What is your evidence that "they were considered such" by the "learned men"?

2) What is your evidence that they were allegedly "corrupt" manuscripts (ie. more "corrupt" than any other manuscripts, since ALL manuscripts have copyist errors)?

3) I won't hold my breath waiting for any answers from you...
Got ya, anybody that disagrees with you is wrong, and only your sources are correct.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Got ya, anybody that disagrees with you is wrong, and only your sources are correct.

Huh?
The poster made some unsubstantiated claims.
Since I'm not gullible, I need to see some evidence for those claims.
The fact that you try to criticize me as allegedly unreasonable, simply because your buddy can't support his false claims, speaks volumes.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
1) What is your evidence that "they were considered such" by the "learned men"?
2) What is your evidence that they were allegedly "corrupt" manuscripts (ie. more "corrupt" than any other manuscripts, since ALL manuscripts have copyist errors)?

We have the words written by Erasmus on Vaticanus.
We have the words written by Theodore Beza on Codex Bezae. It was sitting in Cambridge by 1611.

Alexandrinus comes out better, at least in the Gospels, so it, and Washingtonianus, are not really important to the textual critics trying to foist corrupt texts.

The massive differences between these manuscripts prove their corruption.
John William Burgon explains that well, he actually looks at five mss.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Nope, you got that backwards ! The minority texts are less than 5% of known texts with, deletions, additions, dropped verses, and fooled with by many scribes over many years not to mention the many disagreements between the minority texts. The minority texts are a product of Gnostics who never believed what they were translating.

Just for context, we are talking about the Greek texts here. The 5% figure is accurate. The Gnostic claim is a bit broad.

The Latin and Syriac and versional texts are generally more consistent, and often support the Greek Byzantine majority texts.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The Latin and Syriac and versional texts are generally more consistent, and often support the Greek Byzantine majority texts.
Can you provide clear evidence to support your claim?

There are textual differences between the Old Latin texts and the Greek Byzantine majority texts. The Old Latin translations are placed in the Western family of texts, not in the Byzantine family. Compared to a typical Byzantine text, the Old Latin has some additions and omissions. Perhaps the Latin translations differ more often than they support the Byzantine Greek text.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Can you provide clear evidence to support your claim?

There are textual differences between the Old Latin texts and the Greek Byzantine majority texts. The Old Latin translations are placed in the Western family of texts, not in the Byzantine family. Compared to a typical Byzantine text, the Old Latin has some additions and omissions. Perhaps the Latin translations differ more often than they support the Byzantine Greek text.

They are far closer to the Greek Byzantine and Received Texts that are any Alexandrian mss (basically Vaticanus).

There are thousands of Latin mss., the Old Latin is a few dozen, and they were largely the base for the Vulgate.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
That may be your biased or subjective opinion, but you provide no sound, compelling evidence for your unsupported assertion.

All you have to do is run down the corruptions of the modern versions and you will find that large numbers of them are not missing in the Western text. A good start is the 24 verses missing in the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae, that are properly in the Geneva editions and the AV and all the Reformation Bible editions.

The next step would be to look at the other c. 20 verses missing in the corruption versions.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
All you have to do is run down the corruptions of the modern versions and you will find that large numbers of them are not missing in the Western text. A good start is the 24 verses missing in the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae.

The next step would be to look at the other 20 verses missing in the corruption versions.

You again present mere unsupported opinion without evidence to back it up. The Old Latin translations put in the Western family are known for having a number of additions as well as some omissions. Would you suggest the Byzantine text has some of the same additions as the Old Latin has?
 
Top