Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

logos1560

Well-known member
Do you suggest that you would tire of the preaching of the same gospel over and over or the same scriptural truths over and over and that you would stop listening to the repeating of the Scriptures? Would you object to reading the same Bible over and over?

You repeat the same bogus allegation against posting the truth. You likely do not even read entirely my posts or you close your eyes to how they differ from each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

logos1560

Well-known member
You read one logos post, you've read them all.
Your allegation is clearly not true. You likely have not read many of my posts against which you make your bogus claim. Since you claim that you ignore my posts 99% of the time, you admit that you have not read them so you do not know what you are talking about.

You fail to prove your negative personal attacks against me to be true.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Nope. I cannot prove the pure Bible to one full of doubt and uncertainty.
Just because we cannot reconstruct the putative originals does not mean we are "full of doubt and uncertainty" about the biblical texts. This is a gross exaggeration based on the all-or-nothing thinking that permeates the position of KJV Onlyism. Through comparing the extant variants and understanding scribal habits, textual critics have derived a number of general rules to assist in adjudicating the differences and in most cases we can be reasonably certain that the reconstructed text reflects the earliest-recoverable version. The degree to which this reflects the putative originals will always have a margin of uncertainty, but it is minimal, not the catastrophe you imply above in your question-begging comments about a "pure" Bible...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

CES1951

Well-known member
Your allegation is clearly not true. You likely have not read many of my posts against which you make your bogus claim. Since you claim that you ignore my posts 99% of the time, you admit that you have not read them so you do not know what you are talking about.

You fail to prove your negative personal attacks against me to be true.
Yep! Broken record.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You did not soundly discuss the Old Latin mss, but instead you tried to dismiss and avoid significant important facts concerning them.
False. I addressed the facts.

Try to place in English what you think was not addressed.
And I will ignore quotes that you might consider true, false, or mixed.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Just because we cannot reconstruct the putative originals does not mean we are "full of doubt and uncertainty" about the biblical texts. This is a gross exaggeration based on the all-or-nothing thinking that permeates the position of KJV Onlyism. Through comparing the extant variants and understanding scribal habits, textual critics have derived a number of general rules to assist in adjudicating the differences and in most cases we can be reasonably certain that the reconstructed text reflects the earliest-recoverable version. The degree to which this reflects the putative originals will always have a margin of uncertainty, but it is minimal, not the catastrophe you imply above in your question-begging comments about a "pure" Bible...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

The 24 verses in the Mark ending, and the Pericope Adulterae.

Scripture, no, or dunno.

Rick Norris refuses to answer the question. Let's see how you do.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The 24 verses in the Mark ending, and the Pericope Adulterae.

Scripture, no, or dunno.

Rick Norris refuses to answer the question. Let's see how you do.
Neither section is original to its respective gospel so if this is a criterion for the status of "scripture" (as most who embrace the concept would propose), then no they are not. That wasn't a difficult question to answer... was it supposed to be?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Neither section is original to its respective gospel so if this is a criterion for the status of "scripture" (as most who embrace the concept would propose), then no they are not. That wasn't a difficult question to answer... was it supposed to be?

I just wanted to know if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Hortian.

How certain are you of those two sections as not being scripture?
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
How certain are you of those two sections not being scripture?

Where does your scripture Bible, original, differ from NA28?
I see, so you can ask a question and I answer straightforwardly, but when I ask you a question, you can dodge it. I ask again, what is a "dyed-in-the-wool Hortian" and do you think I am such an individual? The question that now appears in the post to which I responded was edited in afterward and I will answer it provided this is a fair back and forth of Q&A. That is entirely up to you...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I see, so you can ask a question and I answer straightforwardly, but when I ask you a question, you can dodge it. I ask again, what is a "dyed-in-the-wool Hortian" and do you think I am such an individual? The question that now appears in the post to which I responded was edited in afterward and I will answer it provided this is a fair back and forth of Q&A. That is entirely up to you...
Kind regards,
Jonathan

And I realized that the question of how certain you are of what is original scripture comes first. e.g. There is an A-B-C-D-E system that goes with the Critical Text.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
And I realized that the question of how certain you are of what is original scripture comes first. e.g. There is an A-B-C-D-E system that goes with the Critical Text.
So you're retracting your Hortian comment and want me instead to answer this: "How certain are you of those two sections as not being scripture?"

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

kiwimac

Member
And what is a "dyed-in-the-wool Hortian" and do you think I am such an individual?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
It is Avery's go-to insult and an attack on F.J.A. Hort, an Anglican prelate and translator of the Bible who, unlike Avery, was fluent in Koine Greek, could read and write Hebrew AND Latin.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
So I'm either a "weird eclectic" or a "Hortian dupe" --- gee, thanks. If and when you are interested in a civil discussion, let me know. In the meantime, it's the 8th rather than 16th verse of Mark where critical scholars terminate the gospel...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited by a moderator:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
It is Avery's go-to insult and an attack on F.J.A. Hort, an Anglican prelate and translator of the Bible who, unlike Avery, was fluent in Koine Greek, could read and write Hebrew AND Latin.
Thanks kiwimac... I got the connection to Hort, but wasn't exactly sure where that was being driven or why I would be affiliated with him. I don't recall mentioning either him or Westcott recently, nor would I or any contemporary critical scholar identify our positions with him specifically, even if we are appreciative of the work he did. For example, I reject his theory of so-called 'Western Non-Interpolations' and wrote a term paper some years back challenging Ehrman's defense of it particularly as it relates to Luke 24:51-52. I've been meaning to come back to it, make some revisions and submit it for peer review/publication... so many projects, so little time! In any case, I appreciate the post and confirmation that it was intended as an insult.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It is Avery's go-to insult and an attack on F.J.A. Hort, an Anglican prelate and translator of the Bible who, unlike Avery, was fluent in Koine Greek, could read and write Hebrew AND Latin.

Thus, proving that knowing Biblical languages has nothing to do with Bible text sense. Hort wrote some of the most absurd and convoluted nonsense you will ever see, without any logic or sense. I especially like one quote from P. C. Sense about his style.
 
Top