Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
rjjjjj6	Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances	Lead	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/11/2003 12:01:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances: -------- Evidently, as shown below, there's some differances between the Textus Recepticus and the Hort Wescott Greek -- however, does anybody know about how many differances there are, & also, what the relevance is??: 1 Kings 20:38 NIV: Then the prophet went and stood by the road waiting for the king. He disguised himself with his headband down over his eyes. 1 Kings 20:38 KJV: So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. -- Matthew 17:21 NIV: [The verse is deleted.] Matthew 17:21 KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. -- Mark 9:29 NIV: He replied, 'This kind can come out only by prayer.' Mark 9:29 KJV: And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
BrianT	Re: Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances	#1	[-]
Posts: 2003 (12/11/2003 13:59:45) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hey rjjjjj6, *Quote:* Evidently, as shown below, there's some differances between the Textus Recepticus and the Hort Wescott Greek -- however, does anybody know about how many differances there are, & also, what the relevance is??: There are quite a number of places where the W/H text is translationally different from the TR, an aquaintance of mine counted 3,618 places (see www.bible-researcher.com/stats.html ). However, this is less than 5% of the NT, and even in most of these cases the difference is relatively minor. *Quote:* 1 Kings 20:38 NIV: Then the prophet went and stood by the road waiting for the king. He disguised himself with his headband down over his eyes. 1 Kings 20:38 KJV: So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. Since the TR and W/H texts are New Testament only, 1 Kings isn't affected by the W/H text. However, I'll discuss it here anyways. Originally in the Hebrew, everything was written without vowels ("vowel points" were added later, little dots around the consonants to indicate vowels). The word in question here (without vowels) is aleph-phe-reysh (left to right), and can mean either ashes, or a covering (like a bandage, a turban, a headband, etc), depending on which vowels are added. You can see this if you look up words 665 and 666 in a Hebrew dictionary that uses Strong's numbering (if you don't have this, and are interested in seeing the difference in vowel points, I can scan something for you). I don't have a Hebrew OT handy at the moment, so I'm not sure which is actually in the text, but either is possibly "original" because as I said, the vowel points were added later. I guess the NIV translators felt the "headcovering" was more likely textually and/or logically. *Quote:* Matthew 17:21 NIV: [The verse is deleted.] Matthew 17:21 KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Mark 9:29 NIV: He replied, 'This kind can come out only by prayer.' Mark 9:29 KJV: And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. These differences are due to W/H examining the textual evidence, and deciding that the longer readings (as found in the KJV) were not originally part of these passages, but added later. Detailing the exact reasons are a little complicated. If you are looking for a longer answer, I can provide more info. God bless, Brian
rjjjjj6	FWD: RE: [Which Version] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Gree	#2	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/12/2003 05:21:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, "The Shue Crew" <theshuecrew@c...> wrote: From: "The Shue Crew" <theshuecrew@c...> Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Which Version] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances <SNIP> Dr. D.A. Waite has thoroughly studied this matter and here are his comments: "In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church (Church of England), Westcott and Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the Textus Receptus in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek New Testament, or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament." (Waite, Defending The King James Bible, p41) Remember, this is only the Greek texts -- not the English versions taken from these texts. The actual number of the English versions as compared to the AV is much higher. As a point of reference, 1 Kings 20:38 is not part of the W/H Greek text or the Textus Receptus (these are New Testament texts). Your last question (i.e. 'what the relevance is') would take much time to answer (more than I have this evening). Perhaps some examples would better serve to demonstrate how relevant the changes are. If Will doesn't post some examples I will try to do so tomorrow. Thanks for the questions! Marty ------------------------ In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, brandplucked <no_reply@y...> wrote: From: brandplucked Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:20 am Subject: Differences in Greek texts ...... here is a site that shows clearly just what is missing in the versions based on the Westcott-Hort texts as compared to the KJB. av1611.com/kjbp/charts/th...arker.html It is in two parts, and is very easy to read. God either inspired these words, phrases and whole verses, or He didn't. We are well acquainted with Brian T, since we have had discussions with him before at other boards, so none of his stuff is new to us here. He will admit that he believes no single Hebrew or Greek text and no single English version is the inerrant word of God. He thinks we need to examine the evidence and make up our own minds, yet he does not accept many readings found in various bible versions. What he has done is to place his own understanding as his Final Authority, and he picks and chooses which readings he thinks are legitimate and which are not. This is in effect exactly what every person does who doesn't believe God has given us a perfect Bible anywhere on this earth. Are you new to this discussion? What are your views? Has God preserved His infallible words? If so, where do you think they are found today? God bless, Will K
BrianT	Re: FWD: RE: [Which Version] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott	#3	[-]
Posts: 2003 (12/12/2003 08:41:34) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	See my reply at: groups.yahoo.com/group/bi...tionforum/
rjjjjj6	Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group	#4	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/12/2003 19:04:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group -------- #1. To whom it may concern, do you have an opinion on Yuri Kuchinski, &/or his website, &/or his email group??: www.trends.ca/~yuku groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy #2. For whatever it's worth, Yuri just edited a post that was submitted to loisy to conform to his biases!! A copy of the post that was submitted is shown in the 1st link, & a copy of the edited post is shown in the loisy link!!: 79 Re: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differa Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 groups.yahoo.com/group/bi...message/79 6635 Re: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differa Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 Fri 12/12/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/lo...ssage/6635
Scott McClare	Re: Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group	#5	[-]
Posts: 3286 (12/12/2003 20:07:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	#1. To whom it may concern, do you have an opinion on Yuri Kuchinski, &/or his website, &/or his email group??: Who is this Alfred Loisy whom Kuchinski appears to be such a big fan of? All I can figure out is that he was a Catholic modernist excommunicated about 100 years ago, and his fans also tend to be the same sort of persons that find the Jesus Seminar credible. My general impression of Kuchinski is of an armchair critic rather than a genuine researcher. Take care, Scott Gutless and Spineless Person #3 Whiny Crybaby Moderator, Bible Versions Discussion Board -- Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503 * AIM RansomOttawa Stepping Right Up to the KJV-only Sideshow since 2001
truthnow46202	FWD: RE: Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group	#6	[-]
Posts: 2 (12/13/2003 13:41:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	From: leon santiago <taino_leon@yahoo.com> To: Gayle Simmons <truthnow@usa.com> Subject: Re: Please protest to Yuri . . . etc Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:09:01 -0800 (PST) Hello Gayle, I really don't think that Yuri will care what anybody does or says. As I think you know, I have been a recent participant in the loisy group, voicing my objections to Yuri's rhetorical style. Even when he has legitimate contributions to make to a discussion, it is hard to get past his caustic delivery, which is quite unfortunate. He's obviously pretty well-read, but he is so smug, pompous and paranoid, that it's quite unpleasant to read his postings sometimes. It doesn't surprise me that he edited your post to fit his agenda. He didn't even bother to post my last two messages, no doubt because they called to question his rhetorical deficiencies. Once the initial anger at his megalomaniac methodology subsides, though, I actually feel sorry for the guy, really. He's seems pathologically incapable of conceding error. That is so sad. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I also got your other e mail in which the two questions regarding Yuri were asked. The person who responded to them asked who Loisy was and unfairly insulted him, making references to the Jesus Seminar, of all things (this is as idiotic as any of Yuri's worst moments, if you ask me). Loisy was a great writer on the history of the early church (among other things) and, in my opinion, it is very unfortunate that people, in responding to Yuri's stupidity, call into question the work of a man who dared take on the church in his quest for the truth. I admire him greatly. <SNIP> peace to you -- R. Len Santiago -- Tempe, AZ I like roots but I prefer fruits. -- Caetano Veloso
Scott McClare	Re: FWD: RE: Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group	#7	[-]
Posts: 3286 (12/13/2003 14:41:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The person who responded to them asked who Loisy was and unfairly insulted him, making references to the Jesus Seminar, of all things (this is as idiotic as any of Yuri's worst moments, if you ask me). Is this supposed to be a direct response to what I said? Why not respond in your own words instead of cutting and pasting someone else's emails (a practice which we discourage on this board)? Take care, Scott Gutless and Spineless Person #3 Whiny Crybaby Moderator, Bible Versions Discussion Board -- Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503 * AIM RansomOttawa Stepping Right Up to the KJV-only Sideshow since 2001
truthnow46202	RE: FWD: RE: Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group	#8	[-]
Posts: 2 (12/13/2003 16:17:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Subject: Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group Posted By: rjjjjj6 -- Registered User Posted At: (12/12/03 7:04 pm) Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group -------- #1. To whom it may concern, do you have an opinion on Yuri Kuchinski, &/or his website, &/or his email group??: www.trends.ca/~yuku groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy #2. For whatever it's worth, Yuri just edited a post that was submitted to loisy to conform to his biases!! A copy of the post that was submitted is shown in the 1st link, & a copy of the edited post is shown in the loisy link!!: 79 Re: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differa Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 groups.yahoo.com/group/bi...message/79 6635 Re: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differa Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 Fri 12/12/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/lo...ssage/6635 ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: FWD: RE: Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group Posted By: truthnow46202 -- Registered User Posted At: (12/13/03 1:41 pm) From: leon santiago <taino_leon@yahoo.com> To: Gayle Simmons <truthnow@usa.com> Subject: Re: Please protest to Yuri . . . etc Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:09:01 -0800 (PST) Hello Gayle, I really don't think that Yuri will care what anybody does or says. As I think you know, I have been a recent participant in the loisy group, voicing my objections to Yuri's rhetorical style. Even when he has legitimate contributions to make to a discussion, it is hard to get past his caustic delivery, which is quite unfortunate. He's obviously pretty well-read, but he is so smug, pompous and paranoid, that it's quite unpleasant to read his postings sometimes. It doesn't surprise me that he edited your post to fit his agenda. He didn't even bother to post my last two messages, no doubt because they called to question his rhetorical deficiencies. Once the initial anger at his megalomaniac methodology subsides, though, I actually feel sorry for the guy, really. He's seems pathologically incapable of conceding error. That is so sad. -------- I also got your other email [cross-post email] in which the two questions regarding Yuri were asked. The person who responded to them asked who Loisy was and unfairly insulted him, making references to the Jesus Seminar, of all things (this is as idiotic as any of Yuri's worst moments, if you ask me). Loisy was a great writer on the history of the early church (among other things) and, in my opinion, it is very unfortunate that people, in responding to Yuri's stupidity, call into question the work of a man who dared take on the church in his quest for the truth. I admire him greatly. <SNIP> peace to you -- R. Len Santiago -- Tempe, AZ I like roots but I prefer fruits. -- Caetano Veloso ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: FWD: RE: Yuri Kuchinski/loisy group Posted By: Scott McClare -- Administrator Posted At: (12/13/03 2:41 pm) Is this supposed to be a direct response to what I said? Why not respond in your own words instead of cutting and pasting someone else's emails (a practice which we discourage on this board)? Take care, Scott -- Gutless and Spineless Person #3 Whiny Crybaby Moderator, Bible Versions Discussion Board ------------------------------------------------------------ Gayle Simmons <truthnow@usa.com> replies: As you can see from the post above, it was an email that was sent to me -- anyway, the only relevant issue should be whether or not R. Len Santiago was right or wrong, & you shouldn't be afraid of maximum dialog!! If you thought that R. Len Santiago said anything that was either false, or untrue, or something that you disagreed with, then why didn't you just say what you thought that it was?? Gayle Simmons
Scott McClare	I'm sorry, but this is really annoying	#9	[-]
Posts: 3286 (12/13/2003 23:57:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As far as I can tell, I have gotten involved in an email exchange against my will; what's worse, the answers don't even seem to have any relevance to what I posted myself. If all you are going to do is cut and paste snippets of my posts to other boards and then post snippets of other people's posts to this board, don't include me. I will be more than happy to address concerns posted directly, but I'm not going to carry on a conversation with someone who's not even involved with this board. Thank you for your co-operation. Take care, Scott Gutless and Spineless Person #3 Whiny Crybaby Moderator, Bible Versions Discussion Board -- Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503 * AIM RansomOttawa Stepping Right Up to the KJV-only Sideshow since 2001
Kristi	Yes, it is annoying & it's hard to follow	#10	[-]
Posts: 3769 (12/14/2003 22:39:46) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Ditto on what all you said. I did do one nice post at one of the yahoo e-groups under my "moldy doughnut" screen name asking them to please not cross post like this. If they'd like to talk to us directly here at the board (or have us talk to them at their boards), rather than talk through us or around us by way of copy and pasting our posts, that'd be fine by me. It wouldn't bother me so much if they at least provided the context of all the posts, but if you don't know the context or the group participants, it's hard to make sense of the posts we're seeing. It comes across as gibberish. Days End Farm Horse Rescue KJV Onlyism is a False Teaching Christians For Biblical Gender Equality: Resources
hvoice2001	Re: Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances	#11	[-]
Posts: 14 (12/19/2003 06:03:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In RECOMPILING the Greek N.T. texts, OF COURSE their would be VARIATIONS in the manuscrpits.. depending upon WHAT "types" of m.s.s's were cited etc. Isn't the issue of ARROGANCE whereby one group of theologians claim "infallibilty"?, i.e. "every WORD in their text is 100% tried and tested, PURE words of God" etc. Unless, the church gets back to THE EARLIEST writings, and yes some of the N.T. was actually written in Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic!; --then of course the GReek translation would contain SOME errors! Just as the LXX translation of the Hebrew O.T. {circa 200-400 years B.C.} contained errors and a few abberations; so to, the Greek translation of Matthew and the Book of Hebrews would contain similar errors of mistranslation! Vincent
jbull0ck	Waite, defending the King James Bible	#12	[-]
Posts: 1 (06/11/2009 21:46:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hey, brothers and sisters. Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my thoughts below. I've been kept up late tonight by an upset stomach, so my mind may not be as clear as I like, but I enjoyed stumbling across your discussion which has been the subject of much thought and prayer for me at various times over the last several years. While I believe the original Scriptures were God-breathed, where humans pick up the pen to translate, we should question by what guidance they are moved, no matter how elegant the language, how authoritarian their sponsor or how long the ink has had to dry. I recall the imprisonment of the Scriptures in Latin by the church that presided over the Dark Ages and find little difference in the fruit of those who defend translations of any other age or tongue. I think the common tactic of defending the KJV by attacking W/H isn't very meaningful. It reminds me of most political debates - - they are usually not a meaningful engagement involving ideas, but quickly break down into a series of attacks and counter-attacks on the opponent's character and past deeds. Frankly, I wouldn't want to try to defend the integrity of either the KJV translators or W/H , but I am much more interested in the outcome of the work of all the above in light of the collective body of knowledge regarding manuscripts available to us in the 21st century. I would like to see (1) a complete list of and (2) an honest and critical review of the 5-7% of the NT where differences occurred with no agenda to prop-up the reputation of either work. I can kind-of find my way through some aspects of these issues via the helpful footnotes in my NKJV regarding source manuscrips- but this is not presented in such a way as to study the differences in total. I find it intellectually dishonest to attack the character of W/H (not that I would defend them!) without being equally "tough" on the KJV translators and/or the King who restricted what tendency they may have had to translate freely. It seems to me the KJV translators were not very reformation-minded and were coerced by the King's translation rules to "correct" the words of Tyndale's translation that were offensive to the church authority and a threat to the King's church. The strongest evidence of this to me is that Tyndale only used the word "church" twice (Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:13) that I can find and both times it referred to places of idol worship. Does it not seem that God is more interested in everyone working together to resolve these issues than folks taking sides, defending and attacking? Well, my eyes keep falling shut and I keep nodding off... so, thank you again for "listening."
gconan		#13	[-]
Posts: 972 (06/12/2009 15:49:31) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	jbull0ck wrote: Frankly, I wouldn't want to try to defend the integrity of either the KJV translators or W/H , but I am much more interested in the outcome of the work of all the above in light of the collective body of knowledge regarding manuscripts available to us in the 21st century. I would like to see (1) a complete list of and (2) an honest and critical review of the 5-7% of the NT where differences occurred with no agenda to prop-up the reputation of either work. I can kind-of find my way through some aspects of these issues via the helpful footnotes in my NKJV regarding source manuscrips- but this is not presented in such a way as to study the differences in total. There is only one source for such comparision. An English Guide to the Various Readings of the Greek New Testament Compiled by Michael D. Marlowe, M.A. I find it intellectually dishonest to attack the character of W/H (not that I would defend them!) without being equally "tough" on the KJV translators and/or the King who restricted what tendency they may have had to translate freely. It seems to me the KJV translators were not very reformation-minded and were coerced by the King's translation rules to "correct" the words of Tyndale's translation that were offensive to the church authority and a threat to the King's church. The strongest evidence of this to me is that Tyndale only used the word "church" twice (Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:13) that I can find and both times it referred to places of idol worship. Amen!
jbull0ck	http://www.bible-researcher.com/guide.html	#14	[-]
Posts: 2 (06/13/2009 18:06:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Thanks, gconan. That link looks very helpful; I will be using it routinely. If I had done it in a printed format as it is presented, I would provided the original language interlinear. I'd love to see the guys at http://www.scripture4all.org/ make several manuscripts available through their software... I love the software as it is, but it would be much more useful if it included more original lanugage sources. Thanks again! I really appreciate you taking the time to reply... I was wondering if replying to such an old set of posts would be noticed by anyone.
mko		#15	[-]
Posts: 580 (06/13/2009 19:18:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I like their pdf interlinears...except I wish they were MT. "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
OOG Rs		#16	[-]
Posts: 2 (10/11/2009 17:22:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Codex B which Westcott & Hort loved and relied on so much differs in 7578 places from the 'Textus Receptus' NESTLE ALANDS 26th Ed. HAS 2544 LESS WORDS! Than the 1550 Stephanus ed. 137,977 Alexandrian Text 140,521 Traditional text If you add the "Last twelve verses of mark" and John 7:53-8:11 which almost all critical texts omit or bracket in doubt, the number of words climbs to 2886 less! Some examples of where they differ are: Matt.6:13, 9:13, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14 27:35 Mark 1:14, 2:17, 6:11, 7:16, 10:21, 10:24, 11:26, 15 :28 Luke 9:56, 11:2-4, 17:36, 23:16 John 1:27, 5:4, 6:47 Romans 16:24 Col. 1:14, 3:6
amarillo		#17	[-]
Posts: 3479 (10/11/2009 19:09:54) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: Codex B which Westcott & Hort loved and relied on so much differs in 7578 places from the 'Textus Receptus' NESTLE ALANDS 26th Ed. HAS 2544 LESS WORDS! Than the 1550 Stephanus ed. 137,977 Alexandrian Text 140,521 Traditional text If you add the "Last twelve verses of mark" and John 7:53-8:11 which almost all critical texts omit or bracket in doubt, the number of words climbs to 2886 less! Some examples of where they differ are: Matt.6:13, 9:13, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14 27:35 Mark 1:14, 2:17, 6:11, 7:16, 10:21, 10:24, 11:26, 15 :28 Luke 9:56, 11:2-4, 17:36, 23:16 John 1:27, 5:4, 6:47 Romans 16:24 Col. 1:14, 3:6 your source, pls? Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
77		#18	[-]
Posts: 929 (10/12/2009 02:54:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: Codex B which Westcott & Hort loved and relied on so much differs in 7578 places from the 'Textus Receptus' NESTLE ALANDS 26th Ed. HAS 2544 LESS WORDS! Than the 1550 Stephanus ed. 137,977 Alexandrian Text 140,521 Traditional text If you add the "Last twelve verses of mark" and John 7:53-8:11 which almost all critical texts omit or bracket in doubt, the number of words climbs to 2886 less! Some examples of where they differ are: Matt.6:13, 9:13, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14 27:35 Mark 1:14, 2:17, 6:11, 7:16, 10:21, 10:24, 11:26, 15 :28 Luke 9:56, 11:2-4, 17:36, 23:16 John 1:27, 5:4, 6:47 Romans 16:24 Col. 1:14, 3:6 77: So, either you are a KJ Bible Bully, or you are saying that Codex B is far, far superior to the so-called 'received text' as it omits the many corruptions, blunders, pious additions, and careless scribal omissions that riddle the RT? Bet I can guess which one you are! "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
gconan		#19	[-]
Posts: 1082 (10/12/2009 17:57:41) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	First, bracketed material is not deleted. So bracketed words are not missing. The other numbers are mostly substitutions, not deletions. There are some 5,000 differences, not deletions. Your source seems to be bad. So perhaps 77's assessment is correct after all (unless you were just duped by a bully source, of course). Although please continue to post either way, so we can hold these differences up to the light to see what we can find.
OOG Rs		#20	[-]
Posts: 3 (10/15/2009 14:54:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	(Im sorry I must have deleted some script while trying to space everything out, not much of a computer wiz.) The Vaticanus differs from the Traditional Text 7578 times in the 4 Gospels alone! Facts are stubborn little things. gconan "bracketed material is not deleted" I never said it was! " Your source seems to be bad" reply... You sure count fast! 77. If there is a codex (B) which differs from the Traditional Text ( which is supported by 98-99% of the N/T mss.) in 7578 places in the gospels alone and is only supported by about 1% of the mss. for it's (alexandrian) type of readings, I bet I could guess which one I am too. But I'll leave the guesses to Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the gang.