Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
77		#21	[-]
Posts: 948 (10/15/2009 15:00:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Booger: "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" 77: Epic fail. Your phony-baloney "traditional" text was nothing more than a handful - yes, a mere handful, of very late manuscripts. Your golden calf differs from the Majority Text roughly as many times as the W&H critical text do. "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."
OOG Rs		#22	[-]
Posts: 5 (10/15/2009 15:15:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Last Edited By: OOG Rs 10/15/2009 15:28:52. Edited 1 times.
77		#23	[-]
Posts: 949 (10/15/2009 15:17:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: A Handfull, you are senile old man. 77: I am neither senile, nor an old man. You, on the other hand, are a poor speller, and ignorant of the details of the TR you would shill. "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."
OOG Rs		#24	[-]
Posts: 6 (10/15/2009 15:19:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 "The official Wescott and Hort mascott." Fitting, for you and the critical text have much in common, your both impotent.
OOG Rs		#25	[-]
Posts: 7 (10/15/2009 15:20:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Please explain your case.
OOG Rs		#26	[-]
Posts: 8 (10/15/2009 15:22:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I am waiting...
OOG Rs		#27	[-]
Posts: 9 (10/15/2009 15:28:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The Textus receptus is the majority Text. Where have you been? It is admited by all that the mss. evidence backs the TR.
mko		#28	[-]
Posts: 729 (10/15/2009 15:29:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Not everywhere. I'll give you one evidence: 1 John 5.7-8. "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		#29	[-]
Posts: 10 (10/15/2009 15:31:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	the uncials. the cursives, the papyri, lectionaries and church fathers all back the TR. But what does scientific criticism matter to men who would rather guess and scoff.
OOG Rs		#30	[-]
Posts: 11 (10/15/2009 15:34:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I never said everywhere. mko I'll give you one in were both the TR and critical text are wrong, namely Luke 3:36 "cainan".
OOG Rs		#31	[-]
Posts: 12 (10/15/2009 15:39:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Attacking KJVonly veiws will not harm the TR. Attacking Riplinger does not answer Scrivener and Burgon.
amarillo		#32	[-]
Posts: 3494 (10/15/2009 15:59:03) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	this is correct. Scrivener n Burgon stand in an entirely different league fr the Onlyist Wannabes--DA Waite (despite the name of his Society), DO Cloud, FEBC, et al. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
OOG Rs		#33	[-]
Posts: 13 (10/15/2009 16:02:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	5255 total mss. was the count in Kurt Alands day. Papyrus 81 total 13 alexandrian 68 antioch Uncials 267 total 9 alexandrian 258 antioch Cursives 2764 23 alexandrian 2741 antioch Lectionaries 2143 0 alexandrian 2143 antioch 5255 total 45 Alexandrian Text 5210 Antiochian Text The text which underlies the Textus Receptus = 99.1436726 % The Alexandrian Text =.8563273% less than 1% So much for my handful of mss.! And of course this is according to your beloved Aland. The recent mss. that have been discovered barely changes the percentages. Last Edited By: OOG Rs 10/15/2009 16:04:57. Edited 1 times.
OOG Rs		#34	[-]
Posts: 14 (10/15/2009 16:09:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Da Waite does not think the KJV is perfect. That is called Ruckmanism, which Waite has spent much energy to oppose. I suppose I am hoping for clarity amongst Textual Critics and zealous laymen on this point. Ruckman thinks the KJV is perfect a claim no real TEXT. CRITIC has ever made. Last Edited By: OOG Rs 10/15/2009 16:15:30. Edited 1 times.
77		#35	[-]
Posts: 950 (10/15/2009 16:12:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Booger wrote: 77 "The official Wescott and Hort mascott." Fitting, for you and the critical text have much in common, your both impotent. 77: Yeah. Whatever. Typical KJ Kook. Name calling, slurs, and innuendo is all your kind has. You're on ignore, where you belong... "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."
OOG Rs		#36	[-]
Posts: 15 (10/15/2009 16:22:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77' read post #21 on this subject. Name calling is your m.o. You are rude to almost everyone you talk to on here. I just had a little fun. No hard fellings.( no pun intended) P.s. ignoring evidence is not an answer it's an excuse!
amarillo		#37	[-]
Posts: 3495 (10/15/2009 16:32:52) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: Da Waite does not think the KJV is perfect. That is called Ruckmanism, which Waite has spent much energy to oppose. I suppose I am hoping for clarity amongst Textual Critics and zealous laymen on this point. Ruckman thinks the KJV is perfect a claim no real TEXT. CRITIC has ever made. o, Waite's got his wily way of doing it. first he says it's the TR that's perfect. well, which edition of the TR, praytell? so he goes, i dunno, but i lean towards the Beza--i think THAT's the perfectly preserved VPP Bible. ok, how does he determine that? hmm, well, it best corresponds to the preserved KJB. tell me that's any different from Herr Doktor Ruckie! Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
OOG Rs		#38	[-]
Posts: 16 (10/15/2009 16:38:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Back to the topic at hand. Lets look at some of the various english translations made from the Critical Text as opposed toThe KJV The KJV based on Beza.s 1598 Ed. has 792.000 words approx. The NIV based on the Critical text has 728,000 words approx. that is 64,000 (64,098 to be exact) less words. Something is wrong somewhere The NRSV has 43,000 less words than the KJV The RSV has 32,000 less The NCV (NEW CENTURY VER.) 29,000 less The New King James 19,000 less words The NASB 7,000 less english words
Scott McClare		#39	[-]
Posts: 3270 (10/15/2009 16:42:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The NIV based on the Critical text has 728,000 words approx. that is 64,000 (64,098 to be exact) less words. Something is wrong somewhere Why? You can reduce any text by 10% merely by rewriting all passive sentences as active, with no loss of content. 64,000 words is less than 10% of the Bible. You haven't given any reason to assume that economy of words equals missing text. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
OOG Rs		#40	[-]
Posts: 17 (10/15/2009 16:45:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Amarillo I see your point and just one error would make his veiw void. But that doesn't mean we get to throw away the Traditional Text. Yet claiming a translation is perfect is a whole different situation than claiming perfection for the mss. which you think portray the originals. Last Edited By: OOG Rs 10/15/2009 16:47:40. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances

Quick Reply