Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
OOG Rs		#41	[-]
Posts: 18 (10/15/2009 16:50:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	McClare You want missing text? What is your favorite book of the N/T? If I may ask.
mko		#42	[-]
Posts: 730 (10/15/2009 16:56:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: I never said everywhere. OOG Rs wrote: The Textus receptus is the majority Text. Emphasis mine. "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		#43	[-]
Posts: 19 (10/15/2009 17:05:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mko I don't follow? You bring up the one of most argued and controversal texts and expect me to no longer call the 99% mss. evidence backed TR the majority text. I John 5:7-8 may show that the TR is not perfect, which I never said it was, but it doesn't stop it from being the majority text. If you wish to say the TR is not the majority text concerning I John 5:7-8 thats fine.
Scott McClare		#44	[-]
Posts: 3272 (10/15/2009 17:27:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	McClare You want missing text? What is your favorite book of the N/T? If I may ask. You may ask. But that just means you're intentionally avoiding my point. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
OOG Rs		#45	[-]
Posts: 20 (10/15/2009 17:34:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	your point is as long as it's only 8-9% of the text you don't care. Brilliant. You obviously don't want what you asked for. You will get it though. Compare your favorite critical text to the TR , and your favorite modern (critical text) translation to the KJV . Matt. 1:25 2:1 4:18 5:22 5:44 6:4 6:6 6:13 6:18 6:27 6:33 8:22 8:29 9:13 9:18 9:28 10:35 11:3 11:19 11:23 12:35 12:47 13:36 13:37 13:51 15:6 There I cooked up a couple bakers dozens for you. When your done eating those tell me I've got 500+ more. Last Edited By: OOG Rs 10/15/2009 17:42:48. Edited 1 times.
amarillo		#46	[-]
Posts: 3497 (10/15/2009 17:40:21) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: 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. i don't advocate throwing away the Traditional Text or any other Bible. the KJBOs don't need any help in that department. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Scott McClare		#47	[-]
Posts: 3275 (10/15/2009 17:44:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	your point is as long as it's only 8-9% of the text you don't care. Brilliant. You obviously don't want what you asked for. Buddy, learn to read. Fewer words doesn't necessarily mean anything's missing. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
OOG Rs		#48	[-]
Posts: 21 (10/15/2009 17:46:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	amarillo, throwing out the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, we would be so blessed.
OOG Rs		#49	[-]
Posts: 22 (10/15/2009 17:48:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	sorry I passed over your theories and guesses Scott. Scientific Textual Criticism has no room for it. Of course you have your work set out for you, compare the verses I gave you and walk the walk. Textual Criticism is not theories it's science. Last Edited By: OOG Rs 10/15/2009 17:52:28. Edited 1 times.
amarillo		#50	[-]
Posts: 3499 (10/15/2009 17:49:00) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	ye olde king in Jer 36 probably felt as smug. i'm outta here. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Scott McClare		#51	[-]
Posts: 3277 (10/15/2009 17:52:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	sorry I passed over your theories and guesses Scott. Scientific Textual Criticism has no room for it. That's OK. I have no room (or use) for you. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
OOG Rs		#52	[-]
Posts: 23 (10/15/2009 17:54:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	News flash . The vaticanus and sinai mss. have been collated, they are garbage. Read Burgon, Read Scrivener Read something.
OOG Rs		#53	[-]
Posts: 24 (10/15/2009 18:00:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	You wanted verses, I gave you verses. Check the greek. I have hundreds more. The cursives back me. the uncials back me the fathers back me. Scientific textual criticism backs me. Westcott and Horts dreamed up theories back you.. I'll stand on universal antiquity. Uncials, Cursives,Lectionaries, versions and fathers.Maybe we are not getting it. Textual criticism is a life long task which takes hard work. theories are dreamed up in a night. And to be fair scott, I pass over my own theories too! Let the evidence speak.
OOG Rs		#54	[-]
Posts: 29 (10/15/2009 19:25:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Well looks like westcott and hort wannabies won't deal with the science of textual criticism, just the fairy tales of theory. For those who actually are textual critics or lovers of truth. More differences between Critical text and the Traditional text. these bear heavily on doctrine Col.1:14 I Cor. 5:7 15:47 II Cor. 4:14 Ephesians 3:9 I Timothy 3:16 Mark 2:17 10:21 10:24 Rev. 21:24 I Peter 4:1 How about omissions? Matt 12:47 17:21 18:11 23:14 24:35 Mark 7:16 9:44,46 11:26 15:28 Luke 17:36, 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 15:34 28:29 Romans 16:24 throw these in your w&h theory databank.
Euthymius		#55	[-]
Posts: 2158 (10/16/2009 10:35:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Oogie: Attacking KJVonly veiws will not harm the TR. Attacking Riplinger does not answer Scrivener and Burgon. Oogie: I'll give you one in were both the TR and critical text are wrong, namely Luke 3:36 "cainan". Burgon fully accepted "Cainan" as original in Lk 3:36, and severely criticizes its omission in the untrustworthy manuscript Codex Bezae (Traditional Text, pp. 181-182).
gconan	For OOG Rs	#56	[-]
Posts: 1083 (10/17/2009 11:25:29) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text
77		#57	[-]
Posts: 952 (10/17/2009 16:23:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	gconan wrote: The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text 77: Oh, you party-pooper, you! Setting facts in the way of a good rant! "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		#58	[-]
Posts: 1084 (10/17/2009 19:59:04) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sorry 77. But if we had a dollar for every only that claimed the Majority Text and the TR were the same........we'd be rich! I wish they would understand that sometimes the TR and Westcott&Hort agree against the Majority Text. And of course every conceivable combination happens on occasion.
amarillo		#59	[-]
Posts: 3504 (10/17/2009 20:28:18) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	perfectly understandable, though. after KJBOs have so mocked Alexandrian MSS as the Minority Text, they can't stand being in the stark minority when it comes to their favourite Johannine Comma, parts of Revelation, n elsewhere. grasping at straws, they turn to the Majority Text. of course, as it turns out, it's (as everyone in the school yard might call it) an Epic Fail! Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
OOG Rs		#60	[-]
Posts: 34 (10/17/2009 21:33:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hodges Farstad "majority text" is not the textus receptus if that is what you mean.