Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
OOG Rs		#61	[-]
Posts: 35 (10/17/2009 21:34:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	99% to 1% sounds like a majority and minority to me. Whether Burgon thinks Cainan stays is his opinion, I disagree. No matter how corrupt D (codex bezae) is, Burgon will admit it is a paraphrase (a "new testament targum" if you will. Thus the gospel story and acts) which if true as Scrivener estimates it is, is a good reason to think the geneology is fine. Meaning if you paraphrased the gospel of Luke chances are the names and order of a geneology will stay the same. ex. Adam begat Seth begat Enos etc. etc Last Edited By: OOG Rs 10/17/2009 21:41:13. Edited 1 times.
77		#62	[-]
Posts: 953 (10/17/2009 23:30:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	gconan wrote: 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. 77: Most of the KJ Kooks know better, but, of course, will never admit it. Just lately we have a troll in these forums that is so woefully ignorant of the subject matter, that he really believes this absurd claim. "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		#63	[-]
Posts: 1085 (10/18/2009 15:30:58) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: Hodges Farstad "majority text" is not the textus receptus if that is what you mean. Did you look at the link that I posted for your benefit OOG Rs?
Euthymius		#64	[-]
Posts: 2161 (10/19/2009 09:45:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Oogie: 99% to 1% sounds like a majority and minority to me. Whether Burgon thinks Cainan stays is his opinion, I disagree. No matter how corrupt D (codex bezae) is, Burgon will admit it is a paraphrase (a "new testament targum" if you will. Thus the gospel story and acts) which if true as Scrivener estimates it is, is a good reason to think the geneology is fine. Not sure what you are actually saying....Every Greek NT manuscript except two have "Cainan" present (which therefore far exceeds 99% to 1%), and Burgon -- as per his usual -- goes with the 99%+. And even if Burgon "admits" Codex Bezae as a paraphrase, so what? He also characterizes that manuscript as the worst and most error-filled extant.....
mko		#65	[-]
Posts: 732 (10/19/2009 10:26:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Doesn't the LXX have Kenan in the genealogies in Genesis in the exact same place? I should look that up. Confirmed (using lxx interlinear): Genesis 10.24 KJV: "And Arphaxad begat Salah, and Salah begat Eber" LXX tl: "And Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sala, and Cainan begat Eber" Genesis 11.12-14 KJV: "And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah. And Arphaxad lived, after he begat Salah, four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber." LXX tl: "And Arphaxad lived a hundred thirty-five years, and begat Cainan. And Arphaxad lived, after he begat Cainan, three hundred thirty years, and begat sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred thirty years, and begat Salah. And Cainan lived, after he begat Salah, three hundred thirty years, and begat sons and daughters, and died. And Salah lived a hundred thirty years, and begat Eber." 1 Chronicles 1.18 KJV: "And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber." LXX tl: "And Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber." "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." Last Edited By: mko 10/19/2009 10:38:35. Edited 1 times.
OOG Rs		#66	[-]
Posts: 37 (10/20/2009 14:57:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I was speaking of the Majority of mss. 99% which back the Textus Receptus in general. That sounds like a majority text to me. Hodges and Farstad named their edition the "Majority Text" . Good for them. Point being the TR is the majority text (traditional text). Now of course the exception makes the rule and that is were textual criticism comes in. Which should be scientific, Mss.(uncials,cursives,lectionaries) Versions (syriac,latin, etc..) and fathers.... Not Wescott and Hort's foolish theories. This is why the TR is the "majority text" the fathers ,and the Mss. back it on nearly every turn. The Vaticanus and Sinaticus cannot even agree with each other let alone anyone else. Thus the minority text (1%)..simple math.. Euth.. sorry for the confusion, I was answering more than one question and did not space them properly. As far as "cainan" goes I have to disagree with Burgon and Scrivener and W&H for that. D and p75 omit cainan, I cannot find any other mss. which does. So it is true as far as mss. evidence there is little, but that shouldn't bother the W&H guys, thats their M.O.. If you care to know why I reject Cainan in Luke 3:36 I'll start another topic?
OOG Rs		#67	[-]
Posts: 38 (10/20/2009 15:05:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	gconan, Im printing it up. I don't know why you think Hodges and Farstad have something to do with the discussion?
gconan		#68	[-]
Posts: 1089 (10/20/2009 16:12:10) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	One, because the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are not the same. You are claiming they are one and the same. While it is true that the MT and TR agree with each other more than with WH, it is not always the case. Sometimes also the TR/WH texts agree against the MT. Sometimes WH/MT agree against the TR. True the TR and MT agree most of the time, but not always.
SAWBONES		#69	[-]
Posts: 341 (10/20/2009 16:57:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As I understand it, the terms "Byzantine Text" (BT) and "Majority Text" (MT) probably denote approximately the same thing, while the terms "Traditional Text" (TT) and "Textus Receptus" (TR) are likewise essentially the same as each other. The latter overlaps with the former, but because of the various Latinisms (carried over from the Vulgate) of the TT/TR, it isn't simply a direct subset of the BT/MT.
gconan		#70	[-]
Posts: 1090 (10/20/2009 17:24:46) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	SAWBONES wrote: The latter overlaps with the former, but because of the various Latinisms (carried over from the Vulgate) of the TT/TR, it isn't simply a direct subset of the BT/MT. It is a little more than that.
Gary O 1		#71	[-]
Posts: 36 (10/22/2009 17:52:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OOG Rs wrote: 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. I bolded what I consider to be the key to so much of the argument. I want to know what doctrines are affected by any of the examples you cite, bearing in mind that all doctrines should be arrived at by a contextual reading of not only an entire book of the NT, but by a contextual reading of the entirety of the NT. I maintain that not one doctrine is gained or lost whether one reads from the Critical Text or the Traditional Text, from the Majority Text or the Received Text, from the NASB or the KJV, when this standard (full, contextual reading of the entire book in question and, more importantly, the entirety of the New Testament) is applied. Prove me wrong by citing doctrines that are "lost" or "changed" on that basis. Only if one engages in eisegesis is doctrine lost in these cases. If one engages in proper exegesis I maintain that absolutely nothing is lost. Gary ----- "Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth" - Charlie Chan at Treasure Island
Euthymius		#72	[-]
Posts: 2166 (10/22/2009 18:47:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Congratulations to GaryO -- your statement successfully and concisely refutes the claims of those KJVOs such as Waite or Moorman who major on the minors and assert that some "356 doctrinal errors" exist in modern versions based on non-TR Greek texts! The only change I would make to your statement would be to expand the basis for the establishment of "all doctrines" from "a contextual reading of not only an entire book of the NT" and "the entirety of the NT" to the Bible as a whole (OT plus NT). Otherwise, the statement holds securely. Now if only someone will email that statement to Waite during his next KJVO Bible conference, we should see some interesting hemming and hawing about.....
Gary O 1		#73	[-]
Posts: 37 (10/22/2009 18:52:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	And I probably would/should have added "the Bible as a whole", but I was trying to stay within the framework of the discussion on the NT. But you are absolutely correct that expanding the contextual reading to the entire 66 books is essential for a full and proper interpretation of any doctrine. Gary ----- "Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth" - Charlie Chan at Treasure Island
amarillo		#74	[-]
Posts: 3514 (10/23/2009 02:29:51) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Gary O 1 wrote: And I probably would/should have added "the Bible as a whole", but I was trying to stay within the framework of the discussion on the NT. But you are absolutely correct that expanding the contextual reading to the entire 66 books is essential for a full and proper interpretation of any doctrine. Gary i'd add that the flipside's also true: that not ONE text/version will stand "whether one reads from the Critical Text or the Traditional Text, from the Majority Text or the Received Text, from the NASB or the KJV, when this standard" (partial, out-of-context reading of the any book in question) "is applied"! against the KJB, omissions of Christ's deity n mediatorial role, n the personality of the Holy Spirit, cld be made out (as has been against MVs by KJBOs) using this twisted methodology. by making a false case against the W-H text (and i do accept there's a legit case), KJBOs have actually pulled the rug fr under themselves. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Gary O 1		#75	[-]
Posts: 38 (10/23/2009 05:19:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I completely agree, Amarillo. A negative case can be made for any Text or Bible version if one engages in eisegesis. The KJVOnly crowd definitely seems to be blind to that point. It's all about reading as we should read - in context. And letting the totality of Scripture interpret the totality of Scripture, as opposed to one verse here and one verse there. Gary ----- "Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth" - Charlie Chan at Treasure Island
Gary O 1		#76	[-]
Posts: 39 (10/25/2009 10:59:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The silence is deafening. ----- "Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth" - Charlie Chan at Treasure Island
77		#77	[-]
Posts: 965 (10/25/2009 11:20:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Gary O 1 wrote: I completely agree, Amarillo. A negative case can be made for any Text or Bible version if one engages in eisegesis. The KJVOnly crowd definitely seems to be blind to that point. It's all about reading as we should read - in context. And letting the totality of Scripture interpret the totality of Scripture, as opposed to one verse here and one verse there. Gary 77: They have to be blind on this point in order to maintain the false either/or dichotomy. To admit that the TR, MT, and CT all agree on all doctrines makes the KJV-Only position self-evidently pointless. "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."
amarillo		#78	[-]
Posts: 3516 (10/25/2009 12:25:33) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 wrote: Gary O 1 wrote: I completely agree, Amarillo. A negative case can be made for any Text or Bible version if one engages in eisegesis. The KJVOnly crowd definitely seems to be blind to that point. It's all about reading as we should read - in context. And letting the totality of Scripture interpret the totality of Scripture, as opposed to one verse here and one verse there. Gary 77: They have to be blind on this point in order to maintain the false either/or dichotomy. To admit that the TR, MT, and CT all agree on all doctrines makes the KJV-Only position self-evidently pointless. but alas, they won't preach "the whole counsel of God" n wld rather cling to a false bibliology that begats a false Christology (denial of eternal Sonship), Theology (oneness pentecostalism), n a questionable lifestyle (serial divorces, suicide, personality cult, ordination of equines, etc.). Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Gary O 1		#79	[-]
Posts: 40 (11/01/2009 19:48:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Another week has gone by and the silence is even more deafening. Guess this simple inquiry will go unanswered... ----- "Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth" - Charlie Chan at Treasure Island
OOG Rs		#80	[-]
Posts: 41 (12/02/2009 16:55:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	conan Hodges and Farstad's text is simply called "The Majority text", This is false. There majority is the 414 mss. which von Soden collated, not the 5000+ mss.which were available at that time(1982?). The Traditional Text,or Textus Receptus was called the Majority Text before 1982.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances

Quick Reply