The JEHOVAH game (a modern fetish) (page 7)

Perry

Terry,

Unlike the Alexandrian mss, the Antioch manuscripts have vast agreement. This is undisputable.

If someone gave you a book that was nearly 100% as accurate as the original, do you think you could tell what the author wrote? Of course you could. The fact that so many manuscripts (over 5000) were copied so accurately and over such a widespread area, and over such a long period of time is in itself a miracle. What makes all this even more remarkable is that these were copied not by professional scribes, as was the case with the Jews, but by many gentile believers.

You mentioned 1 John 5: 7 as an example of your position. I don't know about you, but when I went out in field service and someone quoted that scripture I repeated the WT line that that scripture reading wasn't found in any greek manuscripts earlier than the 14 century (in my memory serves me correct). The NWT footnote states catagorically that it was simply "added in later Greek Manuscripts."

Now to my WT educated mind, this seemed like an open and shut case of some heretical trinitarian monk practicing his evil. Later research revealed the following:

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)

7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of [Christ] ... against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)

9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse

10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse

11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse

12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse

13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin

14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse

15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse

16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.

So, if early Church fathers quoted this verse, then obviously it was used back then and wasn't invented by a Trinitarian monk like the WT claims. It is analysis like these that the few kinks in the mss underlying the TR can be worked out...if a person wants to work them out.

By contrast, the Alexandrian Texts have over 3000 places they differ from the TR and omit a volume of text which is the equivalent of 1st and 2nd Peter.

I am not a KJ Onlyist. I accept by faith that the Textus Receptus, which the KJV is based on, is the representation of the originals that God has by his providence provided. I believe that the originals were inspired but that the TR has everything needed to determine sound doctrine.

Terry

Perry shared: I accept by faith that the Textus Receptus, which the KJV is based on, is the representation of the originals that God has by his providence provided. I believe that the originals were inspired but that the TR has everything needed to determine sound doctrine.

Dr. Allan A. MacRae is President of Biblical Theological Seminary. His academic and teaching experience include: A. B., Occidental College, 1922; A.M., Occidental College, 1923; Th.B., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1927; A. M., Princeton University, 1927; University of Berlin, 1927-29; American School of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, 1929; PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 1936. Instructor in Semitic Philology and Old Testament Criticism, Westminister Theological Seminary,1929-30; Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1930-37; Professor of Old Testament, Faith Theological Seminary, 1937-71; Professor of Old Testament, Biblical Theological Seminary, 1971-1983; President of Biblical Theological Seminary, 1971-1983.

How did the TEXTUS RECEPTUS get its name ?

It originated through a highly exaggerated statement -- actually a publisher's blurb -- in the preface of the second edition of the Greek New Testament that was published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. In this Latin preface they called their book "the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." This is how this Latin term textus receptus (text received) came to be applied to a particular text of the Greek New Testament. On the European continent, aside from Great Britain, the first Elzevir edition (pub. 1624) was for a long time the standard edition of the Greek New Testament.

I have heard that the King James Version and the textus receptus are based on the majority of Greek NT manuscripts. Is this true?

Yes and no. As Dr. MacRae has pointed out, the King James Version does not exactly follow the majority of Greek NT manuscripts. For instance, 1 John 5:7, found in the KJV and TR, occurs in only four (out of nearly 5000) Greek NT manuscripts. The reading "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 is found in no Greek manuscript.

Even though no Greek manuscript is exactly like the Textus Receptus or Erasmus' Greek NT, isn't it true that 95% of the known manuscripts of the Greek NT are closer to these than to the Greek text behind most modern English translations?

Yes. But 95% of the known Greek NT manuscripts were copied after A.D. 700, more than six centuries after the NT was written.

Did the King James translators use this "textus receptus" as the basis for their translation?

No. Even the first Elzevir edition was not published until 13 years after the date of the KJV.

What was the Greek text on which the KJV New Testament was based?

It was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament, issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus (Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550.

Was the text of Stephanus on which the King James Version was based identical with the later "textus receptus"?

No. The two differed in 287 places.

How many Greek manuscripts agree exactly with the edition published by Stephanus, and how many agree exactly with the edition published by Elzevir?

There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with either of these. Both of them are conflate texts.

Were the scholars who prepared the King James Version convinced that their text was absolutely correct?

No. They recognized the possibility of copyists' errors, and showed this by making marginal notes to variant readings at 13 places. For instance, in Luke 17:36 their marginal note reads: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." In Acts 25:6 where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days."

To whom was the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus dedicated?

It was dedicated to Pope Leo X, the pope who later condemned Luther and the Reformation. It is believed that this pope gave Erasmus' publisher the exclusive right to publish the Greek New Testament for a period of time.

Have better manuscripts been discovered than those on which the textus receptus was based?

During the three and one-half centuries since the King James Version was made dozens of manuscripts have been found that were copied many centuries earlier than any manuscript used by Erasmus. The manuscripts he used were copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra words and phrases generally find their way into the text in the course of copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.

Terry

Perry "reasoned":

Terry,
Unlike the Alexandrian mss, the Antioch manuscripts have vast agreement. This is undisputable.
Perry,
Stop and think about it. 95% of the known Greek NT manuscripts were copied after A.D. 700, more than six centuries after the NT was written. It doesn't matter if THEY AGREE once the corruption is introduced post-autograph--all susequent (agreeing with each other) corrupt texts will yield corrupt results.
As an analogy. Once sin entered the world Post-Adam's fall, all subsequent humans were corrupt. Get it?
Perry further said: If someone gave you a book that was nearly 100% as accurate as the original, do you think you could tell what the author wrote? Of course you could.
See how big that "if" is? You cannot simply baldly ASSERT that the copies of copies of copies of copies circa 700 A.D. are 100% as accurate as the original like you just did. That is assuming a fact not in evidence.
The only way to prove the copies are uncorrupt is to compare them to the Autograph originals which is IMPOSSIBLE.
Your premise is false and your conclusions---highly accurate as they are---yield false facts.
Definition of mess:
a state of confusion and disorderliness
As in: THE BIBLE

Terry

If someone gave you a book that was nearly 100% as accurate as the original, do you think you could tell what the author wrote?

Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian text-type and the Byzantine text-type are 85% identical.

agonus

"I must be really dense because I can't figure out what you're talking about.

Oh--and the term "Darwinism" is only really used by people who don't want to talk about Evolution and prefer to limit the discussion

to 19th century thinking rather than contemporary scholarship."

Now, now... this wasn't a personal attack, friend, just some good-natured ribbing. ;)

I don't mind talking about evolution at all. I don't doubt that evolution is true - I just have serious reservations about the idea that we can be 100% certain that a purely naturalistic worldview of cosmology and evolutionary theory, past, present, or future permutations thereof, can account for 100% of, well, 100%. I don't think we can rule out - 100% - ANY kind of intervention from a higher intelligence of some kind. I guess that's what I mean by "Darwinism". If you find the term distasteful, well, I won't use it again. But I have a hard time believing that the current scientific consensus represents the interests of ANYONE completely free from ego or dogmatism. Even Richard Dawkins admitted a couple of years ago that it was not impossible that our biological history might have been, shall we say, tampered with by, shall we say, nonterrestrial beings. Francis Crick was quoted to have said, on his theory of directed panspermia, that the only way DNA could have survived a transition from another planet/asteroid/heavenly body to our own would have to be...

Wait for it...

In a VEHICLE.

Call me a tinfoil-hat wearing fringe wackjob if you like. I've seen too much weird shit to think there is not more than meets the eye around the jurisdiction of this pale blue dot.

As has been reiterated over and over regarding the WT...

"You CAN'T make this shit up!"

Terry

But I have a hard time believing that the current scientific consensus represents the interests of ANYONE completely free from ego or dogmatism.

I'm not smart enough to understand Evolution. There, I've said it.

If I can't understand the arguments and proofs I've got no business taking sides and arguing.

What I can recognise is that the debates which have raged since the middle of the 19th century have seldom been honest.

Having said that, judging from the track record of those arguing from the bible side of things, and in view of the corrupt transmission of bible texts, I have to lean heavily by way of bias toward Science.

I am never offended by another person's opinions or arguments. I may take exception to the presentation or the rigor of the logic, but, I have to be willing to be wrong if I'm wrong.

Creationists seem to be dragging their knuckles across the ground on most of the (comprehensible to me) arguments I've heard from them.

Beyond that, I don't think Creationsists are honest people intellectually. The consensus (there certainly must be exceptions) is "Faith before Fact".

And that's all I can say.

designs

When the Bishops ordered and oversaw insertions like 1John5:7,8 you know you're being messed with

Cults are cults no matter how large their numbers.

Terry

Perry had provided for us:

I accept by faith that the Textus Receptus, which the KJV is based on, is the representation of the originals that God has by his providence provided.

Perry--let's look at our hardcore PRINCIPLES.

1.God is perfect.God does not provide IMperfect.

2.God's standard is purity. God does not provide IMpurity.

3.If God had provided the Bible as HIS WRITTEN STANDARD it would have no leaven, no corrupted texts, no errors, no impurities or imperfections whatsoever. The fact that there are imperfection, errors, additions, ommissions and no original texts FORCES US to conclude that; GOD DID NOT PROVIDE a written standard. What we have is OF MEN. Imperfect men. Sinful men, Biased men.

4.The Gospel was oral. Jesus teachings were oral. What the words were and what they meant are LOST to antiquity.

5.Just because we can't wrap our minds around that stunning and depressing fact doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

God is unknowable from a book.

4.

Terry

Perry references the insertion of 1 John 5:7 into scripture:

if early Church fathers quoted this verse, then obviously it was used back then and wasn't invented by a Trinitarian monk like the WT claims. It is analysis like these that the few kinks in the mss underlying the TR can be worked out...if a person wants to work them out.

1.Who are the early Church fathers that we should not view them in terms of a probationary caution? Tertullian, whom you mentioned by name, for example denounced Christian doctrines he considered heresy, but later in life adopted views that themselves came to be regarded as heretical.

2.There was constant bickering, controversy and political in-fighting among disperate christian groups. The texts reflect that fact! There was little compunction about ADDING what helped your argument or OMITTING what helped your opponent's argument.

3.Any verse added or omitted destroys the integrity of the argument that GOD was "preserving" HIS WORD inviolably.

4.Constantine commissioned 50 bibles be created. None of them exist today. Even less so any so-called "original autograph" text by an apostle. The idea of "preservation" is illusory. If you assembled the detritus, fragments, shreds, crumbling residue of earliest scripture texts and placed it on a table the smallest piece would be the size of a postage stamp!

Conclusion: The Bible is a mess.

Terry

Our own poster RR stated on another thread:

I do remember back in the early 1980s, the congregation receiving a letter from the Society, bragging about all the new building projects they were doing around the world and that they wanted all Kingdom Halls and publishers to send them their old literature so that they can distribute them to the various new Halls and headquarters so they would have a decent theocratic library.

Now in my congregation, we had about 8 bethelites, including the P.O. and most of the elders and servants. I recall boxes and boxes of books, tracts, booklets being put into cars and being hauled off to Brooklyn. I specifically remember the letter emphasizing the need of Russell/Rutherford era literature. I later found out that the Society had a bonfire with the books. Randy Watters verified it for me many years ago.

I think this reflects a parallel with what happened with early Christianity and its writings. As the ideas and stories about Jesus were passed on and transmitted into writings changes took place which cause the later Christians to want to get rid of what the Early Christians had written since it was EMBARASSING PROOF of changes in orthodoxy.

In the bookstore where I work I held in my hand a book by a Mormon scholar who had "fallen away" from the church but who was not a heretic per se. He included photographs of the original Book of Mormon. The writing and the spelling and the phrasing were so backward, unlearned and downright crude you could immediately see that TODAY'S Book of Mormon had violently revised it!

This is human nature at work.

I came across my old diary from when I was a teenager. I started reading it. I stopped and threw it in the trash! I couldn't take it! The tendency to DENY what we were, what we said, what we believed is too great.

Religion, like language and culture, is under constant revision. The Bible was no exception.

There is no "there" there.

The JEHOVAH game (a modern fetish)

Share this