Mitex said:
Right. Past tense, not present tense.
The word of God is God's word... whether a group of spirit filled believers accept it or not. The NIV has the same authority as the KJV. The KJV has the same authority as the Received Text.
Thoughts to ponder
- Thread starter Mitex
- Start date
Right. Past tense, not present tense.
The word of God is God's word... whether a group of spirit filled believers accept it or not. The NIV has the same authority as the KJV. The KJV has the same authority as the Received Text.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
FSSL said:
Well that is how I understand it. Like Miles said all versions made by men like us are the Word of God, of course I paraphrased as people do not talk today like they did in the 1600s. When he said this he was specifically referring to the Englishmen at Rheims France making and English Catholic version. I do not agree with their use of the word penance, which is a deliberate mistranslation, but it was still the Word of God though not perfect.
I guess that's the whole point. No translation is perfect. Sinful men leave the taint of sin on everything they touch.
The perspicuity of the translation can always be improved, clarify the muddy places.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Here is what Bruce Metzger has to say of the various endings of Mark.
What are your thoughts on when each of these was written, are they genuine scripture, who wrote them and when did they write them.
Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L ? 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): ?But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.? All of these witnesses except itk also continue with verses 9?20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X ? ? ? ? 099 0112 f 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (I.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????????).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: ?And they excused themselves, saying, ?This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now??thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ?The term of years of Satan?s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.? ?
How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ? ???? ?????, ????????, ????????, ????????, ?????????) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (??????, ????, ????????). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.
The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9?20 are non-Markan (e. g. ???????, ??????, ???????, ???????????, ???????, ???? ?????, ?????????, ????????, ??????? are found nowhere else in Mark; and ????????? and ???? ???? ????? ??????????, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9?20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15:47 and 16:1); the other women of verses 1?8 are now forgotten; the use of ??????? ?? and the position of ?????? are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1?8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1?8 and 9?20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark?s Gospel.
Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9?20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9?20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9?20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
SHORTER ENDING
For a discussion of the shorter ending, see the section (2) in the comments on verses 9?20 above. The reading ?????? is to be preferred to the others, which are natural expansions. It is probable that from the beginning the shorter ending was provided with a concluding ????, and that its absence from several witnesses (L cop ms ethmost ethmss) is due either to transcriptional oversight or, more probably, to the feeling that ???? is inappropriate when verses 9?20 follow.
VARIANT READINGS WITHIN [MARK] 16.9?20
Since the passage 16:9?20 is lacking in the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make decisions among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the several levels of certainty ({A}, {B}, {C}) are within the framework of the initial decision relating to verses 9 to 20 as a whole.
16:14?15 ??????????. ??? ????? ?????? {A}
For the addition preserved in W, see section (4) in the comments on verses 9?20 above.
16:17 ?????????? ??????? {B}
Although it is possible that ??????? may have been added in imitation of ????? ??????? and ?????? ????????, it is more probable that it dropped out of several witnesses through homoeoteleuton with the following ??? ?? ???? [i. e. ??? ????].
16:18 [??? ?? ???? ??????] ????? {C}
Although it is possible that the expression ??? ?? ???? ?????? was added in imitation of the account in Ac 28:3?6, a majority of the Committee preferred to follow the Alexandrian group of witnesses. At the same time, in view of the absence of any good reason to account for the omission of the words from such witnesses as A D W ? ? f 13 28 700 itc, supp, , o, vg syrp, al, it was thought appropriate to enclose them within square brackets.
16:19 ?????? ?????? {C}
Among the several titles applied to Jesus by the Church, the use of ?????? standing alone appears to be a later development, more solemn than ?????? ??????.
16:20 ???????. {B}
On the addition of ???? in most witnesses, see the comment on Mt 28.20.
Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 102?108). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
What are your thoughts on when each of these was written, are they genuine scripture, who wrote them and when did they write them.
Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L ? 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): ?But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.? All of these witnesses except itk also continue with verses 9?20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X ? ? ? ? 099 0112 f 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (I.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????????).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: ?And they excused themselves, saying, ?This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now??thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ?The term of years of Satan?s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.? ?
How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ? ???? ?????, ????????, ????????, ????????, ?????????) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (??????, ????, ????????). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.
The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9?20 are non-Markan (e. g. ???????, ??????, ???????, ???????????, ???????, ???? ?????, ?????????, ????????, ??????? are found nowhere else in Mark; and ????????? and ???? ???? ????? ??????????, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9?20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15:47 and 16:1); the other women of verses 1?8 are now forgotten; the use of ??????? ?? and the position of ?????? are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1?8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1?8 and 9?20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark?s Gospel.
Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9?20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9?20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9?20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
SHORTER ENDING
For a discussion of the shorter ending, see the section (2) in the comments on verses 9?20 above. The reading ?????? is to be preferred to the others, which are natural expansions. It is probable that from the beginning the shorter ending was provided with a concluding ????, and that its absence from several witnesses (L cop ms ethmost ethmss) is due either to transcriptional oversight or, more probably, to the feeling that ???? is inappropriate when verses 9?20 follow.
VARIANT READINGS WITHIN [MARK] 16.9?20
Since the passage 16:9?20 is lacking in the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make decisions among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the several levels of certainty ({A}, {B}, {C}) are within the framework of the initial decision relating to verses 9 to 20 as a whole.
16:14?15 ??????????. ??? ????? ?????? {A}
For the addition preserved in W, see section (4) in the comments on verses 9?20 above.
16:17 ?????????? ??????? {B}
Although it is possible that ??????? may have been added in imitation of ????? ??????? and ?????? ????????, it is more probable that it dropped out of several witnesses through homoeoteleuton with the following ??? ?? ???? [i. e. ??? ????].
16:18 [??? ?? ???? ??????] ????? {C}
Although it is possible that the expression ??? ?? ???? ?????? was added in imitation of the account in Ac 28:3?6, a majority of the Committee preferred to follow the Alexandrian group of witnesses. At the same time, in view of the absence of any good reason to account for the omission of the words from such witnesses as A D W ? ? f 13 28 700 itc, supp, , o, vg syrp, al, it was thought appropriate to enclose them within square brackets.
16:19 ?????? ?????? {C}
Among the several titles applied to Jesus by the Church, the use of ?????? standing alone appears to be a later development, more solemn than ?????? ??????.
16:20 ???????. {B}
On the addition of ???? in most witnesses, see the comment on Mt 28.20.
Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 102?108). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,410
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Mitex said:
Basically, reader-response theory applied to bibliology. The work itself becomes secondary to readers' experience of it. What nonsense. A faithful version of the Scriptures is the word of God even if no one ever reads it, because of what it is (God-breathed Scripture), not because of what Christians happen to think about it.
Mitex said:
There may multiple versions; however, some versions are generally recognized as better - the KJV is considered to be a "better" version that the Geneva Bible, and thus gradually supplanted it in the hearts and minds of the people.
Some versions cannot be correct, however... when one Bible has a verse in it as part of the Scriptures, and another version claims that the verse shouldn't be there, or leaves it out... both versions cannot be right - it is possible that they are both wrong, but they cannot both be right.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,410
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Walt said:
Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbot banned the publication of Bibles without the Apocrypha in 1615: he was obviously targeting the Geneva Bible, which was banned from domestic printing outright the following year (though it was still printed in, and imported from,, the Netherlands). Abbot's successor, William Laud, successfully banned the Geneva outright in 1637.
It didn't hurt that the top brass in the Church of England, who had the influence to control publication of the Geneva Bible, also had a vested interest in the uniform adoption of their official version. The Geneva was supplanted for political reasons, not because the "grassroots" willingly chose the Authorized Version in its place.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Ransom said:
Demonstrating that ecclesiastical and political powers cannot stop the printing, reading, searching, preaching and using of the Bible nor can they force the Church of God to print, read, preach, search and use a Bible they do not believe.
I'll let Dr. Leland Ryken, a member of the ESV translation committee (stylist?) and not a KJVO, reply:
* Dr. Ryken and other literary scholars agree that the AV is demonstratively the greatest English Bible.
* The AV is the best selling book of all time, the most influential book, the most quoted book, the most important book and most widely read book in the English language; it is a book of books.
* The AV was not an immediate sensation, but was an immediate success. In the first 3 years it went through 17 editions compared to 6 editions for the Puritan?s Geneva Bible, in the 3 decades following the AV went through 182 editions verses only 15 for the Puritan?s Geneva.
* When the Puritans came to power in 1640 they did not push for their Geneva version. The AV replaced the very popular Geneva Bible and became ?THE Bible? for English speaking people. For over three centuries it was THE Bible of English speaking Christians and read regularly.
* The AV was never officially authorized either by the king, nor ecclesiastical authority, but received an even greater authorization on the basis of its inherit superiority. The AV was authorized by the people, a better authorization than by a king or ecclesiastical authority.
Cited from online interview of Dr. Ryken.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
FSSL said:
If no one recognized, accepted, received, believed, or preached the Scriptures YOU would have no idea what the word of God is, because you depend upon the faith of others to recognize the Scriptures. The word of God is not a monologue with God talking to himself, but rather God communicating with man. The Scriptures are profitable for doctrine (2Tm 3:16-17) and if they are not accepted by men then they are not profitable to them. Surely, perhaps reluctantly, you recognize that the consensus opinion of born again Spirit filled believers takes precedent over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred opinions.
Please prove from the Scriptures that the NIV has the same authority as the AV and the AV has the same authority as the Received Text. Please do so from Scripture and without human fiat.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Ransom said:
Does God call you up Scott and tell you: This is a faithful translation? The Gospel of Matthew is God-breathed, but the Gospel of Thomas is not? That the book of Genesis belongs in the Canon and the book of Jasper does not? Did you get a memo the rest of us missed out on? Your phrase, "A faithful version of the Scriptures is the word of God even if no one ever reads it..." is comical. Please tell the Reader how a version is determined to be faithful if no one ever reads it.
Once again, the collective witness of God's Spirit filled elect takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individual preferences. If your opinion as a born again Spirit filled Christian has merit, then the opinion of a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians has even more merit. The likelihood that an individual being wrong on a given point is higher than the likelihood that consensus of Church of God would be wrong.
Mitex said:
ALL Scripture is God-breathed...
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
FSSL said:
That's not the point of the debate. All sides recognize that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Please define Scripture, specifically that the NIV, AV, TR or any other version, edition or copy is Scripture. Please do so without consensus opinion, sectarian opinion, your peculiar opinion, private opinion, or your individually preferred opinion. Do so from Scripture alone. Try that without a circular argument. Please remember that Textual Critic is not a Scriptural gift given unto the Church of God nor is textual criticism a doctrine that born again believers are required to master.
You reject and mock my definition, please give yours so that the Reader can compare the two and weigh the evidence.
Authority is derived from God's breath (inspiration), only and thoroughly.
Since I view all translations of God's Word as God's Word, I don't understand why my verse does not fit.
Since I view all translations of God's Word as God's Word, I don't understand why my verse does not fit.
Mitex said:
Anyone who says that "This translation is Gods's word and that translation is not God's word" is, by definition a textual critic. Onlies are the worst of the higher textual critics.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Mitex,Mitex said:
Have you done any research into the periods of time where the AV1611 was the only version that could be legally printed in countries under control of the British Crown?
Do you know who authorized the printing of Bibles in British Crown controlled areas?
Did they print Bibles other than the AV1611?
When did it become illegal to print the Geneva version in areas controlled by the British Crown?
Have you given any consideration to the tightly controlled printing of English Bibles in British areas? Do you think this might have some effect on the Bibles that would be available to the public?
Do you think this might have something to do with what Bibles might be used by the people?
Does this not effect your definition of Standard Version as it would seem that the government dictated the versions acceptable.
The Crown did not represent Spirit filled believers did it?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,410
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Mitex said:
I will amend the argument. A faithful version of the Scriptures is the word of God even if only one person ever reads it.
We will assume that the one person is sufficiently qualified in Greek and Hebrew to judge that the translation is accurate. He has determined that the version is faithful.
So much for your postmodern critical theory.
It is easy to imagine Mitex standing on the edge of a high bridge, thinking to himself "I really shouldn't jump off this bridge. But everyone else is. Therefore, since the collective witness of God's spirit filled elect is that jumping off bridges is fun, that takes precedence over my private preferenceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssss...."
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,410
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Mitex said:
Demonstrating no such thing. Perhaps you did not read my post properly.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,410
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Mitex said:
Says the guy who claims that you can know what the Scriptures are by the number of human beings who agree what they are.
Mitex again refutes Mitex.
KJV-onylism at its finest.
You gotta laugh.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Ransom said:
Only Scott would imagine a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians jumping off bridges. Spirit filled indicates being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't imagine a scenario where any Spirit filled Christian would jump off a bridge, but then my imagination isn't as wild as Scott's.