Translations.

[David1701]

2 hours ago, Alive said:

I have been studying for nearly 50 years and for over 20 years now, constantly comparing various translations and the original languages, lexicons and so on in my Accordance Bible Software--where making various structured comparisons, reading in parallel where hovering over a word in one version, whether English or original language also highlites it in the other. I do this daily.

In all of these years, I have never been confused about the deity of Christ and I have never met a believer who was.

I will leave that here for now--but as I said, I will get back to you. I am gaining ground, as I have spent the last few hours digging in and have already discovered some things of interest regarding some of the ammo used in criticizing the 'Critical' texts.

No-one said anything about being "confused about the deity of Christ"!  A weakening of faith does not equate to confusion.

Have you also discovered any things of interest, regarding some of the ammo used to criticise the TR or Majority Text, I wonder?

[Alive]

13 minutes ago, David1701 said:

No-one said anything about being "confused about the deity of Christ"!  A weakening of faith does not equate to confusion.

Have you also discovered any things of interest, regarding some of the ammo used to criticise the TR or Majority Text, I wonder?

Yes… as is true of many things, it comes down to a judgement of the best choice to reflect the original. Its not simple as there are not just tens of thousands of texts, but also external evidences of seeming corroberation. Its clear that neither younger or older sources can be entirely relied on, so this is not a consistent metric.

[Alive]

5 hours ago, David1701 said:

P.S. I would recommend a book by Jay P. Green Sr., "The Gnostics, The New Versions, and the Deity of Christ".  It shows the differences, in 110 verses, of various translations, re. Christ's deity - a vitally important doctrine; and it covers the manuscript evidence for each verse.

Here.

[David1701]

8 minutes ago, Alive said:

Yes… as is true of many things, it comes down to a judgement of the best choice to reflect the original. Its not simple as there are not just tens of thousands of texts, but also external evidences of seeming corroberation. Its clear that neither younger or older sources can be entirely relied on, so this is not a consistent metric.

Regarding the transmission of the original text (via the copying of manuscripts), I would recommend "The Identity of the New Testament Text", by Dr. Wilbur Pickering.  It's thorough and evidence-based.  He supports the Majority Text (not so much the TR), but he does deal with the main arguments of Critical Text supporters as well, and shows where that line of thinking originated.

[Alive]

22 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Regarding the transmission of the original text (via the copying of manuscripts), I would recommend "The Identity of the New Testament Text", by Dr. Wilbur Pickering.  It's thorough and evidence-based.  He supports the Majority Text (not so much the TR), but he does deal with the main arguments of Critical Text supporters as well, and shows where that line of thinking originated.

Thanks. I will look into it. I admit to having become more interested in this.

 

[Retrobyter]

13 hours ago, David1701 said:

And your point is...?

My post was made to point out that a portion of Luke 3:33, in the Greek Critical Text (using the ESV as an English translation) has a reading with no Greek manuscript support.  I'm unsure why you posted your reply to me, although it does support my case.

Shalom, David1701.

My point was simple: No manuscript is to be taken without cross-checking it against other manuscripts.  That rendition of Luke 3:33 has Greek support in the Berean Greek New Testament 2016, the SBL Greek New Testament 2010, the Nestle Greek New Testament 1907, the Westcott and Hort 1881, the Westcott and Hort [NA27 variants], the Westcott and Hort [NA28 variants], and the Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872. HOWEVER, there is absolutely NO support from any version of the Hebrew text of Genesis, 1 Chronicles, or Ruth. That's all I'm saying.

[David1701]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, David1701.

My point was simple: No manuscript is to be taken without cross-checking it against other manuscripts.  That rendition of Luke 3:33 has Greek support in the Berean Greek New Testament 2016, the SBL Greek New Testament 2010, the Nestle Greek New Testament 1907, the Westcott and Hort 1881, the Westcott and Hort [NA27 variants], the Westcott and Hort [NA28 variants], and the Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872. HOWEVER, there is absolutely NO support from any version of the Hebrew text of Genesis, 1 Chronicles, or Ruth. That's all I'm saying.

None of those things are manuscripts; they are all compilations of readings, and, I think, all based on a Critical Text.

The part of Luke 3:33 that says, "...son of Arni..." is, apparently, a reading not found in a single Greek manuscript, but has been cobbled together from two manuscripts.

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

None of those things are manuscripts; they are all compilations of readings, and, I think, all based on a Critical Text.

The part of Luke 3:33 that says, "...son of Arni..." is, apparently, a reading not found in a single Greek manuscript, but has been cobbled together from two manuscripts.

Shalom, David1701.

Okay. I'm no expert on this subject, but from what I've read, even the best compilation is taken from multiple manuscripts and documents. All "manuscript" means is a "hand-written" document. And they are comprised of papyri, letter uncials, numbered uncials, miniscules, and lectionaries.

I would suppose that you are correct that there is at least one "Critical Text" that is the most complete upon which the others are incorporated, and you're also right that scribes often took matters into their own hands, adding things that they thought would help explain what they were copying, and mixing things up by missing a line or repeating a line while copying. In the end, we must trust the "scholars" and "translators" to let God's Holy Spirit guide them into composing a document that is the most sensible to the common sense of the typical reader.

I'm thinking that we are on the same page, though. Even if I haven't explained my position very well. My apologies.

[Alive]

47 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, David1701.

Okay. I'm no expert on this subject, but from what I've read, even the best compilation is taken from multiple manuscripts and documents. All "manuscript" means is a "hand-written" document. And they are comprised of papyri, letter uncials, numbered uncials, miniscules, and lectionaries.

I would suppose that you are correct that there is at least one "Critical Text" that is the most complete upon which the others are incorporated, and you're also right that scribes often took matters into their own hands, adding things that they thought would help explain what they were copying, and mixing things up by missing a line or repeating a line while copying. In the end, we must trust the "scholars" and "translators" to let God's Holy Spirit guide them into composing a document that is the most sensible to the common sense of the typical reader.

I'm thinking that we are on the same page, though. Even if I haven't explained my position very well. My apologies.

My intent in studying now and forward is to show a confidence in our bibles. 

[David1701]

18 minutes ago, Alive said:

My intent in studying now and forward is to show a confidence in our bibles. 

Ah, but confidence in which ones...?  When some disagree with others (parts omitted and changed) in thousands of places, they cannot all be called trustworthy and reliable (and this doesn't even take into account translation techniques).