cure-real
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314
Results 196 to 202 of 202

Thread: Which translation is correct?

  1. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: Which translation is correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    Norman,In regard to Simonides, I think you blow right by the problems. He's a documented forger. He was arrested for his work. Yet you trust him to support your view. God forbid he supported new versions. What would you say then?
    He was arrested but never convicted after offering proof that he wrote it.

    “LITERARY FORGERIES OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY” originally pubished 1893

    After this Simonides appeared only once with any prominence before the public, when in 1861 he boldly asserted that he himself had written the whole of the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf had brought in 1856 from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The statement was, of course, received with the utmost incredulity; but Simonides asserted, not only that he had written it, but that, in view of the probable scepticism of scholars, he had placed certain private signs on particular leaves of the codex. When pressed to specify these marks, he gave a list of the leaves on which were to be found his initials or other monogram. The test was a fair one, and the AIS., which was at St. Petersburg, was carefully inspected. Every leaf designated by Simonides was found to be imperfect at the part where the mark was to have been found. Deliberate mutilation by an enemy, said his friends. But many thought that the wily Greek had acquired through private friends a note of some imperfect leaves in the MS., and had made unscrupulous use of the information.

  2. #197
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: Which translation is correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    Simonides claimed to write it in 1840. He was that good and could do hands of six correctors at 20 years old and fool the entire scholarly world both then and now? He could make some of it faded? I think your view is very fideistic in regard to him.
    LITERARY FORGERIES OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, Originally published 1893

    6. Constantine Simonides

    The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found.

    LITERARY FORGERIES, by J. A. Farrer 1849-1925.

    For with whatever right Simonides is assigned to the forging fraternity, his industry, his learning, and his adventures claim for him a position apart, whilst it may be doubted whether any of his contemporaries in the learned world at all approached him in the art of calligraphy or in his knowledge of palaeography.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That Simonides was a good enough calligrapher, even at an early age, to have written the Codex, is hardly open to doubt, and it is in his favour that the world was first indebted to him in 1856 for the opening chapters in Greek of the Shepherd of Hermas, with a portion of which the Codex Sinaiticus actually terminates. THE COINCIDENCE SEEMS ALMOST MORE SINGULAR THAN CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY CHANCE.

  3. #198
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: Which translation is correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    Bradshaw becomes your enemy because he goes against Simonides which you need to support your view. So how do you deal with him? Guilt by association. This is a favorite fallacy of KJVO. He's a friend of Hort or whoever you don't like so he's guilty.
    There you go again with the KJVO.

    Hort requested Tischendorf to find him rich material to change the vile “Authorized Version”, so why wouldn’t one of Hort’s best friends support him? They supported each other in their support of the Vatican at Cambridge.

  4. #199
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: Which translation is correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    Copy and paste all you want from the internet. I searched out some of your sources. I don't find it convincing. No book that I own considers the Simonides claim credible. I find no reason to go against the scholarly books I own and side with your internet copy-and-pastes. I think it's just another example of you appearing desperate to use anything to support your view.
    Joe I can’t believe you said this. You are the one that copied and pasted the Wikipedia web-site on Simnonides. We know that they lean to the left. What they presented was pickings without details. They didn’t present the story about Simonides, and presumably you didn’t want it presented.

    Would you like to see my book by J. A. Farrer on literary forgeries? It wasn’t me that merely copied and pasted. Nothing that you presented on your Wikipedia web-site mentioned the fact that Simonides was noted for being the first person to have seen the Shepherd of Hermes in Greek, nor did it mention anything about him in detail. I purchased time for the archives of “The Guardian Newspaper” so that I could see for myself what had been printed about Simonides. I read all the letters of Hort, that his son had published.

    The following is more support that Simonides did indeed have in his possession a Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermes prior to it occurring in the Codex Sinaticus.

    [Translated by the Rev. F. Crombie, M.a.]
    Author Index: Do James Donaldson
    (1831–1915)

    Excerpt from Roberts-Donaldson Introduction (On the Shepherd of Hermes.)

    “For a long time the Pastor of Hermas was known to scholars only in a Latin version, occurring in several mss. with but slight vacations. But within recent times the difficulty of settling the text has been increased by the discovery of various mss. A Latin translation has been edited, widely differing from the common version. Then a Greek ms. was said to have been found in Mount Athos, of which Simonides affirmed that he brought away a portion of the original and a copy of the rest. Then a ms. of the Pastor of Hermas was found at the end of the Sinaitic Codex of Tischendorf. And in addition to all these, there is an Aethiopic translation. The discussion of the value of these discoveries is one of the most difficult that can fall to the lot of critics; for it involves not merely an examination of peculiar forms of words and similar criteria, but an investigation into statements made by Simonides and Tischendorf respecting events in their own lives.”
    Last edited by rejoice44; Apr 5th 2012 at 11:29 AM.

  5. #200
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    3,384
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Which translation is correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by rejoice44 View Post
    You have avoided answering the question altogether. If the Greek manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus have "by water, and blood, and spirit in 1 John 5:6, should we consider "and Spirit" as spuriously added words, or just a way to fix the problem of 1 John 5:7?
    I did not avoid it, Norman, you just don't like my answer so you claim I ignored it.

    Manuscripts from Byzantine, Western and Alexandrian agree about 1 John 5:6 including Vaticanus. So, good translations read more-or-less like the KJV.

    When you see a difference in Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, you see cover-up or conspiracy. I say sometimes (most times) a copyist error is just a copyist error. I don't automatically assume guilty until proven innocent like you do. I assume innocent until proven guilty and that it's just human error.

    What's silly about this is you use this as proof that they didn't know what to do after supposedly deleting 5:7 all the while you ignore the truckload of evidence against 5:7 and never address it.

    This hurts your credibility on this issue. And unfortunately, it will rub off on your credibility for other issues in the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by rejoice44 View Post
    Joe can you name the Greek manuscripts that were around prior to the sixteenth Century that didn't have 1 John 5:7. I am not referring to those found after the sixteenth Century.
    Can I name Greek manuscripts around prior to the sixteenth century that did not have 1 John 5:7? Yes, many. But then you add an arbitrary rule: not those found after the sixteenth century. So in other words, if it's found after 16th century, even if it dates earlier, you won't count it? What bias is that?

    Here are Greek manuscripts dated before the 16th century that lack it:
    1. Sinaiticus
    2. Vaticanus
    3. Alexandrinus
    4. Athous Laurae
    5. 1844
    6. 1852
    7. 048
    8. 33
    9. 81
    10. 322
    11. 323
    12. 436
    13. 945
    14. 1067
    15. 1175
    16. 1241
    17. 1243
    18. 1292
    19. 1409
    20. 1505
    21. 1611
    22. 1735
    23. 1739
    24. 1846
    25. 1881
    26. 2138
    27. 2298
    28. 2344
    29. 2464
    Now those are dated earlier than the 16th century. I can't tell you, without a lot more digging, when they were discovered. But even if they were discovered later, if they are authenticated, the discovery date doesn't really matter.

    This doesn't include the Majority which is largely the Byzantine family that the KJV comes from. This reading is so rare and so late, even many KJV preferred readers acknowledge the problem with 1 John 5:7

    This doesn't include the lack of it in the church fathers, which you don't address and I don't blame you.

    This doesn't include absence from the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, Old Latin or the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.

    Quote Originally Posted by rejoice44 View Post
    You only consider Greek manuscripts, and put aside the Latin and all other tongues. You don't even know if those Greek manuscripts might have been transcribed from the Latin.
    As you can see, I just listed for you the other ancient tongues it's not in. And then you do something amazing. You make a comment about we don't even know if those Greek manuscripts might have been transcribed from the Latin.

    In this issue, you and I are not the experts. We are more like the jury. We listen to the testimony of experts. The experts, of which the vast majority are born again, Spirit-filled believers, do not side with your view. Yet you reject all of the expert witness testimony, even of believers, that disagree with your presupposed conclusion and only accept testimony from those who agree with your already presupposed conclusion.

    You are almost, if not, entirely circular in your case.

    Also, as members of the jury, we are to come to a conclusion that is beyond reasonable doubt, not all doubt. If we had to be beyond all doubt, then we would never solve anything in textual criticism. Yet, you seem to demand a conclusion beyond all doubt because you will bring up the most bizarre arguments and you will even conjure up suppositions like whether something was transcribed from Latin, to avoid coming to a reasonable conclusion. Yet you don't demand beyond all doubt for your view. I've asked you umpteen times which manuscripts the KJV comes from so we can scrutinize them to the same degree you think we should scrutinize manuscripts that disagree with your position. You have never provided this list.

    You will use Philpot and Simonides which others who hate the new versions don't use in their books.

    You will argue against new versions because of Roman Catholic Martini yet trust a Bible in which the Greek text is based upon the work of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who you claim was a homosexual (and I've never heard that before)!

    Anything that opposes your view you will declare is from an ureliable source or a hypocrite or a person with questionable character and so you toss out the expert claims. However, you will use anything that supports your view no matter what the character of that witness.

    I'm not replying to this thread anymore, unless I see some poor, young believer who uses a new version come in here and fall prey to your line of thinking. I'm the only one replying now. So perhaps if I don't reply, the thread will die.

    Norman, you're my brother as far as I know. I have no reason to doubt that. As your brother, and one who loves you and is concerned about everyone in this forum, I'm going to say some things you might not like, but you need to hear.

    You are spending a boatload of time fighting Christians. That is wood, hay and stubble. You have formed yourself as a weapon against Christians.

    You've admitted that the new versions don't remove doctrines and don't add doctrines such as Roman Catholic distinctives.

    Not only have you done this, it is my belief, and the belief of every credible scholar that I am aware of, that your position is incorrect. It's bad enough to fight Christians and form yourself as a weapon against those in the Bible translation industry who are trying to serve the church in a valuable way; it's even worse if you truly are incorrect in your position. The closest credible scholar to your position is those of Maurice Robinson and the deceased Art Farstad. And while they don't hold a view like mine or like Dan Wallace, they are far from your position.

    I'm not about taking the KJV out of your hands. I've said it many times before --- I like the KJV. I read the KJV for many years as my primary Bible. I have a lot of good memories from it. Depending on what I quote from memory, a lot of it comes out more KJV than newer versions. But I accept it for it is. I accept the multiple versions of the Textus Receptus that I own for what they are.

    Put your skills to better use instead of fighting all your brothers. The Mormons and JW's will only listen to a KJV if being quoted to from some other Bible than their own. You could be studying their work, their doctrines and doing a ministry to rescue lost souls instead of spending tons of time fighting the saints. Why don't you apply your skills to counter-cult ministry or something like that where a person who uses the KJV can be very valuable? People who use newer versions and want to help Mormons have to acquaint themselves with the KJV. You're already there. You could do much more good there than what you are doing in these threads.

    Quit accumulating wood, hay and stubble and build up some gold, silver and precious stones by doing something more useful and rescue some lost souls instead of discouraging your brothers from reading Bible translations that are blessing them, but are translations that you don't like as much as the KJV.
    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

  6. #201
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: Which translation is correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    1. 1844
    2. 1852
    3. 33
    4. 81
    5. 322
    6. 323
    7. 436
    8. 945
    9. 1067
    10. 1175
    11. 1241
    12. 1243
    13. 1292
    14. 1409
    15. 1505
    16. 1611
    17. 1735
    18. 1739
    19. 1846
    20. 1881
    21. 2138
    22. 2298
    23. 2344
    24. 2464
    Whose numbers are these, and where can the information on them be found. Or is this just a trust me?

  7. #202
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: Which translation is correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    [*]Sinaiticus[*]Vaticanus[*]Alexandrinus[*]Athous Laurae[*]1844[*]1852[*]048[*]33[*]81[*]322[*]323[*]436[*]945[*]1067[*]1175[*]1241[*]1243[*]1292[*]1409[*]1505[*]1611[*]1735[*]1739[*]1846[*]1881[*]2138[*]2298[*]2344[*]2464

    I'm not replying to this thread anymore, unless I see some poor, young believer who uses a new version come in here and fall prey to your line of thinking. I'm the only one replying now. So perhaps if I don't reply, the thread will die.
    I missed this part the first time I read it. I will comment on your last post and I will not add anything as longs as no one replies.

    The Catholic church told the masses that they were not intellectual enough to have the Bible in their own language. I don't believe today that we should just let the intellectuals tell us what we have to accept. There is nothing wrong with an inquiring mind.

    Your list of numbers above are suppose to represent manuscripts, but a number is meaningless if it doesn't have more information to go with it. Take for instance your number 048, it appears to be a Gregory-Aland number, and if it is a Gregory-Aland number then the manuscripts name is Codex Vaticanus 2061, and lies in the Vatican library along with Codex Vaticanus 1209. So you have (B) (03) Codex Vaticanus 1209 and (048) Codex Vaticanus 2061. It can become very confusing if both a name and number have not been applied. Many manuscripts have more than one number that applies to them, depending on who is listing them.

    It should be noted that (048) Codex Vaticanus 2061 is a double palimpsest, meaning it was written, erased, written over, erased, and written over.

    The only manuscripts I could find information on was the named manuscripts and (048) Codex Vaticanus 2061.

    1. (N) (01) Codex Sinaiticus-----------contained Old Testament------discovered in 1859.

    2. (A) (02) Codex Alexandrinus--------contained Old Testament-------on the scene in 1624.

    3. (B) (03) Codex Vaticanus 1209-----contained Old Testament-------appeared in nineteenth Century.

    4. (044) Codex Athous Lavrensis----no Old Testament--------------appeared in 1886--Contains God 1 Tim. 3:16.

    5 (048) Codex Vaticanus 2061-----no Old Testament---------------reappeared in 1867, double palimpsest.

    These manuscripts have no history beyond the reformation.

    As far as I know, the only early manuscript to contain the New Testament complete without a page damaged was the Codex Sinaticus. The one Simonides claimed he wrote in the nineteenth Century.

    The three manuscripts presented by Tischendorf all include the Old Testament. The first four Uncial manuscripts (01 through 04) all contain the Old Testament. The next consecutive forty four do not contain any portion of the Old Testament, nor do I know if any of the next fifty Uncial manuscripts listed have any Old Testament within them. Having a logical mind, this makes absolutely no sense. How did this come about?

    I trust my bible to be the word of God. I have many friends that use a variety of translations, and they are happy with them. They present Jesus christ, and Christ crucified for our sins. I just wonder how far down the road we are going to go with these translations, and what they might contain next year.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Which version(s) is correct?
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Jul 2nd 2011, 02:00 AM
  2. Whose doctrine is correct?
    By ozell in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: May 31st 2011, 08:44 PM
  3. for a correct diagnosis
    By Frances in forum Prayer
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Apr 18th 2011, 02:41 AM
  4. What is your correct response to this?
    By ThyWordIsTruth in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Apr 24th 2010, 03:06 PM
  5. OSAS: Why I believe it to be correct?
    By mikebr in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 273
    Last Post: Aug 11th 2007, 09:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •