Bible Discussion: Critical Text Did Use Byzantine/Majority Texts

Critical Text Did Use Byzantine/Majority Texts
Posts: 24

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Didymos
2003-09-08 16:58:29 EST
> >There are very good and detailed explanation of the critical method in
the
> >Introduction to the 4th rev. ed. of "The Greek New Testament," Kurt
Aland,
> >et al., eds, Munster: United Bible Societies, 1993.
>
> Ah, the text that can't be trusted, because it isn't
> based on the Majority Texts.
>
Your profound and thoroughgoing ignorance is on display yet again, paster
dave. Why can't you understand that virtually every time you post on this
subject you demonstrate your ignorance beyond all doubt? Evidence, paster
dave, evidence, not your mealy-mouthed maundereing on about me. I am
utterly unimportant. My opinion is utterly unimportant. The evidence
stands on its own. And you have repeatedly demonstrated you total
incapacity and inability to falsify it.

Byzantine (what paster dave really means when he uses the term "Majority")
manuscripts were indeed used in the preparation of the "The Greek New
Testament," Kurt Aland, et al., eds, Munster: United Bible Societies, 1993.
I refer the reader to pages 10 and 11, which list the Greek uncial
manuscripts used in the preparation of this Greek New Testament. Among
these are Manuscripts A, E, F, G, H, L, P, W, Psi, 051. Those are all
Byzantine/Majority texts in whole or in part, paster dave. Then of course
there are the dozens of minscule texts listed between 16 and 17. Some of
those are also Byzantine/Majority texts. And then of course there are the
Byzantine/Majority lectionaries listed an page 21. And then, quite
naturally, there are the few Byzantine/Majority papyri listed between pages
7 through 9. I encourage the reader to examine the 4th edition of the
critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Please, do not take my word
for it, but examine the text yourself. My word means nothing. The evidence
is fully capable of speaking for itself, and the evidence means everything.

As usual, paster dave snipped without attribution, so let's restore that
snip here. Note that paster dave is yet again extremely short on evidence
and very long on falsehood. The question is, does paster dave post these
obviously false and silly statements because he is profoundly ignorant or
because he is stupidly malicious? You cannot falsify a single assertion in
the paragraphs I restored below from the original post. Neither can anyone
else, paster dave. I invite correction and criticism. I challenge anyone
to prove with real manuscripts or other sources the falsehood of any
statement below.

"As usual, this declaration of fact and truth by paster dave was something
considerably less than the unvarnished truth. Actually, that ignorant
assertion is an outrageous falsehood because it is factually not true. It
is a falsehood. A central tenet of the King-James-is -the-only-scripture
position is that the critical edition of the Greek New Testament is
"corrupt" because it relies upon "Alexandrian" manuscripts. Paster dave,
chick.com, and other monumental intellectual and scholarly operations
apparently believe and continuously spew forth these venomous lies. I offer
the following refutation and back it with evidence in the form of real
manuscripts that genuinely exist. I, as well as anyone even passingly
familiar with New Testament studies, can readily provide full bibliographic
and catalogue citations for every manuscript I refer to below. To keep the
size of this post managable, I will not provide these lengthy citations for
these many Alexandrian manuscripts. Yes, folks, many Alexandrian
manuscripts. I do not know exactly how many there are. But I do mention at
least 26, which is considerably more than the emphatic "ONLY TWO texts"
declared with such certainty by paster dave and chick.com. I invite and
challenge any and all comers to correct the evidence, data, and sources
posted here."

"Below is a partial list of the papyri that belong to the Alexandrian family
of texts. All of these predate Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They are
listed by the letter P (for papyrus) and catalogue number. Alexandrian
papyri from the second century are: P-64. Some Alexandrian papyri from the
third century are: P-1, P-13, P-15, P-16, P-20, P-23, P-24, P-27, P-28,
P-30, P-35, P-40, P-46, P-50, and P-75."

"All of Manuscript A, Codex Alexandrinus, is Alexandrian, except the
gospels,
which are Byzantine readings. Note that this is the oldest (5th century)
Byzantine unical codex. And since this manuscript contains readings from
two different families of witnesses (Alexandrian and Byzantine), it is
screamingly obvious the scribe[s] was[were] using at least two different
manuscript sources."

"In addition to Manuscript Aleph, Codex Sinaiticus; and Manuscript B, Codex
Vaticanus, the following uncials are Alexandrian: Manuscript I, the
Washington Manuscript, 5th-6th century; Manuscript L, Codex Regius, 8th
century; Manuscript T, Codex Borgianus. 5th century; Manuscript Z, Codex
Dublinensis, 5th-6th century; Manuscript Xi, Codex Zacynthius, 7th century.
You might note that the only mostly complete "Bibles" as we know the term
among the uncial manuscripts, are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and these
contain significant lacunae."

"The following minscules, that is small letters in a more modern hand, are
Alexandrian witnesses: Manuscript 33, 9th century; Manuscript 81, 1044
A.D.; Manuscript 104, 1087 A.D.."

"Some scholars actually break down the Alexandrian family into
Proto-Alexandrian and Later Alexandrian, and the Alands have a different
classification system involving terms such as 'strict,' 'normal,' 'at least
normal,' and 'free.'

"A question for those who espouse the notion that the
King-James-is -the-only-scripture, or anyone else. What are the oldest
papyrus witnesses to the Byzantine family?"

"I invite refutation using real evidence. "I believe the King James in the
perfect Bible, inerrant word of God, " etc., etc., etc., is not evidence of
anything except your personal opinion."

"Obviously, there are far more than two Alexandrian manuscripts. Care to
retract your falsehood of 9/5/2003, paster dave?"

Care to retract that lie, paster dave?


Vicki
2003-09-08 21:23:28 EST

>
> Byzantine (what paster dave really means when he uses the term "Majority")
> manuscripts were indeed used in the preparation of the


Vicki replies,
They could be called Erasmian, or Complutensian, the Text of Stephens, or of
Beza, or of Elizevirs,
call it the Received or the Traditioanl Greek text,
or whatever other name you please, the fact remains, that a text has come
down to us as is attested by general consensus of ancient copies, ancient
versions, ancient
fathers.


Didymos wrote,
"The Greek New
> Testament," Kurt Aland, et al., eds, Munster: United Bible Societies,
1993.
> I refer the reader to pages 10 and 11, which list the Greek uncial
> manuscripts used in the preparation of this Greek New Testament. Among
> these are Manuscripts A, E, F, G, H, L, P, W, Psi, 051. Those are all
> Byzantine/Majority texts in whole or in part, paster dave.
>Then of course
> there are the dozens of minscule texts listed between 16 and 17. Some of
> those are also Byzantine/Majority texts. And then of course there are the
> Byzantine/Majority lectionaries listed an page 21. And then, quite
> naturally, there are the few Byzantine/Majority papyri listed between
pages
> 7 through 9. I encourage the reader to examine the 4th edition of the
> critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Please, do not take my word
> for it, but examine the text yourself. My word means nothing. The
evidence
> is fully capable of speaking for itself, and the evidence means
everything.
>
> As usual, paster dave snipped without attribution, so let's restore that
> snip here. Note that paster dave is yet again extremely short on evidence
> and very long on falsehood. The question is, does paster dave post these
> obviously false and silly statements because he is profoundly ignorant or
> because he is stupidly malicious? You cannot falsify a single assertion
in
> the paragraphs I restored below from the original post. Neither can
anyone
> else, paster dave. I invite correction and criticism. I challenge anyone
> to prove with real manuscripts or other sources the falsehood of any
> statement below.
>
> "As usual, this declaration of fact and truth by paster dave was something
> considerably less than the unvarnished truth. Actually, that ignorant
> assertion is an outrageous falsehood because it is factually not true. It
> is a falsehood. A central tenet of the King-James-is -the-only-scripture
> position is that the critical edition of the Greek New Testament is
> "corrupt" because it relies upon "Alexandrian" manuscripts. Paster dave,
> chick.com, and other monumental intellectual and scholarly operations
> apparently believe and continuously spew forth these venomous lies. I
offer
> the following refutation and back it with evidence in the form of real
> manuscripts that genuinely exist. I, as well as anyone even passingly
> familiar with New Testament studies, can readily provide full
bibliographic
> and catalogue citations for every manuscript I refer to below. To keep
the
> size of this post managable, I will not provide these lengthy citations
for
> these many Alexandrian manuscripts. Yes, folks, many Alexandrian
> manuscripts. I do not know exactly how many there are. But I do mention
at
> least 26, which is considerably more than the emphatic "ONLY TWO texts"
> declared with such certainty by paster dave and chick.com. I invite and
> challenge any and all comers to correct the evidence, data, and sources
> posted here."
>


Vicki writes,
I believe there is 88 Papyrus manuscript fragments.
Then 5, 255 known manuscripts, which contain all or
part of the Greek NT.




> "Below is a partial list of the papyri that belong to the Alexandrian
family
> of texts. All of these predate Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They
are
> listed by the letter P (for papyrus) and catalogue number. Alexandrian
> papyri from the second century are: P-64. Some Alexandrian papyri from
the
> third century are: P-1, P-13, P-15, P-16, P-20, P-23, P-24, P-27, P-28,
> P-30, P-35, P-40, P-46, P-50, and P-75."
>
> "All of Manuscript A, Codex Alexandrinus, is Alexandrian, except the
> gospels,
> which are Byzantine readings. Note that this is the oldest (5th century)
> Byzantine unical codex. And since this manuscript contains readings from
> two different families of witnesses (Alexandrian and Byzantine), it is
> screamingly obvious the scribe[s] was[were] using at least two different
> manuscript sources."
>
> "In addition to Manuscript Aleph, Codex Sinaiticus; and Manuscript B,
Codex
> Vaticanus, the following uncials are Alexandrian: Manuscript I, the
> Washington Manuscript, 5th-6th century; Manuscript L, Codex Regius, 8th
> century; Manuscript T, Codex Borgianus. 5th century; Manuscript Z, Codex
> Dublinensis, 5th-6th century; Manuscript Xi, Codex Zacynthius, 7th
century.
> You might note that the only mostly complete "Bibles" as we know the term
> among the uncial manuscripts, are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and these
> contain significant lacunae."
>
> "The following minscules, that is small letters in a more modern hand, are
> Alexandrian witnesses: Manuscript 33, 9th century; Manuscript 81, 1044
> A.D.; Manuscript 104, 1087 A.D.."
>
> "Some scholars actually break down the Alexandrian family into
> Proto-Alexandrian and Later Alexandrian, and the Alands have a different
> classification system involving terms such as 'strict,' 'normal,' 'at
least
> normal,' and 'free.'
>
> "A question for those who espouse the notion that the
> King-James-is -the-only-scripture, or anyone else. What are the oldest
> papyrus witnesses to the Byzantine family?"
>

Is it the 2nd century?

Vicki



> "I invite refutation using real evidence. "I believe the King James in the
> perfect Bible, inerrant word of God, " etc., etc., etc., is not evidence
of
> anything except your personal opinion."
>
> "Obviously, there are far more than two Alexandrian manuscripts. Care to
> retract your falsehood of 9/5/2003, paster dave?"
>
> Care to retract that lie, paster dave?
>



Vicki
2003-09-08 21:27:55 EST
I'm sorry, I failed to give the reference for the different
names of the Text.

I was quoting John Burgon. (DCloud, "For the Love if the Bible" pg169.)


"Vicki" <vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kY97b.717$8o3.56@news2.central.cox.net...
>
> >
> > Byzantine (what paster dave really means when he uses the term
"Majority")
> > manuscripts were indeed used in the preparation of the
>
>
> Vicki replies,
> They could be called Erasmian, or Complutensian, the Text of Stephens, or
of
> Beza, or of Elizevirs,
> call it the Received or the Traditioanl Greek text,
> or whatever other name you please, the fact remains, that a text has come
> down to us as is attested by general consensus of ancient copies, ancient
> versions, ancient
> fathers.



Didymos
2003-09-08 22:21:46 EST

"Vicki" <vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v0a7b.719$8o3.491@news2.central.cox.net...
> I'm sorry, I failed to give the reference for the different
> names of the Text.
>
> I was quoting John Burgon. (DCloud, "For the Love if the Bible" pg169.)
>
A dangerous book because it is terribly out of date. It is screamingly
obvious that paster dave reads nothing that doesn't support his position,
and he stubbornly sticks to it as it collapses around him. The information
at chick.com and watch.pair.com and the web sites of their ilk mostly lie.
Instead of reading those sites, why not go to the evidence, the manuscripts
themselves, and look. Anyone can readily know there are dozens of
manuscripts in the Alexandrian family, and only a fool or ignoramous or liar
publicly posts that there are only two.

But, please, do not believe a word I write. Go to the manuscripts and
examine them yourself.
>
> "Vicki" <vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kY97b.717$8o3.56@news2.central.cox.net...
> >
> > >
> > > Byzantine (what paster dave really means when he uses the term
> "Majority")
> > > manuscripts were indeed used in the preparation of the
> >
> >
> > Vicki replies,
> > They could be called Erasmian, or Complutensian, the Text of Stephens,
or
> of
> > Beza, or of Elizevirs,
> > call it the Received or the Traditioanl Greek text,
> > or whatever other name you please, the fact remains, that a text has
come
> > down to us as is attested by general consensus of ancient copies,
ancient
> > versions, ancient
> > fathers.
>
>


Didymos
2003-09-09 15:40:14 EST

"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:hsirlvoeltm2j3te118qudvs2eer1fg559@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:16:27 GMT, "Didymos"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Besides, the issue here is that paster dave made the false and stupid
> >statement that the "Majority" texts were not used in the preparation of
the
> >critical editions of the Greek New Testament.
>
> Please quote me saying that.
>
Are these your words, paster dave? "Ah, the text that can't be trusted,
because it isn't based on the Majority Texts." I do not know the difference
between "based on" and "used in the preparation of." Define your terms,
paster dave. And please, do a bit of research before you make an ass of
yourself yet again. Find out how the critical editions was constructed. No
one took Sinaiticus or Vaticanus and said, "Eureka! This will be the new
critical edition! We will just check some other Alexandrian manuscripts,
ignore the King James only idiots and the long and worthy Western and
Byzantine traditions, and the Caesarean witnesses."

Paster dave, I went through the entire Gospel of Matthew, pages 1-116;
Galatians, pages 638-653; 1 Peter, pages 785-798; and Revelation, pages
832-886, in the critical editon of the Greek New Testament. Every single
page had at least one, and usually multiple, references to manuscripts of
the Byzantine/Majority family and Textus Receptus. Most pages had multiple
notes and references. Since Byzantine/Majority manuscripts and Textus
Receptus were used to compare every verse on every page, I consider the
critical edition of the Greek New Testament is in fact "based on" the
Byzantine/Majority manuscripts, at least as much as it is based upon every
other family of manuscripts. You really do not understand what a "critical
edition" is, do you paster dave? Why don't you go and do a little research
and find out just what is involved in the preparation of a critical edition?
I could tell you, but you would not believe me.

>
>
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> --
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
> you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
> To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
> that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
> He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
> can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
> started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
> get off the pulpit.
>
> Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
> rather than God. They claim to believe in a
> virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
> turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
> God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
> days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
> Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
> try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
> God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
> theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
> and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
> Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
> "...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
> me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
>
>
> As for atheism...
>
> Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
> fools in nature; for they see there is a world
> that could not make itself, and yet they will not
> own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
>
> Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
> of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
>
> Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
>
> Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
>
>
> http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html


Didymos
2003-09-09 16:22:01 EST

"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:76urlv0pcfe63rg6ingo4nc6ggghte3sic@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:49:14 GMT, "James"
> <JamesFreda@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
> >news:79rrlvkom8crsuhnv209cl5bt4ua0pjbip@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:39:57 GMT, "James"
> >> <JamesFreda@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:hsirlvoeltm2j3te118qudvs2eer1fg559@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:16:27 GMT, "Didymos"
> >> >> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Besides, the issue here is that paster dave made the false and
stupid
> >> >> >statement that the "Majority" texts were not used in the
preparation
> >of
> >> >> >the critical editions of the Greek New Testament.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please quote me saying that.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Pastor Dave Raymond
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Pastor Dave wrote a short explanation and stated the following:
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah, the text that can't be trusted, because it isn't
> >> >> based on the Majority Texts.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There ya go, Pastor!
> >>
> >> I'm still waiting. There is a difference between not
> >> based on and not used at all.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pastor Dave Raymond
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There reaches a point when one can become a bit too technical. : )
>
> This isn't that point. You and I both know there is a
> huge difference. If I consult the Majority Texts, but
> tend to reject them, in favor of what the Alexandrian
> Texts say, when there's a discrepancy, would you claim
> that this final cut is based on the Majority Texts?
>
No, paster dave, we assuredly do not know "there is a huge difference." Why
don't you inform us exactly what these "huge difference[s]" are? Can you,
paster dave, give us 5 verses that demonstrate a "huge difference" between a
specific Byzantine manuscript and a specific Alexandrian manuscript? That
is the only way to gather, examine and elevaluate evidence, paster dave. No
two manuscripts are exactly the same. None. Not any two Byzantine
manuscripts, not any two Alexandrian, not any two Western, and not any two
Caesarean. You King-James-is-the-only-scripture fanatics like to bang that
theory home concerning the "disagreements" between Manuscripts Aleph and B.
What you apparently do not realize is that the same is true of every
Byzantine/Majority manuscript: no two are identical. Therefore, if the
"disagreements" between Manuscripts Aleph and B somehow reduce their value
as witnesses, does not the same reduction in value hold true for Manuscript
F, Codex Boreelianus, and Manuscript G, Codex Wolfiii A, both typical
Byzantine texts although both contain many lacunae? [lacuna: n.
pl. -nae, -nas. 1. a gap or missing part, as in a manuscript, rational
argument, or the like: hiatus.] You see, paster dave, most of the
Byzantine uncials and papyri contain just as many lacunae, if not more, that
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If you had any knowledge at all of the New
Testament manuscripts, you would know that. And then you possibly would
not have posted your bizarre and false maundering about how corrupt
Manuscripts Aleph and B are. But then you do have this propensity towards
blatant falsehood, so how can we know?

Oh, by the way, paster dave, you still have not explained how the oldest
Greek uncial of the Byzantine family, Mauscript A, Codex Alexandrinus, is
only Byzantine in the gospels but is Alexandrian in in all other books. How
can we interpret that set of facts, paster dave, against your silly
assertion that every manuscript containg even a single error was destroyed?
Obviously, since all Byzantine manuscripts "disagree" in at least some
words, those scribes were not quite as quality control conscious as you seem
to have dreamed up. Kindly produce a single Byzantine uncial manuscript
that does not contain the mark of an editor or corrector. Can you do that,
paster dave? Can anyone?

By the way, how are you doing on that list of sources to prove your dumb
statement that Jesus is the most documented figure in the ancient world?
You've been working on that one since March, paster dave. Writing a
dissertation for us?

And you are not an ordained pastor of anything.
>
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> --
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
> you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
> To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
> that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
> He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
> can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
> started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
> get off the pulpit.
>
> Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
> rather than God. They claim to believe in a
> virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
> turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
> God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
> days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
> Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
> try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
> God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
> theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
> and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
> Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
> "...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
> me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
>
>
> As for atheism...
>
> Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
> fools in nature; for they see there is a world
> that could not make itself, and yet they will not
> own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
>
> Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
> of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
>
> Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
>
> Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
>
>
> http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html


Didymos
2003-09-09 19:26:01 EST

"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:73hslvc0rb1oidv7f8e9oek54tu60ios1g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:22:01 GMT, "Didymos"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> >There reaches a point when one can become a bit too technical. : )
> >>
> >> This isn't that point. You and I both know there is a
> >> huge difference. If I consult the Majority Texts, but
> >> tend to reject them, in favor of what the Alexandrian
> >> Texts say, when there's a discrepancy, would you claim
> >> that this final cut is based on the Majority Texts?
> >>
> >No, paster dave, we assuredly do not know "there is a huge difference."
>
> Well then, I would suggest a course in English.
>
Nice try paster dave. The manuscripts in question are not in English,
paster dave. They are in Greek, Syriac, and Latin. There are some ancient
manuscripts in other lanugages, but since you have not brought them up,
neither will I. I don't want to confuse you further.

You seem to have forgotten to show us single "huge difference," paster dave.
Why not? If these "differences are so "huge" surely you must know right
where they occur and in what manuscripts they occur in, don't you? Again,
paster dave, you produced how much evidence? None. Zero. You failed to
refute or falsify a single statement of fact in my post, most of which you
snipped without attribution, as usual. Why do you delete all of the groups
except alt.bible from your posts? Don't you care to shine the light of your
"knowledge" in those groups too? Or don't you wish to be embarrassed on
such a scale?

I will restore your snip here in order to remind you of the issues you
failed to respond to..

"No, paster dave, we assuredly do not know "there is a huge difference."
Why
don't you inform us exactly what these "huge difference[s]" are? Can you,
paster dave, give us 5 verses that demonstrate a "huge difference" between a
specific Byzantine manuscript and a specific Alexandrian manuscript? That
is the only way to gather, examine and elevaluate evidence, paster dave. No
two manuscripts are exactly the same. None. Not any two Byzantine
manuscripts, not any two Alexandrian, not any two Western, and not any two
Caesarean. You King-James-is-the-only-scripture fanatics like to bang that
theory home concerning the "disagreements" between Manuscripts Aleph and B.
What you apparently do not realize is that the same is true of every
Byzantine/Majority manuscript: no two are identical. Therefore, if the
"disagreements" between Manuscripts Aleph and B somehow reduce their value
as witnesses, does not the same reduction in value hold true for Manuscript
F, Codex Boreelianus, and Manuscript G, Codex Wolfiii A, both typical
Byzantine texts although both contain many lacunae? [lacuna: n.
pl. -nae, -nas. 1. a gap or missing part, as in a manuscript, rational
argument, or the like: hiatus.] You see, paster dave, most of the
Byzantine uncials and papyri contain just as many lacunae, if not more, that
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If you had any knowledge at all of the New
Testament manuscripts, you would know that. And then you possibly would
not have posted your bizarre and false maundering about how corrupt
Manuscripts Aleph and B are. But then you do have this propensity towards
blatant falsehood, so how can we know?"

"Oh, by the way, paster dave, you still have not explained how the oldest
Greek uncial of the Byzantine family, Mauscript A, Codex Alexandrinus, is
only Byzantine in the gospels but is Alexandrian in in all other books. How
can we interpret that set of facts, paster dave, against your silly
assertion that every manuscript containg even a single error was destroyed?
Obviously, since all Byzantine manuscripts "disagree" in at least some
words, those scribes were not quite as quality control conscious as you seem
to have dreamed up. Kindly produce a single Byzantine uncial manuscript
that does not contain the mark of an editor or corrector. Can you do that,
paster dave? Can anyone?"

"By the way, how are you doing on that list of sources to prove your dumb
statement that Jesus is the most documented figure in the ancient world?
You've been working on that one since March, paster dave. Writing a
dissertation for us?"

"And you are not an ordained pastor of anything."

Can't stand to look at the evidence piling up against you, can you paster
dave?

And you are still not an ordained pastor of anything.
>
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> --
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
> you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
> To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
> that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
> He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
> can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
> started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
> get off the pulpit.
>
> Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
> rather than God. They claim to believe in a
> virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
> turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
> God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
> days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
> Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
> try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
> God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
> theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
> and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
> Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
> "...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
> me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
>
>
> As for atheism...
>
> Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
> fools in nature; for they see there is a world
> that could not make itself, and yet they will not
> own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
>
> Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
> of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
>
> Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
>
> Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
>
>
> http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html


Didymos
2003-09-09 19:38:57 EST

"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:gkcslvc9kceu1rngtj0pjdbccliliuo8c9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:40:14 GMT, "Didymos"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
> >news:hsirlvoeltm2j3te118qudvs2eer1fg559@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:16:27 GMT, "Didymos"
> >> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Besides, the issue here is that paster dave made the false and stupid
> >> >statement that the "Majority" texts were not used in the preparation
of
> >> >the critical editions of the Greek New Testament.
> >>
> >> Please quote me saying that.
> >>
> >Are these your words, paster dave? "Ah, the text that can't be trusted,
> >because it isn't based on the Majority Texts."
>
> Yes, they are, but that isn't what I asked for. You
> have still not proven your accusation.
>
You seem to have forgotten to provide any evidence again, paster dave. You
also offered not one word to refute or falsify the manuscript data I
offered. Why is that? Can't you do it? I don't think you can. It is hard
to argue with words on a page in tens of thousands of copies. The issue
here is whether those words are or are not on the pages I specified. Anyone
can check that. I invite you and everyone else to examine the text. You
claim the words are not on the pages of a book you have never read. How
foolish can you be?

Are you getting the first clue yet, paster dave? Your King James only web
sites do not tell the truth. They prevaricate, they obfuscate, and they
publish blatant falsehood. As long as you rely on these web sites, you
will continue to be embarrassed. Where do you get this foolishness you
post? Even chick.com knows there are more than "just 2" Alexandrian
manuscripts . . . . .geez, can't you even keep up with that?

Just as a reminder, below is what you snipped without attribution. Yet
again.

"Are these your words, paster dave? "Ah, the text that can't be trusted,
because it isn't based on the Majority Texts." I do not know the difference
between "based on" and "used in the preparation of." Define your terms,
paster dave. And please, do a bit of research before you make an ass of
yourself yet again. Find out how the critical editions was constructed. No
one took Sinaiticus or Vaticanus and said, "Eureka! This will be the new
critical edition! We will just check some other Alexandrian manuscripts,
ignore the King James only idiots and the long and worthy Western and
Byzantine traditions, and the Caesarean witnesses."

"Paster dave, I went through the entire Gospel of Matthew, pages 1-116;
Galatians, pages 638-653; 1 Peter, pages 785-798; and Revelation, pages
832-886, in the critical editon of the Greek New Testament. Every single
page had at least one, and usually multiple, references to manuscripts of
the Byzantine/Majority family and Textus Receptus. Most pages had multiple
notes and references. Since Byzantine/Majority manuscripts and Textus
Receptus were used to compare every verse on every page, I consider the
critical edition of the Greek New Testament is in fact "based on" the
Byzantine/Majority manuscripts, at least as much as it is based upon every
other family of manuscripts. You really do not understand what a "critical
edition" is, do you paster dave? Why don't you go and do a little research
and find out just what is involved in the preparation of a critical edition?
I could tell you, but you would not believe me."

Kindly demonstrate the falsehood of a single word above, paster dave. Or
falsify a single sentence using evidence, paster dave. Please? Can you? I
strongly suspect this is yet another case of paster dave passing judgment on
a book he has never read. Figures, eh?

Oh, you are still not an ordained pastor of anything that exists outside
your imagination. Real pastors are required to receive some training and
education. You obviously lack those. It is evident in your every post.
>
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> --
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
> you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
> To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
> that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
> He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
> can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
> started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
> get off the pulpit.
>
> Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
> rather than God. They claim to believe in a
> virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
> turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
> God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
> days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
> Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
> try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
> God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
> theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
> and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
> Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
> "...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
> me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
>
>
> As for atheism...
>
> Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
> fools in nature; for they see there is a world
> that could not make itself, and yet they will not
> own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
>
> Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
> of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
>
> Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
>
> Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
>
>
> http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html


Adam Marczyk
2003-09-09 19:43:43 EST
Didymos <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:dkt7b.5685$Yt.846@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
> news:73hslvc0rb1oidv7f8e9oek54tu60ios1g@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:22:01 GMT, "Didymos"
>> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> There reaches a point when one can become a bit too technical. : )
>>>>
>>>> This isn't that point. You and I both know there is a
>>>> huge difference. If I consult the Majority Texts, but
>>>> tend to reject them, in favor of what the Alexandrian
>>>> Texts say, when there's a discrepancy, would you claim
>>>> that this final cut is based on the Majority Texts?
>>>>
>>> No, paster dave, we assuredly do not know "there is a huge
>>> difference."
>>
>> Well then, I would suggest a course in English.
>>
> Nice try paster dave. The manuscripts in question are not in English,
> paster dave. They are in Greek, Syriac, and Latin. There are some
> ancient manuscripts in other lanugages, but since you have not brought
> them up, neither will I. I don't want to confuse you further.
>
> You seem to have forgotten to show us single "huge difference," paster
> dave. Why not? If these "differences are so "huge" surely you must know
> right where they occur and in what manuscripts they occur in, don't you?
> Again, paster dave, you produced how much evidence? None. Zero. You
> failed to refute or falsify a single statement of fact in my post, most
> of which you snipped without attribution, as usual. Why do you delete
> all of the groups except alt.bible from your posts? Don't you care to
> shine the light of your "knowledge" in those groups too? Or don't you
> wish to be embarrassed on such a scale?
>
> I will restore your snip here in order to remind you of the issues you
> failed to respond to..
>
> "No, paster dave, we assuredly do not know "there is a huge difference."
> Why
> don't you inform us exactly what these "huge difference[s]" are? Can
> you, paster dave, give us 5 verses that demonstrate a "huge difference"
> between a specific Byzantine manuscript and a specific Alexandrian
> manuscript? That is the only way to gather, examine and elevaluate
> evidence, paster dave. No two manuscripts are exactly the same. None.
> Not any two Byzantine manuscripts, not any two Alexandrian, not any two
> Western, and not any two Caesarean. You
> King-James-is-the-only-scripture fanatics like to bang that theory home
> concerning the "disagreements" between Manuscripts Aleph and B. What you
> apparently do not realize is that the same is true of every
> Byzantine/Majority manuscript: no two are identical. Therefore, if the
> "disagreements" between Manuscripts Aleph and B somehow reduce their
> value as witnesses, does not the same reduction in value hold true for
> Manuscript F, Codex Boreelianus, and Manuscript G, Codex Wolfiii A, both
> typical Byzantine texts although both contain many lacunae? [lacuna:
> n. pl. -nae, -nas. 1. a gap or missing part, as in a manuscript,
> rational argument, or the like: hiatus.] You see, paster dave, most of
> the Byzantine uncials and papyri contain just as many lacunae, if not
> more, that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If you had any knowledge at all of
> the New Testament manuscripts, you would know that. And then you
> possibly would not have posted your bizarre and false maundering about
> how corrupt Manuscripts Aleph and B are. But then you do have this
> propensity towards blatant falsehood, so how can we know?"
>
> "Oh, by the way, paster dave, you still have not explained how the oldest
> Greek uncial of the Byzantine family, Mauscript A, Codex Alexandrinus, is
> only Byzantine in the gospels but is Alexandrian in in all other books.
> How can we interpret that set of facts, paster dave, against your silly
> assertion that every manuscript containg even a single error was
> destroyed? Obviously, since all Byzantine manuscripts "disagree" in at
> least some words, those scribes were not quite as quality control
> conscious as you seem to have dreamed up. Kindly produce a single
> Byzantine uncial manuscript that does not contain the mark of an editor
> or corrector. Can you do that, paster dave? Can anyone?"
>
> "By the way, how are you doing on that list of sources to prove your dumb
> statement that Jesus is the most documented figure in the ancient world?
> You've been working on that one since March, paster dave. Writing a
> dissertation for us?"
>
> "And you are not an ordained pastor of anything."
>
> Can't stand to look at the evidence piling up against you, can you paster
> dave?
>
> And you are still not an ordained pastor of anything.

Heh. Way to take Dave to the cleaners, Didymos. I predict we will see
nothing but more stalling, snipping without attribution, and irrelevancies
from him, but never an admission of error; he's obviously too proud for
that. Doesn't it ever occur to him that maybe it means something that he's
always bested by more knowledgeable people on virtually every subject on
which he ventures an opinion?

--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Vicki
2003-09-09 21:59:31 EST

"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:_Oa7b.4068$PE6.848@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Vicki" <vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:v0a7b.719$8o3.491@news2.central.cox.net...
> > I'm sorry, I failed to give the reference for the different
> > names of the Text.
> >
> > I was quoting John Burgon. (DCloud, "For the Love if the Bible" pg169.)
> >
> A dangerous book because it is terribly out of date.

Vicki wrote,
No, it was written in 95, however, in regards to
quoting the various names that the TR has been called
be outdated? It's on the history of the RT to the
year of 95 when it is copywrited. How can writing about history be
dangerous? Unless, it has a bloody past
and the organization who did the spilling, is still around and is bent on
covering it up.

Didymous wrote,
It is screamingly
> obvious that paster dave reads nothing that doesn't support his position,
> and he stubbornly sticks to it as it collapses around him. The
information
> at chick.com and watch.pair.com and the web sites of their ilk mostly lie.

Vicki wrote,
There are no lies at the Way of Life site.
If he makes an error he corrects it. I have seen this
for myself on several occasions ,being on the mailing list.
He has devoted almost 25 years to the study and issues
regarding the text.
I have the upmost confidence and respect in his work.

Didymos writes,
> Instead of reading those sites, why not go to the evidence, the
manuscripts
> themselves, and look. Anyone can readily know there are dozens of
> manuscripts in the Alexandrian family, and only a fool or ignoramous or
liar
> publicly posts that there are only two.



Vicki wrote,
I suspect he misunderstood something he read.
You shouldn't be so quick to call it a lie.
That happens you. This business of manuscripts
takes time to understand.

Quit rubbing it in that you know Greek. You act as if that makes you some
how more able and learned.
It doesn't. We can find men of God who also can read Greek and trust there
words.You use it as a hammer.
That is why we have the KJV to begin with.

So the common man could read for himself God's word
on so great a subject as what happens to me whn I die?
How can I please God? How can I be saved?
God is no respector of persons, he is not going to
allow an elitist body of men to be the only ones with access to his words
and then give the freedom to
read them.

Isn't it funny that it is the only book that gets banned
all over the world? The only book that can have you killed for simply
reading it?

I am not aware of any other religious books
that the same can be said of them.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Vicki







>
> But, please, do not believe a word I write. Go to the manuscripts and
> examine them yourself.
> >
> > "Vicki" <vicpurk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:kY97b.717$8o3.56@news2.central.cox.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Byzantine (what paster dave really means when he uses the term
> > "Majority")
> > > > manuscripts were indeed used in the preparation of the
> > >
> > >
> > > Vicki replies,
> > > They could be called Erasmian, or Complutensian, the Text of Stephens,
> or
> > of
> > > Beza, or of Elizevirs,
> > > call it the Received or the Traditioanl Greek text,
> > > or whatever other name you please, the fact remains, that a text has
> come
> > > down to us as is attested by general consensus of ancient copies,
> ancient
> > > versions, ancient
> > > fathers.
> >
> >
>


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron