Jump to content
Online Baptist

Soulwinning Forum

Need help soulwinning or have a soulwinning tip? Post it here

463 topics in this forum

  1. Bouncing Bill
  2. Yeshuafan
  3. A Word of Encouragment

  4. Coronavirus tract

  5. Tracts.

  6. Tracts

    • 0 replies
  7. Fishers of Men

    • 0 replies
  8. Martyrdom

    • 0 replies
    • 2 replies
    • 4 replies
    • 5 replies
  9. Problems with Soulwinning

  10. Church Planting

    • 0 replies
  11. Rebuking

  12. Cuba

  13. a real atheist

    • 14 replies
    • 6 replies
  14. Chaplain Bill

    • 4 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Topics

  • Recent Posts

    • One should also question the Critical Text theory that the Traditional text changed over time, and the Alexandrian text did not.  The statement is ludicrous from the standpoint that it is the Alexandrian texts which actually show the greatest amount of variants within their small sample size over the shortest period of time.  A seemingly contradictory statement to their theory is that it is claimed the Traditional Text is still 90%+ equivalent on the whole with the Alexandrian Text.  If the Traditional text evolved, why was the other 90% of the Byzantine text not affected? The answer is that the Byzantine text did not evolve over time, but that an amazing quality is seen in their manuscript witness by an overwhelming clear consistency between all of their manual copies, including both the earliest and latest copies.  Again, even the earliest Alexandrian codices and Papyri also testify in agreement with the consistent Byzantine readings.  For example, see Graham Thomason, The Relationship between Vaticanus & Sinaiticus and the Majority Text in Galatians, 24 October, 2014,     https://www.faraboveall.com/015_Textual/SinVat_Galatians.pdf
    • note spelling error Washingtonians, should be Washingtonianus (tough typing on digital keyboard) :-). 
    • Let's just call it the Word of God 🙂
    • Note, critical text advocates mistakenly compare the Byzantyne text with the Alexandrian Text type.  Where this fails is the condition for the accuracy of the Byzantine text type is on the whole considered the "majority" or the constant witness among its thousands of unique manuscripts.  In contrast their is no such context for the Alexandrian text.  Contrary to the accepted standard for deriving an original text by finding the consistency in variant copies that "weed out" or identify unique anomalies as potential errors introduced by the copyist, the critical text does not have any sufficient sample size to do so.  This is exacerbated by the fact that the critical text bias depends mainly upon two codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which have been thoroughly and undisputedly recognized as containing a significantly large number of copyist errors for having such a highly valued witness to the biblical text.  When you consider that over a few consecutive verses, it is easier to find a disagreement between the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus codices than it is to find agreement, a contrary process is required, one which is highly subjective and eclectic.  Additional comparative studies show that the Vaticanus text aligns itself more with the Byzantine Majority text for a given New Testament book (Galatians for example) with fewer variants found than when doing a similar comparison between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  One should also note that the 5th century manuscript Alexandrinus, from which the Alexandrian text gets its name, contains a significant portion of the New Testament (all of the Gospels) that is found to be of the Byzantine text type.  There are also similar cases in other Alexandrian text witnesses found in early codices (Washingtonians, etc) and even in the earliest Papyri fragments as noted by both Sturtz and Zuntz.  Because of these Alexandrian text issues, the modern eclectic critical text is highly subjective on a biased "choice" of what may or may not be original and that these "rules" may change at any point or simply be different from that of another committee (anything but the Traditionally accepted text, if possible).   There is simply a number of Critical texts and myriad of biblical versions which have imputed themselves with the authority over the Bibles Traditional Text and subjected it to a biased and fabricate text of ones choosing that may have no manuscript witness or as little as only 1, 2 or three Greek manuscript witnesses...  It is therefore a misnomer to say that there is a comparison between the Alexandrian Text to Byzantine text - the Alexandrian texts just don't show an agreement amongst themselves on the whole as much as they do individually with the Universal Byzantine Text (See also Dr. Leslie McFall "Split texts" analysis).
    • As far as linear events go, yes, some passages refer back to earlier events and then bring us to the present (such as the initial verses of chapter 12) - but Revelation 1:19-20 and 4:1 clearly indicate that the rest of the book of Revelation takes places after the events of chapters 1-3 (which is the church age).
  • Create New...