Textual/version stance

[Annie]

There is only one Masoretic text, and it was copied meticulously.

How do you know there was only one Masoretic text, IOW, one Masoretic volume containing all of the OT books? I'd really be interested in the evidence you have for this.

And from what was it copied?

There is simply no way to prove that there was not a copyist error that affected subsequent copies somewhere during the thousands of years between the original writings and the compilation of the Masoretic texts.

[speerjp1]

Yes' date=' I am (No, you're not) Yes I am... :Bleh If you don't think I am, please provide an explanation rather than simply saying, "No, you're not."[/quote']

I only used those terms in the first place to demonstrate the basis of most of this thread so far.

There has been only one concession in this whole discussion (33 pages, so far).

You have put forth a "contradiction" that was disproved. You rejected the evidence and arguments given.

That is your choice.

What more can be said?


:goodpost:

[JerryNumbers]

If God' Word is not preserved in one place, that is in one Book, that is in the KJ Bible and you have to go from book to book and or place to place to get God's true Word together where you can understand Him and what He expects of you, them you become your own god picking what you believe about God.

That is exactly what Rick Warren did in writing his book, The Purpose Driven Life, he use 15 different versions to put his thoughts together to write this book with only 319 pages.

Its a shame that he and his kind have led many people away from God's true Word to accept almost anything as God's Word.

[Annie]

There has been only one concession in this whole discussion (33 pages, so far).

And who made that concession? I believe I did. The fact that I made that concession shows that I am open to my mind being changed by Scripture...I truly am! Discovering truth is so much more important than "winning" a debate!

You have put forth a "contradiction" that was disproved. You rejected the evidence and arguments given.

The contradiction was not disproved. The only way it can be disproved is for someone to show from Scripture that it is not a contradiction. The Scriptures we are discussing clearly indicate that the first famine ended. This is borne out by examining all of the other Scriptural uses of the words "was entreated." Only those who read an entirely new meaning into "was entreated" find that the verse says something different.

[Guest Guest]

Jerry#'s. :thumb

[Annie]

If God' Word is not preserved in one place' date=' that is in one Book, that is in the KJ Bible and you have to go from book to book and or place to place to get God's true Word together where you can understand Him and what He expects of you, them you become your own god picking what you believe about God.[/quote']

Is this what you think about Erasmus, the compiler of the TR, upon which the KJV is based? He had to "go from book to book" (seven different manuscripts, to be exact) to "get God's true Word together." Did he become his own god?

[Jerry]

Actually, It was a myth - that has been adequately disproven, even retracted by the people who made the claim - that Erasmus only used a few manuscripts.

As far as the Masoretic text goes, there is one stream - I didn't say there was one copy. IF YOU THINK ALL THE COPIES HAVE ERRORS, YOU HAVE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN BELIEVING GOD'S PROMISE OF PRESERVATION. NOTHING WE CAN SAY IS EVER GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND ON THAT SCORE!

[Guest Guest]

Is this what you think about Erasmus, the compiler of the TR, upon which the KJV is based? He had to "go from book to book" (seven different manuscripts, to be exact) to "get God's true Word together." Did he become his own god?

"Compiler" is the key word. You have to remember through most of history the sixty-six books that make up the bible were different books, each recognized as inspired scriptures of God. Of course he had to look at different manuscripts. They were often not included in a single volume as they are today. That was much of the reason for his edition. To get all the greek NT in one place. He went from manuscript to manuscript comparing them to find the most prevalent reading if there were any differences in the reading of a passage. In his day they were also sorting out the issue of different text lines. He had access to readings of Codex Vaticanus, one of the two foundational codex's for the MV's, but he rejected them as corrupt, and chose not to use them.

BTW
I don't have a bit of trouble with going from "book to book" as long as each one is perfect and inspired by God.

[Annie]

Actually, It was a myth - that has been adequately disproven, even retracted by the people who made the claim - that Erasmus only used a few manuscripts.

As far as the Masoretic text goes, there is one stream - I didn't say there was one copy. IF YOU THINK ALL THE COPIES HAVE ERRORS, YOU HAVE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN BELIEVING GOD'S PROMISE OF PRESERVATION. NOTHING WE CAN SAY IS EVER GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND ON THAT SCORE!

Jerry, to be honest, I'm not interested in discussing manuscripts, unless you want to give documentation of proof for your claims. (I know I didn't give documentation for my claims, either, so I'm not singling you out.) A discussion about historical matters without documentation is not a responsible one...People can say anything they want to. If you have documentation/proof/evidence of "one stream," let's have it. Where is it? Who has verified that such a stream exists (or existed)? What did it contain? I'll hold myself to the same standard when I make a claim.

[Trish]

Jerry' date=' to be honest, I'm not interested in discussing manuscripts, unless you want to give documentation of proof for your claims. (I know I didn't give documentation for my claims, either, so I'm not singling you out.)

If you have documentation/proof/evidence of "one stream' date='" let's have it. [/color']Where is it? Who has verified that such a stream exists (or existed)? What did it contain? I'll hold myself to the same standard when I make a claim.

:huh:

[Guest Guest]

Trish...this has been what baffles me the most about Annie's comments since this thread began. I am glad that someone else pointed it out. It is quite contradictory. :puzzled:

[Pathwalker]

I picked #2 because KJV is the only Bible I read from! :clap:

[Annie]

Trish, the claim I was referring to here is the claim that Erasmus used seven manuscripts to compile the TR (and any other claims I've made regarding specific manuscripts). I wasn't referring to the thread in general. The only other claims I've made I have backed up with Scripture. Until now, the discussion has not been about manuscripts, but has focused instead on a difficulty in the KJV. (You'd have to read a lot of posts to figure that out, so don't feel bad if you didn't understand.) I was just saying that from here on out, if we're going to talk about manuscripts, we should all use documentation/proof to back up our claims, instead of just making unfounded assertions.

To be completely honest, I don't see how a discussion about manuscripts can shed any light on the discrepancy we were talking about. It is obvious that whatever manuscripts were used along the line to become the basis for the KJV use the word "three" in Chron. and "seven" in Sam.

[Pastor Matt]

Trish, the claim I was referring to here is the claim that Erasmus used seven manuscripts to compile the TR (and any other claims I've made regarding specific manuscripts). I wasn't referring to the thread in general. The only other claims I've made I have backed up with Scripture. Until now, the discussion has not been about manuscripts, but has focused instead on a difficulty in the KJV. (You'd have to read a lot of posts to figure that out, so don't feel bad if you didn't understand.) I was just saying that from here on out, if we're going to talk about manuscripts, we should all use documentation/proof to back up our claims, instead of just making unfounded assertions. To be completely honest, I don't see how a discussion about manuscripts can shed any light on the discrepancy we were talking about. It is obvious that whatever manuscripts were used along the line to become the basis for the KJV use the word "three" in Chron. and "seven" in Sam.

Nice try on the twist. I understand that to use the logic that you are using you have to use this kind of tactic, but please lets stick to the topic at hand. Do not tell someone they must give documentation for you to discuss it and then say that you did not give documentation for your claims. Your complete sentence is below.

Jerry, to be honest, I'm not interested in discussing manuscripts, unless you want to give documentation of proof for your claims. (I know I didn't give documentation for my claims, either, so I'm not singling you out.) A discussion about historical matters without documentation is not a responsible one...People can say anything they want to. If you have documentation/proof/evidence of "one stream," let's have it. Where is it? Who has verified that such a stream exists (or existed)? What did it contain? I'll hold myself to the same standard when I make a claim.

Clear double standard. I'm not sure anyone can take you seriously when you make those kind of statements. You did not hold yourself to the same standard. You made the original claim about Erasmus without documentation (you admitted) and then demand documentation when someones says that your statement was false.

[Guest Guest]

. If you have documentation/proof/evidence of "one stream," let's have it. Where is it? Who has verified that such a stream exists (or existed)? What did it contain? I'll hold myself to the same standard when I make a claim.

:google: Annie.

There are many easily accessible online sources attesting to this, here are a few excerpts from just one wikipedia article.


"The Peshitta Old Testament is the earliest piece of Syriac literature of any length, probably originating in the second century. Whereas the majority of the Early Church relied on the Greek Septuagint, or translations from it, for their Old Testament, the Syriac-speaking church had its text translated directly from the Hebrew. The Hebrew text that served as a master copy for the translation must have been relatively similar to the Masoretic Text of mediaeval and modern Hebrew Bibles. Although previous studies had suggested that it was translated from Aramaic Targumim, this is now rejected."


"The Peshitta version of the Old Testament is an independent translation based largely on a Hebrew text similar to the Proto-Masoretic Text. It shows a number of linguistic and exegetical similarities to the Aramaic Targums but is now no longer thought to derive from them."

Also check the dead sea scrolls. When they were discovered the textual critics were excited because they thought they would have "proof" that the Masoretic text had changed significantly. Unfortunately for them the Isaiah scroll was in fairly good shape and it agrees very well with the Masoretic Text. Most of the "differences" amount to changes in spelling styles, much the same as most of the differences between an actual "1611" KJV and what we use today. Many will no longer even argue that hebrew masoretic text is "changed" because the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that it has not.

As far as the NT goes, are you aware that there are greater differences within the aprox. 120 Alexandrian type texts than all the differences which exists within the the 5000+ byzantine type texts? Matter of fact, the two most important alexandrian texts, Siniaticus and Vaticanus, disagree with one another nearly as much as they disagree with the majority text. Yet somehow some textual critics imply this is a good thing, alleging that the farther the two texts are apart the less likely they are to repeat the same errors. :bonK: