Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of $20 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,526
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,694
Posts51,471
Members930
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,525
Tom 3,544
chestnutmare 2,920
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,771
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 17
Susan 4
John_C 3
Johan 2
grit 1
Recent Posts
Agree or Disagree and Why?
by Pilgrim. Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:09 AM
Ever heard of Michael Heiser
by Tom. Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:02 PM
ADHD
by Tom. Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:47 AM
Quoting Scripture a Comfort?
by Tom. Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:53 PM
Looking for information
by Tom. Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:51 AM
"ites"
by Johan. Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:50 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
New Testament Texts #40727
Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:19 PM
Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:19 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
john Offline OP
Addict
john  Offline OP
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Recently I have started to study a little Greek with the intent of studying the New Testament in Greek. One of the issues I have encountered concerns the large number of manuscripts. I don't understand all the issues very well, but it seems there are two major lines of manuscripts: the received (majority) text and the critical text. The received text seems to come mostly from the Byzantine line of manuscripts and the critical text mostly from the Alexandrine line of texts . The KJV/NKJV and I suppose the Geneva Bible were mainly translated from the received text, but most modern versions (NASB,ESV,NIV,etc.) of the Bible seem to be translated from the critical text. I have found a number of web pages that say the critical text has many alterations that have been influenced by gnosticism. For example,

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

A specific example listed was

Quote

John 1:18

Textus Receptus - Qeon oudeiV ewrake pwpote. o monogenhV uioV, o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV, ekeinoV exhghsato.

(No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. - KJV)

NA 21 - Qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote. monogenhV qeoV o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV, ekeinoV exhghsato.

(No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. - NIV)


The NASB gives "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. "

Does any one have any thoughts concerning this issue?

Thanks,
John

Re: New Testament Texts [Re: john] #40728
Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:47 PM
Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:47 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Hi John,

There are some helpful articles on the subject of the Greek manuscripts and textual criticism here. On the particular passage, John 1:18, see this.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: New Testament Texts [Re: john] #40729
Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:31 PM
Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:31 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
John,

First, one must be very careful to recognize the long-standing "battle" that has existed for ages over which manuscript "group", let's call it, is the "real deal"; Textus Receptus vs. Majority Text. The latter group is decidedly older (earlier) and better attested to vs. the former which is much later. The former is said to have been "preserved of God" and the latter admittedly older but fraught with scribal errors, etc. And so it goes.

Second, there is the matter of translation method; formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence. The former is what the historic Church has relied upon and the latter is a very recent method which, IMHO, to varying degrees mitigates against the doctrine of the divine verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.

It is this second subject which the believer should concern himself/herself with and not the first. Textual Criticism is not something the average student of the Bible should fret over. In fact, unless one understands the true intent of that discipline it can prove very detrimental, i.e., shake one's faith in the divine authorship and reliability of the Bible itself rather than a valuable aid to the serious student. You will find that the difference between those translations which use the formal equivalence method of translation is minimal compared to those using the dynamic equivalence method.

My advice, unless you are willing to read through at least one or two GOOD books (conservative authors) on the science of biblical textual criticism, ignore any reference to variances in manuscripts as you are studying. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: New Testament Texts [Re: CovenantInBlood] #40730
Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:28 AM
Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:28 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
john Offline OP
Addict
john  Offline OP
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Hi John,

There are some helpful articles on the subject of the Greek manuscripts and textual criticism here. On the particular passage, John 1:18, see this.


Thanks for the links. Very interesting.

John

Re: New Testament Texts [Re: Pilgrim] #40731
Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:35 AM
Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:35 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
john Offline OP
Addict
john  Offline OP
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Quote
Pilgrim said:
John,

First, one must be very careful to recognize the long-standing "battle" that has existed for ages over which manuscript "group", let's call it, is the "real deal"; Textus Receptus vs. Majority Text. The latter group is decidedly older (earlier) and better attested to vs. the former which is much later. The former is said to have been "preserved of God" and the latter admittedly older but fraught with scribal errors, etc. And so it goes.

Second, there is the matter of translation method; formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence. The former is what the historic Church has relied upon and the latter is a very recent method which, IMHO, to varying degrees mitigates against the doctrine of the divine verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.

It is this second subject which the believer should concern himself/herself with and not the first. Textual Criticism is not something the average student of the Bible should fret over. In fact, unless one understands the true intent of that discipline it can prove very detrimental, i.e., shake one's faith in the divine authorship and reliability of the Bible itself rather than a valuable aid to the serious student. You will find that the difference between those translations which use the formal equivalence method of translation is minimal compared to those using the dynamic equivalence method.

My advice, unless you are willing to read through at least one or two GOOD books (conservative authors) on the science of biblical textual criticism, ignore any reference to variances in manuscripts as you are studying. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,


Pilgrim,

Thanks for the advice.

I don't know whether I will have time to read any good books on textual criticism, but are there any good ones that you recommend? I don't have a great interest in textual criticism, but I do want to be aware of the major issues. Also, do you recommend any particular Greek New Testament; there are quite a number available.

Just a few notes.

1. I was not referring to formal vs. dynamic equivalence translation methods. I agree that formal equivalence translation is superior to dynamic equivalence translation whether no matter which Greek text you are using.

2. Is not the real "battle" between the Textus Receptus / Majority Text vs. the Critical Text? I was under the impression that, although the Received Text and Majority Text are not the same, they are much more similar to each other than to the Critical Text.

John

Re: New Testament Texts [Re: john] #40732
Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:22 PM
Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Quote
john wrote:
1. I was not referring to formal vs. dynamic equivalence translation methods. I agree that formal equivalence translation is superior to dynamic equivalence translation whether no matter which Greek text you are using.

I have both; a) Textus Receptus and b) Nestle-Aland Greek Text from the United Bible Societies. The latter is probably most used in education institutions. I use it most often as well.

Quote
john asked:
2. Is not the real "battle" between the Textus Receptus / Majority Text vs. the Critical Text? I was under the impression that, although the Received Text and Majority Text are not the same, they are much more similar to each other than to the Critical Text.

Yes to both. A good supplement to have on hand is Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, also published by the United Bible Societies.

And, if you are going to venture out to study Koine Greek, although there are quite a number of choices to choose from in regard to Greek grammar texts, I'm partial to Gresham Machen's New Testament Greek for Beginners. That would go a long way toward learning NT Greek. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 26 guests, and 100 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SnydersSoapbox, Susan, reformedbygrace, ReformedDisciple, Micki Bowman
930 Registered Users
Shout Box
October
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
823,737 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.047s Queries: 16 (0.004s) Memory: 2.8623 MB (Peak: 3.1505 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-10-16 13:52:33 UTC