by Perry 105 Replies latest watchtower bible
You OP was about MASTER TEXTS. Now you are saying in essence that they do not count! Changing the rules!
Burn, it all counts in the end.... for the common man. I never claimed that my example of the F&DS was a Master Text difference. I suspect that it was not. Where did I establish a rule and then break it?
Perry,
Now I don't know exactly why the King James Version uses the indefinite article 'a" as opposed to the definite article "the" here. But the fact is that they did.
They actually changed out the Greek definite article, ho for the English indefinite article.
tiV ara estin o pistoV douloV..
Who Really He Is The Faithful Slave
I suppose it could be argued that the Greek definite article is required for attributive prepositional usaage only and shouldn't be translated as such, but that is clearly a translational, not a textual criticism.
Nice input TD ... thanks.
Edited to Add:
I showed this to a Christian tennis partner of mine and he looked at me like ... "so what". I realized that most
Christians have no idea what "the" F&DS can mean in the hands of real apostates (not the teddy bears here) who lead a global cult.
Perry,
You just don't know how busy those occult rituals are keeping me...
But seriously I'll take HS's advice and leave you alone.
When I really think a person is stupid I usually avoid to tell him (or her). I made an apparent exception in your case because (1) I happen to have some interest in the topic and (2) for some reason (probably including your friendship with some posters I like) I felt you were just playing stupid -- albeit persistently over the months...
My mistake, so far.
TD,
Technically doulos is subject, not attribute (predicate) in Matthew 24:45. Translating the article or not is a matter of compared stylistics, and has little bearing on the meaning of the text once the general context is grasped (faithful servant vs. evil servant as "types," not "classes" of people as in the WT interpretation). Btw the KJV is formally inconsistent since it translates the same article as a demonstrative ("that faithful and wise steward") in the parallel Luke 12:42.
Perry
Of course the TR is precious. It helped facilitate the Reformation and the greatest missionary work the world has ever known.
I thought God's Spirit facilitated the Reformation. From what I see of Luther's Bible he may disagree with your statement for other reasons. For one it does not contain the Comma Johanneum and varies in other places.
I always love to ask this question to KJV onlyists. Which version of the KJV is the inspired one?
If you have some information contrary to my understanding, why are you witholding it?
You have not yet responded to my point about the first millennium.
Oversight on "millennium". Can you elaborate on "a minuscule text became the majority". I'm having trouble determining your point.My point is the Byzantine Manuscripts were very few in the first millennium. The Alexandrian Manuscripts were the majority by far. It was not until the 9th century that they gained anywhere near the popularity of the Alexandrian Manuscripts.
As a Christian who loves God's word, I think what you said to Nark and the way you treated him is shameful. I don't always agree with him, but, I find him interesting and very knowledgeable. He can teach you a few things, if you can be honest with him. Finally you should be ashamed of what you are doing to God's word. We both know that the KJV and the TR are not perfect. Yet you treat them like the autographa. This is dishonest.
I always love to ask this question to KJV onlyists. Which version of the KJV is the inspired one?
Deputy,
If you are directing this to me, this is a straw man. I never claimed to be a KJ Onlyist. I do believe it to be superior, based on better texts, and translated by better transaltors for the English language. I believe the evidence points this out. I do not believe the translators to have been inspired. From what I understand the KJV has ungone some very minor revisions.... so what? What is your point that you are trying to make here. You are not very clear here.
If you have some information contrary to my understanding, why are you witholding it?You have not yet responded to my point about the first millennium.
Oversight on "millennium". Can you elaborate on "a minuscule text became the majority". I'm having trouble determining your point.My point is the Byzantine Manuscripts were very few in the first millennium. The Alexandrian Manuscripts were the majority by far. It was not until the 9th century that they gained anywhere near the popularity of the Alexandrian Manuscripts.
What kind of a shell game is this? You have some information contrary to my understanding on a certain point, but you can't release that information until "I respond" to a point you made that wasn't even a question? Do you have a source to support your claim that I chose not to respond to? Let's take a look. You seem combative to me and not very open to free discussion. I'm just learning along the way Deputy, like most folks.
I think what you said to Nark and the way you treated him is shameful.
Can you provide an example? In all fairness, can you also enumerate the many denunciations and vitriolic personal attacks launched at me before I responded with ACCURATE analysis? Look, the way I see it Nark was out of line.... to the degree that I had to respond to his unecessary untruthfulness. Games are sometimes played in debate, although I do not reckon the information I'm presenting here as a debate, nor a game. Like I already said, discussion of pettiness is a loser for all. All look foolish to some degree in the end.
if you can be honest with him.
This of course insinuates that I was untruthful. Please show where.
As a Christian who loves God's word,
Well, I need not remind you that there are many who claim the title of Christian but reject the fundamental doctrines of the bible....Like WE ALL PREVIOUSLY DID. By the way, since bibles are so different, which one do you love as God's word?
