Omitted verses.
- Thread starter Raggedcloth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Also, one other thing that I forgot to mention. In the matter of just a few words, you contradict yourself,
You state that Ephraemi is difficult to read, yet Tischendorf transcribed it by eye in the 1800's. As a result, we have his transcription of the text, of which I cited previously in Post #83. As mentioned prior, there are other more modern transcriptions of Ephraemi available, such as the Robert Lyon's 1959 edition, of which was transcribed using infrared/ultra-violet illumination, and it also reads identical to Tischendorf's at 1 Peter 3:15. I do have both copies available, and can send them to you. Furthermore, while portions of Ephraemi are difficult to read (if only by naked eye); however, the portion under discussion (1 Peter 3:15) is visible without the need for ultra-violet illumination. The scribe that "bleached" the biblical Greek, and reused the text to transcribe the treatise of Ephraem the Syrian, did not write over this section. There is no question to Ephraemi's rendering of 1 Peter 3:15. Further, the fact that p72 ℵ B are also Alexandrian witnesses go to show that the Alexandrian exemplar of 1 Peter 3:15
But here's where you contradict yourself. You argue Ephraemi is "not clear and hard to read," but then you go on to identify it as a text of the Alexandrian stream. How did you determine that if you cannot properly identify the contents? Further, you state "the palimpset as evidence was corrupted in nature," yet again, without being able to (according to you) see the text clearly, how do you come to the determination that is "corrupted in nature"?
Also, you mention
Well, first of all, when you say “all those missing verses,” which “missing verses” are you referring to exactly? If you want to talk through one or two, then we can. Just as a reminder, the OP never gave us a list of passages (which he openly admits) that he has questions on. He simply stated that he will reveal the passages he has concern on, “soon.” The only information I have really provided much detail on is 1 Peter 3:15. Therefore, why do you (wrongly) assume that I agree with every textual decision made by NA28? I don’t agree with everything UBS says, or everything NA28 says. In fact, the UBS doesn’t always agree with NA28. And the NA28 doesn’t always agree with NA27. Did it ever dawn on you that textual critics don’t always agree? And sometimes they will even change their mind? You might be quite surprised (or maybe you won’t) the reason for my opinions on specific texts. As I have continued to say, earlier does not mean “better,” but when a text has early and broad attestation, it does have that appeal.
You state that Ephraemi is difficult to read, yet Tischendorf transcribed it by eye in the 1800's. As a result, we have his transcription of the text, of which I cited previously in Post #83. As mentioned prior, there are other more modern transcriptions of Ephraemi available, such as the Robert Lyon's 1959 edition, of which was transcribed using infrared/ultra-violet illumination, and it also reads identical to Tischendorf's at 1 Peter 3:15. I do have both copies available, and can send them to you. Furthermore, while portions of Ephraemi are difficult to read (if only by naked eye); however, the portion under discussion (1 Peter 3:15) is visible without the need for ultra-violet illumination. The scribe that "bleached" the biblical Greek, and reused the text to transcribe the treatise of Ephraem the Syrian, did not write over this section. There is no question to Ephraemi's rendering of 1 Peter 3:15. Further, the fact that p72 ℵ B are also Alexandrian witnesses go to show that the Alexandrian exemplar of 1 Peter 3:15
But here's where you contradict yourself. You argue Ephraemi is "not clear and hard to read," but then you go on to identify it as a text of the Alexandrian stream. How did you determine that if you cannot properly identify the contents? Further, you state "the palimpset as evidence was corrupted in nature," yet again, without being able to (according to you) see the text clearly, how do you come to the determination that is "corrupted in nature"?
Also, you mention
Well, first of all, when you say “all those missing verses,” which “missing verses” are you referring to exactly? If you want to talk through one or two, then we can. Just as a reminder, the OP never gave us a list of passages (which he openly admits) that he has questions on. He simply stated that he will reveal the passages he has concern on, “soon.” The only information I have really provided much detail on is 1 Peter 3:15. Therefore, why do you (wrongly) assume that I agree with every textual decision made by NA28? I don’t agree with everything UBS says, or everything NA28 says. In fact, the UBS doesn’t always agree with NA28. And the NA28 doesn’t always agree with NA27. Did it ever dawn on you that textual critics don’t always agree? And sometimes they will even change their mind? You might be quite surprised (or maybe you won’t) the reason for my opinions on specific texts. As I have continued to say, earlier does not mean “better,” but when a text has early and broad attestation, it does have that appeal.
Talk about "misinformed," "deeply biased," and "misapplied"! Categorically speaking, your comments have managed to hit all the buckets, and even managed to dot all the I’s.
You want your audience to believe that the United Bible Societies was motivated by some grand scheme with the Catholic chuch to corrupt the NT? Is that seriously what I am hearing? What a great bed time story with absolutely no evidence for it.
How in the world do you not see the massive (and multiple) holes in your argument?
I seriously do not think you have thought this through to its final conclusion. For this entire argument to work, you’re going to need to explain the motivation behind it, and then prove that UBS tampered with the NT (including the texts they allegedly tampered with) in a grand scheme with the Catholic church. You won’t be able to prove that UBS tampered with the text, because they are basing their textual decisions on earlier mss, from a number of varying locales before Catholicism was even a thing. They are not “changing” anything; they are simply collating a text that is in conformity to earlier, more broadly attested data. They are looking at more mss than what the guys in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries had access to. That is not tampering.
Last I checked, the entire book of Galatians was still in every modern day Bible. If UBS was really in some grand scheme with the Catholic church, then we should be seeing some very broad doctrinal differences between our versions (and underlying mss). I guarantee you, you will not find any significant alterations of the Epistle to the Galatians when comparing the KJV with a modern Bible. What doctrines, exactly, did the UBS (by authority of the Catholic church) tamper with? I’d love to hear it.
Further, if the men that brought us the KJV (who according to you) are inspired, why were these men moved by God to include the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV? And why are you not accepting of “inspired Scripture”?
It makes absolutely no sense to argue (as you do) that the UBS was in some grand conspiracy with the Catholic church, yet you go on to put so much stock into 14th, 15th, and 16th mss collated and produced in Catholic monestaries (which lay behind the TR and the KJV).
You want your audience to believe that the United Bible Societies was motivated by some grand scheme with the Catholic chuch to corrupt the NT? Is that seriously what I am hearing? What a great bed time story with absolutely no evidence for it.
How in the world do you not see the massive (and multiple) holes in your argument?
I seriously do not think you have thought this through to its final conclusion. For this entire argument to work, you’re going to need to explain the motivation behind it, and then prove that UBS tampered with the NT (including the texts they allegedly tampered with) in a grand scheme with the Catholic church. You won’t be able to prove that UBS tampered with the text, because they are basing their textual decisions on earlier mss, from a number of varying locales before Catholicism was even a thing. They are not “changing” anything; they are simply collating a text that is in conformity to earlier, more broadly attested data. They are looking at more mss than what the guys in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries had access to. That is not tampering.
Last I checked, the entire book of Galatians was still in every modern day Bible. If UBS was really in some grand scheme with the Catholic church, then we should be seeing some very broad doctrinal differences between our versions (and underlying mss). I guarantee you, you will not find any significant alterations of the Epistle to the Galatians when comparing the KJV with a modern Bible. What doctrines, exactly, did the UBS (by authority of the Catholic church) tamper with? I’d love to hear it.
Further, if the men that brought us the KJV (who according to you) are inspired, why were these men moved by God to include the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV? And why are you not accepting of “inspired Scripture”?
It makes absolutely no sense to argue (as you do) that the UBS was in some grand conspiracy with the Catholic church, yet you go on to put so much stock into 14th, 15th, and 16th mss collated and produced in Catholic monestaries (which lay behind the TR and the KJV).
-
1
- Show all
Please ignore Post #102. For whatever reason ChristianChat conflated two posts I was working on simultaneously. One was not completed. What I had intended to respond to was this this comment by John146:
Well, first of all, when you say “all those missing verses,” which “missing verses” are you referring to exactly? If you want to talk through one or two, then we can. Just as a reminder, the OP never gave us a list of passages (which he openly admits) that he has questions on. He simply stated that he will reveal the passages he has concern on, “soon.” The only information I have really provided much detail on is 1 Peter 3:15. Therefore, why do you (wrongly) assume that I agree with every textual decision made by NA28? I don’t agree with everything UBS says, or everything NA28 says. In fact, the UBS doesn’t always agree with NA28. And the NA28 doesn’t always agree with NA27. Did it ever dawn on you that textual critics don’t always agree? And sometimes they will even change their mind? You might be quite surprised (or maybe you won’t) the reason for my opinions on specific texts. As I have continued to say, earlier does not mean “better,” but when a text has early and broad attestation, it does have that appeal.
Well, first of all, when you say “all those missing verses,” which “missing verses” are you referring to exactly? If you want to talk through one or two, then we can. Just as a reminder, the OP never gave us a list of passages (which he openly admits) that he has questions on. He simply stated that he will reveal the passages he has concern on, “soon.” The only information I have really provided much detail on is 1 Peter 3:15. Therefore, why do you (wrongly) assume that I agree with every textual decision made by NA28? I don’t agree with everything UBS says, or everything NA28 says. In fact, the UBS doesn’t always agree with NA28. And the NA28 doesn’t always agree with NA27. Did it ever dawn on you that textual critics don’t always agree? And sometimes they will even change their mind? You might be quite surprised (or maybe you won’t) the reason for my opinions on specific texts. As I have continued to say, earlier does not mean “better,” but when a text has early and broad attestation, it does have that appeal.
-
1
- Show all
What post 108 ? 
yup they gets us
yup they gets us
-
2
- Show all
Well,
"If my words offend, then don't read them." Sigh. "If I really did sock you in the eye, don't let it bother you." Too late. The public is watching our demeanor here and rightly and wrongly are judging us. But I know I can't change anybody, so I'll drop it. And that's okay with me. I think I will list
those supposed missing verse(s), because now that I've read a good bit of what goes on in Christian chat, I don't see any harm being done. No hurt feelings, confusion, etc. This: between Jn 6:23 and Jn 6:24 [ I tell you the truth my father will give you whatever you ask in my name ask without hidden motive and be surrounded by your answer and be enveloped by what you desire that your joy may be full ] (then Jn 6:24). There is no punctuation I can add because I don't know enough. It's not much, but to me it's beautiful and consistent. I won't adopt it until I have good reason to. What do you all think?
"If my words offend, then don't read them." Sigh. "If I really did sock you in the eye, don't let it bother you." Too late. The public is watching our demeanor here and rightly and wrongly are judging us. But I know I can't change anybody, so I'll drop it. And that's okay with me. I think I will list
those supposed missing verse(s), because now that I've read a good bit of what goes on in Christian chat, I don't see any harm being done. No hurt feelings, confusion, etc. This: between Jn 6:23 and Jn 6:24 [ I tell you the truth my father will give you whatever you ask in my name ask without hidden motive and be surrounded by your answer and be enveloped by what you desire that your joy may be full ] (then Jn 6:24). There is no punctuation I can add because I don't know enough. It's not much, but to me it's beautiful and consistent. I won't adopt it until I have good reason to. What do you all think?
Did you intend to say John 16:23-24? That is where the citation which you quote comes from. There are some conspiritorial claims that the NT was not written Greek, but in Aramaic, and so some have claimed (though it is very rare) that John 16:23-24 as found in the KJV (or even other modern Bibles) have edited out a few words or phrases. It's a very strange argument, because there's no mss evidence to base that claim off of. There isn't even a textual variant in existence to support that idea. Even the major Aramaic versions, such as the Peshitta (an Aramaic translation based from the Greek) agrees with the Greek witnesses. This idea that an original Aramaic phrase was edited out of the text stems from an interpolation that that had been added by the translator into the text. So essentially, people are arguing for Aramaic primacy based off an English interpolation. It's rather ridiculous.
In fact, there are very good internal reasons that can put this claim about Aramaic primacy to rest. On multiple occasions, Jesus’ words (which were spoken in Aramaic) had to be explained by the author of the book. For example, in Matt. 27:46, Jesus cries out (in Aramaic), “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” But then the author of Matthew has to then explain what it means.
In fact, there are very good internal reasons that can put this claim about Aramaic primacy to rest. On multiple occasions, Jesus’ words (which were spoken in Aramaic) had to be explained by the author of the book. For example, in Matt. 27:46, Jesus cries out (in Aramaic), “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” But then the author of Matthew has to then explain what it means.
Why would the author have to explain what the Aramaic phrase, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTANI?” means if the NT was originally written in Aramaic? That would be pretty redudant. The reason the Aramaic had to be explained was because his audience and readers knew Greek; it was the language of the day, spoken over vast regions.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The passage you have in brackets doesn't come from any legitimate Biblical manuscript. It most likely comes from some extra-Biblical source like the Nag Hammadi texts. In his book, Secrets of the Lost Mode of Prayer, Gregg Braden quotes this passage and says it's from the "original text." This so-called original text is likely some Essene or Gnostic manuscript.
Braden's a New Ager and I wouldn't trust a thing he says.
Braden's a New Ager and I wouldn't trust a thing he says.
Here we have Starbucks everywhere, and they offer free wifi, as do many other places, especially those places where people sit and stay a while. Do you have any coffee shops or something similar near you where this might also be the case? Some time ago I used to take my laptop to my local neighbourhood coffee shop just for a change of scenery while I enjoyed my coffee and Cuban sandwich .. Gosh, it's been a long time since I've done that... .. Kudos to you for trying to make it work with just a phone and poor reception...
. Gosh, it's been a long time since I've done that... .. Kudos to you for trying to make it work with just a phone and poor reception...
-
1
-
1
- Show all
For clarification, are you saying the bracketed text is traceable to Braden? Could he have found it in a text that is canon? Huh, it just occurred to me that all texts that are considered canon could well be entirely indexed, cross referenced, and concordance-ed by now. That would make research a lot easier.
I don't know if it originates with Braden; however, it's interesting that he says it comes from the "original manuscripts" but doesn't say what manuscripts he's talking about. If he was a professional, and knew the source, he'd say it. Oddly, in a footnote, he attributes it to a native american writer, Shonto Begay. When you read Braden's book, it's clear he's a big fan of the Essene and Gnostic texts. He's a mystic and draws on a lot of extra-Biblical sources. So in summary, there's no legitimate source for this passage; if there were, it would would show up somewhere in a Bible translation.
There's a project underway called the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). It uses computers to collate and analyze Bible manuscripts to come up with the best reading. But it's biased and doesn't use and manuscripts from the Byzantine family. Because of this I'd have to label it a farce.
Then there's the Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text by Hodges and Farstad. It does basically the same thing as the CBGM but with Byzantine manuscripts. There's another Greek New Testament based on the Majority Text by Robinson and Pierpont; also the Byzantine family. There are a few English translations based on these works but not very many.
There is no official "canon" of New Testament manuscripts; as I said before, it all comes down to a person's preference. However, there's a general consensus about which ones are potentially legit and acceptable and which are not. Gnostic manuscripts aren't legit.
There's a project underway called the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). It uses computers to collate and analyze Bible manuscripts to come up with the best reading. But it's biased and doesn't use and manuscripts from the Byzantine family. Because of this I'd have to label it a farce.
Then there's the Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text by Hodges and Farstad. It does basically the same thing as the CBGM but with Byzantine manuscripts. There's another Greek New Testament based on the Majority Text by Robinson and Pierpont; also the Byzantine family. There are a few English translations based on these works but not very many.
There is no official "canon" of New Testament manuscripts; as I said before, it all comes down to a person's preference. However, there's a general consensus about which ones are potentially legit and acceptable and which are not. Gnostic manuscripts aren't legit.
-
1
- Show all