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.
Public schools and video games have damaged the literacy rate. That's not a reason to dumb down the Bible.
We had an illiterate man in the pews who wanted to learn how to read so that he could read along in the Bible Sunday mornings. He was provided someone to help, but didn't take advantage of that opportunity, so he was given an audio Bible.
We had an illiterate man in the pews who wanted to learn how to read so that he could read along in the Bible Sunday mornings. He was provided someone to help, but didn't take advantage of that opportunity, so he was given an audio Bible.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
It's interesting to hear that coming from a KJO because Erasmus did that very thing...
Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. Then, he polished the Latin, declaring, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."
(source: Wikipedia; Erasmus quoted from Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 5)
Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. Then, he polished the Latin, declaring, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."
(source: Wikipedia; Erasmus quoted from Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 5)
-
1
- Show all
The geographically superior reading criterion is vague because geography has been used in various ways by various critics. This argues that the reading supported by the most diverse sets of "local texts" is best. I.e. this criterion is that reading is best which is supported by the most geographically diverse manuscripts. That is if reading X is supported by manuscripts from Rome, Carthage, and Alexandria, while reading Y is supported only by witnesses from Byzantium, reading X is to be preferred. This was popularized by Streeter which goes back to Bengel.
As said your support for the Critical reading came from different locales but the reading of KJB was also well supported in various locales. I have presented the Arabic version which represents the Arab nations, the German Teutonic for the German people, and the Spanish version (the language of romance) for Hispanic people including the Eastern European nation for the Orthodox Church which is said to have existed in the 1st Century AD Besides, The Italian Diodatti have it, the Dutch, the Olivetan for the French and the Nestle Aland also have listed other justification for the “Theos” reading. If the basis is geography to ascertain the original reading, then I can see it the same. If the reading is to be based on the older, the reading of the KJB is still older since we have the reading for the Eastern Church.
Yes, I stand to be corrected in your “C” as the digitized copy has it (though I could not pinpoint what exactly if there is “Christ” as in below, and the reference “XPW” may refer to v.16) but as compared to NA/NA28 footnote and in their table. 1 Peter 3:15 if I am not mistaken, it was not listed.
I think it is an honesty that I said as “assumed” to have rather than claimed it have that P74 and P81 as evidence for the KJB. On the other hand, foreign languages as support for KJB reading may follows
The Standard Portuguese Bible 1681 have this “Senhor Deus”
15Az Úr Istent pedig szenteljétek meg a ti szívetekben. Mindig készek legyetek megfelelni mindenkinek, a ki számot kér tőletek a bennetek levő reménységről, szelídséggel és félelemmel:
Hungarian Version as translated by Google
15 Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Always be ready to respond to everyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear:
Russian Synodal Version as translated in Google
1 Peter 3:15 favors the “Lord God” rather the “Lord Christ”
“Господа Бога святите в сердцах ваших”,
sanctify the Lord God in your hearts
The KJB along with former English Translator excluding Wycliffe and the Rheims have the reading attested by the Hebrew text and not the LXX text. The parallel citation which Isaiah 8:13 gives in favor or agrees with the Hebrew Text and not the LXX Text as supposed. The context is referred to firstly “the LORD of host” as the text says so, then, LORD as in vv1, 5, 11, 17-18 then “Immanuel” v.8 which means “God is with us” as in v.10. For the word “God” are found also in verse 19, 21. This means Peter is citing directly to the Hebrew text which favor the traditional occurrence of the KJB reading and not the critical reading.
Thank you
As said your support for the Critical reading came from different locales but the reading of KJB was also well supported in various locales. I have presented the Arabic version which represents the Arab nations, the German Teutonic for the German people, and the Spanish version (the language of romance) for Hispanic people including the Eastern European nation for the Orthodox Church which is said to have existed in the 1st Century AD Besides, The Italian Diodatti have it, the Dutch, the Olivetan for the French and the Nestle Aland also have listed other justification for the “Theos” reading. If the basis is geography to ascertain the original reading, then I can see it the same. If the reading is to be based on the older, the reading of the KJB is still older since we have the reading for the Eastern Church.
Yes, I stand to be corrected in your “C” as the digitized copy has it (though I could not pinpoint what exactly if there is “Christ” as in below, and the reference “XPW” may refer to v.16) but as compared to NA/NA28 footnote and in their table. 1 Peter 3:15 if I am not mistaken, it was not listed.
I think it is an honesty that I said as “assumed” to have rather than claimed it have that P74 and P81 as evidence for the KJB. On the other hand, foreign languages as support for KJB reading may follows
The Standard Portuguese Bible 1681 have this “Senhor Deus”
15Az Úr Istent pedig szenteljétek meg a ti szívetekben. Mindig készek legyetek megfelelni mindenkinek, a ki számot kér tőletek a bennetek levő reménységről, szelídséggel és félelemmel:
Hungarian Version as translated by Google
15 Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Always be ready to respond to everyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear:
Russian Synodal Version as translated in Google
1 Peter 3:15 favors the “Lord God” rather the “Lord Christ”
“Господа Бога святите в сердцах ваших”,
sanctify the Lord God in your hearts
The KJB along with former English Translator excluding Wycliffe and the Rheims have the reading attested by the Hebrew text and not the LXX text. The parallel citation which Isaiah 8:13 gives in favor or agrees with the Hebrew Text and not the LXX Text as supposed. The context is referred to firstly “the LORD of host” as the text says so, then, LORD as in vv1, 5, 11, 17-18 then “Immanuel” v.8 which means “God is with us” as in v.10. For the word “God” are found also in verse 19, 21. This means Peter is citing directly to the Hebrew text which favor the traditional occurrence of the KJB reading and not the critical reading.
Thank you
It has nothing to do with "dumbing down"; the language has changed, as it always does. But even if what you say is true, that children's vocabulary has been artificially dumbed down, shouldn't we be more concerned with meeting people where they are than with trying to make things unnecessarily difficult for them? They can start out with something that's easy for them to understand and then progress from there and learn the finer points of the Bible. We should encourage them to do that.
Language is fluid, that's just reality. We have to face reality; to do otherwise is mental illness really. It's a form of delusion to think that one version of the Bible from 1611 will always be the only preserved word of God in English.
Language is fluid, that's just reality. We have to face reality; to do otherwise is mental illness really. It's a form of delusion to think that one version of the Bible from 1611 will always be the only preserved word of God in English.
-
3
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You're almost right. There is not one translation that we can trust completely, and the KJV is a translation. But scholars are confident that the Greek texts we have are 99.something percent accurate. It's a matter of learning the texts, the meanings of the different Greek words, comparing translations, and going from there.
-
1
- Show all
The children should be taught the Bible and learn how to read it as many colonists taught their children. If you compare many of the writings of the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers written to common men, many of which were farmers, it would be heavy reading for many pastors.
A United Methodist lady bought one of the Teen Life Bibles, or whatever it was called, for her autistic 12 and 15 year olds. They mocked it for the "fluid language" it used. Even they thought it was a joke. When I taught them basics from the KJV and asked them to read it, they did not have a problem with the selected passages.
Judging from some common Bibles, I think I understand why they want their paraphrases and dumbed down verbage. Most probably couldn't hold a simple conversation in Greek.
A United Methodist lady bought one of the Teen Life Bibles, or whatever it was called, for her autistic 12 and 15 year olds. They mocked it for the "fluid language" it used. Even they thought it was a joke. When I taught them basics from the KJV and asked them to read it, they did not have a problem with the selected passages.
Judging from some common Bibles, I think I understand why they want their paraphrases and dumbed down verbage. Most probably couldn't hold a simple conversation in Greek.
I feel like I’m only repeating myself. “Geographic attestation” is only one half of the argument. It is only one part of the argument as a collective whole.
It is not simply that a reading is attested in multiple textual streams, but that it is also an (emphasis added) early exemplar of such, of which 1 Peter 3:15 is. By citing 15th c. versional witnesses (as you continue to do, even in this post), it does not have the same weight. It only shows that by the 15th, 16th, and 17th c., that this reading was attested throughout the world, but that rather begs the question. In the scenario I have presented, it shows that κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) is not only the earliest attested, but also (and more importantly) attested very early on in various textual streams. That means it was the most commonly known reading of the text in the “Christian world” by the 4th c., with absolutely no evidence that “God as Lord” antedates such reading. This is not an “either/or” argument, it’s a “both are true” argument: It is both, the earliest (emphasis added) and the most broadly attested throughout the Christian world by the 4th c. The fact that κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) is found early on in various textual streams weighs heavily. Your favored reading does not have this kind of early/broad attestation.
So in light of this, by bringing up more modern Spanish, German, Italian versions, this does not quite carry the same weight. The only thing you prove by it took 16 centuries for “God as Lord” before it became widespread. So this really does not work in favor of your argument, but counteracts it.
You keep stating that the NA28 lists add’l justification for “God as Lord,” but it does not mention anything any differently than what I have been saying this entire time. Do not forget that in the primary text, NA28 has κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”), and gives this the reading primacy over “God as Lord.”
The question you are failing to ask yourself, is this: “What textual apparatus’ were used in the translation of the German Luther Bible, the Spanish Sagradas, the Patriarchal Text of 1904 (which is the standard text used by the Eastern Orthodox), the Standard Portuguese Bible (1681), the Hungarian Version, the Russian Synodal Version?” You will be quite surprised to find many of these versions use the same apparatus’ that underly the KJV. Thus, they are just copies of the same materials used to translate the KJV. That does not constitute early, widespread attestation.
Now let's address snapshot from NA28,
But you do realize that this is the lacunae, right? All the references in the table above (including the portion in red) are the portions of the mss that are missing. If you were familiar enough with Ephraemi, you would know this. For example, here is a snapshot of Tischendorf’s transcription of Ephraemi at 1 Peter 1:1-2 (see portion highlighted in red, below),
One can see from this that that 1 Peter 1:1-2 is lacunae. So in summary, each of the passages that are listed in the referenced table above are all considered lacunae, and the verses that are not listed are actually what are present in the mss. If you simply read what NA28 says, it explains it.
Further, you then post the following image:
But you never identify the mss. However, when I first saw it, I immediately identified it as papyri 72. I could tell from the style of writing and the material it was written on. And to confirm my suspicion, here is the exact folio as seen on CSNTM (https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/view/GA_P72):
For what purpose did you decide to include a photo of p72? p72, as shown in above photograph, is not on your side, but as evidenced in the NA28, UBS, and other critical editions, supports κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”).
Here is p74: https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_P74
And here is p81: https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_P81
Can you please show me 1 Peter 3:15 in either of them? No you cannot. So I guess thanks for wasting my (including yours) time?
It is not simply that a reading is attested in multiple textual streams, but that it is also an (emphasis added) early exemplar of such, of which 1 Peter 3:15 is. By citing 15th c. versional witnesses (as you continue to do, even in this post), it does not have the same weight. It only shows that by the 15th, 16th, and 17th c., that this reading was attested throughout the world, but that rather begs the question. In the scenario I have presented, it shows that κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) is not only the earliest attested, but also (and more importantly) attested very early on in various textual streams. That means it was the most commonly known reading of the text in the “Christian world” by the 4th c., with absolutely no evidence that “God as Lord” antedates such reading. This is not an “either/or” argument, it’s a “both are true” argument: It is both, the earliest (emphasis added) and the most broadly attested throughout the Christian world by the 4th c. The fact that κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) is found early on in various textual streams weighs heavily. Your favored reading does not have this kind of early/broad attestation.
So in light of this, by bringing up more modern Spanish, German, Italian versions, this does not quite carry the same weight. The only thing you prove by it took 16 centuries for “God as Lord” before it became widespread. So this really does not work in favor of your argument, but counteracts it.
You keep stating that the NA28 lists add’l justification for “God as Lord,” but it does not mention anything any differently than what I have been saying this entire time. Do not forget that in the primary text, NA28 has κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”), and gives this the reading primacy over “God as Lord.”
The question you are failing to ask yourself, is this: “What textual apparatus’ were used in the translation of the German Luther Bible, the Spanish Sagradas, the Patriarchal Text of 1904 (which is the standard text used by the Eastern Orthodox), the Standard Portuguese Bible (1681), the Hungarian Version, the Russian Synodal Version?” You will be quite surprised to find many of these versions use the same apparatus’ that underly the KJV. Thus, they are just copies of the same materials used to translate the KJV. That does not constitute early, widespread attestation.
Now let's address snapshot from NA28,
But you do realize that this is the lacunae, right? All the references in the table above (including the portion in red) are the portions of the mss that are missing. If you were familiar enough with Ephraemi, you would know this. For example, here is a snapshot of Tischendorf’s transcription of Ephraemi at 1 Peter 1:1-2 (see portion highlighted in red, below),
One can see from this that that 1 Peter 1:1-2 is lacunae. So in summary, each of the passages that are listed in the referenced table above are all considered lacunae, and the verses that are not listed are actually what are present in the mss. If you simply read what NA28 says, it explains it.
Further, you then post the following image:
But you never identify the mss. However, when I first saw it, I immediately identified it as papyri 72. I could tell from the style of writing and the material it was written on. And to confirm my suspicion, here is the exact folio as seen on CSNTM (https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/view/GA_P72):
For what purpose did you decide to include a photo of p72? p72, as shown in above photograph, is not on your side, but as evidenced in the NA28, UBS, and other critical editions, supports κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”).
Here is p74: https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_P74
And here is p81: https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_P81
Can you please show me 1 Peter 3:15 in either of them? No you cannot. So I guess thanks for wasting my (including yours) time?
Why would they be able to? Modern Greek is different from koine Greek of the New Testament era. I suspect knowledge of biblical Greek among people who work on translation teams is generally far better than that of the average pastor. This may not apply to the creators of paraphrases, but even then, I'm sure their knowledge exceeds that of (almost) every contributor to this board.
Well unfortunately you (as a KJV Onlyist) can’t use this kind of reasoning. If this is the position you wish to hold, then I will have you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Pardon the language, but "you’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t." It just won’t work for you. If we use that same reasoning as you apply at 1 Peter 3:15, then you would have to opt (in agreement with the NASB) for the variant reading “Lord” (1 Cor. 10:9) in contrast to the KJV, which says “Christ.” After all, 1 Cor. 10:9 is an allusion to Numbers 21:6, which refers to “the Lord.”
The problem you have, is that now you’ll argue for exactly the opposite as you just did for 1 Peter 3:15. Over in 1 Peter 3:15, you want to argue that because the OT text (Isaiah 8:12-13) refers to “the Lord” that “Christ” cannot be original. But now try to explain your way out of 1 Cor. 10:9. Who would have “thunk it”? You would be the scribe to conform, what I consider to be the better reading (“Christ”) to "Lord," even though the KJV says, "Christ." Talk your way out of that one... . You can’t use one standard for one text, and not apply that same standard to another. Like I said, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
My reasoning for thinking “Christ” is original at 1 Peter 3:15 is the exact same reason I think “Christ” is original at 1 Cor. 10:9. But now you’re going to backpedal and take back everything you just said all while trying to defend the KJV… . Where is the consistency?
If we simply look at the “internal evidence” (another text-critical criterion) of 1 Peter, this will give us further evidence (in conformity with the external evidence) that κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) is original.
Two passages in 1 Peter refer to Jesus as “Lord” in a way that identifies Him as YHWH. The first is Peter’s encouragement to new believers to grow in their salvation, “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” (1 Pet. 2:3). This is a clear allusion to Ps. 34:8, “taste and see that the Lord is good.” That the “Lord” in 1 Peter 2:3 is Jesus is evident from what follows in 1 Peter 2:4, “As you come to Him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to Him.” Peter cites a series of OT “stone” texts that are interpreted as referring to Christ. For example, in 1 Peter 2:6-8, it alludes to Isaiah 8:14 (and Isaiah 28:16, Ps. 118:22) which is the same referent point as 1 Peter 3:15 (cf. Isaiah 8:12-13 LXX). In Isaiah 8:14, it refers to YHWH as the “stone,” but in 1 Peter 2:8 it is Christ who is referred to as the “stone.” So when Peter refers to Christ as the “stone” (1 Peter 2:8), he confirms that when he refers to Christ as “Lord” in 1 Peter 2:3, that he was referring to Him as Lord of the OT. These intertextual links favor the 1 Peter 3:15’s reference to κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”).
I have a text in the arsenal to lambast a JW with, you do not.
The problem you have, is that now you’ll argue for exactly the opposite as you just did for 1 Peter 3:15. Over in 1 Peter 3:15, you want to argue that because the OT text (Isaiah 8:12-13) refers to “the Lord” that “Christ” cannot be original. But now try to explain your way out of 1 Cor. 10:9. Who would have “thunk it”? You would be the scribe to conform, what I consider to be the better reading (“Christ”) to "Lord," even though the KJV says, "Christ." Talk your way out of that one... . You can’t use one standard for one text, and not apply that same standard to another. Like I said, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
My reasoning for thinking “Christ” is original at 1 Peter 3:15 is the exact same reason I think “Christ” is original at 1 Cor. 10:9. But now you’re going to backpedal and take back everything you just said all while trying to defend the KJV… . Where is the consistency?
If we simply look at the “internal evidence” (another text-critical criterion) of 1 Peter, this will give us further evidence (in conformity with the external evidence) that κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) is original.
Two passages in 1 Peter refer to Jesus as “Lord” in a way that identifies Him as YHWH. The first is Peter’s encouragement to new believers to grow in their salvation, “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” (1 Pet. 2:3). This is a clear allusion to Ps. 34:8, “taste and see that the Lord is good.” That the “Lord” in 1 Peter 2:3 is Jesus is evident from what follows in 1 Peter 2:4, “As you come to Him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to Him.” Peter cites a series of OT “stone” texts that are interpreted as referring to Christ. For example, in 1 Peter 2:6-8, it alludes to Isaiah 8:14 (and Isaiah 28:16, Ps. 118:22) which is the same referent point as 1 Peter 3:15 (cf. Isaiah 8:12-13 LXX). In Isaiah 8:14, it refers to YHWH as the “stone,” but in 1 Peter 2:8 it is Christ who is referred to as the “stone.” So when Peter refers to Christ as the “stone” (1 Peter 2:8), he confirms that when he refers to Christ as “Lord” in 1 Peter 2:3, that he was referring to Him as Lord of the OT. These intertextual links favor the 1 Peter 3:15’s reference to κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”).
I have a text in the arsenal to lambast a JW with, you do not.
-
1
- Show all
Real briefly (while on the topic of 1 Peter 3:15, and Isaiah 8:12-13 LXX), I just want to point out one additional thing, especially when interacting with a JW and how the variant κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) benefits the discussion.
Often times a JW will argue that Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus as a “Mighty God,” but not the “Almighty God." But what they miss is that Isaiah 9 is apart of a larger discourse that points back to Isaiah 8. Isaiah 9:1 opens with the words, “But there will be no more gloom…” which suggests the author is finishing a line of thought that stems from the previous chapter (hence the word, “But”). When in 9:1 it makes reference to, “But there will be no more gloom,” this points back to what the author was referring to in 8:22, “Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be driven away into darkness.”
Here’s why this is significant: Because the very language — from the very same book, and from the very same context — which they suggests doesn’t refer to Jesus as “Almighty God,” is infact appropriated to “the Lord” Jesus (1Peter 3:14–15) following the exact same pattern the OT uses of YHWH, the Almighty (Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX).
Talk about a zinger.
Often times a JW will argue that Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus as a “Mighty God,” but not the “Almighty God." But what they miss is that Isaiah 9 is apart of a larger discourse that points back to Isaiah 8. Isaiah 9:1 opens with the words, “But there will be no more gloom…” which suggests the author is finishing a line of thought that stems from the previous chapter (hence the word, “But”). When in 9:1 it makes reference to, “But there will be no more gloom,” this points back to what the author was referring to in 8:22, “Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be driven away into darkness.”
Here’s why this is significant: Because the very language — from the very same book, and from the very same context — which they suggests doesn’t refer to Jesus as “Almighty God,” is infact appropriated to “the Lord” Jesus (1Peter 3:14–15) following the exact same pattern the OT uses of YHWH, the Almighty (Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX).
Talk about a zinger.
-
1
- Show all
Umm, 1 Peter 2:3-4 are not the immediate context. The context is referred to by Peter when he alludes to the old, like the women, he used "God" as in 1 Peter 3:5, and in the examples of Noah 1 Peter 3;20 he also used "God" instead of "Christ" hence figuring out the Old Testament idea of "God".
Okay, I'll try to check 1 Cor. 10:9 just be patient with me.
Okay, I'll try to check 1 Cor. 10:9 just be patient with me.