MIKE, TERRA, ED

[mikeboll64]

Ed,

What does your last post mean? What point are you trying to make?

It seems to me that it is a DIVERSION because you don't want to address my last post.

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 16 2012,05:26)

Hi Mike, I thought you said the Alexandrian texts were dated before the Nicene-creed. Are you forgetting how the picture is actually put together now all of a sudden? God bless Ed J

Hi Mike,

'The Nestle Text' was a blending of the  'Codex Sinaiticvs' and the 'Codex Vaticanvs'.

So if these currupt Alexandrian texts predated the Nicene-creed, then the
English translators translated 'The Nestle Text' as it was written in the Greek.            …do you understand now?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Not at all, Ed. You are being as clear as mud.

Anyway, would you answer the bolded part of my last post on the previous page?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,04:25)

Does it TRULY make sense to you that Trinitarian translators would use “He” instead of “God” in 1 Tim 3:16………….. … IF THERE WAS EVEN A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD MAKE AN HONEST CLAIM FOR THE “GOD” TRANSLATION?

Hi Mike,

They couldn't if they were faithfully translating 'The Nestle Text'.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

John 1:18 NIV
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God, and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

And judging from their translation of 1:18, do you think they “faithfully” translated it from the Greek text?

As a committee, we use what Bible translators call an “eclectic text” drawing on all the major published original texts, but making our own decisions about the textual variants found in those traditions.

In other words, they considered the mss that have “God” in 1 Tim 3:16, along with all the other available mss, and made their own descisions about the variants.

Why do you suppose they opted for “he” instead of “God” in 3:16, Ed?

Oh, that's right…………… you can't comment about motives.

Okay, I'll put it a different way:
Do you suppose, since they considered all the major published texts, they would have translated “God” instead of “he”, if there were even the slightest chance that the “God” translation could be justified?

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 16 2012,08:16)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 16 2012,00:44) edj Quote Hi Pierre, 1. The power to understand Scripture. (1Cor.2:10) 2. The power to live a “Sin-Free” life. (1John 5:18) 3. The power to teach God's word. (1Cor.14:36) 4. The power to speak in other tongues. (Acts 2:4) 5. Some even had the power to heal. (Acts 3:6) DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THOSE POWERS GIVEN TO THEM WERE TO SERVE OTHERS THAN THEM SELVES AND THAT IN NO MEANS IT SHOULD BE USE IN ANY OTHER WAY . Hi Pierre,   You mean you can't understand Scripture for you own behalf? You mean you can't live a “Sin-Free” life for you own behalf? You mean you can't speak in other tongues for you own behalf? You mean you can't heal for you own behalf?

ed

if you answer yes to all or any of your question ,YOU ARE NOT SERVING CHRIST OR HIS FATHER ,BUT YOURSELF

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,10:39)

John 1:18 NIV 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God, and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. And judging from their translation of 1:18, do you think they “faithfully” translated it from the Greek text?

Hi Mike, (there is no such thing as a begotten god)

John 1:18 (Nestle text) θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο

It looks they are even embellishing the Nestle text.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,10:39)

In other words, they considered the mss that have “God” in 1 Tim 3:16, along with all the other available mss, and made their own descisions about the variants. Why do you suppose they opted for “he” instead of “God” in 3:16, Ed?

Hi Mike, because the word θεὸς (Theos) is not in there in the Nestle text.

1Tim.3:16 (Nestle text) καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον: Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 15 2012,18:19)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,10:39) In other words, they considered the mss that have “God” in 1 Tim 3:16, along with all the other available mss, and made their own descisions about the variants. Why do you suppose they opted for “he” instead of “God” in 3:16, Ed? Hi Mike, because the word θεὸς (Theos) is not in there in the Nestle text.

Ed, they said they translated from “all the major published original texts” – as I just showed you in green letters in a previous post.  What part of “all the major published original texts” makes you think, “ONLY the Nestle text”?  

Ed, my time on HN has recently been limited due to work issues.  I won't have time to play your silly games anymore.  Keep that in mind as you notice me not addressing your game-playing posts, okay?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 15 2012,18:18)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,10:39) John 1:18 NIV 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God, and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. And judging from their translation of 1:18, do you think they “faithfully” translated it from the Greek text?   Hi Mike, (there is no such thing as a begotten god) It looks they are even embellishing the Nestle text.

So then your answer is, “NO Mike, it surely DOESN'T look like they faithfully translated the Greek text”, right?

See Ed? The answer to my question is “NO” – plain and simple.

Also, Deborah was a god, according to scripture, and she was begotten.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2012,05:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 15 2012,18:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,10:39) In other words, they considered the mss that have “God” in 1 Tim 3:16, along with all the other available mss, and made their own descisions about the variants. Why do you suppose they opted for “he” instead of “God” in 3:16, Ed? Hi Mike, because the word θεὸς (Theos) is not in there in the Nestle text. Ed, they said they translated from “all the major published original texts” – as I just showed you in green letters in a previous post.  What part of “all the major published original texts” makes you think, “ONLY the Nestle text”?   Ed, my time on HN has recently been limited due to work issues.  I won't have time to play your silly games anymore.  Keep that in mind as you notice me not addressing your game-playing posts, okay?

Hi Mike,

The main problem with the NIV is in the New Testament with the Greek text that it was translated from. There are only two Greek texts used today for translating English Bibles: The Textus Receptus (The Traditional Text), and the UBS 3rd /Nestle-Aland text. This may some times be referred to as the NU text.

I discovered that there has never existed an ancient Greek manuscript that reads the same as the Nestle and United Bible Society's Greek text which the NIV, NASV, and most other modern translations are translated from. These modern translations have not been translated from an ancient Greek manuscript, but from a modern man made Greek text that was compiled from a hand full of ancient manuscripts (primarily from 2 manuscripts) which have many variant readings and many omissions. The Nestle Aland and United Bible Society's Greek text (NU Greek text) is actually a 20th century Greek “manuscript” (actually a text) since there has never been a Greek manuscript that reads the same as it does.  (Link)

---

From the above we can see that W/H Nestle/Aland Greek Text, which is now gladly accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, differs greatly from the Textus Receptus on which the Reformation Bibles were based. Keep these facts in mind as we now turn our attention to the New International Version (NIV) which is based on the W/H Nestle/Aland Greek Text.

What's The Difference?
The difference between Textus Receptus (TR) and the W/H Nestle/Aland texts is caused by two ancient manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B)). The TR excludes these two manuscripts. The Nestle/Aland text includes them. Codex Sinaiticus was retrieved from a wastepaper basket in a convent at the foot of Mount Sinai in A.D.1844. Codex Vaticanus, a 4th century document, was found in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it had lain virtually unused for over a thousand years. These two ancient manuscripts, both of which were considered unfit for use even by their own custodians, were seized upon in the later half of the 19th century and foisted on the unsuspecting Christian church in place of the trusted Textus Receptus. The following reference from page 554 of G.A.Ripplinger's book New Age Versions (ISBN 0-9635845-0-2) refers:  (Link)

---

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2012,12:22)

……..which have many variant readings and many omissions.

Is it really an “omission” if the OLDER mss didn't have the words, and then they started showing up later in NEWER mss?

Seems to me like the newer mss have ADDITIONS – rather than the older ones having OMISSIONS.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2012,07:07)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2012,12:22) ……..which have many variant readings and many omissions. Is it really an “omission” if the OLDER mss didn't have the words, and then they started showing up later in NEWER mss?   Seems to me like the newer mss have ADDITIONS – rather than the older ones having OMISSIONS.

Hi Mike,

The eraser works just as well as the pencil.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Ed,

Let's take the case of 1 John 5:7. The additional words didn't show up in the text of ANY mss before the 14th century. Are you implying that someone who lived AFTER the 14th century built a time machine, and went back and ERASED those words from the OLDER mss?

Ed, you are once again being the little boy who insists the sky is green and the grass is blue – despite all evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, no time for games.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2012,06:34)

Ed, Let's take the case of 1 John 5:7.  The additional words didn't show up in the text of ANY mss before the 14th century.  Are you implying that someone who lived AFTER the 14th century built a time machine, and went back and ERASED those words from the OLDER mss?   Ed, you are once again being the little boy who insists the sky is green and the grass is blue – despite all evidence to the contrary. Sorry, no time for games.

Hi Mike,

The fact that 1John 5:7 (Johannine comma) was added to one of the earliest ms.
does in no way prove that all dependencies are additions to the mss. rather than deletions.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Ed,

I'm quite sure that “14th century” doesn't count as “one of the earliest mss”.  

Other than that, I'm not sure what you're even saying in that post.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2012,07:42)

Ed, I'm quite sure that “14th century” doesn't count as “one of the earliest mss”.   Other than that, I'm not sure what you're even saying in that post.

Hi Mike,

    You are making two (incorrect) assumptions:

1. Alterations are done only by additions to manuscripts
2. A copy of a 14th century ms. means this was the beginning of it.

You can believe these assumptions if you want,
but please discontinue saying your assumptions are the facts.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 20 2012,15:01)

You are making two (incorrect) assumptions: 1. Alterations are done only by additions to manuscripts 2. A copy of a 14th century ms. means this was the beginning of it.

1.  I have NEVER made that assumption, and what's more, I've ALREADY told you that the words “nor the Son” in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 were OMITTED in later mss.  I've also ALREADY told you that the word “he” in 1 Tim 3:16 was later CHANGED to “God”.  Right there are TWO examples that WE'VE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT where it is clear the alteration was NOT done by ADDING words to the text.  So how is it that you claim I assume all alterations are ADDITIONS?  

2.  If the words were in mss older than the 14th century, then why have ALL the older mss we've uncovered NOT had those words in them?

There are thousands of them, Ed.  Don't you think we would have found at least ONE ms that was older than the 14th century and had those extra words – if the extra words weren't in fact a later addition to the text?

Dude, we know of FOUR mss in which those extra words are added in as a marginal note.  How do you explain that?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2012,08:08)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 20 2012,15:01) You are making two (incorrect) assumptions: 1. Alterations are done only by additions to manuscripts 2. A copy of a 14th century ms. means this was the beginning of it. 1.  I have NEVER made that assumption, and what's more, I've ALREADY told you that the words “nor the Son” in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 were OMITTED in later mss.  I've also ALREADY told you that the word “he” in 1 Tim 3:16 was later CHANGED to “God”.  Right there are TWO examples that WE'VE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT where it is clear the alteration was NOT done by ADDING words to the text.  So how is it that you claim I assume all alterations are ADDITIONS?   2.  If the words were in mss older than the 14th century, then why have ALL the older mss we've uncovered NOT had those words in them? There are thousands of them, Ed.  Don't you think we would have found at least ONE ms that was older than the 14th century and had those extra words – if the extra words weren't in fact a later addition to the text? Dude, we know of FOUR mss in which those extra words are added in as a marginal note.  How do you explain that?

Hi Mike,

1. OK nix assumption #1.   …sor.
2. Are you suggesting that Robert Stephanus (Textus Receptus: 1550) had only the copy you site?

Time decays paper faster than animal skins.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Ed,

Here are the two questions I asked you in my last post:

1. There are thousands of them, Ed. Don't you think we would have found at least ONE ms that was older than the 14th century and had those extra words – if the extra words weren't in fact a later addition to the text?

2. Dude, we know of FOUR mss in which those extra words are added in as a marginal note. How do you explain that?

Please answer them.

[Author]

Posts