- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Constitutionalist said:
Quote The original “manuscript” does not have “Jesus” saving people out of Egypt.
Con,
You incessantly misunderstand my point. I am just trying to show that your claim that the Novum testamentum Graece is “Latin translation garbage” is false. The word “Jesus” is found in some Greek manuscripts.
Now in your so called scholarly opinion what is the “original” manuscript? THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT EXIST TODAY.So it is YOU who doesn't get it.
thinker
Constitutionalist said:
Quote The original “manuscript” does not have “Jesus” saving people out of Egypt. TO ALL:
Con's statement above reflects the zenith of his ignorance. We do not have the “original” manuscripts. So we cannot be sure how the original manuscripts read.
The preface in the ESV states that the reading in its text is the better reading. It says,
Types of Textual Footnotes
Alternative translations. Footnotes of this kind provide alternative translations for specific words or phrases when there is a strong possibility that such words or phrases could be translated in another way…..In such cases, the translation deemed to have the stronger support is in the text while other possible renderings are in the note.
The ESV translators are thus claiming that the reading “Jesus” which is in the text has the stronger support while “the Lord” which is in the note is a “possible” reading.
No one but Constitutionalist presumes to know what the original manuscripts say because we do not have the originals to compare. So we are at the mercy of the scholars to tell us what is the most reliable readings in any given text. Seeing that we know that Constitutionalist is not at all a scholar we may just ignore what he has to say about it.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,16:22) Constitutionalist said: Quote The original “manuscript” does not have “Jesus” saving people out of Egypt.
Con,
You incessantly misunderstand my point. I am just trying to show that your claim that the Novum testamentum Graece is “Latin translation garbage” is false. The word “jesus' is found in some Greek manuscripts.
Now in your so called scholarly opinion what is the “original” manuscript? THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT EXIST TODAY.So it is YOU who doesn't get it.
thinker
Ok, how about if I say the OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS do not have it? Novum is far from OLD. Point is the same.Original – Oldest same point, you use johnny come lately manuscripts which still bastardize scripture.
You may pick at it all day long, but your Greco-Roman writings from your catholic trinitarian tradition does not hold weight.
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,16:41) Constitutionalist said: Quote The original “manuscript” does not have “Jesus” saving people out of Egypt. TO ALL:
Con's statement above reflects the zenith of his ignorance. We do not have the “original” manuscripts. So we cannot be sure how the original manuscripts read.
The preface in the ESV states that the reading in its text is the better reading. It says,
Types of Textual Footnotes
Alternative translations. Footnotes of this kind provide alternative translations for specific words or phrases when there is a strong possibility that such words or phrases could be translated in another way…..In such cases, the translation deemed to have the stronger support is in the text while other possible renderings are in the note.
The ESV translators are thus claiming that the reading “Jesus” which is in the text has the stronger support while “the Lord” which is in the note is a “possible” reading.
No one but Constitutionalist presumes to know what the original manuscripts say because we do not have the originals to compare. So we are at the mercy of the scholars to tell us what is the most reliable readings in any given text. Seeing that we know that Constitutionalist is not at all a scholar we may just ignore what he has to say about it.
thinker
So it is a better translation because the preface say's so?LOL, your too much.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 14 2009,11:47) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,16:22) Constitutionalist said: Quote The original “manuscript” does not have “Jesus” saving people out of Egypt.
Con,
You incessantly misunderstand my point. I am just trying to show that your claim that the Novum testamentum Graece is “Latin translation garbage” is false. The word “jesus' is found in some Greek manuscripts.
Now in your so called scholarly opinion what is the “original” manuscript? THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT EXIST TODAY.So it is YOU who doesn't get it.
thinker
Ok, how about if I say the OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS do not have it? Novum is far from OLD. Point is the same.Original – Oldest same point, you use johnny come lately manuscripts which still bastardize scripture.
You may pick at it all day long, but your Greco-Roman writings from your catholic trinitarian tradition does not hold weight.
Thw NASB note acknowledges that the two manuscripts which say “Jesus” are “EARLY.” Did you see that or are you just ignoring it? Anyway, trinitarianism is in verses 4-5 just the same for “the Lord” who saved the people out of Egypt of verse 5 is “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Lord” of verse 4. The word “Lord” does not mystically and magically change meaning in the two verses.thinker
Constitutionalist said:
Quote Original – Oldest same point, you use johnny come lately manuscripts which still bastardize scripture. TO ALL:
This man didn't read the OP to this thread or he has a reading comprehension problem. The NASB translators who chose the variant reading “the Lord” acknowledge that the reading “Jesus” in Jude 5 is based in “two EARLY manuscripts.” So the scholars themselves tell us that they are older manuscripts but Con says that they are “johnny come lately.”
Is Con the “scholar” we should trust?
thinker
Constitutionalist said:
Quote So it is a better translation because the preface say's so? LOL, your too much.
Did you read the OP to this thread? Or do you have a reading comprehension problem? The NASB translators themselves, though they chose the variant reading “the Lord” acknowledge that the “Jesus” reading is based in “two EARLY manuscripts.” Yet you say the “Jesus” reading is “johnny come lately.”
It is you who is too much.
thinker
Hi TT,
So you are somehow convinced that a couple of early manuscripts must be correct?
Was Jesus the God of Israel and if so why did he say what he did in Jn8.54?Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,16:54) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 14 2009,11:47) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,16:22) Constitutionalist said: Quote The original “manuscript” does not have “Jesus” saving people out of Egypt.
Con,
You incessantly misunderstand my point. I am just trying to show that your claim that the Novum testamentum Graece is “Latin translation garbage” is false. The word “jesus' is found in some Greek manuscripts.
Now in your so called scholarly opinion what is the “original” manuscript? THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT EXIST TODAY.So it is YOU who doesn't get it.
thinker
Ok, how about if I say the OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS do not have it? Novum is far from OLD. Point is the same.Original – Oldest same point, you use johnny come lately manuscripts which still bastardize scripture.
You may pick at it all day long, but your Greco-Roman writings from your catholic trinitarian tradition does not hold weight.
Thw NASB note acknowledges that the two manuscripts which say “Jesus” are “EARLY.” Did you see that or are you just ignoring it? Anyway, trinitarianism is in verses 4-5 just the same for “the Lord” who saved the people out of Egypt of verse 5 is “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Lord” of verse 4. The word “Lord” does not mystically and magically change meaning in the two verses.thinker
Thought we were talking ESV, now your talking NASB.Personally I use KJV, it is far better than the ESV or the NASB, even with it's translation problems. I also refuse to use any bible with a copyright law. Because it is bastardized even farther.
Quote (Gene @ Dec. 13 2009,15:52) pritNick………. Relying on the Spirit of GOD is sufficient for me, as Jesus said the spirit (intellect of God) will teach you (ALL) things. It is also plain you do not understand Scriptures that are written , as you have many times shown US, so i would not be calling the kettle black if i were a pot. IMO gene
GeneSo why even have a Bible?
Do you think your ability to hear from God is greater than the writers of the Bible?
Who will believe you when you quote any scritpture if you think it is not the inspired word of God?
This is proof why you will not accept the truth of the scriptures because you think your understanding is greater than the scriptures.
WJ
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,19:54) Did you see that or are you just ignoring it? Anyway, trinitarianism is in verses 4-5 just the same for “the Lord” who saved the people out of Egypt of verse 5 is “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Lord” of verse 4. The word “Lord” does not mystically and magically change meaning in the two verses.
Hi JackThis is the point they are ignoring.
The writer was speaking of the same Lord in verses 4 and 5.
The proof is in verse 4, which reads “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Lord“.
See the word “ONLY”.
The fact that a couple of early manuscripts reads it Jesus just adds weight to it.
Like I said it shows their insincerity by not using proper exegesis of the scriptures, instead it is “Eisegesis” that rules the day for them.
“But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. Zech 7:11
WJ
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,17:07) Constitutionalist said: Quote So it is a better translation because the preface say's so? LOL, your too much.
Did you read the OP to this thread? Or do you have a reading comprehension problem? The NASB translators themselves, though they chose the variant reading “the Lord” acknowledge that the “Jesus” reading is based in “two EARLY manuscripts.” Yet you say the “Jesus” reading is “johnny come lately.”
It is you who is too much.
thinker
Take your two early manuscripts and compare them by dates of all the other manuscripts by dates, and see where it lays. By date they come later than other manuscripts, this alone should create speculation, but go ahead and use it to your advantage, no others are buying into it.Personally I really don't care if you worship a trinitarian golden calf, but you seem so adament to convince us to bow down to your bovine gods.
Why do you bother?
And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 14 2009,14:05) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,19:54) Did you see that or are you just ignoring it? Anyway, trinitarianism is in verses 4-5 just the same for “the Lord” who saved the people out of Egypt of verse 5 is “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Lord” of verse 4. The word “Lord” does not mystically and magically change meaning in the two verses.
Hi JackThis is the point they are ignoring.
The writer was speaking of the same Lord in verses 4 and 5.
The proof is in verse for which reads “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Lord“.
See the word “ONLY”.
The fact that a couple of earlier manuscripts reads it Jesus just adds weight to it.
Like I said it shows their insincerity by not using proper exegesis of the scriptures, instead it is “Eisegesis” that rules the day for them.
“But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. Zech 7:11
WJ
Hi WJ,
You deny the God of the jews and substitute His Son as our God?
In so doing you destroy faith in the hope you can recreate a trinity god?Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 14 2009,12:31) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 13 2009,17:07) Constitutionalist said: Quote So it is a better translation because the preface say's so? LOL, your too much.
Did you read the OP to this thread? Or do you have a reading comprehension problem? The NASB translators themselves, though they chose the variant reading “the Lord” acknowledge that the “Jesus” reading is based in “two EARLY manuscripts.” Yet you say the “Jesus” reading is “johnny come lately.”
It is you who is too much.
thinker
Take your two early manuscripts and compare them by dates of all the other manuscripts by dates, and see where it lays. By date they come later than other manuscripts, this alone should create speculation, but go ahead and use it to your advantage, no others are buying into it.Personally I really don't care if you worship a trinitarian golden calf, but you seem so adament to convince us to bow down to your bovine gods.
Why do you bother?
And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
The writer was speaking of the same Lord in verses 4 and 5.The proof is in verse 4, which reads “Jesus Christ the ONLY Master and Lord“.
See the word “ONLY”.
The fact that a couple of early manuscripts reads it Jesus just adds weight to it.
Like I said it shows their insincerity by not using proper exegesis of the scriptures, instead it is “Eisegesis” that rules the day for them.
“But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. Zech 7:11
WJ
Hi WJ,
Rightly we refuse to hear of other strange trinity gods.
We follow Jesus and his God is the Father.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2009,14:32) Hi WJ,
Rightly we refuse to hear of other strange trinity gods.
We follow Jesus and his God is the Father.
NHIt seems that you refuse to accept Jesus as your “ONLY Master and Lord“.
WJ
Hi WJ,
You, who adds trinity to scripture, accuse those who abide in what Jesus said of refusing the lordship of Jesus?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2009,15:55) Hi WJ,
You, who adds trinity to scripture, accuse those who abide in what Jesus said of refusing the lordship of Jesus?
NHDo you believe Jude 1:4 or not?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
