Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125474 | ||
Tim You said "The very first copies are naturally going to be more accurate than the 1,000th copies!" I'm not sure that is always true. If the oldest happen to have been tampered with or written with a basis and we find later copies that aren't then I would say the later copies were most accurate. And I think that brings us to the our problem, obviously if the experts were sure the older copies were in fact without fault they would have summarily discounted the later manuscripts. However they couldn't say that with certainty especially in the face of some many manuscripts attesting to text that “older’ manuscripts have differently. So rather than dismiss the later manuscripts they weighed the two and try to decide which is the correct copy. My contention is why not go with the TR which mostly agrees with the Majority Text. Using the TR as a basis and then adding footnoting to denote any discrepancy between it and the “oldest” text. Instead we have one Bible using the TR another using the NU and still others using Majority. The Bible’s read different aside from the translation and all still footnote all the discrepancies. To me it makes the issue that much more confusing. In the example of John 7:8 let’s say each Bible contained the ‘yet’ or something that implied it and merely footnoted the difference of text would have everyone still reading on the same page. Instead some translations have the ‘yet’ some imply the ‘yet’ and still others ignore the ‘yet’ completely. EdB |
||||||
2 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125494 | ||
Greetings EdB! If the first copies are corrupt, how could later copies possibly be accurate? :-) This is the basic difference I would have with your approach. The later the manuscript, the greater the chance of purposeful or accidental error. You mentioned bias - there actually was bias with many of the 'majority' texts. They wanted to standardize the texts and make them say the same thing. This is why the experts don't simply count manuscripts, but weigh them. Personally, I prefer an eclectic text. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | kalos | 125501 | ||
Tim: I agree. And what I do not understand is this: If the later copies are copies of the earlier copies, then how could the later copies be MORE accurate than the earlier copies? --kalos |
||||||
4 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125513 | ||
Greetings Kalos! I don't know! ;-) I never have understood the reasoning behind 'older' is bad! Now, obviously, mistakes can be made even in an old manuscript. But, each generation of copies would also contain those mistakes AND any other mistakes that may have been made. So, the earlier the manuscript, the more likely it is accurate - in general. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||