NTTC MARK 1:41: Was Jesus “Moved with Pity” or “Moved With Anger”?

The reason that this text is considered difficult is that one is compelled to think contrary to the leading internal textual principle: Which reading is it that the other reading(s) most likely came from? It is easy to see how “moved with anger” would have been changed to “moved with pity.” In that case, the scribe would have been softening the reading. It is very difficult to understand why a scribe would be tempted to change “moved with pity” to “moved with anger.”

NTTC ACTS 20:28b: Is It “which he [God] purchased with the blood of his own [Son]” OR “which he [God] purchased with his own blood”?

Be honest in all things Follow the truth regardless Obey God not man If textual scholars and translators obey all three of those principles; then, if the text, translation, or interpretation supports our specific doctrinal view, fine, if it does not, fine. A so-called major doctrine does not hang in the balance based on one Bible verse.

Are You Following the Truth Regardless in Textual Studies, Bible Translation, Interpretation, and Application?

What is the fight for the truth worth if the person misrepresents (alters by adding to or removing from) God's Word (Revelation 22:18-19) when the textual reading or the translation does not favor the theological position of a textual scholar or the Bible translator/publisher or an interpreter or a Christian reader. Do we prefer outright lies in the translations? Would Jesus want that?

Textual Character and the Scribe of P75 (Papyrus 75)

P75 contains most of Luke and John, known as Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), dates from 175 C.E. to 225 C.E. It is textually very close to Codex Vaticanus. A handful from the 19th and early 20th centuries argued that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts removed the Byzantine text readings. However, if this were true and the corrupt Byzantine readings were early as some claim, we would have those readings in P75 to prove it, as well as the other 60+ papyrus manuscripts dating from 100-300 A.D.

OMISSIONS or ADDITIONS?: Why Are Thousands of Variant Readings Missing from the Modern Bible Translations?

The Byzantine text family that makes up the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV, and the NKJV is 80-85% in agreement with the Alexandrian text family that is behind almost all modern translations. The King James Version Onlyists (KJVOists) & the Textus Receptus Onlyists (TROists) call the differences omissions in the Westcott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA). They would argue that many of the differences are actually additions to the original texts, which have now been restored to their original form by removing spurious interpolations? Who is correct?

Why would the Holy Spirit miraculously inspire 66 fully inerrant texts, and then allow human imperfection into the copies?

Some Bible critics seem, to begin with, the belief that if the originals were inspired by God and fully inerrant, the subsequent copies must continue to be inerrant in order for the inerrancy of the originals to have value. They seem to be asking, “If only the originals were inspired, and the copies were not inspired, and we do not have the originals, how are we to be certain of any passage in Scripture?” In other words, God would never allow the inspired, inerrant Word to suffer copying errors. Why would he perform the miracle of inspiring the message to be fully inerrant and not continue with the miracle of inspiring the copyists throughout the centuries to keep it inerrant?

Theodore Cressy Skeat: AKA T. C. Skeat (1907 – 2003)

Theodore Cressy Skeat: AKA T. C. Skeat (1907 — 2003) If you have never heard of T. C. Skeat; then, you have barely scratched the surface of New Testament Textual Studies. Skeat's name and work can be found many dozens upon dozens of times and in some cases 200+ times in many modern NT textual criticism books. Read what lies below and learn of one of the greatest textual scholars of the 20th century.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑