ECT New findings about the DofJ

[Angel4Truth]

STP,
I have gone through the Greek text here and I simply have no idea what you are addressing. Communication will improve enormously if you don't take a thing like "Mark 1:2" and say it is a lie, when it contains 10 or 100 items.

Now it sounds like you are saying the whole book is a lie. The whole gospel account Mark? The whole NIV? A Greek grammar book? You are so far from clear.


I really enjoyed your feast line of thought--that those things are fulfilled in Christ. It was real theology, even though I think fulfillment is still broader, that it is all that Christ did, not one for one (feast and act). But this here is just junk thinking.

Mark 1:2 is not accurate in the niv, its quoting Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah.

 

[Danoh]

Mark 1:2 is not accurate in the niv, its quoting Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah.

Trumper that he is, IP subscribes to a made up "alternate fact" regarding that passage - the "greater prophet" notion, or some such :chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

Mark 1:2 is not accurate in the niv, its quoting Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah.

Prophets is plural in many originals and the last lines are from Isaiah. What is the lie? They didn't have websites where they could conveniently check such things.

Nor is the issue the NIV. The usual top 5 Greek texts are a toss up, as I have explained. So there is no trans out there that has had an easy time on this, but a "lie"? What paranoids.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Prophets is plural in many originals

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

:chuckle:

That is relative to all the copies. There aren't any originals. That's why the 5 are used: Aleph A B D and p46 (p = papyrus). Many times in the literature these 5 mean, and are referred, to as 'the originals.' All the other copies are 2nd gen. There are some parts of Delta and C that are as close to original but fewer total documents.

I assumed you knew that the originals did not exist. That is why there is the science of establishment.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I assumed you knew that the originals did not exist.

Is there any one Bible that you believe, rely on, and trust the words of?

 

[Interplanner]

Is there any one Bible that you believe, rely on, and trust the words of?

The NIV is fine, say Goodrick and Kohlenberger of Multnomah U. They wrote the Greek 101 textbook and did the NIV concordance. It has good variant notes.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The NIV is fine, say Goodrick and Kohlenberger of Multnomah U. They wrote the Greek 101 textbook and did the NIV concordance. It has good variant notes.

When you desperately need to know what God has spoken on a matter, where do you go?

 

[Danoh]

The NIV is fine, say Goodrick and Kohlenberger of Multnomah U. They wrote the Greek 101 textbook and did the NIV concordance. It has good variant notes.

From...

http://www.preteristcentral.com/Review of John Noe's Unravelling the End.html

John (Noe) uses the New International Version. This is not a version used by serious scholars. It is an “easy to read” paraphrastic version that ignores verb moods to fit doctrinal slants of its editorial board. For example, Jn. 3:16 in the Greek uses the subjunctive mood to express desire, chance, or possibility:

King James Version

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

New International Version

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Where the Greek uses the subjunctive mood (“should not perish”) The NIV drops this and substitutes the indicative mood (“shall not perish”). This is scholastically dishonest and reflects the theological bent of the editorial committee and its willingness to corrupt the word of God. It also fails to translate the Greek word “monogenes” (“only begotten”), substituting “one and only Son.” This sort of paraphrastic translation means that the reader sometimes gets more of a commentary reflecting the dogmatic views of the translators, than the uncorrupted word of God. Hence, it has never gained currency among scholarly writers.

Birds of a feather...