ECT Write a few lines summarizing these chapters

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Mark 1:2 (NIV)

Why does the NIV lie to us?
Click to expand...


You've picked on odd one, but I'll try to help.

1, sometimes when verses are quoted together from different places, the last is the identifier. I don't know why. It is prob a synagogue tradition. That's one issue, not that it matters much.

2, The best Greek texts are Aleph, A, B, D and p46 (Papyrus 46). If you have most of those 5 supporting a wording you are on solid ground. On this variation:
Aleph, B: go with what the NIV has.
D: the same but with an extra article before Isaiah, as though he was going to say 'the scroll of'
A: has 'in the prophets' making a bit more sense when 2-3 are being quoted.
p46 does not include Mark as far as I know. (I just checked 5 other variants in Mark at random and p46 is never mentioned, while Aleph, A, B, D are always mentioned.)

3, Lines from Ex 23 and Mal 3 are being used in v2, then Isaiah is used in v3.

It can only help you and us, if you would actually ask a real question instead of use cartoons and say it's a lie. But hey, you get praise from Tam; what else matters, right?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
You've picked on odd one, but I'll try to help.

1, sometimes when verses are quoted together from different places, the last is the identifier. I don't know why. It is prob a synagogue tradition. That's one issue, not that it matters much.

2, The best Greek texts are Aleph, A, B, D and p46 (Papyrus 46). If you have most of those 5 supporting a wording you are on solid ground. On this variation:
Aleph, B: go with what the NIV has.
D: the same but with an extra article before Isaiah, as though he was going to say 'the scroll of'
A: has 'in the prophets' making a bit more sense when 2-3 are being quoted.
p46 does not include Mark as far as I know. (I just checked 5 other variants in Mark at random and p46 is never mentioned, while Aleph, A, B, D are always mentioned.)

3, Lines from Ex 23 and Mal 3 are being used in v2, then Isaiah is used in v3.

It can only help you and us, if you would actually ask a real question instead of use cartoons and say it's a lie. But hey, you get praise from Tam; what else matters, right?
Click to expand...
So the NIV it not even trying to be consistent with the Greek from which it is being "translated"? Got it.

I thought that you were Mr. Greek. I guess that's only when it fits your need to "fix" the story.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
So the NIV it not even trying to be consistent with the Greek from which it is being "translated"? Got it.

I thought that you were Mr. Greek. I guess that's only when it fits your need to "fix" the story.
Click to expand...



???
It was consistent. There is no problem with it, and its note on v2 is that it is from Malachi. What lie do you think he is refering to?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
???
It was consistent. There is no problem with it, and its note on v2 is that it is from Malachi. What lie do you think he is refering to?
Click to expand...
What does the Greek say? The word "Isaiah" is NOT in the Greek text.... so it's NOT translating but INTERPRETING. That's WRONG!

This is why EVERY "thought for thought translation" is CRAP! Because those whose thoughts are being put into that crap are wrong thinkers and are corrupting the Word of God.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
What does the Greek say? The word "Isaiah" is NOT in the Greek text.... so it's NOT translating but INTERPRETING. That's WRONG!

This is why EVERY "thought for thought translation" is CRAP! Because those whose thoughts are being put into that crap are wrong thinkers and are corrupting the Word of God.
Click to expand...



Where is your info from? Aleph, B and D have 'Isaiah'. A has 'the prophets.' So 3 of the best 4 sources have 'Isaiah' plus many lesser ones.

I don't think you read the notes.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Interplanner said:
Where is your info from? Aleph, B and D have 'Isaiah'. A has 'the prophets.' So 3 of the best 4 sources have 'Isaiah' plus many lesser ones.

I don't think you read the notes.
Click to expand...

No, they do not read any study notes, for such are considered extra-biblical.

I betcha MADists sneak peeks at Scofield's though, when no one is looking . . .

It is really hard to have theological discussion with a gang that refuses the necessity and blessings of theological study and education. :sigh:
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Tambora said:
Which MADist here has said they have not ever read a study note?
Click to expand...

I can't remember any that have said they do. If they do, they destroy their own definition of Sola Scriptura.

However, I only want to encourage such study, and commentaries will not burn eyeballs, either.

Faith in Jesus Christ cannot be destroyed by reading opinions of other men; whether Christian or not.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nang said:
I can't remember any that have said they do.
Click to expand...
Me either.

If they do, they destroy their own definition of Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
Who gave you "our" definition of Sola Scriptura, and how did it differ from your definition?

However, I only want to encourage such study, and commentaries will not burn eyeballs, either.
Click to expand...
I agree it will not burn my eyeballs.

Faith in Jesus Christ cannot be destroyed by reading opinions of other men; whether Christian or not.
Click to expand...
I catch your drift, but this is still not an accurate statement.
Folks can be lead away by others opinions.
It was the opinion of some that circumcision of the flesh was necessary, and those opinions lead some backwards.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
So for you any old Greek manuscript is OK?
Click to expand...


Dr. Goodrick at Multnomah taught the value of Aleph, A, B, D and p46. The United Bible Society which had Metzger put together the Greek text and tools used widely uses that rule of thumb (the best reading has the highest of those 5).

Your questions are always so obtuse and inattentive to what was just said. Why is that?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
Me either.

Who gave you "our" definition of Sola Scriptura, and how did it differ from your definition?

I agree it will not burn my eyeballs.

I catch your drift, but this is still not an accurate statement.
Folks can be lead away by others opinions.
It was the opinion of some that circumcision of the flesh was necessary, and those opinions lead some backwards.
Click to expand...



RD has his own def of NT.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
Dr. Goodrick at Multnomah taught the value of Aleph, A, B, D and p46. The United Bible Society which had Metzger put together the Greek text and tools used widely uses that rule of thumb (the best reading has the highest of those 5).

Your questions are always so obtuse and inattentive to what was just said. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Are you unaware that there are corrupted Greek manuscripts that many "translations" use to get their "word of god"? Apparently not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top