ECT Write a few lines summarizing these chapters

[Interplanner]

Mark 1:2 (NIV)

Why does the NIV lie to us?

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]

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?

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.

 

[Interplanner]

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.

???
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]

???
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?

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.

 

[Interplanner]

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.

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]

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.

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:

 

[Tambora]

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

What a dumb thing to say.

 

[Tambora]

So 3 of the best 4 sources

Just what is your criteria for "best"?

Because some scholars say they are?
Because of their date?
Because of where they were found?
Because more copies say this instead of that?

????????????????????????

 

[musterion]

No, they are not all doctrinal NT passages. Or you repeated. Or you are just here to mindlessly mock a good discussion and to evade.

What was good about it? You posted chapter refs and lazily wanted people you think are blind to explain them to you. Were you drunk or just stupid again?

 

[Nang]

What a dumb thing to say.

Just repeating what MADists have told me . . .

 

[Tambora]

But hey, you get praise from Tam; what else matters, right?

What a dumb thing to say.

 

[Tambora]

Just repeating what MADists have told me . . .

Which MADist here has said they have not ever read a study note?

 

[Right Divider]

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.

So for you any old Greek manuscript is OK?

 

[Nang]

Which MADist here has said they have not ever read a study note?

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]

I can't remember any that have said they do.

Me either.

If they do, they destroy their own definition of Sola Scriptura.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Interplanner]

So for you any old Greek manuscript is OK?

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?

 

[Interplanner]

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.

RD has his own def of NT.

 

[Right Divider]

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?

Are you unaware that there are corrupted Greek manuscripts that many "translations" use to get their "word of god"? Apparently not.

 

[Tambora]

RD has his own def of NT.

Who asked for what RD's def of NT was???????

 

[Right Divider]

RD has his own def of NT.

Nope. But you certainly do.