Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Springfield Reformer
I read your entire post. It appears the tampering was to change “he” to “God” not just refresh an earlier tampering.

The oldest manuscripts that have 1 Tim. 3:16 (Aleph) do not read “God” but “which”, “who” or “he”. That is why The Clementine Latin Vulgate reads as it does. That is why the ASV and many others read “he”. So translations like the NWT agree in this point with the oldest Biblical manuscripts available.

So I wonder how Metzger and his ilk went back into time to modify these sources?

557 posted on 07/20/2012 8:14:41 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies ]


To: count-your-change
elling you, it really sounds like you are not reading the Adam Clarke quote in its most critical moment, which is here: "To me there is ample reason to believe that the Codex Alexandrinus originally read “Theos”, God, in this place; but the stroke becoming faint by length of time and injudicious handling, of which the MS. in this place has had a large proportion, some person has supplied the place, most reprehensibly, with a thick black line. This has destroyed the evidence of this MS., as now it can neither be quoted pro or con, though it is very likely that the person who supplied the ink line, did it from a conscientious conviction that “Theos” was the original reading of this MS. I examined this MS. about thirty years ago, and this was the conviction that rested then on my mind. I have seen the MS. several times since, and have not changed my opinion." I know your sources would like to suggest otherwise, but my posted quote does not say what you are saying. How can I reasonably accept that you actually read it? I'm not grandstanding here. I genuinely don't get how you got from Clarke the opposite of what he said. Can you throw me a bone here? Peace, SR
558 posted on 07/20/2012 11:31:23 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies ]

To: count-your-change

“So I wonder how Metzger and his ilk went back into time to modify these sources?”

They didn’t have to. The First (and Second) Century Gnostic insurgency was there to do it for them, because they hated those passages as much as you do, for exactly the same reasons, and the Gnostics were strong in Alexandria (See Valentinus), so it is not at all surprising to have Codex A be problematic in some of those passages.

The thing you seem to be missing is that there was contemporary eyewitness testimony that Codex A actually has 1 Tim 3:16 right, i.e., theos. Clarke was one of those witnesses. There were others before him who testified to the same thing. It was Hort who apparently talked the UBS folks into buying the reverse theory that you are espousing, despite evidence to the contrary. Why the caretakers of a supernatural book trusted a man who was openly skeptical of supernaturalism, I’ll never know.

Peace,

SR


559 posted on 07/21/2012 12:01:31 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies ]

To: count-your-change
Sorry about the formatting fail, here's another go at it:

I'm telling you, it really sounds like you are not reading the Adam Clarke quote in its most critical moment, which is here:

"To me there is ample reason to believe that the Codex Alexandrinus originally read “Theos”, God, in this place; but the stroke becoming faint by length of time and injudicious handling, of which the MS. in this place has had a large proportion, some person has supplied the place, most reprehensibly, with a thick black line. This has destroyed the evidence of this MS., as now it can neither be quoted pro or con, though it is very likely that the person who supplied the ink line, did it from a conscientious conviction that “Theos” was the original reading of this MS. I examined this MS. about thirty years ago, and this was the conviction that rested then on my mind. I have seen the MS. several times since, and have not changed my opinion."

I know your sources would like to suggest otherwise, but my posted quote does not say what you are saying. How can I reasonably accept that you actually read it? I'm not grandstanding here. I genuinely don't get how you got from Clarke the exact opposite of what he said. Can you throw me a bone here?

Peace,

SR

560 posted on 07/21/2012 12:14:43 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson