‘I.e.: the words “without a cause” appear in no Greek ms. I have known all along that they did not appear in any of the oldest, best, most complete and definitive mss. I finally decided to check exactly what ms they do appear in. Turns out, none.’
“Which is more a wish versus a fact.”
Daniel, how is this not ascribing a motive to me? I.e.: you say I wrote that because I wished it were true rather than because I thought it to be a fact. Indeed, what you’re saying is that I dishonestly substituted a wish for a fact. That disappoints me. I had started to like the RL forum for the very reason that I don’t get informed by others of my motives here. That is a welcome change from most forums.
As with most assigned motives, yours is incorrect. I would never say or post something simply because I wished it were true, and certainly not if I knew my wish was at variance with the facts.
I did, however, make a mistake. I assumed the online version of the New American Standard Bible was the same as the printed version. It seemed like a safe assumption but it was false. The online version omits some of the footnotes contained in the printed format. Apologies to you and to anyone & everyone affected by this error. It was not made intentionally.
The footnote in question [i.e.: the one omitted in the online version] concerns the disputed text. (One of the reasons students of Greek and of the Bible often use the NASB is precisely because whenever there is a disputed text it is documented in the footnotes.) Now that I have my hardcover NASB in front of me, as opposed to the online version, I note that there is such a documentation. It reads:
“Some mss. insert here: without cause”
So there are ‘some’ mss that include that qualifier. If the best and most reliable included it, the NASB would show those words as part of the text, rather than as a footnote. So I stand by my assertion that the best mss do not include those words.
But for the sake of the argument, assume that the very best Greek mss do include ‘without cause’. This only qualifies being “angry” with a brother. It doesn’t apply to saying ‘You fool.” It doesn’t even apply to calling a brother ‘a worthless person.’ It applies only to being angry, i.e.: being angry ‘without cause.’ [Note that in the NASB translation, saying to a brother ‘you fool’ is a separate sentence altogether. It does not fall into the same statement as the one re: anger.]
Also, much has been made of the fact that Matt. 5:21 supposedly proscribes ‘killing.’ The NASB translated the verse/word as:
“You have heard it said ‘You shall not commit murder’.” etc.
It is not ‘killing’ that is proscribed; it is murder.
As to the fact that God is permitted, by virtue of His sovereignty and omniscience, to do some things that we, His finite and mortal creations are proscribed from doing, I can’t argue it any better than I have. But it does seem resumptuous to argue that we are like mini-gods, able to exercise our limited intellects, imperfect morality and highly imperfect judgments in exactly the same way as does the Almighty God. Rather, just as the vessel cannot emulate the Potter who forms it, the creatures must accept that in some areas the Creator’s rights and prerogatives exceed our own. I have no motivation to argue it further, however. Once a person’s mind is made up to a certain degree, there’s not much that can be done.
For anyone curious about the NSAB, here is a short but informative article about it. If you want accuracy in translation, it is simply superb.
“The New American Standard Bible (NASB or NAS), completed in 1971, is widely regarded as one of the most literally translated of 20th-century English Bible translations. According to the NASB’s preface, the translators had a “Fourfold Aim” in this work:
These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
They shall be grammatically correct.
They shall be understandable.
They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.
Seeing the need for a literal, modern translation of the English Bible, the translators sought to produce a contemporary English Bible while maintaining a word-for-word translation style. In cases where word-for-word literalness was determined to be unacceptable for modern readers, changes were made in the direction of more current idioms. In such instances, the more literal renderings were indicated in footnotes.
In 1995, the Lockman Foundation reissued the NASB text as the NASB Updated Edition. The removing or replacing literal renderings of antiquated phrases and words, and many conjunctions, the current edition is slightly less literal than the original. It has introduced inclusive language in about 85 places. The NASB remains, however, the most literal version of the English Bible commonly used in churches today. It is commonly used in many Christian colleges and seminaries for in-depth study, because of its strict adherence to the original languages.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/
No, i did not say you did anything dishonestly, but that as engaging in more than cursory research would at least cast doubt on that assertion of "fact," then i said it was more of a wish, but as this rhetorical language imputes motive then i should have said this seems to be more of a hopeful conclusion than the product of diligent search. I've done it myself at times.
I had started to like the RL forum for the very reason that I don’t get informed by others of my motives here. . That is a welcome change from most forums.
Well, i had just come from another forum, and that was mild, and preventing any like comment can foster poster who are far too sensitive, and or carry a victim entitlement mentality with them, which we have seen evidenced in other threads.
If the best and most reliable included it, the NASB would show those words as part of the text, rather than as a footnote.
That is simply another assertion that is non-fact, whether one like it or not, as it presumes the very thing i showed as being very debatable, that about 5% of the mss with their discrepancies are more accurate than the rest. Citing the absence of the qualifier from the "earliest=best" mass, when the absence is due to them not even having Mt. 5:22 at all, is certainly a specious argument.
On the basis of "earlier is better" than other copies, which can be copies of even earlier mss, the conclusion is also reached (debated here ) that Mark 16:9-10 does not belong in the Bible based on it being absent from "the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts,", despite what 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, 99% of the Syriac manuscripts, and 99.99% of the Latin manuscripts, and four second-century witnesses, over 40 other Roman-Empire-era witnesses evidence to the contrary. (More here ).
Christian faith seems to have done quite well with its great revivals before some men removed And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mark 16:20)
I did, however, make a mistake. I assumed the online version of the New American Standard Bible was the same as the printed version. It seemed like a safe assumption but it was false.
You would have to do far more research on this to call something a fact.
assume that the very best Greek mss do include ‘without cause’. This only qualifies being “angry” with a brother. It doesn’t apply to saying ‘You fool.”
Of-course it does, as both are obviously conditional in the light of the rest of Scripture, which are complementary, not contradictory. Neither Moses nor the Lord or His own sinned by being angry at others.
[Note that in the NASB translation, saying to a brother ‘you fool’ is a separate sentence altogether.
And which is another invalid argument, as not only is their preference, but it is part of the same speech regadless.
Also, much has been made of the fact that Matt. 5:21 supposedly proscribes ‘killing.’ The NASB translated the verse/word as: “You have heard it said ‘You shall not commit murder’.” etc. It is not ‘killing’ that is proscribed; it is murder.
It is the word used in reiterating the 5th commandment in the NT, so we can leave that one as meaning murder, even if it may not always mean that (i am not going study the LXX). But yet you must also hold that being angry is unconditionally wrong, and thus the Lord's disciples always were when angry at someone, versus only when its cause was unjust, unholy. There simply is no change from the conditional nature to an unconditional, unless one dismisses the rest of Scripture.
As to the fact that God is permitted, by virtue of His sovereignty and omniscience, to do some things that we, His finite and mortal creations are proscribed from doing, I can’t argue it any better than I have.
Indeed not, as while your premise is true, it does not translate into your conclusion. For what you need to show is that,
1. The Lord in His incarnation excepted Himself in a moral command He required the disciples to obey, including if they were in a certain condition, so that He could get angry at someone but they could not, and He could call someone a fool or similar name, but they could not, but for which you have zero proof.
2. Only the use of "fool" is prohibited, not similar invectives such as being "vipers," liars, lazy gluttons, whitewashed walls, etc. Which restriction lacks warrant and would be incongruous.
3. The Lord called the Scribes and Pharisees and like enemies "brothers"(adelphos), so that the injunction against calling one "Raca" or "fool" applies to all, for which there is also no evidence.
4.4. That the injunction against calling one a "fool" stands on its own, not to be examined in the context of what precedes it. so there cannot be any allowance of change from the conditional nature to an unconditional. Or that being angry is also unconditionally wrong as calling one a fool or the like. And thus the disciples always were when they did so.
5. That "shall be in danger of hell fire" means one who calls one a fool is automatically guilty, based upon the premise that to be "in danger of" the judgment/council/hell fire" cannot mean "is subject to" such, since the word for "in" is not in the Greek, and the word for "of" is missing or can mean "to," and the word for "danger "enochos," can also mean "subject," so that as in killing, the penalty one is in danger of could be contingent upon one being guilty of what he is warned about, as that guilt is conditional, as killing is.
And you also will find far more learned men than me and scholars rejecting your wooden superficial exegesis.
End of discussion.
For anyone curious about the NSAB, here is a short but informative article about it. If you want accuracy in translation, it is simply superb.
Its NASB, and is better than most others as it is more of a word-for-word translations versus the more interpretive paraphrased and "dynamic equivalence" translations that make up the Bible. But it is also a product of the dubious or questionable "earlier=better" premise. I am "married to the KJV after 25 years or so, and find it trust worthy and anointed, have no real problem with archaic words. And to which the West owes so much to.
In 1995, the Lockman Foundation
Which copyrights it to make money, as most others (not simply contrary to how Christian ministry is operate by faith, in my opinion. (Mt. 10:8-10; Acts 20:33-35; 1Tim. 5:17,18; 2Co. 9) Ministers should be paid, but serve regardless, and ministries may ask a price from believers to cover cost, but not restrict usage by criminalizing free sharing, but allow and even encourage sharing what they produce .
Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth. (3 John 6-8)
Enough said