Greek or English?

[voicecrying]

I'll tell you what...  You provide me with a time machine and send me back to any year between, let's say, 70 A.D. and 1610 A.D., give me time to learn Greek in the present dialect of that year, and allow me to read every word of the New Testament on my knees as I ask the Lord to confirm with me through His Holy Spirit which manuscripts are His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, and I'll come back with an answer for you...

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

That didn't answer the question.

 

[HammondCheese]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[voicecrying]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

 

[Anon1379]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just so happens that the new teaching of an inerrant translation only shows up in your time period. Cuz I mean screw Tyndale, am I right? Retard shoulda known better than attempting a translation when there was a perfect inerrant english Bible floating around somewhere. Maybe if he had you to teach him this he wouldn't have erred in making  a new one and dying a heretic. Also while we are at it screw Erasmus. Maybe if that Catholic was saved he would have known better that to produce a Greek text when there was already a perfect one as Hammond claims. I'll take and read the geneva, NIV and KJV in any of their respective time period and not bat an eye. You would. For no reason other than blind faith. Neither one is perfect, but they are all translations of God's Word. Mistakes by their translators does not affect God's truth.

 

[Ransom]

That didn't answer the question.

*shrug*

Answered the question sufficiently for me. KJV-onlyism, at least as practiced by CheddarCheese, is outside of the realm of facts, logic, scriptural revelation and plain reason, and purely within the realm of subjective experience.

In other words, while HavartiCheese may in fact be correct about KJV-onlyism, he has no way to convey that truth to others or indeed demonstrate that it is real at all.

Since it is non-verifiable, there's no reason to believe in it, either.

 

[HammondCheese]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[voicecrying]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Oh nice! The old "I can't answer your question so I'm not discussing it anymore but let me throw a question your way while still not answering" tactic. Well played!

 

[Anon1379]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Well, I am God, and I hereby reveal, by My divine power and infinite knowledge, that there is none.

So prove Me wrong.

 

[HammondCheese]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Oh nice! The old "I can't answer your question so I'm not discussing it anymore but let me throw a question your way while still not answering" tactic. Well played!

I'll answer your question if you will answer mine...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.

 

[HammondCheese]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.

Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.

Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ill admit I havent not studied out the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text enough to say for sure one definitely better than the other. There are to many manuscripts on both sides and quite frankly I just don't care. Id much rather spend time actually studying his word then getting bogged down with comparing manuscripts. I believe the Hodges and farstad Byzantine text along with Wilbur pickering's to be the most accurate, but if someone were to question me I couldn't necessarily give an adequate defense. But I believe God has preserved it and it is hard for me to believe that the Alexandrian is the best representative when it was seemingly not used for many years. I also have problems with large number of differences between the Alexandrian manuscripts which I why I state the scribes were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine. I don't believe it was done in an attempt to change the text, as we have no evidence and I believe God to be sovereign enough to allow any manuscripts that were purposely changed to be trashed and destroyed. But as I said earlier I'm glad we have the Alexandrian because without we have no greek evidence before the 4th century aside from the patrine sources.

 

[Anon1379]

Now about the septuagint that is another subject but every single early church father believed in the septuagint. We have septuagint fragments in the dead sea scrolls and many many quotes about the septuagint. The KJV translators believed Christ quotes from it. J Edward hills stated it to have been used by Christ. Pretty much everyone stated that until Ruckman and riplinger. The evidence they presented is laughable at best. But you are forced to accept that position cuz if the disciples and Christ really did quote from it and there are textual differences between the septuagint and the Hebrew MT then it blows this retarded perfect version crap out the window. But again you don't have anyone spouting this hate for the septuagint until we have people claiming the kjv to be perfect. It is the next logical step, in that position. You are forced to ignore history and logic in an attempt to assert Christ did not use it or that there was not a Greek text before Christ.

 

[HammondCheese]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.

Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ill admit I havent not studied out the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text enough to say for sure one definitely better than the other. There are to many manuscripts on both sides and quite frankly I just don't care. Id much rather spend time actually studying his word then getting bogged down with comparing manuscripts. I believe the Hodges and farstad Byzantine text along with Wilbur pickering's to be the most accurate, but if someone were to question me I couldn't necessarily give an adequate defense. But I believe God has preserved it and it is hard for me to believe that the Alexandrian is the best representative when it was seemingly not used for many years. I also have problems with large number of differences between the Alexandrian manuscripts which I why I state the scribes were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine. I don't believe it was done in an attempt to change the text, as we have no evidence and I believe God to be sovereign enough to allow any manuscripts that were purposely changed to be trashed and destroyed. But as I said earlier I'm glad we have the Alexandrian because without we have no greek evidence before the 4th century aside from the patrine sources.

I wasn't referring in my question to the BYZ or ALX themselves, but rather the two major modern Greek translations of the 19th Century that have been passed off as "the original Greek" by almost every single "bible scholar" and Seminary professor in the past 125+ years - and from whence all modern translations came, excluding the NKJV.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?

I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

That didn't answer the question.

Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.

Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.

Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ill admit I havent not studied out the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text enough to say for sure one definitely better than the other. There are to many manuscripts on both sides and quite frankly I just don't care. Id much rather spend time actually studying his word then getting bogged down with comparing manuscripts. I believe the Hodges and farstad Byzantine text along with Wilbur pickering's to be the most accurate, but if someone were to question me I couldn't necessarily give an adequate defense. But I believe God has preserved it and it is hard for me to believe that the Alexandrian is the best representative when it was seemingly not used for many years. I also have problems with large number of differences between the Alexandrian manuscripts which I why I state the scribes were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine. I don't believe it was done in an attempt to change the text, as we have no evidence and I believe God to be sovereign enough to allow any manuscripts that were purposely changed to be trashed and destroyed. But as I said earlier I'm glad we have the Alexandrian because without we have no greek evidence before the 4th century aside from the patrine sources.

I wasn't referring in my question to the BYZ or ALX themselves, but rather the two major modern Greek translations of the 19th Century that have been passed off as "the original Greek" by almost every single "bible scholar" and Seminary professor in the past 125+ years - and from whence all modern translations came, excluding the NKJV.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Yeah I understand your distrust for the modern Greek texts, but most modern translations put the Byzantine or majority reading in the margin. The LEB for instance almost always does it and I have found that it quite often stands with the Byzantine text in textual issues, while other modern translations depart to follow the Alexandrian. So when these issues come up just go with the Byzantine readings. Also the nkjv follows the TR which is a good representative of the Byzantine and the WEB follows the Byzantine majority text. But most kjvo reject those because it's simply not the KJV.