- Feb 26, 2020
- Reaction score
Plus the Greek scholars admit...You keep parroting this. I do nothing of the sort. I do the opposite. Read what I actually write.
I don't need to, the Nestle Aland Text already verified it. Nobody disputes this. You didn't read post #85.
You don't think on what people say, you immediately assume they're being subjective if they don't agree with you. Very lazy.
I can tell you aren't taking the time to understand half of what I'm saying, your responses aren't even responding to my points because you missed them.
If we still had the original manuscripts, then yes. We don't. There is less reliability and too many changes and variations between modern compiled Greek texts compared to the KJV. I do not believe the only people God intended to understand what he "really said" are Greek scholars, while keeping all the lay people in the dark. It's out of character with his personality.
Plus the Greek scholars admit they essentially believe the word of God is lost. It's "scattered somewhere among all the extant Greek manuscripts". I read my Bible and believe what it says, I don't doubt every word and wonder "maybe this was translated wrong and didn't really mean that". God is not the author of confusion. Ever learning and never coming to knowledge of the truth.
Occam's razor would help all of them greatly.
I don't think the Greek Scholars are as agreed on this as you would like to believe.
Below is what Kenneth Boa writes on the matter of the accuracy of our NT which, while not universal, seems to be consistent outside of the KJV Onlyists.
"While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism."