[sword-devel] Freeing up modern bible text
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:59:25 -0500
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 05:12:52PM +0000, Trevor Jenkins wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Leon Brooks <email@example.com> wrote:
> > fred smith wrote:
No I didn't. somehow something has gone awry with your quoting, I
didn't write the stuff that this implies I did. What I wrote was
about Tyndale House publishing.
> > >> I mean, calling it
> > >> the biblical equivalent of McDonalds (McBible? ;-) is a but much, isn't
> > >> it?
> > No. Well, maybe a *bit* much, but Westcott and Hort, and to a lesser
> > extent the NIV committee (and I'm sure they're not alone in this) in the
> > end gave us what they thought was best for us, not what God thought was
> > best for us. The parallel is pretty exact if you compare Genesis 1:27
> > with a Maccas ingredient list. (-:
> Interesting that you deride W&H and then cite a passage outside the New
> Testament to back your argument.
> > Perhaps I should be clearer, Paul. W&H did a lot of the
> > ``Macdonaldisation'' of the underlying texts to suit their own ideas
> > (Mariolatry and so on down, including selective admission of miracles).
> I take it that by "Macdonaldisation" you mean Textual Criticism. Also the
> claim that Westcott and Hort fiddled with the text is a lie. Some have
> used one them having been involved with some occult society as a reason to
> disparage their work. However, neither of them was involved in any such
> society. A similar but not identically named person has been confused with
> these scholars.
> The Textus Receptus was as much a product of "Macdonaldisation" as was
> Westcott and Hort's. Erasmus cobbled together a number of late manuscripts
> to form the TR. Where there were omissions (or he couldn't have a Greek
> manuscript on hand) he back translated the Vulgate from Latin into Greek.
> Why did he botch this job? Because he'd heard that another scholar and
> printer publisher were also collating a Greek New Testament and Erasmus
> intended to be first.
> > Nevertheless, even if the underlying text had been purer, NIV's
> > committee ....
> Purer than what? The UBS edition available at the time, which by the way
> is NOT W&H. Aland, Metzger et al have remove some of W&H's amendations.
> (Those which could not be sustained by critical analysis of the
> manuscripts concerned or which have been shown to be wrong with the
> discovery of earlier manuscripts were removed.)
> > gave an Evangelical slant to the results;
> As an Evangelical I see no issue in that.
> > ... Zondervan's is to turn a penny.
> Merely following the example set by Erasmus then.
> Regards, Trevor
> British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living language.
> Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now!
> <>< Re: deemed!
---- Fred Smith -- firstname.lastname@example.org ----------------------------
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:
While we were still sinners,
Christ died for us.
------------------------------- Romans 5:8 (niv) ------------------------------