Anyone want to comment on this?

__________________
Mew - "Apocalypso" and "Saviours of Jazz Ballet"

This sure seems to point out that there are two sides to this issue. It is indicative to me that the blue side holds the red in contempt and vice versa. Of course, this is a general rule.

Anyone want to comment on this?

It sure is a lot of convoluted nonsense based on a false dichotomy (Antioch vs. Alexandria).

__________________
Take care,
Scott

"Oh [blast], not another elf!" - Inkling Hugo Dyson, upon hearing another reading by J. R. R. Tolkien from The Lord of the Rings

"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis

Oh yeah, well how now, brown cow?

Where to start?

First of all the chart says there were papyri manuscripts of the traditional text dating from 150 to 400 AD. That is not true. The oldest distinctly Byzantine (Traditional Text) manuscript is p42 which dates to the 6th century and only contains 6 verses from Luke. The next oldest Byzantine manuscript is the 6th century p84 which contains only parts of Mark and John. Then there is p68 dating to the 7th century which only contains a few scraps of 1 Corinthians 4 and 5. So it is not 85% of manuscripts from 150-400 that are traditional text, but 0%.

Next the chart claims that Uncial and cursive manuscripts from 150-1500 are 99% traditional text. Not so. There are no Uncials from 150 to 400 that are traditional text. In fact the only Uncial manuscript that could be said to be partly Traditional Text is A (Alexandrinius) which is Byzantine (traditional text) only in the Gospels. The rest of the New Testament is Alexandrian. The next Byzantine Uncial is E which only contains part of the Gospels and Acts and much of Acts is Western, not Byzantine.

Next it says Erasmus’s Greek New Testament is dated 1522. That is wrong. Erasmus completed his first edition in 1516. And it was from the 1516 edition that Martin Luther made his German Bible, not 1522 as the chart says.

Over on the other side of the chart it lists the date for Vaticanus as 331. That is wrong. It should read 325. It also lists the age of Sinaiticus as 331. That is also wrong. It should read 350. Then it lists Jerome’s Latin Vulgate coming from the Alexandrian line when everybody knows it came from the Western text.

What is really funny is that it lists Alexandrinius in the “bad� column when Alexandrinius is the oldest Byzantine Uncial of the Gospels! Then in small print at the bottom of the column it lists the NKJV as coming from the “bad� line of Alexandrian texts. That is wrong. The NKJV is based on the same Greek text as the KJV.

__________________
© 2007 All rights reserved.

I thought the chart was an honest, unbiased scholarly comparison.

But then, I think Chick tracts are also truthful about the Bible versions.

__________________
'Dr. Bob' Griffin
www.sovereigngracechurch.com
www.grif.net

This chart upon first study appears very scholarly. It presents a clear case for the superiority of the KJV. Most KJVO's who see this will print it and put it in a prominent place. "Ahh!!, a key reference for future discussions or thought!" they will think. But actually, this chart is symptomatic of the problem rampant in KJVO circles--selective scholarship! The chart simply parrots facts from other KJVO books by authors who got their facts from other KJVO books whose authors got them from who knows where. The chart (or the books it is based on) picks and chooses among the facts to decide which ones to present. It sadly paints the case to make it look convincing. I want to briefly point out some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this chart, just to showcase how the chart does not tell the whole story and does not present all the facts.

• The chart shows 2 text families, but in reality there are three or four (or more). The Western and Cesarean families are not mentioned.
• The chart dates the Peshitta at 150 A.D., but modern scholarship is nearly unanimous in dating the Peshitta sometime after 420 A.D. This fact is not noted in the chart, and should change the weight of that evidence. Further, the chart does not point out that the Peshitta has multiple readings which favor the critical texts over the TR. For instance it has “Godâ€� rather than “Sonâ€� at John 1:18; it has a relative pronoun in 1 Tim. 3:16 rather than the word "God"; and it lacks entirely John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; I John 5:7 (and other passages found in the TR).
• The chart counts the Greek mss but not the Latin mss. While a majority of Greek mss support the Byzantine family, a huge majority of the Latin mss favor a text more similar to the critical text of today. Further, the Latin mss outnumber Greek mss nearly 3 to 1!
• Also, the chart oversimplifies the data by claiming 99% or so of mss clearly support the Byzantine text. It does not deal with factors such as the time period of those mss or the location. The vast majority of mss that are still extant are from the same locale and time period (9th to 14th centuries in the Easter Roman or Byzantine Empire). During this time period virtually no one else was using Greek as a language, hence no desire or need to copy the Greek mss outside of Byzantium's general area. Fewer mss remain from other locales and time periods and the statistics for which of those other kinds of mss support the Byzantine text are much less favorable to the Majority/TR text (KJVO) postition.
• The chart claims the Waldensian's Bible was based on the Traditional Text. No evidence supports this. All the evidence we have indicates the Waldensian's Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. KJVO-ists may wish that the Waldensian's Bible was a Traditional Text Bible, they may even suspect it was, but with no evidence they cannot claim it was. Or worse, present it as fact, like this chart does.
• The chart points out that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss disagree over 3000 times and indicates this means they are bad mss. It fails to point out that scholars view these differences as a testimony to how significant it truly is when these two old mss agree in places. The agreement attests to a single text type much older than either of those very old mss.
• The chart claims Wescott and Hort were apostate, but does not mention that Erasmus was not only "partial to Romish ways", he never left the Roman church! He even publicly debated Martin Luther over his views.
• The chart classifies the Vulgate as Alexandrian, yet it fails to mention that several readings of the TR (and KJV) come strictly from the Vulgate, like 1 John 5:7, Rev. 22:19 ("book of life"), and Acts 9:6.
• The chart does not mention that the Byzantine/Traditional text which is the Majority, differs greatly with the TR--well over a thousand times!
• Another inconsistency is that while the chart takes the time to mention that the Vatican mss has the Apocrypha, it does not mention that the KJV 1611 had the apocrypha also!
• The chart ends with 1611, but the KJV was revised as late as 1769. Further, the NKJV is a translation from basically the exact same text as the KJV. Due to the NKJV's footnotes (which are not in every edition of the NKJV), the chart relegates it to the Alexandrian column. However, the KJV 1611 had footnotes, many of which pointed out alternate readings, or pointed out that some mss do not contain certain verses. In fact, the KJV translators defend this practice of using footnotes to point out alternate readings in their preface to the KJV 1611.

Well, more could be said, I'm sure. But this should suffice for demonstrating that this is a slanted and biased presentation. It is not an honest presentation of the facts. Rather it is a work of selective scholarship.

__________________
Bob Hayton

**striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God (Eph. 4:3,13 & Rom. 15:5-7)

Read my blog, my group KJV Only blog or follow me on Twitter.

NKJV is based on the same Greek text as the KJV.
__________________
lol

__________________

Clearly a very biased representation of 'facts'. If the author of this chart really wanted to give the impression that this was truly a scholarly look at the issue they wouldn't have added opinionated statements. They clearly show bias.

so what your point

__________________