I thought Mongol Servant was the English expert not Brother Tim.

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 03:39 PM by Greektim.

I think they both are......

Well, I do KNOW one thing for a fact........I am NOT.

Don't burn me at the stake for doing this.
Being a KJVO you should still be able to appreciate the antiquity yet clarity of this text.
This is the last page of Mark from Vaticanus. You can clearly see that the copier left a lot of room to allow for the last verses.
That tells me that the copier knew the parent copy was missing that portion for whatever reason.
I just can't figure out how to make it a normal size. Click on the image to see it.
   
Go to this website too: http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2003/GA03_037a.jpg

EDIT: I took the larger picture down because it was...well...too large. Click on the link above for a good view up close or far away. It is a great pic though.

This post was last modified: Fri May 09, 2008 02:14 PM by Greektim.

GTim,
Let me pose this question, it may have been answered before, but with my part-timer's disease, I'm a little limited. Any of the manuscripts are in Koine Greek, correct? If so, since there are no Koine Greek dictionaries/lexicons available, how can you arrive at the correct definition in the correct context, of a Koine Greek word, utilizing classical Greek grammar?

First of all, you don't use Classical Greek grammar for Koine Greek. They aren't the same. Also, you don't use Classical Greek definitions for Koine Greek. But studying Classical Greek explains the etymology of words. That can be useful. You have to remember, Koine is 2 revisions away from Classical Greek (Hellinistic or LXX Greek being in between).

Second, there are so many translations of Greek text, that these translations can help determine word meanings.

Thirdly, there are many many mss that are not NT. The best lexicon in my opinion is BDAG's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Notice that other sources consulted also use other peices of literature. A lot of words used in the NT were common, ever day words. Even the ideas like redemption and justification were very common.

Fourthly, a good lexicon will give a semantical range for words. There is not just one definition to a given word (not usually anyways). There are a number of different ways a word can be used and have different meanings. Context is the key (among other things).

There is a lot that goes into studying philology. Remarkably (I would say as a part of preservation) there are so many resources that help to give correct definitions for current lexicons. This is just a short summary, but I hope it helps. Even the KJV translators used the same methods and tools. The difference is that more info and data has been uncovered since then that has helped to give increase the semantical domain of words.

This post was last modified: Fri May 09, 2008 02:13 PM by George.

Well Praise God! I have been working on trying to re-size the post Greektim made showing this manuscript. The one he posted came out huge so he and I have been trying to get it to a size that is decent for viewing. It took some doing but I felt the image had merit and needed to be posted.

IN Christ,
George

Thank you, brother George. You did a great job. Now if I can only learn how to do it. What is the secret?

Now, we've arrived at the crux of the matter - "my opinion". If the scholars' opinions differ, who's to say who is correct? Everything "uncovered" recently, fully corroborates the KJB, not the mv's. Dr Frank Seekins (http://www.hebrewworld.com) has some very good material on the Hebrew and English being "language-cousins." This is why you don't believe in a perfect Bible. I hope this doesn't sound "pushy", but I don't think you, or anyone else, has given a satisfactory response, on why God couldn't preserve His word (as promised) in an English Bible. Did He not know that English would be the end-time language? Wouldn't He have assembled the correct Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek scriptures in one book, if He wanted us to study them? Would you want to tell one of my Mongol herders that The God who inspired His word, and promised to preserve it to all generations, wants them to search the world over in hopes of getting the right Hebrew/Greek scholar's opinion on what the word of God says? There's never been another team of real scholars, like the KJ translators, assembled, for any of the mv's. Three different groups, covering 5 hours of prayer per day, cross-checking, etc. Contrarily, the KJ translators did NOT use the same methods of "textual criticism" as the "scholars" do today. They saw the Koine Greek, and realized that proper definition/context for it, was over 400 years removed from them - that's why they used the vernacular Bibles, then in existence (Read the KJB "Epistle Dedicatory"). You think The Lord wanted "scholars" to check secular Greek (philosophy?) books in giving the correct definition/context of words to be used in His Book? Are you serious? How can you honestly defend an mv (or any mss used for that version) that denigrates the deity of The Lord Jesus Christ, or that causes a question/division regarding doctrine, or honors "scholarly research" instead of the Holy Spirit's guidance? You might want to check out Dr Laurence Vance's recent book, entitled "King James, His Bible, and It's Translators", from http://www.vancepublications.com. There's ample evidence to prove why the KJ committees far supersede any of the mv's assemblers - "in my opinion."

There are so many things to comment on, but I do remember the request to end this debate for now. So until there is a consensus among the moderators/administrators/& whoever else is in charge to allow this to continue, I am going to leave it.