Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48
#11
Thirdwoe Wrote:But, I understand what you say there and if you are led to, feel free to use anything I have shown here to compile a list along those lines. I think it would be a good resource. I don't think I could find the time to make a thorough analysis of all the variants, but you might.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with themselves over 3,000 times, just in the 4 Gospels alone...

Shlama,
Chuck
Chuck, Hebrew and Aramaic are both, if I may say, Greek to me. I could not verify any of the list you made within any foreign language. I can how ever read your English essay and double check the English translations and version to see what they did or did not do. The list you have made of missing verses should be suffice, as for the variants are far to numerous. But with what you are doing we English only people will be able to see, according to the evidence, whether or not we should change translations (depending on which one we have).

As for passing on your work I would be glad to share it with others but again I could not help in completing it unless we find some ancient English text lying around some where (LOL). If it was not for the SPELL CHECKER I do not think you could translate my writings into English. I have had 20 to 30 or so red lines struin about this reply alone!!!

But really if you want your essay to be useful you should post the ancient text that have or do not have as opposed to the ESV and other English translations/versions. The ESV lovers instead of thinking you have shown where the ESV translator used the wrong text to translate from will just think you have slanted the evidence against their beloved ESV, which will harden their hearts even more to hearing anything else upon the matter. Personally I can make arguments for or against something and make them sound pretty good until another comes and fills in the missing pieces that I have to leave out in order to make it seem one way or the other. But if all the truth be know all will/should be able to make an intelligible decision based upon the evidence of the ancient text.

As I said before, the current English translations provide no evidence one way or the other as to determining whether a verse should or should not be in the Scriptures. This can only be shown from the evidence of ancient text alone. So until you mention the opposing ancient text in your essay it is basically useless. I mean you clearly show that the ESV does not keep in line with the PeshittA but you do not show the ancient text they came from, or whether the majority of ancient text lend weight in all particular instances. And when you use a text to back up the PeshittA in one instance and then not in the next five instances it makes it look as if they bare in line with the underlying text of the ESV, which gives it credence five times that of the PeshittA. If you only post the Ancient text for and against not only will the ESV people see that their text went wrong but the KJV people can also see where the underlying text of their translation went wrong as well.

for example
Thirdwoe Wrote:1: Matthew 12:47 Omitted in the ESV text: -> ?Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.? It is in the Greek Majority Text. The verse is translated in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and even in the NIV, and is in The Eastern Aramaic ?Peshitta? Bible (1st century), Tatian?s ?Diatessaron? Gospel Harmony (160 A.D.) it is in Archelaus? book ?Disputations with Manes? (277 A.D.) and in Jerome?s Latin ?Vulgate? Bible (385 A.D.)
The mention of these English translations/version lend no credence one way or the other and are basically muddying the water in a way. The issue should not be the ESV but it's underlying texts it was translated from. And are there any other ancient text that give weight to its readings as opposed to opposed.

So as for now it would do me no good (being I have not the ability to fix it) to share this with other as the people I try and share things with will see that this is an attack on the ESV and not an objective essay that they can gain knowledge to base an intelligent decision. Again I am not trying to shoot your essay down, I am trying to encourage you to make it bullet proof. You would not have to add any more verse just present fully both sides of what you have. And you do not need to post evey Greek text but if you use one once for haves then when it has not you should post it on the other side as well. As far as Senaticus and Vanaticus I do not know if they were actually the underlying text for the ESV or not, I just used them as an example thinking I may, in my illiterate state, have found an acorn so to speak. I come up with far more fools acorns than I get real ones. So please bare with ,me as I barely graduated high school by telling them if they did not pass me I would be back next year in a facetious manner. You could say I was telling them that I would seriously show up again in a manner not befitting the attitude in which they would hope. So I was given a Diploma. I do not even know what I did with it so I can not prove I got one at that. Oh well I never found use for it any way.

Personally, I have stopped using all translations or versions from the Greek. I only use English translations of the Aramaic and try to only use the ones based from the Eastern PeshittA at that. But as you should know at the moment there is no full RC/NT of the Eastern PeshittA as of yet. There is one in the making and another in the planing stage but none complete yet. I do have every thing past the Boo of Acts in an English translation and also use Paul Younan's English only translation along with his Interlinear. That just leave the second half of the Book of Acts for me to have to use either the Greek or the Western PeshittO for.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by DrawCloser - 06-22-2012, 06:00 PM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 06-23-2012, 02:25 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 06-25-2012, 05:15 PM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 06-26-2012, 03:09 AM
[No subject] - by DrawCloser - 07-01-2012, 04:21 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-04-2012, 02:40 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-04-2012, 06:54 PM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by The Texas RAT - 07-04-2012, 11:48 PM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-05-2012, 12:36 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-05-2012, 05:06 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)