Textual Criticism?

I personally do not have enough information to believe "and fire" is not original to Matthew's gospel, Matthew 3:11. Even though 80% of mss is reported to omit it and is deemed f35 do to what is regarded as best history for f35 transmission.

 

So you disagree with his view, your option. But that does make his opinion any less valid. They are just your opinions.

 

I keep hearing that Pickering's work is the most accurate , that it has recovered the autograph text etc. That would be great if he did recover the text but I will not jump on the bandwagon.

You seem to be quite invested in support of the F35 text. I did not say I wanted to destroy Pickering's text but unlike you I am not willing to just accept it either. Why do you think it is so good? You must have your reasons.

 

Read my posts.

 

I do not believe that any of the various lines of transmission have given us the autograph text. God has preserved all that we need to know to know Him and be saved. This question of most accurate or inerrant will not be solved in this life as we do not have the autographs so it is impossible to say we have them.

 

The purpose of this thread is to discuse the issue. Disagreeing, give some of the specific evidence for the disagreement.

 

You do not accept f35 to be in the whole to be the text of the autogaphs. So?

 

So no text of the handed down Greek New Testament is the word of God? You know better. I dare say most of the variants based on the NU text are not.

 

Every handed down manuscript, very good or old and not so good of a Greek New Testament book are from an original autograph, or it would not be from a New aTestament book. F35 are very good copies. That alone does not guarantee every word to be the same as the original. This is understood.

 

Do not play games with my words 37. We do not have the complete autographs as written and you know this. You seem to think that Pickering has recovered the autographs, I do not.

 

You do not know that we do not have the complete text of the original autographs handed down to us. Yes, Dr. Pickering believes in f35 has discovered the whole. What evidence do you have to disallow this to be known even in part?

 

No. There are differences. He doesn't believe in Textual Criticism. He may pay lip service to variants in TR editions, but that is only to reinforce the KJV. He cannot believe Pickering/F35, Nestle/Aland, Pierpont/Robinson, Greek New Testament, Tregells, Westcott/Hort or any other Greek Text but the Textus Receptus, because he is TROnly. He cannot believe something else because he is ONLY. I on the other hand can look at evidence, change my mind if that's the way I see the evidence. He cannot. There is a huge difference. All the other editors can change when they see evidence and make adjustments, change position's, or reinforce existing ones.

 

I have no doubt that we have accurate bibles that give us all the information that God requires us to have to know Him and to trust in Him for our salvation.

I do trust that the approach to the study of the manuscripts has changed with time, as to which is better I am not in the position to say.

I have read some of Pickering's material over the last few days and his approach has merit but at the same time I am not willing to jettison other approaches to the text.

 

The question is not what do I have to disprove it is what evidence does he have to prove he has. It is his claim that he has to prove or you can if you like.

 

I have referenced other scholars but it is always the same type of response. Ya but. It seems you and 37 are only willing to accept something if it supports your view. As I have said more than once, if we actually had the autographs that would be great but to say we have them has to be proven by the claimant. Are we close YES do we have the actual text NO I do not believe we do and you have not provided any evidence that would change my mind on that.

Whether someone is KJVonly, TRonly, F35only does not matter if they ask logical questions, which he did ask. You just do not like the questions.

I agree that we all should be honest with ourselves and be willing to look at all the evidence and follow it where it leads us. That is what I do.

 

Some of it is presented in this thread. And you simply do not believe it.

I am personally persuaded the majority text reading which omits "and fire" in Matthew 3:11 is mistaken. The textual readings are in evidence. And many are explained. Some 90% or so there is no dispute. It is the resolution of the remaining 10% or so, you think we cannot know.

 

So other than Pickering, no other group of translators has utilized the text?

Rob

 

And as I said before you believe what Pickering claims and I do not think he has made his case.

"and fire" found in ABP, BSB, CJB, ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, NRSV not found in WPNT.

So as you said it is the remaining ?% that we cannot know. That is why I say that the text we have is not inerrant but it is accurate.

Example Mark 16:9-11, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7-8, Mark 9:29 {and fasting} and what you just mentioned Mat 3:11 {and fire}. These are disputed parts of the text and I am sure there are others but there are none of the doctrines, to the best of my knowledge, that are impacted and God has preserved enough that we can know Him and know that salvation is only through faith in Him.

 

You can and I presume will believe what you want.



The samples of the evidence I have looked at I find convincing. And I am also persuaded "and fire" is original to Matthew.

The sets of variants are real. Overall f35 evidence looks like the best choice. Versus TR versus MT versus NU texts.

 

Not to my knowledge Deacon. But you can check the translation on Amazon. And I'm sure Wilbur Pickering has a free link somewhere to both his Translation and Greek Text.