Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 487:
Line 487: + + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 01:56, November 11, 2009
, 01:56, November 11, 2009→Sources: the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date in the A.D. 300s, which can't compete for authenticity with the earliest manuscripts from over a century earlier
::::Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
::::Apology accepted, Andy. Comma Johanneum (the disputed portion of 1 John) is discussed in depth on WP. Codex Sinaiticus is now published on-line but my ancient Greek is nowhere near good enough to translate from the original (I know how to ask where to find a patisserie in modern Greek but that won't get me far with the New Testament...)
::::May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::::May I ask how you propose to resolve the numerous (100,000-plus) variants between CS, CV and the other early texts? I'm sorry but I'd be really out of my depth there. But I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this admirable project without support from scholars who are experts in these text. Keep going...! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::::Joseph, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date in the A.D. 300s, which can't compete for authenticity with the earliest manuscripts from over a century earlier. In the pre-internet days the CS and CV were influential because they are complete. But now it's so easy to patch fragments from here and there on the internet, so completeness doesn't add much.
::::WP entries are often edited and screened with heavy bias, so I find I often waste more time on misinformation there than I gain from insights. But in checking the source of Dr. Philip Comfort's book on the issue of authentic passages, I see that he explains why 1 John 5:6-8 is not authentic and notes that Erasmus left it out also. So we'd probably do likewise based on the evidence.
::::Less than 1% of the New Testament is of disputed authenticity. So while these questions are fascinating and I encourage more discussion of them, they do not dominate the translation process.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 10 November 2009 (EST)
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==