Timeline for Why do some Bible Translations omit John 7:53-8:11?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2021 at 12:17 | vote | accept | Kristopher | ||
| Aug 13, 2019 at 20:34 | comment | added | rhetorician | I agree with Andrew Neely's comment about the "scientific method," words often used as empty buzzwords. "Systematizing their presumptions," as suggested by Neely, may be a better choice of words. Reminds me of the 6th century CE teenage girl whose father criticized her for wearing something he thought to be a bit too alluring. She rolled her eyes and said with great frustration in her voice, "Daaaaad, this is the sixth century. Get with the times!" My point: words such as "modern" or "____century," as with "scientific," are sometimes used imprecisely, rife with faulty assumptions. | |
| Feb 5, 2016 at 21:36 | comment | added | Andrew Neely | Good answer, but I wish to point out a few items. The statement that "significant older and more reliable manuscripts” presupposes that older manuscripts are always more reliable. The statement "Wescott and Hort ...utilized ... scientific methods of textual criticism to propose the most likely original text of the NT” assumes that the original text of the NT has been lost. It also errs by calling their critical techniques “scientific." They systematized their presumptions, but how is does their techniques follow the scientific method? | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 18:06 | history | edited | JRystedt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 18:00 | comment | added | JRystedt | Kris, I don’t intend to be spiteful. Although I do admit I and the rest of traditional Christianity make quite a bold claim here concerning the JWs and the NWT. Perhaps I have been too biased in my description of the NWT. I will edit my description to be less biased and more factual. Also, thank you for the complement on the rest of the answer. I pray it was helpful to you. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 15:42 | comment | added | JRystedt | I am not. As stated in my answer, most Bible translators reject the authenticity of this text on the grounds of the current manuscript evidence (traditional Christians included). | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 15:39 | history | edited | JRystedt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 2:06 | comment | added | JRystedt | Kris, I don't use a 17th century Bible translation either (note the use of the ESV Study Bible in the answer). Like all translations the NWT is the Word of God when it is faithful to the original texts and I don't doubt it has blessed you greatly. Furthermore, I did not label you, your mother, or any other individual a heretic. The adjective "heretical" is an opinionated part of my answer (in accord with universally confessed and historic Christian doctrine) to reflect the translation's biases. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 2:00 | history | edited | JRystedt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2016 at 22:46 | history | edited | JRystedt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2016 at 22:45 | comment | added | JRystedt | Thank you for the clarifications, Susan. Most of this I was recalling from memory of research I did almost a decade ago. I will edit the answer to reflect a couple of your “quibbles” | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 21:36 | comment | added | Susan | Hi! A couple quibbles: 1) The characterization "heretical" is generally not good form here, 2) Since UBS3 / NA26 (1975 /1 979), the texts are not virtually identical but identical, a very big decision at the time. 3) Neither "list[s ] all variations of the text in footnotes". The UBS in particular aims to be very selective in the variants included. For something like comprehensive, see the Editio Critica Majora, to be completed 2030. | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 19:13 | history | edited | JRystedt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2016 at 18:00 | history | answered | JRystedt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |