[Quote]« #60 on: Yesterday at 11:04:27 PM »

Quote from: aletheia on Yesterday at 03:46:41 PM

^
εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου εικη ενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρε ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος

What a difference a word makes. The Greek text you posted above is missing the word εἰκῆ.

^Err. . .I think those being castigated are those who translate the bible inaccurately; a charge that is easily proven by examining the source manuscripts.

Thanks for this exposure my fellowsoldier in Christ. Alhaji-paistor-oluwo, where art thou?[/Quote]Both you shoud bury your heads in shame. How can you thank somebody for weak defense? How do you know that a "translation" is not correct when there is no original text to translate from? Is Greek the original language, hence the original text of what Jesus preached?
Let me just take Idoma language to demonstrate what i mean, aletheia and olaadegbu. maybe you will see why you should be so ashamed and never defend the indefensible, again.
An idoma friend with Italian last name told me how her family ends up with this unusual african family identity. Though she is a dark skin woman, her children who should be mulatoo at best, do not have any black trace. She then told me that white people settled in her part of Nigeria, being very close to the river. I agree with her.
I imagine her writing the story of her great great grandfather. I expect her to write it in Idoma language, because that is the language that her great grandfather will give the narrative.
Can you imagine that a malian, who speaks Sohinke writes this very story in Sohinke and it is now the standard textbook and language of this story?

Where is the Syriac New Testament, the language spoken by Jesus? When you dangle greek text in front of us, apart from the incorrect text, i wonder if you even realize how wrong it is that you do this? is that the language that Jesus communicated with his disciples?


Whats your language, aletheia? I will like to write your story in Yoruba language and say this is the best original language that your people must learn about you.

Olaadegbu, I will write your story in swahili for your yoruba people of Nigeria. I want to see how the olaadegbus love it and appreciates its accuracy.

^


Are you satisfied now that Arabic appears?

@sweetnecta,

Did God speak Arabic to Mohammed?

If he didn't, why was the Quran written in Arabic?

If he did, then couldn't the Holy Spirit have inspired the authors of the new testament in Greek?

Besides, I'd rather trust eye-witness on what they say, no matter the language in which they say it than someone who sleeps and wakes up and says he had a revelation.

I'm quite surprised that Sweetnecta didn't jump on this thread earlier.  Anyway, that is not the main point although this matter is steeped in the issues that give him so much stuff to rant and rave about.

The fact is that the issue is not so easy and cut and dried as olaadegbu and Alethia are making it, whether out of desperation or what, I don't know.  Yet on another level it it actually avoids all the complexities. What do I mean?  Well there are two approaches, the level of what the manuscripts actually say, and then the level of the context of what is being discussed by Jesus.  Let me expound.


Oh, and by the way, Olaadegbu, my titles are not complete.  If you want to address me like that then use the full thing, Pastor-Imam-Oluwo-Rabbi-Mahaguru.  


Okay let's go. King James Bible is based on the Textus Receptus which was created in the 16th century.  Textus receptus is a greek text that was created by an amalgamation of various other greek bits and pieces.  A kind of patchpatch job.

In the late fifteenth century, the Greek language, unknown for hundreds of years, was recovered in the West or the geographical area of the Latin Church. The Bible of the Western Church at that time was the Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome in the latter part of the fourth century.

With the rediscovery of Greek, the Vulgate translation was subjected to a critical examination in comparison with the Greek original. Scholars discovered numerous mistranslations or outright errors in the Vulgate. This provided an impetus to print the New Testament in its original language. However, the major stumbling block to this printing endeavor was the lack of a type font for the Greek letters. The creation of this font was accomplished by the second decade of the sixteenth century.

Working at breakneck speed, Erasmus gathered together what Greek manuscripts he could locate in Basle. He was able to collect five, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century. Erasmus worked with such haste that he did not even transcribe the manuscripts; he merely made notes on the manuscripts themselves and sent them to the printers. The entire New Testament was printed in less than six months and published in 1516. Erasmus himself had to admit that the work was "precipitously edited." Another person has called it the most faulty book ever published due to the proofing errors.

Despite its errors, the book became a best seller and the first printing was soon exhausted. In the second edition, which was published in 1519, Erasmus attempted to correct many of the printing errors but, unfortunately, there were nearly as many as the first edition.

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0032.html

So what where these greek fragments that Erasmus patched together to create the Textus Receptus?

The very earliest greek manuscripts that we still have of Matthew do not have the word εἰκῆ, that is 'without a cause'.  P64 does not have it and that is the earliest manuscript that we have (I believe).  There are different opinions of the dating of it.  The earliest date given are the 2nd century but other scholars put in in the 4th century.  The manuscripts that actually have the addition are from the late 4th to 5th century onward, about a century later.

However things are not so simple.  We have Irenaeus quoting the gospel of Matthew and adding the 'without a cause' in his quotation.  That is in the 2nd century.  There are therefore 2 possibilities.  One that the manuscript that he was using then,in the 2nd century, have the word in it, OR that he added the word himself for reasons of his own.  It is possible that the addition of the word originated with him.  
Otherwise we will have to explain how between the 2nd century and the up to the 5th century every manuscript that still exists does NOT have the addition.  Is it a fluke that they ALL happened to get destroyed and only the ones without it survived?  Or perhaps it was one of those situations where the devil went around destroying all manuscripts with the word 'without cause' in order to confuse us.  lol!

 Matthew 5:22

   * The Textus Receptus says anger is sin if it is "without cause."
         o Earliest witness of TR reading: W (4th or 5th century)
         o Earliest witness of NA27 reading: P64 (3rd century)

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/reliable-greek-text/q-arent-textus-receptus-readings-based-on-late-manuscripts

TR is textus receptus and NA is Nestle-Aland



But in my opinion all this complicated convoluted scholarship is not necessary to get the gist of what is actually being said in that passage.

What is Jesus actually talking about in Matthew chapter 5?  Jesus is expounding the law and how it relates to sin.  For me, and if you disagree please feel free to say how and why, Jesus is shifting or expanding the notion of sin from merely Sinful Acts to the Sentiments and other causes that precede the Acts.  


Anger precedes Murder.  Lust precedes Adultery.  It is one thing to say that you have never murdered anyone and therefore you are not guilty of that sin.  However Jesus says that it is not just the act of murder but the sentiment (anger) that leads up to the act of murder that is the sin.  This is what God is concerned with.  Jesus goes even so far as to say that if the thing that is causing you to sin is your own eye or your own hand that it is better for you to excise it.  The entire discourse is extremist in it's tone.  (Cannot even a sense of justified Anger cause you to still commit the sinful act of Murder?)

similarly it is not the act of commiting adultery but the lustful feelings that God is concerned with and these are in themselves sins.  

Now considering what Jesus was saying in context I am certain that the 'without a cause' word was an addition to take the edge off what Jesus was saying.  Furthermore it is an addition that introduces, or allows, a very dangerous phenomenon to enter into the christians life.  That of Righteous Anger, which can then be further extended to the idea of a 'Just War'.  

In fact the whole phrase is just so nonsensical when you think about it.  It does not tally with the way the human brain works.  Think about, have you ever seen an angry man that did not feel his anger was justified.  Have you ever been angry without feeling that your anger was justified.

I am even making it easy by saying justified.  The text says without a cause.  Well there is always something that is causing the angry man to be angry. People don't just get angry spontaneously.  So anger always has a cause.  
But okay, let's make it easier and say it has to have a just cause.  The fact still remains that nobody gets angry without thinking that their anger is justified, it is the very nature of anger.  

Going back to the context of what Jesus was saying, if there is such a thing as Justified Anger then, tell me, is there such a thing as justified Murder.  Afterall Jesus was talking about the law against Murder.  "Thou shalt not kill". (or is that now, thou shalt not kill without a cause).  

This is an interesting link that discusses the same thing.
http://focusonthescriptures.org/chapteriii.html

I also address these very issues on this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-365895.64.html#msg5128063


But having said all of that, let me get back to the original topic of this thread and answer that in fact (despite appearances to the contrary) The King James' Version is actually my preferred version.  

^^

Now that you have made a very intelligent arguement, you use the Kings James Bible.

Nairaland has quite a few characters !!!!

Sweetnecta:

Both you shoud bury your heads in shame. How can you thank somebody for weak defense? How do you know that a "translation" is not correct when there is no original text to translate from? Is Greek the original language, hence the original text of what Jesus preached?
Let me just take Idoma language to demonstrate what i mean, aletheia and olaadegbu. maybe you will see why you should be so ashamed and never defend the indefensible, again.
An idoma friend with Italian last name told me how her family ends up with this unusual african family identity. Though she is a dark skin woman, her children who should be mulatoo at best, do not have any black trace. She then told me that white people settled in her part of Nigeria, being very close to the river. I agree with her.
I imagine her writing the story of her great great grandfather. I expect her to write it in Idoma language, because that is the language that her great grandfather will give the narrative.
Can you imagine that a malian, who speaks Sohinke writes this very story in Sohinke and it is now the standard textbook and language of this story?

Where is the Syriac New Testament, the language spoken by Jesus? When you dangle greek text in front of us, apart from the incorrect text, i wonder if you even realize how wrong it is that you do this? is that the language that Jesus communicated with his disciples?


Whats your language, aletheia? I will like to write your story in Yoruba language and say this is the best original language that your people must learn about you.

Olaadegbu, I will write your story in swahili for your yoruba people of Nigeria. I want to see how the olaadegbus love it and appreciates its accuracy.

The Truth has been spoken.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ because it clearly highlights points of interest in the bible that are easy to miss.

Pastor AIO:

. . .whether out of desperation or what, I don't know.

^I believe this is an unfair remark. You quoted a Greek text and I pointed out that the Greek text you quoted was missing one word.

aletheia:

εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου εικη ενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρε ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος  

What a difference a word makes. The Greek text you posted above is missing the word [size=16pt]εἰκῆ[/size].

You make allusion to the TR. The TR was composed from Byzantine text-type. And here is what we see:

Since the discovery of the Papyrus 45, Papyrus 46, and Papyrus 66, proof is available that occasionally the Byzantine text preserves a reading that dates from early witness.

Other examples of Byzantine readings were found in p66 in John 1:32; 3:24; 4:14.51; 5:8; 6:10.57; 7:3.39; 8:41.51.55; 9:23; 10:38; 12:36; 14:17. This supports the views of scholars such as Harry Sturz and Maurice Robinson that the roots of the Byzantine text may go back to a very early date; although Bruce Metzger points out that this cannot be taken to demonstrate that these readings were in the original text.

aletheia:

^I believe this is an unfair remark. You quoted a Greek text and I pointed out that the Greek text you quoted was missing one word.

I apologise.

Since the discovery of the Papyrus 45, Papyrus 46, and Papyrus 66, proof is available that occasionally the Byzantine text preserves a reading that[b] dates from early witness.[/b]

Other examples of Byzantine readings were found in p66 in John 1:32; 3:24; 4:14.51; 5:8; 6:10.57; 7:3.39; 8:41.51.55; 9:23; 10:38; 12:36; 14:17. This supports the views of scholars such as Harry Sturz and Maurice Robinson that the roots of the Byzantine text may go back to a very early date; although Bruce Metzger points out that [size=14pt]this cannot be taken to demonstrate that these readings were in the original text.[/size]

They are all early dates. We need to be more precise. It's no good to say that 'proof is available' without providing the proof. As far as I am aware there are no manuscripts in existence that date before the 4th century. The earliest that we have do not have the 'without a cause' addition.

Should a Christian Get Angry?
November 8, 2011.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:22).

There are a number of Scriptures which, taken alone, would indicate that a Christian should never get angry about anything. For example, note Ephesians 4:31: "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger . . . be put away from you."

Yet Jesus indicated only that anger "without a cause" was wrong and invited judgment. Many modern translations omit the phrase "without a cause" in this verse (NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.), but the phrase does occur in over 99.5 percent of all the Greek manuscripts, and thus clearly should be retained.

If anger were never permitted for a believer, it would contradict even the occasional example of Jesus Himself. "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts" (Mark 3:5). He was angered here by certain hypocrites among the Pharisees who were ready to condemn Him for healing a disabled man on the Sabbath.

We are never justified in getting angry over some personal injury or insult to ourselves. This is implied in context in such verses as cited above (Colossians 3:8, etc.). "Recompense to no man evil for evil . . . avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath" (Romans 12:17, 19). But if we do get angry in spite of ourselves, we are commanded, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath" (Ephesians 4:26).

There may be some situations involving injury or insult to the name or work of Christ where anger is indeed "with cause." Even then, however, God would warn us to be "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (James 1:19), remembering that "vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19). HMM

For more . . . .