User talk:Nick

From Textus Receptus

Current revision

G'day. Good luck with your wiki. I noticed that you had put a link into WikiChristian's "Christian wiki", which is great. Feel free to make an article for this website on WikiChristian too if you want; also feel free to help out at WikiChristian too - the entire Bible has already been uploaded there, verse by verse, uploaded in Hebrew, Greek and a couple English translations already (e.g. John 1:1 and so on). Cheers, Graham

Hi

I do not know exactly what is your idea, but I like every people who loved the Holy Scripture. It is only one thing in my live, which makes that I still want to live. The Holy Scripture, Word of God, etc. I believe in every word of the Holy Scripture... but there are some differences between manuscripts, f.e. this:

Luke 9:55b-56a — και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them) omitted by the manuscripts: p⁴⁵, p⁷⁵, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Regius, Koridethi, Zacynthius, 33, 700, 892, 1241, numerous Byzantine mss, syr, cop^bo. Codex Bezae has Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of). May be it is original, because "the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them" looks like evident interpolation used in many places.

If you want to follow Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, and Hoskier, it is OK, I can support this point of view. But if you want to follow KJOM... It is even impossible to defence. The last six verses of the Book of Revelation, 17th chapter of the Book of Revelation (Erasmus altered after Vulgate not Greek manuscripts), several passages in the Acts and in the Gospels. They are evidently not authentic. Now we have too much evidences, too much early manuscripts (like P⁴⁵, P⁶⁶, P⁷⁵). Burgon declares that the Textus Receptus needs correction.<ref>Burgon, The Revised Revision, p. 548. </ref> Burgon suggested 150 corrections in the Textus Receptus Gospel of Matthew alone.<ref>Burgon, Revised Revision, p. 242. </ref> 1 Timothy 3:16 according to TR is impossible to defence. Not only early Greek mss, but also all early versions (also Gothic version and Peshitta, which used the Byzantine text). Only some manuscripts of Vulgate have variant the same as in TR (in Timothy 3:16), but the late text of Vulgate was altered (several times). The Greek NT mss are divided into Alexandrian, Byzantine, Caesarean, and Western, but mss of Vulgate into: Spanish, Irish, French, and several other smaller groups.

In books of KJOM I found a lot of errors, a lot of propaganda. For instance: 99% of mss used "traditional text" it is not true. 100% lectionaries used "traditional text". What means traditional text? The Byzantine text of lectionaries is different than Byzantine text of minuscules. Perhaps the Byzantine text of leciotnaries represents earlier stage of the Byzantine text. Perhaps. In hundreds of places it supports Alexandrian readings. Hundreds... it is not a lot, the standard Byzantine text is different in 8000-9000 places from the Alexandrian text. The minuscules 483 and 484 are different in 183 places (errors of itacisms excluded) only in the Gospels, but they are almost the same. Between Boernerianus and Augiensis 1982 differences, but they are very similar. Peshitta has many of the Alexandrian readings, and Alexandrian omissions. I do not know why according to many of supporters of the Textus Receptus used Peshitta as a witness of the traditional text (Edward Miller used Peshitta as an argument, but he wanted to correct TR). Peshitta has also some Western readings. Gothic version has some Alexandrian readings, but not so much as in Peshitta. Alexandrian? Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have a lot of Western readings (and some Caesarean). They are not pure Alexandrian manuscirpts. What is pure Alexandrian text? Perhaps papyri 66 and 75 have a pure Alexandrian text (or almost pure, because they have some textual pecularities and unique readings, which we can not find in any other manuscript). They were not written by professional scribes. Situation is very complicated. Textual critics? Westcott and Hort supported Vaticanus (it was better), Aland supported Sinaiticus (it worse).

In every case your work is good. I want only suggest that you continue work of Burgon, Miller, and Scrivener. Leszek Jańczuk 14:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leszek

Hey there Leszek, my ultimate goal is to make the scriptures, based upon the KJV/TR, easily accessable on the site, in all languages, and with all words linked to original word meanings and study helps. I know there is error in both KJV and MV camps. From what I have seen, many are focusing their efforts discrediting the other camp, where I thought it would be good to focus energy to promote the scriptures in all languages. While I do follow the KJV I am not an onlyist. I suppose I hold the position that the Dean Burgon Society holds. Some KJV arguments make sense and some MV make sense. I hope to put all sides of these arguments on this site, so that someone researching can make an informed conclusion, so that if James Whites articles were placed up along D.A. Waite's, people would be able to then search through both. Although, ultimately the sites general articles will favor the KJV/TR position, and will be linked to in all articles. So say where White calls Easter Pagan, the word Easter itself will be hyperlinked to other articles favoring Easter. But Also Jack Moormans articles claiming Easter is Pagan, will have the same, so hopefully by having all point of views, we can learn what the extremes on both sides are. Nick 12:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Main page

Now is much better. Good idea. Leszek Jańczuk 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for editing my posts. I'm not that good with formatting on wiki's yet and i really appreciate the work you do in making my posts more standard. I'm sorry if my posts are a trouble for you. Dr.bray

Ezek 13:8

I noticed that my article on Ezek 13:8 has this in the log...

(Protection log); 12:09 . . Nick (Talk | contribs) protected "Ezekiel 13:18" ([edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I'm not sure what that means, can you please explain it to me? Something about being protected maybe?

Protected just means that people have to create an account to edit it. I usually try and do that for every page. I leave it open at first, becauee some poeple don't know how to sign up. But after content is made on a page, I usually protect it. Thanks for you contibutions, keep them coming! Nick 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Waite

See here, we should defend this article. Of course there are some errors in his books, maybe to many, but every body do mistakes, and he is important enough. Leszek Jańczuk 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I commented on Wikipedia - under strong keep. Your weight on the issue may help, as you have some influence there. Nick 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editing

Seeing that most of the anon editing are vandal, I think it's better to turn off the anonymous editing. What do you think? Bennylin 09:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bennylin. Thanks for your input. I have left the anon editing open, trying to be much like Wikipedia. I was hoping more people would edit. It is definatly an option to consider! I will think over it in the next few months Nick 10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Because at the end of the day you'd end up semi-protecting the pages, and the bible part of the site should not be edited anyway. Just my 2 cents. Bennylin 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of the site?

Hi Nick, I was wondering what is happening these days with your site. The home page says all Bible believers can freely edit the articles. However, when I went to the articles, they were all locked. So I was hoping you can clarify this issue for me, and make some changes so there is no contradiction. God bless you. 203.76.178.136 09:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC) -Joseph