In the clock analogy, it is valid to use the atomic clock as a reference point due to its precision. By comparing the other clocks to it, we can come to a solid conclusion regarding which clocks are common.

However, there is insufficient data to conclude which clocks are correct. To paraphrase a previous comment, precision != accuracy.

Certainly it is possible to argue that the common ones are more likely to be correct. In fact, one such an argument has led me to trust the MT more than the NU. But this argument, which is essentially based on consensus, is not definitive.

Consider the case for the Sabbath today. If we were to go by the same argument, we would keep Sunday. If we went back 400 years, we would keep Sunday. But we do not go by consensus. We go all the way back to the source to find the truth. The farther we go back, and the closer to the origin, we find that Sunday is a relatively new standard. Hence, we keep Saturday.

This is the argument in favor of the NU manuscripts. Supporters argue that these manuscripts are older, and therefore closer to the originals. That is the fundamental pillar on which supporters stand. To reject these, a reason must be given to doubt their credibility.

Perhaps we are looking at this from different angles. From my angle, I would disagree with this part. The majority of calendars all say Sunday is the first day and Saturday is the seventh. The minority of calendars say Sunday is the seventh. True, the majority observe Sunday, but from what authority? Not from the "majority calendar." Should we accept the "minority calendar" because the majority of people follow it?

It is exactly the same with the Bible manuscripts. The "majority text" has the minority following today. The majority of people follow the minority text--and they try to say it is because it is older. I disagree with their assessment, however.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If the governments of the various nations got together and decided to standardize the calendar, with Sunday as the seventh day, would that make Sunday the correct Sabbath because all calendars say so?

The point is that the majority can be changed. Truth is always the same, but the minority can become the majority by a host of methods. It is not safe to trust something simply because it is in the majority.

Can the majority change history? Even if they could, it wouldn't make it right. That is certainly what they are trying to do. The majority today are seeking out the minority texts, and choosing them to be their new standard--claiming that they are the more ancient manuscripts. Their claim is flawed, of course, but it is never easy to prove one way or another, and they know that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's the crux: If the majority is in agreement, does history matter?

Green,

What asygo said,
what asygo said,
and what asygo said.

Yes, what was that, according to you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

He said it better than I could. Read what he said. Especially what I was trying to say:
precision != accuracy

I guess I never said those two were equal.

Let's hope you never have to figure out the difference between two measuring systems, say "metric" vs "standard." You would not be able to find an "accurate" measure, I'm afraid, to compare them by.

As Arnold said (and he was agreeing with my usage in the analogy): "In the clock analogy, it is valid to use the atomic clock as a reference point due to its precision. By comparing the other clocks to it, we can come to a solid conclusion regarding which clocks are common."

I would go so far as to say the atomic clock does more than establish commonality. It would also establish "relationship." If the times are unequal, by what percentage do they differ? The atomic clock could accurately give us this data.

I never once said in my analogy that the atomic clock was the standard of time. I think you may have mistaken what the atomic clock represented. It simply represented a tool by which to compare other clocks.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As our pastor has been doing a series on Bible manuscripts and is doing one on the history of English Bible versions prior and up to the KJV, I guess I need to read through this thread in preparation to his presentation on the KJV and after.