Important Differences Between Bible Versions

[Alive]

C'mon guys. Knock off the personal attacks and discuss the topic.

There are differences in texts and translations...its fine to point these things out. We all know this stuff.

This can be done in a reasonable and logical manner without attacking POV that result from the examination.

[David1701]

22 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

....Christians usually take one of two fundamentally different approaches to eclectic texts.  The first is by faith to choose one of them as being essentially identical to the originals and thus God's appointed GNT for all times.   This is often referred to as some variation of a doctrine of preservation with those holding it sometimes called preservationists.

 

Firstly, if something is chosen by faith, then, by definition, it is in agreement with God's will.  I suspect that you don't understand what faith is, because this is clearly not what you meant, which is concerning.

Secondly, you have not addressed what I pointed out in the OP.  If you believe in God's providence (all orthodox Christians do), then you have one of two choices:

1) The text God provided, at a time of great, God-given, worldwide return to the God, the gospel and the Bible (the Reformation) was highly reliable and trustworthy, leading to sound, reliable translations, in many languages, and leading to deliverance from darkness.

2) The text God provided, at the Reformation, was shoddy and full of errors, leading to poor quality translations in numerous countries.  We had to wait until the late 1800s, for the theories of Westcott and Hort, at a time of great departure from faith and reliance, instead, upon man's intellect, for a good quality Greek NT, to replace the shoddy one the Church had had since the Reformation.

The second choice is really the result of insidious unbelief creeping into the Church, and it has got much worse since then.  It is no surprise that Roman Catholicism has had a hand in the modern UBS/NU Greek text (the so-called Critical Text) and in many of the  translations from it.

 

Quote

The second approach is continuing to revisit each passage in the eclectic text as a new manuscript is discovered which contains that passage as well as allowing more scholars to discuss the assumptions about what makes various manuscripts more or less credible than others.  As a practical matter, the majority of Christian scholars and denominations have followed the second approach.

Rubbish.  This is not how the "Eclectic Text" operates.  It is based upon Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, with other witnesses being ranked, depending upon how well they agree with those (especially Sinaiticus).

There are also various "rules", invented by Griesbach and others, to determine what the best reading is.  These rules contradict each other and some are ludicrous, e.g. a harder reading is to be preferred to a more fluid, easier to understand reading.  This nonsense leads to a text with all the poor readings being given precedence over the good ones, simply because "harder is better"!

Quote

One practical difference between preservationists and the majority is their view toward footnotes.  Preservationists tend to see no use for them since that would question the accepted text.  In contrast, the majority look to a comparison of various witnesses and want to know when various witnesses disagree with each other.

This is drivel.  Please quote even ONE scholar who believes in providential preservation of the text of the Bible, who sees no use for footnotes.  I won't hold my breath.

Quote

For the preservationist, textual scholarship does not exist as a field by and large except in the historical sense of documenting what lead up to the accepted text.  In addition, a preservationist is forced to defend each and every choice of passage in the chosen eclectic text as a matter of faith regardless of what historical evidence may or may not exist for that passage in various manuscripts.  Typically, textual matters for a preservationist amount to a defense of the text of faith in every single passage and a denunciation of all variations away from that.  In contrast, textual matters for the majority are about looking at a particular passage and comparing what different manuscripts have as that passage.

This is also drivel.  Have you even read any scholars who believe in providential preservation of the Scriptures, because it certainly does not look like it?

[David1701]

21 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Well people have to decide which they think makes more sense or is the more likely translation. The manuscripts you mention, are older than those that you think are more accurate. Some people believe that the older a manuscript is, the closer it is in time to the original autographs, the less likely it is to have been corrupted.

But, do the facts bear out this guess?

1) How was the NT text transmitted?

It was used, worn out, copied; used, worn out, copied, etc., which means that any good quality manuscript would be expected to have been worn out, through much use, and copied, long ago.

2) How, then, would a manuscript survive, in legible form, for such a long time?  It would have to be a poor quality manuscript, which was not used much, so did not wear out and was not copied.  It would also have to be in an atmosphere conducive to longevity (e.g. the arid atmosphere of Egypt).

3) What are the facts, regarding Sinaiticus (the main manuscript of the Critical Text)?

It has not worn out.

There are no extant manuscripts that have been copied from it.

It has had the attention of upwards of twelve (!) correctors.

It differs from the other main manuscript of the Critical Text (Vaticanus), more than 3,000 times, in the gospels alone!  Dean Burgon, who examined both manuscripts assiduously, declared that it was difficult to find two consecutive verses in which these two manuscripts agreed!  Oldest and best?  I don't think so!

Quote

It is possible that it is not that verses are missing, but that the long ending of Mark was an addition. Probably not meant to do any harm, but just someone jotting notes in the margins, commenting that as Paul was not harmed by a viper, and the disciples spoke in tongues, in was probably just someone cross referencing the book of acts as signs of followers.

Later perhaps, someone just copied those notes into subsequent manuscripts, and so one.

This is unbelieving speculation. 

Almost every manuscript that contains the ending of Mark has Mark 16:9-20 (hundreds of them), with slight variations.  The two that end at verse 8 (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) both have clear evidence of having been tampered with, at this point.  One of them has a space where the verses should be (the only such space in the entire manuscript).  The other increased the font size, masking the fact that verses are missing - again, it is the only such place in the manuscript where this is done.

Quote

On the other hand, we know with certainty that Textus Receptus based version, have errors.

Yes, but they are usually very minor errors, few and far between.  The CT versions ALL have some serious errors, with theological implications, e.g. turning Jesus into a sinner, for being angry, or turning Jesus into a liar, for saying that he was not going up to the feast.

[NotAllThere]

43 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Firstly, if something is chosen by faith, then, by definition, it is in agreement with God's will. 

I do not understand this statement at all. It seems to imply that if we do something in faith, we must be right and if it turns out were were wrong then we weren't in faith. Which seems further to be a bit condemning. I'm not convinced that God demands we be perfect in anything we do. Maybe I misunderstand faith.

[David1701]

47 minutes ago, NotAllThere said:

I do not understand this statement at all. It seems to imply that if we do something in faith, we must be right and if it turns out were were wrong then we weren't in faith.

Correct.  Faith is a gift from God, not something generated by man.  If you have faith that something is true, then it is true, or that it will happen, then it will happen; in fact, that is the test of whether or not we really have faith that something will happen.

Quote

Which seems further to be a bit condemning. I'm not convinced that God demands we be perfect in anything we do. Maybe I misunderstand faith.

Yes, you do misunderstand faith.  It is not a question of us being perfect; it is a question of the gift of faith being perfect.  It is God's doing, not ours.

A good illustration of this is the true story of a Christian who was travelling along a treacherous route, with many other professing Christians (if I recall correctly, they were escaping from persecution).  They came to some impassable river, deep and fast flowing, with no bridge or near crossing point.  He prayed earnestly and was given faith that he could walk across the river safely.  The others did not have this faith and said that he would kill himself, if he tried.  He stepped out, in his God-given faith, and walked safely, ON the water.

The others saw him crossing safely, so they also stepped out, in presumption (they did not have the faith that God had given him).  They were drowned...

Edited December 17, 2020 by David1701
missing word

[David1701]

23 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

...

I have never know any Christian, who trusted the KJV (for example) to drink poison, knowing that it would not hurt them. If it is true that poison does not hurt believers, I would bet that there are a number of diseases that poisons would fix, and there could never be a fatal overdoes among Christians.

What a ridiculous statement! 

It's talking about being poisoned by others, not about willingly drinking poison yourself!  I have read of missionaries who have survived being poisoned, and the tribesman were astonished.  This is the true fulfilment of this verse.

Quote

I suggest we move past the silly and unproductive disputes about text families that are divisive, and move on to things that build up the church and glorify God!

CT versions will weaken and/or damage your faith.  They teach that Jesus lied and that he was a sinner, amongst many other serious errors.

I suggest that you pray, before spouting silly and unproductive opinions.