Important Differences Between Bible Versions

[David1701]

Here are some important differences between Bibles based on the Majority Text, on the one hand, and the Critical Text, on the other hand.

Mark 16:9-20  This whole passage is marked as being spurious, in many CT-based translations.  It is present in almost all Greek manuscripts that contain the ending of Mark (with slight variations).  The two main manuscripts that omit it (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) have clear indications of having been tampered with, at this point.  One of them has a space where the passage should be (the only such space in the entire manuscript) and the other enlarges the font size here, to mask the fact that verses are missing (again the only such place in the whole manuscript where this is done).

Why would anyone in his right mind mark this as spurious, on the basis of no reliable evidence whatever?

1 Tim. 3:16 (WPNT) Yes, the mystery of our religion is confessedly great: God was manifested in flesh,  was vindicated in spirit, was revealed to angels, was proclaimed among nations, was believed in the world, was received up in glory! 

Here is textual criticism expert (and Majority Text advocate) Dr. Wilbur Pickering's comment on "God was manifested in flesh...".

"Instead of ‘God’, 1% of the Greek manuscripts read ‘who’, and most modern versions follow this 1%. But ‘who’ is nonsensical (in the context), so most of them take evasive action: NEB and NASB have “he who”; Phillips has “the one”; NRSV, Jerusalem, TEV and NIV render “he”. Berkley actually has “who”! In the Greek Text the relative pronoun has no antecedent, so it is a grammatical ‘impossibility’, besides being a stupidity—what is so mysterious about someone being manifested in flesh? All human beings have bodies. The pronoun can be accounted for as an easy transcriptional error, a simple copying mistake, so why not stay with the 98.5%? “God was manifested in flesh”—now there you have a mystery!"

John 7:8 (WPNT) You guys go up to this feast; I’m not going up yet to this feast, because my time has not yet fully come.”

Here is Pickering's comment (in his NT translation - "The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken") on the missing "yet", in most CT translations.

"Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “yet” (as in NASB, TEV, RSV, etc.). The reading of the so-called ‘critical’ text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Jesus, since He did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do). Among the 99% are P66,75 and B—since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn’t it strange that they reject them in this case?"

Matt. 5:22 (WEB) But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause  shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca !’ shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.

Here is what Pickering says about the omission of "without a cause", in the CT.

"God hates injustice and will judge it. Less than 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit “without cause” (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). NIV, NASB and LB favor us with a footnote informing us that “some manuscripts” add ‘without cause’—by “some” they mean 98% of them!! More serious, the shorter text has the effect of forbidding anger, which would contradict other Scriptures (Ephesians 4:26, Psalm 4:4) and the Lord’s own example (Mark 3:5)."

John 3:13 (VW) No one has ascended to Heaven but He who came down from Heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in Heaven.

This is one of the main verses proving that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent, during his earthly ministry (thus refuting the "Kenosis" heresy that Jesus emptied himself of some of his attributes as God).

Here is part of what Jay P. Green (textual critic, TR supporter, author of the KJ3 Bible translation and a Hebrew and Greek to English Interlinear) says about the omission of "who is in Heaven", by most of the CT translations.

"Evidence for the omission: MANUSCRIPTS: P66, P75, Aleph, B, L, T and 33 = 2 papyri, 4 uncials, 1 cursive (the first 4 executed in Egypt, at a time when the Gnostics dominated that nation; the latter 3 are late manuscripts, executed by those, who, like our modern critics, venerated Aleph and B).

Versions: none  FATHERS: 7

Evidence the words are divine:  MANUSCRIPTS: More than 1,800 and that many more lectionaries = at least 99.5% of all manuscripts.

VERSIONS: 10  FATHERS: 38"

[The Gnostics, The New Versions, and The Deity of Christ, by Jay P. Green, Sr., 1994, p23]

---------------------------------

There is much more, but this should be enough to show that something disturbing is going on here.

God's providence gave the Church the Received Text, at a time of great God-given return to the Lord and the Bible (The Reformation, imperfect as it was).  This went through several editions, but they were all very similar to each other.  The Reformers only had a relatively small number of manuscripts to work with, but those have since been found to be highly representative of the majority discovered since then.

The rest of this post is taken from a post I made, in another thread, earlier today.

It's mainly a matter of faith in God's character and providence.  The Reformation was a time of great, God-given, return to God and his word.  It was at this time that the TR was collated and accepted, by the people of God, in many countries; and sound translations were produced in English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, etc..

Zoom forwards to the 1800s and we find the first determined opposition to the TR (amongst Protestants - the RCs had always opposed it vehemently), in the form of Westcott, Hort and a few others.  This was a time of great departure from faith in God and his word, with a worship of man's reason replacing it.

Westcott and Hort desperately wanted to replace the TR with a new Greek NT, based on their own ideas.  Hort hated the TR, calling it "vile" and "villainous" (before he'd even studied the subject, by his own admission) and laboured for decades to create a replacement.

Decades later, he had been made the head of the translation committee for the Revised Version (an officially sanctioned revision of the KJV, whose remit was to revise the English (and that as little as possible), NOT the underlying Greek and Hebrew).  Hort secretly, and contrary to his mandate, introduced his own Greek NT, to replace the TR, and persuaded the other committee members to go along with it.

Most modern Bibles are based on Greek NTs that are similar to Hort's version and they have serious changes and omissions, in very important places.

There is much more to it than this; but the point is that the TR is based on trust in God and his providence; whereas, the replacement Greek NT is based on trust in some very dubious people and their very dubious suppositions.

 

[teddyv]

What do you hope to gain with this thread?

[David1701]

19 hours ago, teddyv said:

What do you hope to gain with this thread?

I hope to provide my brothers and sisters with the information they need, to know whether or not the translation(s) they use are dependable, or whether they should change to another.

The truth matters.  It matters so much that it was the first thing that Satan attacked, in the Garden of Eden: "Has God said?".  Believing  his lie, rather than God's words, was what caused Eve to fall.  He has not stopped attacking the truth, from that day to this.

I want to protect brothers and sisters, especially those who are young in the faith, from having their faith damaged or weakened, by using badly corrupted versions of the Bible.  As an example (one I gave in the OP), what is the effect of the CT version of John 7:8?

John 7:8 (NIV) You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.

John 7:8 (ESV) You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.

The young believer reads this, then reads, almost immediately afterwards, that Jesus DID go up to the festival.  He thinks one of two things: either that Jesus was a liar (which would mean that he was not the spotless lamb of God, therefore could not save anyone), or that the Bible contains obvious errors, in which case, how could you know what is true and what is not?

Now compare that with Bibles based on the TR and Maj. Text.

John 7:8 (NKJV) You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.

John 7:8 (WEB) You go up to the feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled.

No problem at all!  Jesus tells the truth and the Bible tells the truth.

Hardly any Greek manuscripts that contain this portion of Scripture omit the "yet", so there is absolutely no valid reason for this outrageous blunder, in the CT translations.  There are many such theologically important errors, in the CT versions.

Edited December 16, 2020 by David1701

[teddyv]

What matters is what the Greek or Hebrew says. I don't know either so I've got to rely on the translators.

I seriously doubt these so-called theologically important errors are nearly as important as you think. Your example in John 7:8 and a new Christian seems kind of pedantic. It sounds like something a new atheist would harp on, but would that really cause a new Christian to stumble? 

There are English speaking born-again Christians using various translations. None of them, except obvious erroneous versions like the JW Bible, contradict the key doctrines of Christianity.

Even if we all used versions  based on the TR/Majority, we'd still be arguing over eschatology, OSAS and whatever other doctrinal arguments exist out there.

[Tzephanyahu]

Great posts @David1701, thank you so much for your work in sharing such vital information and doing so succinctly.

Love & Shalom to you brother

[NotAllThere]

21 hours ago, teddyv said:

What do you hope to gain with this thread?

I think he mis-titled it. Perhaps "Unimportant Differences Between Bible Versions, but that I insist are important, because I need to prove that the KJV is the only reliable version..." would be more accurate.

13 minutes ago, teddyv said:

What matters is what the Greek or Hebrew says. I don't know either so I've got to rely on the translators.

 

Well, can't read Hebrew, but I can read Biblical Greek. And to be honest, you don't need them to know that that the differences between the NIV and KJV or indeed most other versions (not all), make little difference. Yes, a few verses here and there or sections are not included in some. But overall the message is entirely unchanged, and 

There is no important theological point that cannot be demonstrated from any of the mainstream Bible translations.
 

The only translations that are dodgy are those that are written with a pre-existing political/ideological mindset. E.g. the JW Bible, or the Feminist Bible etc.

Versions such as the NLT and the Message vary in accuracy, and need to be read with the understanding that they are paraphrases - not translations. They put into the text their own interpretation. Sometimes helpful, other times not, but always must be read in conjunction with a translation based on a reasonable reading of the known texts. 

However, there are parts of NIV translation I disagree with (none of the excluded texts), so generally, I prefer the NKJV.

Edited December 16, 2020 by NotAllThere

[David1701]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

What matters is what the Greek or Hebrew says. I don't know either so I've got to rely on the translators.

I seriously doubt these so-called theologically important errors are nearly as important as you think. Your example in John 7:8 and a new Christian seems kind of pedantic. It sounds like something a new atheist would harp on, but would that really cause a new Christian to stumble? 

There are English speaking born-again Christians using various translations. None of them, except obvious erroneous versions like the JW Bible, contradict the key doctrines of Christianity.

Even if we all used versions  based on the TR/Majority, we'd still be arguing over eschatology, OSAS and whatever other doctrinal arguments exist out there.

This is all just empty rhetoric and opinions.  A completely useless and unnecessarily contradictory post, entirely lacking in substance.

[GandalfTheWise]

The physical reality of existing manuscripts of the GNT (Greek New Testament) is that there are variations between them.  Here's link to a quick history I wrote awhile ago.   https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/257347-discussion-of-bible-translations-and-versions/?do=findComment&comment=3289557    

Anyone who wants to can go to a site such as http://www.csntm.org to see images taken from existing manuscripts.  Many museums and universities have also digitized images of old manuscripts.  This is a truly exciting development.  Decades and centuries ago, only scholars with permission could usually see these.  Now, various Christian groups are working so that any Christian can see images of these manuscripts.  Some are working to transcribe these so electronic versions of the texts will be available for study.  I've looked online and found images of most of the manuscripts Erasmus used in his first eclectic GNT text.  I've looked at images of the last page of the Revelation manuscript he used which was missing the last few verses.  I've looked at images of the pages of the last chapter of Mark of the existing manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries.

To my knowledge, there are no Christians who point to one of those existing manuscripts and say that it is identical to the originals.  Instead Christians look to the various eclectic texts of the GNT.  An eclectic text is one in which the editor(s) selected which variations to use from among the manuscripts they had access to.  In essence, the editor is treating each manuscript as a witness to the original text and weighing the credibility of each manuscript in various passages and choosing the reading they feel is better witnessed to by the witnesses they have available.  Erasmus in his first Novum Instrumentum (a Greek/Latin parallel text of the NT and the first version of what later called the Textus Receptus by a publisher) published in 1516 was really the first published eclectic text.  Erasmus himself continued to make changes to later versions as more manuscripts became available.  Others continued to do that as well.  Later publications of the Textus Receptus included footnotes indicating variant readings in various manuscripts.  In 1707, John Mill published an eclectic text largely based on the Textus Receptus which contained footnotes documenting the variations in about 100 manuscripts and quotes from early church fathers.    Interestingly enough, some attacked him for calling into doubt the text of the GNT by doing that.  A line of eclectic texts from Daniel Mace in 1729 (which was largely a paraphrase, but made variations from the Textus Receptus from Mill's footnotes), Edward Harwood in 1776 (which was based on 5th and 6th century manuscripts), Lachmann in 1831, Tregelles in 1857, and Westscott and Hort in 1881 were a series of eclectic texts which continued on the work that Erasmus started.  Over this time, various editors had different opinions about how to weigh which variations were better witnesses of the original text than others.  In the past century, much of the work done by Christians in this field has been to look carefully at the assumptions used to weigh the credibility of the various manuscripts as well as collating the existing manuscripts into an organized fashion.

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.  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.

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.

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.

 

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

I hope to provide my brothers and sisters with the information they need, to know whether or not the translation(s) they use are dependable, or whether they should change to another.

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.

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.

On the other hand, we know with certainty that Textus Receptus based version, have errors. Also, most of Bible versions use the Massoretic text as the basis for the Old Testament. As you probably know, those texts are from about 1000 years after the time of Christ, and are from Jews who do know believe that Jesus is their Messiah. yet we tend to trust them even though they played down the signs of Jesus' as the Messiah. 

My point is, that it is the original writing of the authors of scripture that are inspired. Copying is not indpired, translations are not inspired, In spite of the fact that copies and translations are made by sinners, and sinners make mistakes, we still have enough evidence to conclude that the scriptures have been sufficiently well preserved, that we can trust them no matter which family of texts our Bible derive from, all of the important doctrine are there and are in agreement.

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.

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!

[David1701]

20 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

The physical reality of existing manuscripts of the GNT (Greek New Testament) is that there are variations between them.  Here's link to a quick history I wrote awhile ago.   https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/257347-discussion-of-bible-translations-and-versions/?do=findComment&comment=3289557    

Anyone who wants to can go to a site such as http://www.csntm.org to see images taken from existing manuscripts.  Many museums and universities have also digitized images of old manuscripts.  This is a truly exciting development.  Decades and centuries ago, only scholars with permission could usually see these.  Now, various Christian groups are working so that any Christian can see images of these manuscripts.  Some are working to transcribe these so electronic versions of the texts will be available for study.  I've looked online and found images of most of the manuscripts Erasmus used in his first eclectic GNT text.  I've looked at images of the last page of the Revelation manuscript he used which was missing the last few verses.  I've looked at images of the pages of the last chapter of Mark of the existing manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries.

To my knowledge, there are no Christians who point to one of those existing manuscripts and say that it is identical to the originals.  Instead Christians look to the various eclectic texts of the GNT.  An eclectic text is one in which the editor(s) selected which variations to use from among the manuscripts they had access to.  In essence, the editor is treating each manuscript as a witness to the original text and weighing the credibility of each manuscript in various passages and choosing the reading they feel is better witnessed to by the witnesses they have available.  Erasmus in his first Novum Instrumentum (a Greek/Latin parallel text of the NT and the first version of what later called the Textus Receptus by a publisher) published in 1516 was really the first published eclectic text.  Erasmus himself continued to make changes to later versions as more manuscripts became available.  Others continued to do that as well.  Later publications of the Textus Receptus included footnotes indicating variant readings in various manuscripts.  In 1707, John Mill published an eclectic text largely based on the Textus Receptus which contained footnotes documenting the variations in about 100 manuscripts and quotes from early church fathers.    Interestingly enough, some attacked him for calling into doubt the text of the GNT by doing that.  A line of eclectic texts from Daniel Mace in 1729 (which was largely a paraphrase, but made variations from the Textus Receptus from Mill's footnotes), Edward Harwood in 1776 (which was based on 5th and 6th century manuscripts), Lachmann in 1831, Tregelles in 1857, and Westscott and Hort in 1881 were a series of eclectic texts which continued on the work that Erasmus started.  Over this time, various editors had different opinions about how to weigh which variations were better witnesses of the original text than others.  In the past century, much of the work done by Christians in this field has been to look carefully at the assumptions used to weigh the credibility of the various manuscripts as well as collating the existing manuscripts into an organized fashion.

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.  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.

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.

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.

 

 

Are you going to deal with any of the points I made in the OP, or are you just trying to hijack the thread?

By the way, the so-called "eclectic text" is anything but!  "Eclectic" means "drawn from many sources", but supporters of the "Eclectic Text", which is another name used for the "Critical Text", focus very heavily on a tiny number of Greek manuscripts, from one time period and one geographical region (Egypt - a non-Greek speaking area that was notorious for false teaching).  They have been challenged about this, by other experts; but have not amended their approach.  They also dismiss the testimony of the vast majority of manuscripts, by lumping them all together as "Byzantine", and treating them as ONE, poor quality witness; whereas, in fact, the Byzantine text form manuscripts agree far better with each other, and exhibit fewer errors, than do the so-called "earliest and best"!

The modern "Eclectic Text" is very similar to the text created by Hort, and introduced sneakily, to replace the Received Text.  It relies VERY heavily on TWO (count them) manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), both of dubious provenance and very poor character (full of errors and corrections).

Quote

...Lachmann in 1831, Tregelles in 1857, and Westscott and Hort in 1881 were a series of eclectic texts which continued on the work that Erasmus started.

This is very deceptive.  Westcott and Hort HATED the Received Text (Hort admitted that he had hated it, even before he had studied the subject) and wanted to replace it with one of their own devising.  They were certainly not continuing the work that Erasmus started.

There is so much wrong with your post that I don't have time to deal with it all just now; but, be assured, I will return later.