Bible Problem

[WordSword]

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine. 

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC
 

[AdHoc]

24 minutes ago, WordSword said:

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine. 

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC
 

The good thing is that we have brothers like you who do this detective work. Soon we have a catalogue of "differences" and the common man can make  study for himself. Even better is that we have a God that makes the following claim 

34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Da 4:34–35)

Now the question gets very simple. Did this God Whose hand cannot be stayed by mere men, set forth His Word so that a brother living in the fourth century AD would get the same truth as a brother in the fourteenth century? I say YES! The detective work is about the same, and if you look at the results from every angle, the most studied Book in the history of man, in the Received Texts, is your most reliable source. But the good detective does not stop there. He will face a defense in court that will ask awkward questions. So he must study the oppositions work as well. The good detective studies them all, and then makes a choice based on Who God said He was and what God allowed. FAITH .... or superstition ...? You choose.

[Who me]

1 hour ago, WordSword said:

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC

Please post the " questionable " verses that show that essential  teachings are compromised by translation s like the A V, NIV, A SB etc etc etc.

 

While there are ma y translation none of the compromise  the gospel.  Which reduces 5his discussion  to a storm in a tea cup.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AdHoc said:

The good thing is that we have brothers like you who do this detective work. Soon we have a catalogue of "differences" and the common man can make  study for himself. Even better is that we have a God that makes the following claim 

34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Da 4:34–35)

Now the question gets very simple. Did this God Whose hand cannot be stayed by mere men, set forth His Word so that a brother living in the fourth century AD would get the same truth as a brother in the fourteenth century? I say YES! The detective work is about the same, and if you look at the results from every angle, the most studied Book in the history of man, in the Received Texts, is your most reliable source. But the good detective does not stop there. He will face a defense in court that will ask awkward questions. So he must study the oppositions work as well. The good detective studies them all, and then makes a choice based on Who God said He was and what God allowed. FAITH .... or superstition ...? You choose.

Hi, and appreciate the support with the good reply! This reminds me that we must always be ready to answer others for the reason of the hope we have in us ( 1Pe 3:15).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Who me said:

Please post the " questionable " verses that show that essential  teachings are compromised by translation s like the A V, NIV, A SB etc etc etc.

 

While there are ma y translation none of the compromise  the gospel.  Which reduces 5his discussion  to a storm in a tea cup.

In my opinion, the omissions are enough to change the text and be condemned.

[teddyv]

There has been a few of these thread topics lately.

 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, teddyv said:

There has been a few of these thread topics lately.

 

Yes, there will always be controversy over the Word of God, it being the only source of God's true guidance. 

[believeinHim]

4 hours ago, WordSword said:

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

I don't know which translation to use ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Which translation should I use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

4 hours ago, WordSword said:

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

 

Thank you so much for this post ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I now understand so much more about myself ! ! ! ! ! ! ! So, Which translation do you recommend ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

[Deborah_]

6 hours ago, WordSword said:

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated.

This is simply not true. Just choose the translation you prefer, and memorise that one! And digital bibles have built-in concordances.

Who finds the existence of different translations a problem? I've never met anyone who does. Most of us find it useful to compare them, because it improves understanding.

6 hours ago, WordSword said:

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading.

The MT that I use (the NIV) doesn't omit it. Please check your facts.

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, WordSword said:

Yes, there will always be controversy over the Word of God, it being the only source of God's true guidance. 

Unfortunately, these discussions are rarely useful, generally pitting those who believe in the superiority KJV line of manuscripts against everyone else who rarely take such a hardline stance. Outside of obvious errors like the JW Bible, most translations are perfectly adequate and do not change any core doctrines of Christianity.