Bible Problem

[Guest]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Since translations are probably less than 1% different from each other (I don't know what the number is) and even less the in doctrinal matters, the claim of less growth with one translation seems wildly overstated.

Hi and thanks for the reply! What many are unaware of is that there are only two primary sources of manuscripts: the Majority Text types; the Alexandrian Text types. All translations derive from one of these two sources. The Majority Text is named so because it's the only source of manuscripts that contains most of all available manuscripts (5000 plus).

The Alexandrian or Minority Text type contain only a few manuscripts, but they are the oldest. The reason why they are the oldest is because early scribes would not use them for copying, and so they didn't ware out like most manuscript copies.

But the reason why they wouldn't use them is because they were too different from most of the existing manuscripts, thus they fell into disuse for 1500 years, and nobody ever used them (except for the Vaticanus manuscripts for the Vatican).

That's why we didn't have the flood of translations until now, because they just recently discovered these manuscripts (1800s). But also what many do not know that these manuscripts we the product of Gnostic scholars, who do not believe in the  deity of Christ, and so many passages are changed slightly enough so as not to notice enough difference.

Here's one example: Jhn 3:13 confirms the deity of Christ's omnipresence. He said He was in heaven while He was on earth. But omitting the phrase, "who is in heaven" detracted from the Word (Mat 4:4) and thus hiding one of the passages confirming His deity.

 

[Solus Christus]

1 hour ago, WordSword said:

Hi and thanks for the reply! What many are unaware of is that there are only two primary sources of manuscripts: the Majority Text types; the Alexandrian Text types. All translations derive from one of these two sources. The Majority Text is named so because it's the only source of manuscripts that contains most of all available manuscripts (5000 plus).

The Alexandrian or Minority Text type contain only a few manuscripts, but they are the oldest. The reason why they are the oldest is because early scribes would not use them for copying, and so they didn't ware out like most manuscript copies.

But the reason why they wouldn't use them is because they were too different from most of the existing manuscripts, thus they fell into disuse for 1500 years, and nobody ever used them (except for the Vaticanus manuscripts for the Vatican).

That's why we didn't have the flood of translations until now, because they just recently discovered these manuscripts (1800s). But also what many do not know that these manuscripts we the product of Gnostic scholars, who do not believe in the  deity of Christ, and so many passages are changed slightly enough so as not to notice enough difference.

Here's one example: Jhn 3:13 confirms the deity of Christ's omnipresence. He said He was in heaven while He was on earth. But omitting the phrase, "who is in heaven" detracted from the Word (Mat 4:4) and thus hiding one of the passages confirming His deity.

 

Clarification which manuscripts were done by gnostic scholars? Majority or Alexandrian Text?

[Solus Christus]

Important food for thought in all this:

https://www.revneal.org/Writings/Writings/errorof.htm

Edit: 

Four Types of Text:

“The overwhelming majority of Greek texts come from places that were part of the Byzantine Empire, where the primary language was Greek. These texts are classified as Byzantine. Because Greek continued to be used as a primary liturgical language in the Byzantine Empire for centuries, these were produced in greater number, but are also generally much younger texts.

The next major group is Alexandrian, or Egyptian. These texts were used by the Church in Egypt, but are generally older because Greek died out as a liturgical language after not too many centuries. When there's doubt over which tradition preserves the correct reading, the Alexandrian text wins more often than not, given that Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are all largely within this category, and these three are among our earliest complete Greek bibles.

The third is the Western Text. "Western" is something of a misnomer - a good number of Western texts come from Syria. The western text tends to gloss and paraphrase, and will give the longer version if a text has a long and short recension.

The fourth is Caesarean. The Caesarean is poorly attested, and not everyone accepts its classification as an independent textual family. Texts which are supposedly Caesarean will often seem to a mix of Western and Alexandrean readings.” (https://www.christianforums.com/threads/byzantine-vs-alexandrian-text-whats-the-difference.7471314/)

Edited August 3, 2023 by Solus Christus

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Solus Christus said:

Clarification which manuscripts were done by gnostic scholars? Majority or Alexandrian Text?

There are primarily only two sources of manuscripts, with others that are not sources but allies in content. It's the Alexandrian Text types, also known as the Minority Text and the Critical Text. These all show multiple scholars getting their hands into the till, and many of them were Gnostics.

The other source is the Majority Text types, also known as the Byzantine Text type. This is the only source that contains the most of all existing manuscripts (90%).

[Solus Christus]

9 minutes ago, WordSword said:

There are primarily only two sources of manuscripts, with others that are not sources but allies in content. It's the Alexandrian Text types, also known as the Minority Text and the Critical Text. These all show multiple scholars getting their hands into the till, and many of them were Gnostics.

The other source is the Majority Text types, also known as the Byzantine Text type. This is the only source that contains the most of all existing manuscripts (90%).

This is most helpful!!! 
 

Are most translations from Majority Text? 

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

This is most helpful!!! 
 

Are most translations from Majority Text? 

 

Most translations are from the Minority Text with all the modern translations. But it's the Majority Text that contains nearly all manuscripts in existence. The Minority is favored because of their age, but that is only due to the fact that the early scribes would not use them, because they were too different from the majority of available manuscripts.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, WordSword said:

Most translations are from the Minority Text with all the modern translations. But it's the Majority Text that contains nearly all manuscripts in existence. The Minority is favored because of their age, but that is only due to the fact that the early scribes would not use them, because they were too different from the majority of available manuscripts.

What is your source(s) that scribes wouldn't use them for the reasons given?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, teddyv said:

What is your source(s) that scribes wouldn't use them for the reasons given?

It's common knowledge among many learned scholars. My source is from David Otis Fuller, D.D.. I keep rereading two of his books, esp. the one entitled "Which Bible." There are scholarly men who write on Textual Criticism, which is a close examination of the Bile, and I find him to be the most honest and informed.

Of course you always need to trust in your chosen source, and God will always guide you to trusted sources if you are genuine in seeking truth for the right reasons. Otherwise nobody would stand much of a chance of progressing in Him when conforming us to the image of His Son (Ro 8:29; Eph 4:15).

God bless!

[Solus Christus]

18 hours ago, JimmyB said:

a) I don't "go with" anything.  I trust scholarship.

b) None of the earliest texts were written in English.  Do you really not know that?  

c)  Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is a Latin translation (obvious!)  "repent" and "do penance" are a translated word and phrase respectively from the source language to Latin to English!

d) "... because that is manuscripts most of the early churches had, copied, and circulated" is poor English. "that is" should be "those are" since "manuscripts" is plural.

a) My quote was scholarship, Luther and Erasmus noticed in the Greek it’s “repent” not “do penance” like the faulty Latin Vulgate translation. 

b) I know the original languages were Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Hebrew wasn’t even the major language then, but now scholars use the Masoretic Text, a 9-10th century A.D. text instead of Septuagint, even though the Sept has the least bias because it was translated in Alexandria in 60 B.C. by 70 Hebraic scholars for the Pharaoh, and before Jews became bitter towards Medieval Christians which is reflected in changes they made. The Septuagint is also before Jews started removing messianic passages like Isaiah 53 from their Tanakhs, most Tanakhs today are half-Tanakh, that omit passages and chapters like Isaiah 53. Jesus quoted from The Septuagint, and his words don’t line up with Masoretic Text. 

c) I know Jerome’s translation was Latin, I was using it to make a point, that if someone’s translation or copy differs from the scholarly majority texts it is to be thrown out, for instance if you have 4999 Greek texts saying “Jesus is Lord” and 1 text says “Jesus is like the Lord” you throw out that one faulty text. This is how the compilers of Bible operates in addition to taking into account authenticity, authorship verification, cross referencing, did the early churches circulate those texts, and etc. 

 

Edited August 4, 2023 by Solus Christus

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Solus Christus said:

I know Jerome’s translation was Latin, 

Yes, the Pope wanted him to hide the Bible from the Greek speaking people by translating it into Latin, which was never a familiar language to most of the world. Hence the phrase Jerome's Latin Vulgate; or Latin Vulgar to be more precise! Lots of problems with it, and is still the RC church's Bible.