Bible Problem

[NetChaplain]

It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect, but the Word of God within the translation is perfect; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

When people begin to doubt the Word of God concerning plenary inspiration, it reveals misunderstanding, and entreats disuse of the Word. God has relayed all His Word, and there is nothing more and nothing less for Him to show us in this life!

 

[TB2]

Copy-paste of my response to this same point on the other thread:

We are all believers on the same team and I believe we all have the best of intentions. And I believe that a lot of the debate here is motivated by good intentions of wanting absolute assurance. But the manuscripts don't provide it. They get us 98% of the way, but not 100% as @Dave_Regenerated has noted. But no major doctrine is affected nor is the gospel message of salvation affected by this. Perhaps that's the real message here: that God doesn't want us to put faith in manuscripts but faith in God Himself and focus our attention on what matters most: not trying to artificially force that 98% to be 100% (when it can't) to give us personal assurance, but what matters most: the gospel message of salvation (which ~80 times in the NT is referred to as "the Word/the Word of God/the Lord")

Grace and peace

 

[NetChaplain]

It’s my understanding that the word “perfect” concerning a translation is mostly in reference to being complete, entire, and plenary. Thus, only translations derived from the majority of extant manuscripts contain all of Word of God (Mat 4:4)! Studying a translation which has much less manuscript evidence cannot affect one’s salvation; but it will affect one’s spiritual growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 5:14).

 

[TB2]

It’s my understanding that the word “perfect” concerning a translation is mostly in reference to being complete, entire, and plenary. Thus, only translations derived from the majority of extant manuscripts contain all of Word of God (Mat 4:4)! Studying a translation which has much less manuscript evidence cannot affect one’s salvation; but it will affect one’s spiritual growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 5:14).

Out of curiosity, do you support the long or short ending of Mark?

 

[NetChaplain]

“The doctrine of preservation does not guarantee the preservation of the autographs, for they perished within a few years after their writings. Neither does it guarantee the accuracy of the copies, because errant men copied them. It does guarantee that the complete contents of the infallible Scriptures have been preserved, not in any one manuscript, but somewhere within the manuscript tradition!” –D.O.Fuller, D.D.

 

[TB2]

“The doctrine of preservation does not guarantee the preservation of the autographs, for they perished within a few years after their writings. Neither does it guarantee the accuracy of the copies, because errant men copied them. It does guarantee that the complete contents of the infallible Scriptures have been preserved, not in any one manuscript, but somewhere within the manuscript tradition!” –D.O.Fuller, D.D.

Do you believe the long ending of Mark is original or added? Thanks

 

[NetChaplain]

Do you believe the long ending of Mark is original or added? Thanks

I would say the long ending is original, because the KJV and all modern translations include it.

 

[TB2]

I would say the long ending is original, because the KJV and all modern translations include it.

Then you can probably predict my next question. What are we to make of the signs that *will* accompany believers including speaking in tongues snake handling and drinking poison

 

[NetChaplain]

Then you can probably predict my next question. What are we to make of the signs that *will* accompany believers including speaking in tongues snake handling and drinking poison

The gifts of the Spirit and the signs were all for "confirming the Word" (Mar 16:20) until it was completed, then it could confirm Itself. God knew the Jews required signs to believe (1Co 1:22), and it was primarily to the Jews to see the signs and believe that His Word was coming from those who were writing it.

But to require signs was a manifestation of weakness of faith, and to make faith in the Word to become at its strongest He removed the signs when the word was fully canonized. Now, faith can be at its strongest without the proof, which is exercised now mostly by Christian Gentiles, because most Jews still do not believe in Christ.

The Word is like a lion. All you have to do is open the cage, and it will take care of Itself!

 

[TB2]

But to require signs was a manifestation of weakness of faith, and to make faith in the Word to become at its strongest He removed the signs when the word was fully canonized. Now, faith can be at its strongest without the proof, which is exercised now mostly by Christian Gentiles, because most Jews still do not believe in Christ

But Scripture doesn't actually teach this that any of the gifts would cease until the Lord's return (1 Cor 13). Seeking a sign because one is skeptical like the Pharisees was wrong. But signs wonders miracles were to confirm the gospel. There is just as much a need for the Spirit to confirm the gospel message of salvation today as there's always been

 

[Marilyn C]

In those days everyone was an RC, there were no other main non-RC churches until the Protectant Reformation. Having the wrong translation doesn't effect your salvation, just your growth in Christ.

If you are talking about man`s religious system then you are right, however there were groups of believers not involved in the RCC system.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I've read Fuller's book "Which Bible" and also Edward F. Hill's "The King James Version Defended." I recommend both.
I been reading the KJV even before my conversion 46 years ago. Although not inspired as the originals, I believe God gave special illumination and guidance in preparing this translation. It is the best overall. God has spoken to me through this translation many times and I surmise that if the KJV was corrupt or falsified or contained errors God would have not spoken to me through its words. The Spirit of Truth does not use the spirit of error to grow God's children.

 

[NetChaplain]

But Scripture doesn't actually teach this that any of the gifts would cease until the Lord's return (1 Cor 13). Seeking a sign because one is skeptical like the Pharisees was wrong. But signs wonders miracles were to confirm the gospel. There is just as much a need for the Spirit to confirm the gospel message of salvation today as there's always been

The reason why the "signs" and gifts of the Spirt have ceased, shortly after the death of the Apostle John, was not only so that the Word could confirm itself, but so faith can be at its strongest--without the proof. We just believe in God and His completed Word; without signs means greater faith!

 

[Josheb]

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

Lots of good information here, commendably, but in the age of computers this is largely a red herring because anyone with a computer can examine the dozens of modern languages translations AND the Greek within seconds. No one has to be trained in Greek to observe differences in the manuscripts. In places like Bible Hub any New Testament verse can be selected and a sampling of the Greek manuscripts examined on the same page. Where there is no difference among the Greek selections there is no reason for any of the concerns expressed in this op.

The irony of appealing to David O. Fuller is that he is a KJVOist and the KJV has numerous translation errors in it. Is it irony, or hypocrisy? Is it mere irony that someone should argue for purity and then use that appeal to dictate a singular translation that is objectively verifiable as imperfect (and in some very basic ways that could easily be corrected if the ones maintaining that translations had the integrity to do so). I also find it ironic because Fuller "translated" Spurgeon in Fuller's abridgment of "The Treasury of David." I believe (if memory serves me correctly) Fuller did the same with one of Machen's sermons of books. I guess the guy had a thing for translation . Fuller was a product of the Dispensationalist Wheaton Seminary and as such he promoted Premillennialism of the Dispensationalist variety, which has been one of the most divisive and falsehood-teaching theologies in modern times. Fuller himself contributed to this division with his leadership of the Baptist Bible Union/General Association of Regular Baptists. I am not saying his position on Greek manuscripts is incorrect because of these behaviors. I am saying that a person reading Fuller might want to know the many lived a life that was flawed in many important ways and his KJVOism might be one among many. I've often wondered, when reading about KJVOists like Fuller, what it must be like to live one's professional life in Christ and die being known solely or predominantly for KJVOism and not for preaching the gospel. If I were arguing for KJVOism I would not appeal to Fuller. Especially if God guiding one to truth is the objective.


I am fairly confident, @NetChaplain, that if you were to take this opening post over to the Biblical Languages board in any forum a wealth of additional and relevant information and diverse views will be found - ones supported by sources just as well indwelt, just as well educated (perhaps even more) and just as well experienced as Fuller. Of course, none of that will matter if one's mind is already made up in favor of an imperfect translation like the KJV.

I recommend always using two or more modern language translation (if English is the native language of the reader, then two or more English translations), at least one of which is a formal equivalence translation (like the NAS, ESV, NET, or KJV) and one of which is a dynamic equivalence translation (NIV, NLT, CSB, BSB - I do not recommend the CEV), as well as the Hebrew and Greek. Most Bible software programs include the original language or additions to the software can be purchased for very little. Modules by Bill Mounce (preeminent Greek translator) can also be purchased if needed but he has a freely accessible website. Understand that those like us who mine the text and engage each other if what is hopefully rigorous discourse are not the common believer. Nor is what we do necessary. We do this because we like it. We're made this way. The overwhelming majority of Christians do not need what we do. They manage to live their lives from the new birth to resurrection without debates over which is the best translation, many of them without ever reading a Bible, and many of them without any ability to read. Few in the first century could read. It was fifteen centuries before the Bible was printed as a book for anyone to purchase and even then, literate people were still the minority. Then, when the Hebrew and Greek (and Latin) was translated into English the KJV was not the first. Keep that in mind if and when reading Fuller's arguments.

 

[NetChaplain]

Lots of good information here, commendably, but in the age of computers this is largely a red herring because anyone with a computer can examine the dozens of modern languages translations AND the Greek within seconds. No one has to be trained in Greek to observe differences in the manuscripts. In places like Bible Hub any New Testament verse can be selected and a sampling of the Greek manuscripts examined on the same page. Where there is no difference among the Greek selections there is no reason for any of the concerns expressed in this op.

Though you presented much information here, much of it concerning Fuller being untrustworthy is a fallacy by far! Concerning one's Eschatology, it changes not any doctrine of salvation. The problem with the spurious manuscripts isn't linguistic Greek, Latin or English, but the fact of omissions of Scripture; and the misapplied interpolations and transpositions of the Gnostic men who had part in the corrupt manuscripts (these manuscripts have evidence all over them of multiple writers). Corrupt manuscripts can only produce corrupt translations!

If we deny the corruption of Bibles that have been produced, we are ignorant in textual criticism!

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I believe God gave special illumination and guidance in preparing this translation.

Yeah, He gave the Geneva Bible.

King James' translators basically copied it, except they sanitized it so that it didn't appear to oppose the monarchy and catholic clergy. King James outlawed the Geneva Bible in 1616.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Yeah, He gave the Geneva Bible.

King James' translators basically copied it, except they sanitized it so that it didn't appear to oppose the monarchy and catholic clergy. King James outlawed the Geneva Bible in 1616.

A great deal of KJV text did come from Geneva.
Whatever sanitizing they did we have the Greek copies and the ability to look at the words with the help of a good linguist. Mine is James Strong. He gives the definition and doesn't "lead the witness" as others do by adding their own understanding as to how to apply it. Vine's is notorious for doing that.

 

[Rella]

It's too late for most to catch on to the seriousness of this problem; and the information of Textual Criticism, which contains a grave error will not interest most! Thanks for the reply, and God bless! Fortunately this issue does not effect our salvation, only our growth in Christ's image.

Well it does interest me.

I have known for some time that there have been translation problems. Even within a same scripture between translations their can be a wording that will alter what intention was.

I am not KJO. In fact, I avoid it unless I am quoting to make a point to something that people will recognize because they/we ALL know the KJV.

As of late, for the past couple of years I have been NSASB95 as first choice for the modern masses... if you can count those on a forum a mass.

I generally go to a greek or hebrew interlinear , and the Septuagint LXX and lately have been checking out the LSV (The Literal Standard Version of The Holy Bible from c. 2020)

But I truly had no idea of the problems until your post above.

So, may I ask you in what direction you would point me so I can say that would be my go to bible?

 

[Rella]

I would say the long ending is original, because the KJV and all modern translations include it.

Oh boy!

Then this is all wrong?

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?

For these reasons I recommend keeping Mark 16:9–20 in the Bible. But it’s probably not from Mark.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

One brother in Christ, a monk named Ephraim who lived in the 900s, wrote these words in a manuscipt of the Gospels between Mark 16:8 and 16:9: “In some of the copies, the evangelist finishes here, up to which (point) also Eusebius of Pamphilus made canon sections. But in many the following is also contained.”

We know about Ephraim because we still have several manuscripts he made. Some still have his signature. We can identify others by his handwriting and craftsmanship. Ephraim wasn’t the original author of these particular words. He regularly copied marginal notes that were already in the manuscripts he was using, and this note was one of them. And Ephraim’s manuscript isn’t the only copy of Mark that has this note between 16:8 and 16:9. There are at least 11 others in Greek. The note probably predates 10th-century Ephraim by a few hundred years.

Or This?

The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

Scholars agree the Gospel of Mark is the earliest–by several decades, which has profound implications for our understanding of the “Jesus story”

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient. First it is significantly shorter than the other Gospels–with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24) and John (21). But more important is how Mark begins his Gospel and how he ends it.

He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Mark’s Gospel at all–and Jesus is called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on this here. But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!

Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.

You may be correct. For me the jury is still out.

 

[Josheb]

Though you presented much information here, much of it concerning Fuller being untrustworthy is a fallacy by far!

I did not say Fuller was untrustworthy. I explicitly stated I was not making an ad hominem argument. Go back and re-read what I worte and respond to what was actually posted and NOT was imagined to have been posted.