Bible Problem

[NetChaplain]

Not in the way the NASB does in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Still don't see any significant difference; except for KJV has "like precious faith" and modern detraction says "faith of the same kind as ours," which mean the same.

 

[NetChaplain]

I acknowledge there is genuine disagreement among believers on this issue. But what you call "omission," another believer calls "corruptions/additions" that don't belong

It stands to reason that 4000 copies of manuscripts over the last half millennia would have to be the correct Scripture, which would be a waist of time if they are wrong (God doesn't waist time, and it's about to wrap up). These older manuscripts are just rejects of the scribes, and they went into nonuse for 1500 years, until recently (mid 1800's) discovering them. There were primarily only two manuscripts that were not use by scribes, compare to the thousands of manuscripts used by most translators.

 

[TB2]

It stands to reason that 4000 copies of manuscripts over the last half millennia would have to be the correct Scripture, which would be a waist of time if they are wrong (God doesn't waist time, and it's about to wrap up). These older manuscripts are just rejects of the scribes, and they went into nonuse for 1500 years, until recently (mid 1800's) discovering them. There were primarily only two manuscripts that were not use by scribes, compare to the thousands of manuscripts used by most translators.

How if no two of those 4,000 manuscripts are identical?

 

[Fred]

Still don't see any significant difference; except for KJV has "like precious faith" and modern detraction says "faith of the same kind as ours," which mean the same.

The NASB makes it much more clearer that Jesus is referred to as "God" in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Titus 2:13 KJV
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Titus 2:13 NASB
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ



2 Peter 1:1 KJV
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:1 NASB
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

 

[NetChaplain]

How if no two of those 4,000 manuscripts are identical?

The manuscripts of the Traditional Text are the only ones that closely agree with one another. The three manuscripts that primarily make up the Minority Text (which produces the modern translations) all contain numerous disagreements between with another, but the translators have attempted to gloss over this problem enough to gain acceptability with the publishers.

 

[NetChaplain]

The NASB makes it much more clearer that Jesus is referred to as "God" in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Titus 2:13 KJV
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Titus 2:13 NASB
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ



2 Peter 1:1 KJV
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:1 NASB
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Sorry, but I see no significant differences.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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

Not a "Problem" at all. Between the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit the truth can be known. The KJV does it nicely for me.

 

[NetChaplain]

Not a "Problem" at all. Between the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit the truth can be known. The KJV does it nicely for me.

Hi, and appreciate your reply! But you must live by every Word of God (Mat 4:4). The only modern translations that contain the entire Word are those from the Majority Text, like the Webster Translation, YLT, NKJV but not many more. The majority of the modern translations cannot claim plenary inspiration, for the are short of a great deal of Scripture.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Hi, and appreciate your reply! But you must live by every Word of God (Mat 4:4). The only modern translations that contain the entire Word are those from the Majority Text, like the Webster Translation, YLT, NKJV but not many more. The majority of the modern translations cannot claim plenary inspiration, for the are short of a great deal of Scripture.

And "Every Word of God" is known by the Holy Spirit, and can be given to us, IF we seek single mindedly.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The modern translations are the most significant deception of Satan. Hardly nobody sees this very serious problem. The Gnostics, by way of modern translations wanted to disrupt and confuse the Church by disunity of Scripture.

With the omissions, interpolations (entering foreign words from the original) and transpositions (changing the order of words) they present translations that have a significant absence of the Word, and often give different thoughts when compared to the inspired texts.

Can you please tell me which Christian doctrines have been 'corrupted' as a direct result of using modern translations?

 

[TB2]

The manuscripts of the Traditional Text are the only ones that closely agree with one another. The three manuscripts that primarily make up the Minority Text (which produces the modern translations) all contain numerous disagreements between with another, but the translators have attempted to gloss over this problem enough to gain acceptability with the publishers.

The biggest problem with "Majority Text-Only" thinking is that it is unable to demonstrate and satisfy its own a priori theological presuppositions of providential preservation that the majority reading *must* always be the correct reading a priori. First, it's a circular argument. Second, it doesn't adhere to or meet its own requirement of always using the majority reading, either at present or historically.

 

[NetChaplain]

Can you please tell me which Christian doctrines have been 'corrupted' as a direct result of using modern translations?

Best question so far! The only modern translation that is not errant and contains the entire Word is the NKJV. None of the other modern translations contain the entire Word, but rather comes up very short of Scripture due to their omissions. They all come from the same corrupted manuscripts of the Gnostics (only 3 manuscripts which is the Minority Text compared to thousands in the Majority Text) and have the same omissions (detracting from the Word, which is the worse corruption), transpositions (adding words) and interpolations (rearranging of words).

 

[NetChaplain]

The biggest problem with "Majority Text-Only" thinking is that it is unable to demonstrate and satisfy its own a priori theological presuppositions of providential preservation that the majority reading *must* always be the correct reading a priori. First, it's a circular argument. Second, it doesn't adhere to or meet its own requirement of always using the majority reading, either at present or historically.

The Majority Text is the only source containing the most manuscripts, which results in the entirety of God's Word. Translations derived from the Minority Text are based from only 3 manuscripts: Vaticanus codex, Sinaiticus codex and Alexandrinus codex. None of the modern translations from the Minority Text (which is pretty much all of them) contains the entire Word, due to the omissions. The omissions are the worse corruption, but they also contain interpolations (adding of words) and transpositions (rearranging of word order), which result in a different reading than the Traditional Text.

 

[ChristB4us]

Not in the way the NASB does in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 KJV & NASB

Anybody can click on the link to see there is no difference.

 

[NetChaplain]

Can you please tell me which Christian doctrines have been 'corrupted' as a direct result of using modern translations

Some of the true Word is mixed with errant passages (Satan's main 'motus-operandum'), and even the omissions are corrupt enough to bring a learned reader to alarm. The omissions are the worse corruption, but they also contain many interpolations (adding words) and transpositions (rearranging of words).

One of many examples is Luke 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." This passage is wishing good will towards "all" people.

The modern translation has: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” This reading limits the wish only on certain people. This is an interpolation and there are many such corrupted passages.

 

[TB2]

Best question so far! The only modern translation that is not errant and contains the entire Word is the NKJV. None of the other modern translations contain the entire Word, but rather comes up very short of Scripture due to their omissions. They all come from the same corrupted manuscripts of the Gnostics (only 3 manuscripts which is the Minority Text compared to thousands in the Majority Text) and have the same omissions (detracting from the Word, which is the worse corruption), transpositions (adding words) and interpolations (rearranging of words).

Would love to see how you prove that

 

[TB2]

The Majority Text is the only source containing the most manuscripts, which results in the entirety of God's Word. Translations derived from the Minority Text are based from only 3 manuscripts: Vaticanus codex, Sinaiticus codex and Alexandrinus codex. None of the modern translations from the Minority Text (which is pretty much all of them) contains the entire Word, due to the omissions. The omissions are the worse corruption, but they also contain interpolations (adding of words) and transpositions (rearranging of word order), which result in a different reading than the Traditional Text.

The "Majority Text Only" view is based on the a priori theological assumption of "providential preservation," is it not? The doctrine as first formulated by John Burgons being as follows:

"If the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of providential preservation of the scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special providential control over the copying of the scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God's people in every age."

This, in turn, is the basis for "Majority Text Only" supporters' fundamental guiding principle: the majority reading (attested to by most manuscripts) is likely to be the correct, original reading, because God in His divine providence would make it so.

Thus, the "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that determines "God's Word" by "majority vote," so to speak. Whichever variant is the majority one found in most manuscripts must be the original, correct one (due to the doctrine of providential preservation).

*Is my understanding correct? Is this not the reasoning behind the "Majority Text Only" view (or at least the gist of it)?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Best question so far! The only modern translation that is not errant and contains the entire Word is the NKJV. None of the other modern translations contain the entire Word, but rather comes up very short of Scripture due to their omissions. They all come from the same corrupted manuscripts of the Gnostics (only 3 manuscripts which is the Minority Text compared to thousands in the Majority Text) and have the same omissions (detracting from the Word, which is the worse corruption), transpositions (adding words) and interpolations (rearranging of words).

OK ... but this isn't telling me which doctrine have been 'corrupted'.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Some of the true Word is mixed with errant passages (Satan's main 'motus-operandum'), and even the omissions are corrupt enough to bring a learned reader to alarm. The omissions are the worse corruption, but they also contain many interpolations (adding words) and transpositions (rearranging of words).

One of many examples is Luke 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." This passage is wishing good will towards "all" people.

The modern translation has: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” This reading limits the wish only on certain people. This is an interpolation and there are many such corrupted passages.

This is a little closer to a doctrine, but still not really justifying the big claim you have made, considering only those who are saved by His grace have peace with Him.

 

[NetChaplain]

The "Majority Text Only" view is based on the a priori theological assumption of "providential preservation," is it not? The doctrine as first formulated by John Burgons being as follows:

"If the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of providential preservation of the scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special providential control over the copying of the scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God's people in every age."

This, in turn, is the basis for "Majority Text Only" supporters' fundamental guiding principle: the majority reading (attested to by most manuscripts) is likely to be the correct, original reading, because God in His divine providence would make it so.

Thus, the "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that determines "God's Word" by "majority vote," so to speak. Whichever variant is the majority one found in most manuscripts must be the original, correct one (due to the doctrine of providential preservation).

*Is my understanding correct? Is this not the reasoning behind the "Majority Text Only" view (or at least the gist of it)?

The "Traditional Text," which William Burgon gave it this name (also called Majority Text; Received Text or Textus Receptus; Authorized Text), is the only source that contains most of all existing manuscripts (99 percent). Hence the tern Majority Text.

Good source reference and appreciate it! God bless!!