• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Bible Problem

Would love to see how you prove that
There are a couple or maybe a few other modern translations not in the mainstream version list that also use the Majority Text for their reference, but the vast majority of modern translations primarily use the Minority Text (Vaticanus; Sinaiticus; Alexandrinus - only three compared to thousands of manuscript evidence). That's why they all contain the same omissions, interpolations and transpositions.
 
There are a couple or maybe a few other modern translations not in the mainstream version list that also use the Majority Text for their reference, but the vast majority of modern translations primarily use the Minority Text (Vaticanus; Sinaiticus; Alexandrinus - only three compared to thousands of manuscript evidence). That's why they all contain the same omissions, interpolations and transpositions.
Simply declaring it "corrupt" doesn't demonstrate that it is. And the Church used these so-called "corrupt" manuscripts for the first nine centuries of Church history. The so-called "Majority Text"-type tradition did not become the "majority" until the ninth century. This contradicts Burgon's presumption of *providential preservation*---the foundational presupposition upon which the entire TR/KJV/Majority Text Only movement is based.

phpt7etli.jpg
 
Yes, agreed.

I would only add a couple caveats. I'd say there's been corruption from the very beginning. Or, false teaching is probably a better way for me to say it. The church has always had to combat false teaching and corruption (both within and without). In the second century, it was Gnosticism.
The second caveat I'm a little hesitant to add (as it will likely make everyone mad to one degree or another; so my apologies in advance if I step on yours or anyone else's toes). I think we need to be as honest as we can in our appraisals and recognize the good and bad in all (three) major branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant), and avoid either vilifying or absolving them. As a Christian of the Protestant tradition, I recognize positives and negatives (as I do about the Roman Catholic & Orthodox as well). I think there are things my Protestant tradition gets right (that the RCC gets wrong). But if I were to be totally honest, I'd have to say that there also things that my Protestant tradition gets wrong (that the RCC gets right).
Personally, I prefer to weed through all those millenia of controversies and councils and layers of tradition and go all the way straight back to the first century (before we even had the Bible) and resolve to know nothing but "Christ crucified." The Cross: that's the hill I fight and die on. Is that too minimalist?
The only way you know what they had before the Bible is through manuscripts, which you declare are mistranslated.
 
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

If you are doing research, use the NET for extensive notes.

If you want a fairly eloquent translation, use the NEB in somewhat British English, but great on a number of precise points.
 
The only way you know what they had before the Bible is through manuscripts, which you declare are mistranslated.
It's not nice to misrepresent people. When did I say the manuscripts are "mistranslated"?
 
It's not nice to misrepresent people. When did I say the manuscripts are "mistranslated"?
I mispoke,
You said, "the translations are (personal) interpretations."
 
I mispoke,
You said, "the translations are (personal) interpretations."
Thank you for the correction. And yes, to clarify, as Bible scholars have noted, every Bible translation is an interpretation. In order to translate a text from the original languages, the translation committee has to decide what they think a given text means and what it is saying in order to know how best to communicate that in another language and culture (so as not to be misunderstood). A tricky thing.

Left to ourselves, when Shakespeare speaks of a "punk" we might think he's referring to a juvenile delinquent when punk meant prostitute. Six hundred years ago, naughty meant having nothing (having naught), while nice meant ignorant (as in simpleton). "Don we now our gay apparel" obviously meant something different then, then now. Every time and culture (including Bible times) has its own word meanings and idioms that don't translate one-for-one, literal-for-literal and so the tough job of a translator (Lord bless them!) to have to make such decisions.

For example, in our conversation on the other thread, "spiritual" (literally "of the Spirit") means something quite different to us today, then in Paul's usage, which is why some Bible translations render "spiritual body" as "supernatural body" to try to avoid confusion. The literal translation is "spiritual," but "spiritual" means something different to us today, and so is easily confused.
 
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
He might well do that, but on the basis of no sound evidence. The huge majority of extant Greek manuscripts support the readings in the TR (with a few exceptions) and Majority Texts (obviously).

The relatively tiny number of manuscripts upon which the so-called Critical Text is based, disagree with each other an inordinate number of times, are all from one geographical area (Egypt) and one time period. There is no valid reason to accept them as anything other than what they appear to be: corrupted copies that owe their survival to lack of use.
 
Thank you for the correction. And yes, to clarify, as Bible scholars have noted, every Bible translation is an interpretation.
Depends on to which "Bible scholars" you are referring.
 
He might well do that, but on the basis of no sound evidence. The huge majority of extant Greek manuscripts support the readings in the TR (with a few exceptions) and Majority Texts (obviously).

The relatively tiny number of manuscripts upon which the so-called Critical Text is based, disagree with each other an inordinate number of times, are all from one geographical area (Egypt) and one time period. There is no valid reason to accept them as anything other than what they appear to be: corrupted copies that owe their survival to lack of use.
Lot of assumptions you're making in there. The Bible as determined by 'democratic majority vote' (a variant mistake recopied hundreds of times that wins the majority vote is still in error)
 
Simply declaring it "corrupt" doesn't demonstrate that it is. And the Church used these so-called "corrupt" manuscripts for the first nine centuries of Church history. The so-called "Majority Text"-type tradition did not become the "majority" until the ninth century. This contradicts Burgon's presumption of *providential preservation*---the foundational presupposition upon which the entire TR/KJV/Majority Text Only movement is based.

phpt7etli.jpg
Actually the Alexandrian Text types which involved the Vaticanus codex; Sinaiticus codes ; Alexandrinus codex and a few other hand full of the same errant manuscripts, were not even used for copying. Just because they were available doesn't mean they were used. All the scribes that completely copied the New Testament would always reject this source (Critical Text) because they were not consistent with most of the available manuscripts, thus they all fell into disuse for 1500 years, until they recently discovered them (1800's). During this 1500 years they were all copying only from the majority of manuscripts available that contained the entire Word.
 
Last edited:
Lot of assumptions you're making in there. The Bible as determined by 'democratic majority vote' (a variant mistake recopied hundreds of times that wins the majority vote is still in error)
It's nothing to do with "majority vote", as you disparagingly put it. It's the general usage of the believing church, down through the ages, contrasted with a small number of sub-standard manuscripts, full of errors, whose distinctive readings were not copied, because they were recognised to be in error.
 
Do you know of any Bible translators or textual critics who say different?
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., R. Laird Harris, Ronald B Allen, Kenneth L. Barker, Earl S. Kalland, Arthur Lewis,
John J. Davis, Ronald Youngblood, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Herbert Wolf, Marvin R. Wilson, John H. Stek,
J. Robert Vannoy, Raymond Dillard, Edwin Yamauchi, Elmer B. Smick, Derek Kidner, Mark Hillmer,
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Jack P. Lewis, John M. Zinkand, Allan A. MacRae, Thomas E. Comiskey,
and as many more who aren't as enamored of the secular hermeneutics of human literature being applied
to Biblical texts of the holy word of God, as though they had the same author (2 Tim 3:16).
 
Last edited:
Simply declaring it "corrupt" doesn't demonstrate that it is. And the Church used these so-called "corrupt" manuscripts for the first nine centuries of Church history. The so-called "Majority Text"-type tradition did not become the "majority" until the ninth century. This contradicts Burgon's presumption of *providential preservation*---the foundational presupposition upon which the entire TR/KJV/Majority Text Only movement is based.

phpt7etli.jpg
The Critical Text Alexandrian Text types, consisting of the codex Vaticanus; Codex Sinaiticus; codex Alexandrinus, and a few other manuscripts that are corrupt as they are, were never used but always reject by the scribes and copiers because they did not agree with the majority of the available manuscripts, which makes them of the Minority Text and not the Majority Text. They fell into disuse for 1500 years, until they were recently discovered (1800's).

These are only and handful of manuscripts, compare to the vast majority of extant manuscript copies.
 
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., R. Laird Harris, Ronald B Allen, Kenneth L. Barker, Earl S. Kalland, Arthur Lewis,
John J. Davis, Ronald Youngblood, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Herbert Wolf, Marvin R. Wilson, John H. Stek,
J. Robert Vannoy, Raymond Dillard, Edwin Yamauchi, Elmer B. Smick, Derek Kidner, Mark Hillmer,
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Jack P. Lewis, John M. Zinkand, Allan A. MacRae, Thomas E. Comiskey,
and as many more who aren't as enamored of the secular hermeneutics of human literature being applied
to Biblical texts of the holy word of God, as though they had the same author (2 Tim 3:16).

"and as many more who aren't as enamored of the secular hermeneutics of human literature being applied
to Biblical texts of the holy word of God, as though they had the same author (2 Tim 3:16)."


So judgmental. Are you unable to just have a discussion without personal jabs and disparaging remarks and insinuations?

You haven't given any citations/quotes to demonstrate your claim, and the scholars I'm referring to are every bit as evangelical. I am not saying anything controversial. It is common knowledge that translations require interpretations. Just look at all the different English translations we get from the *same* critical text!

That's all I'm saying

Do you think maybe you can drop the judgment and personally disparaging remarks? Again, what is it with believers who have to resort to the strong arm tactic of 'your view is heresy' instead if just having a conversation
 
It's nothing to do with "majority vote", as you disparagingly put it. It's the general usage of the believing church, down through the ages, contrasted with a small number of sub-standard manuscripts, full of errors, whose distinctive readings were not copied, because they were recognised to be in error.
Are you saying the "Majority Text" isn't bases on the principle of the majority reading?
 
"and as many more who aren't as enamored of the secular hermeneutics of human literature being applied
to Biblical texts of the holy word of God, as though they had the same author (2 Tim 3:16)."


So judgmental. Are you unable to just have a discussion without personal jabs and disparaging remarks and insinuations?
Agreed. . .right, wrong or indifferent,
I perceive you as using the amateur cliche "all translations are interpretations" as an uninformed fig leaf for refusing to understand Scripture by Scripture, as though Scripture cannot be correctly understood, it all being just a crap shoot.
I perceive you as assuming that these differences make a substantial difference in the overall meaning of Scripture and, therefore, all translations can be dismissed as personal interpretations.
I perceive this as a convenient justification for making yourself an authority over the word of God rather than the word of God being an authority over you, a license to judge the word of God rather than its authority to judge you.
I find it insufferably amateurish at best, if not, at worst, culpable gaming of Scripture to avoid coming under it.
You haven't given any citations/quotes to demonstrate your claim, and the scholars I'm referring to are every bit as evangelical.
"Evangelical" does not save.
I am not saying anything controversial. It is common knowledge that translations require interpretations. Just look at all the different English translations we get from the *same* critical text!
That's all I'm saying.
And just what are any differences that are substantial to the overall meaning of the NT that it all can be dismissed as "interpretation" rather than translation?
Do you think maybe you can drop the judgment and personally disparaging remarks? Again, what is it with believers who have to resort to the strong arm tactic of 'your view is heresy' instead if just having a conversation.
Reducing the meaning of the word of God to mere "conversation" demonstrates what I am talking about.
It's not a chessboard game.
 
Last edited:
Wow! Well I imagine there are some TOS violations in there but could be wrong (@Carbon ?). For all your insults about my being amatuerish, you seem to be the one who's letting your emotions run away with you.
I perceive you as using the amateur cliche "all translations are interpretations" as an uninformed fig leaf for refusing to understand Scripture by Scripture, as though Scripture cannot be correctly understood, it all being just a crap shoot.
You perceive wrong
I perceive you as assuming that these differences make a substantial difference in the overall meaning of Scripture and, therefore, all translations can be dismissed as personal interpretations.
You perceive wrong
I perceive this as a convenient justification for making yourself an authority over the word of God rather than the word of God being an authority over you, a license to judge the word of God rather than its authority to judge you.
You perceive wrong
"Evangelical" does not save.
But fortunately for me, Jesus does
And just what are any differences that are substantial to the overall meaning of the NT that it all can be dismissed as "interpretation?"
None. For all the some ~200,000 or so variants (depending on how they're counted) for *all* the manuscripts and manuscript text types (whether Alexandrian, Western, or Byzantine) there is ~98% agreement, and the vast majority of those variants are misspellings (usually involving the 'movable nu' in Greek). And NONE of those textual variants has in any way compromised or corrupted the gospel message of salvation, or adversely affected any major, essential doctrine of Christianity.... But 'thank you' for assuming the worst about me
Reducing the meaning of the word of God to mere "conversation" demonstrates what I am talking about.
It's not a chessboard game.
Good thing I was referring to *our* conversation---yours and mine---and not the Word of God
 
Back
Top