• **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.

Inerrancy and Autographs

Hi, and appreciate your reply! The source you mentioned is the corrupted source of translations, because they use the Alexandrian Text codices instead of the Majority Text. The Alexandrian only uses a few ancient manuscripts, which were always rejected by the scribes and is why they are the oldest manuscripts--they didn't were our from copying usage. They were recently discovered and fell into disuse for the last 1500 years.

The Majority Text has thousands of manuscript evidence; the Minority Text , or Alexandrian Text, just have the Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (3) manuscripts).

If 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity passage is omitted it is from the Minority Text; which has hundreds of complete and partial passages omitted.
Wow.... Did you actually write this???

So your saying Erasmus whom only had 5 incomplete manuscripts... put together the true word of God in the 1500's ... using the latin Vulgate to fill in the gaps and did so in less that a year..... Is somehow Superior to Westcott and Hort whom spent 25 years and used thousdands of manuscipts...

Follow the Money.... Erasmus was trying to beat the Spanish to the first Greek text in English... Thus why the Latin Vulgate was used...

That's right.... Your Majority Text came from only 5 manuscripts and the Roman Church's Latin Vulgate to fill in the gaps...

Anyone here want to see the Truth.... Read up on how "Tischendorf" came to discover the Codex Sinaiticus....

You need to read up on your history... and stop repeating what you hear that is so historicaly wrong!!!!
Paul
 
The Majority Text has thousands of manuscript evidence; the Minority Text , or Alexandrian Text, just have the Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (3) manuscripts).
That is incorrect. Has a hundred plus Greek papyri, is attested almost exclusively by early church fathers, and is supported by the earliest translations into Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic and Syriac; and more....
 
That is incorrect. Has a hundred plus Greek papyri, is attested almost exclusively by early church fathers, and is supported by the earliest translations into Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic and Syriac; and more....
I believe there are many thousands of texts extant, which is why it is called the Majority Text, whereas if the Alexandrian text only has 100 copies, that is like a drop in the bucket.
 
That is incorrect. Has a hundred plus Greek papyri, is attested almost exclusively by early church fathers, and is supported by the earliest translations into Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic and Syriac; and more....
Sorry but Erasmus only had 7 incomplete manuscripts... I was mistaken at 5.... It's documented history!!! He was trying to beat the Spanish in making the first Greek text translated into English... He met that goal but had to use the Latin Vulgae to complete His manuscript.... This is the 1500's


Manuscripts 1eap and 1rK Erasmus borrowed from Johannes Reuchlin. The rest of the manuscripts he borrowed from Basel Dominicans Library.[n 2] It is significant that he did not use the Codex Basilensis, which was held at the Basel University Library, and was available for him. Erasmus had three manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts, four manuscripts of the Pauline epistles, but only one manuscript with the Book of Revelation.

In England before coming to Basel in 1515, Erasmus had consulted with four Greek manuscripts.[18]

In every book of the New Testament he compared three or four manuscripts, except the last book, Revelation, for which he had access to only one manuscript. That manuscript was not complete, as it lacked the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Instead of delaying the publication on account of the search for another manuscript, he decided to translate the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. He used an inferior Vulgate manuscript with textual variant libro vitae (book of life) instead of ligno vitae (tree of life) in Revelation 22:19.[19]

Even in other parts of Revelation and other books of the New Testament, Erasmus occasionally introduced self-created Greek text material taken from the Vulgate. F. H. A. Scrivener remarked that in Rev. 17:4, Erasmus created a new Greek word: ἀκαθάρτητος (instead of τὰ ἀκάθαρτα). There is no such word in the Greek language as ἀκαθάρτητος.[20] In Rev. 17:8 he used καιπερ εστιν (and yet is) instead of και παρεσται (and shall come). In Acts 9:6 the question that Paul asks at the time of his conversion on the Damascus road, Τρέμων τε καὶ θαμβὣν εἲπεν κύριε τί μέ θέλεις ποιῆσαι ("And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what will you have me to do?") was incorporated from the Vulgate.[21][n 3]

The last page of the Erasmian New Testament (Rev 22:8-21)
The printing began on 2 October 1515, and in very short time was finished (1 March 1516). It was produced quickly – Erasmus declared later that the first edition was "precipitated rather than edited" (praecipitatum verius quam editum) – with numerous typographical errors[22]

Yet Westcott and Hort spent 25 years and had thousands of manuscripts.... Yet.... You keep following the traditions of men.... Why? Because that's what you were told to believe.... Just like a Muslim in Iran... You believe what you were told... never to seek for yourself...

History holds the truth... Not your traditions of men...
Paul
 
Sorry but Erasmus only had 7 incomplete manuscripts... I was mistaken at 5.... It's documented history!!! He was trying to beat the Spanish in making the first Greek text translated into English... He met that goal but had to use the Latin Vulgae to complete His manuscript.... This is the 1500's
What does that have to do with my point? Your point supports my point
History holds the truth... Not your traditions of men...
You seem to be supporting the same point I'm supporting.

Plus, you're referring to Erasmus. I'm talking about NT manuscript evidence in the first three centuries.
 
I believe there are many thousands of texts extant, which is why it is called the Majority Text, whereas if the Alexandrian text only has 100 copies, that is like a drop in the bucket.
Number of manuscripts tells us nothing. A mistake recopied thousands of times doesn't suddenly become right simply because there are more manuscripts containing that error. Number of manuscripts tells us nothing, especially when there is no evidence of the Majority Text Type prior to the fourth century; and the Majority Text Type did not become "the majority" until the ninth century; and when earlier Majority Type manuscripts had more differences than later Majority Type manuscripts, showing trends towards harmonization over time.
 
Number of manuscripts tells us nothing. A mistake recopied thousands of times doesn't suddenly become right simply because there are more manuscripts containing that error. Number of manuscripts tells us nothing, especially when there is no evidence of the Majority Text Type prior to the fourth century; and the Majority Text Type did not become "the majority" until the ninth century; and when earlier Majority Type manuscripts had more differences than later Majority Type manuscripts, showing trends towards harmonization over time.
The trouble is, you aren't giving any evidence by citations or links to back up your assertions here. I am left to guess what you are trying to say. And it seems to me your arguments are just bluster and puffs of smoke that quickly disperse. The number of manuscripts tells us a hell of a lot, actually. The issue is not the number of mistakes in the MT that were passed on by copying compared to a set of manuscripts that only existed in a small portion of land on the earth that has a 10 to 1 minority existence. Considering the historical information found in books and encyclopaedias I have read and Google searches I have done so far, which I don't believe can be argued against, being general factual information, it stands to reason that 100 extant ancient manuscripts are not even comparable to the MT in terms of preservation of an original writing they come from - the comparison of MT mistakes in copying and the 100 Alexandrian texts that exist is a false comparison completely, in logic.

Do I need to explain it further?
 
it stands to reason that 100 extant ancient manuscripts are not even comparable to the MT in terms of preservation of an original writing they come from - the comparison of MT mistakes in copying and the 100 Alexandrian texts that exist is a false comparison completely, in logic

The key word you mention is "preservation."

One of the reasons we have so many Majority Text/Byzantine type manuscripts is because they were written on more durable animal based materials like parchment; whereas our earliest surviving manuscripts were written on plant based papyrus which rots in humid climates. The reason the papyrii we have are predominantly limited to the Alexandrian papyri is because of Egypt's arid climate. This alone causes an unfair 'weighting.'
 
The key word you mention is "preservation."

One of the reasons we have so many Majority Text/Byzantine type manuscripts is because they were written on more durable animal based materials like parchment; whereas our earliest surviving manuscripts were written on plant based papyrus which rots in humid climates. The reason the papyrii we have are predominantly limited to the Alexandrian papyri is because of Egypt's arid climate. This alone causes an unfair 'weighting.'
Not at all. If you can prove this with evidence, go ahead.
 
Not at all. If you can prove this with evidence, go ahead.
My apologies if I came across antagonistic in any way. Not trying to pick a fight. The preservation problem is common knowledge. Details are found in any book on NT manuscript preservation, NT textual criticism, etc.

Here's a brief discussion on Wikipedia under "Biblical Manuscript"

"Manuscript construction

An important issue with manuscripts is preservation. The earliest New Testament manuscripts were written on papyrus, made from a reed that grew abundantly in the Nile Delta. This tradition continued as late as the 8th century.[7] Papyrus eventually becomes brittle and deteriorates with age. The dry climate of Egypt allowed some papyrus manuscripts to be partially preserved, but, with the exception of 𝔓72, no New Testament papyrus manuscript is complete; many consist only of a single fragmented page.[8] Beginning in the fourth century, parchment (also called vellum) began to be a common medium for New Testament manuscripts.[9] It wasn't until the twelfth century that paper (made from cotton or plant fibers) began to gain popularity in biblical manuscripts.[10]"
 
I encourage you to learn the in-person transmission of Christ's teaching from the Resurrection to Pentecost, as a more solid way to view our foundations. It's in my book THE ENTHRONED KING but also a thread here called 'three rational supports for Christian faith'. It is one of those, and they are not often used as such.
 
That is incorrect. Has a hundred plus Greek papyri, is attested almost exclusively by early church fathers, and is supported by the earliest translations into Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic and Syriac; and more....
Yes, there were many early copies of the original autographs, but this does not include the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, which are the primary manuscripts recently used for modern translations. This source (Critical Text, Minority Text or Alexandrian text types) is all the modern translations use because they do not use the Majority Text.

These ancient manuscripts were never used because they were always rejected by the scribes, for they did not coincide with most of the existing manuscripts (Majority Text); which is why it is termed the Minority Text because it is only a few manuscripts, which fell into disuse for 1500 years, and just recently discovered (1800's).

The Vaticanus (4th century) was discovered on a Vatican library shelf; the Sinaiticus (4th century) was discovered in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, where a monk was using papyrus and vellum parchments for kindling! The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are on vellum and not papyrus parchments. These two are the primary sources of the modern translations, and the Alexandrinus codex is mostly not used because it's worse than the other two (big problems with the Gospels and other passages). These entire Alexandrian text types were never in circulation with any scribes; and much of the writing (from many different writers) was done by Gnostics, who do not believe Christ is Deity.

This source (also known as Critical Text) does not agree with most of the extant manuscripts, which is the Majority Text, hence they are in their own category called the Minority text. The only reason why they are so popular with so many scholars is due to their age, being the oldest extant manuscripts. All the modern versions (except those like the NKJV) use them and you can check one passage to determine from what source they were derived. The primary Trinity passage (1Jn 5:7) is totally omitted in all the modern translations; and if this is omitted, then the translation has hundreds of total and partial omissions, which disqualifies them from being the Word of God. A translation isn't perfect, but the Word of God in it is--if the translation is plenary, which none from the Critical Text are (Mat 4:4).

Notice is says "that proceeds out of the mouth of God," which answers to how His Word was transmitted!

Between the Majority Text, the Received Text (by Erasmus), Baeza, Stephens and the Antiochian Texts, the Word of God is plenary!


God's blessing to your Family!
 
The primary Trinity passage (1Jn 5:7) is totally omitted in all the modern translations; and if this is omitted, then the translation has hundreds of total and partial omissions, which disqualifies them from being the Word of God
Because it is not original to God's Word but represents later additions
God's blessing to your Family!
You too!
 
I encourage you to spend time on the roughly 20 first quotes of the OT by the apostles (of course, it would be good to fully study all 2500 allusions and quotes). I believe that to do so will course-correct this discussion. There are completely different questions that you are not dealing with. See my ENTHRONED KING at Amazon.
 
I encourage you to spend time on the roughly 20 first quotes of the OT by the apostles (of course, it would be good to fully study all 2500 allusions and quotes). I believe that to do so will course-correct this discussion. There are completely different questions that you are not dealing with. See my ENTHRONED KING at Amazon.
I left a comment/question for you on your three strands thread
 
What does that have to do with my point? Your point supports my point

You seem to be supporting the same point I'm supporting.

Plus, you're referring to Erasmus. I'm talking about NT manuscript evidence in the first three centuries.
Everybody needs to chill....

Let's go with the Facts...
The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is in it's 27th edition, and The United Bible Society is in it's 4th edition...

The text of both are the same... only the critical apparatus is different!

All modern King James Bible's use The United Bible Society is in it's 4th edition.... This is from the Catholic Church!!!

The Received Text... is no longer revelent to the Catholic Church... as the Modern King James version is taken from The United Bible Society in it's 4th edition

The King Jame version has a beauty that most modern versions lack.... It flows... with grace... That does not make it 100% accurate... but it is beautiful to read and contains all the truth you need!!!
 
Everybody needs to chill....

Let's go with the Facts...
The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is in it's 27th edition, and The United Bible Society is in it's 4th edition...

The text of both are the same... only the critical apparatus is different!

All modern King James Bible's use The United Bible Society is in it's 4th edition.... This is from the Catholic Church!!!

The Received Text... is no longer revelent to the Catholic Church... as the Modern King James version is taken from The United Bible Society in it's 4th edition

The King Jame version has a beauty that most modern versions lack.... It flows... with grace... That does not make it 100% accurate... but it is beautiful to read and contains all the truth you need!!!
Still not understanding your point and what you are arguing for/against. I would only ammend the statement to say it's not just the KJV, but the Bible itself (just about any translation) that "contains all the truth we need."
 
Back
Top