A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION

[WordSword]

To me the footnotes in the modern versions creates doubt concerning God's Word. They are saying these words shouldn't be in the Traditional Bible. The foot notes in the Traditional translation are saying the words should be there.

There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies (there are no extant original manuscripts – Majority Text/Minority Text) which makes it simple to realize which one is correct; they are too different from one another and only one can claim which is the Word of God because He has given us His promise that His Word will be in the correct translation. I say "the translation" because there is only one complete unaltered version of God's Word, which are translations derived from the Majority Text, Ecclesiastical text, Received Text and Byzantine texts (all of these texts are in agreement with one another).

The "omissions" alone in the modern versions disqualifies them because the Lord Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4). The translation is not perfect, but God's Word in the translation is complete (perfect), if it contains all of the Scriptures.

God allowed almost 500 years to pass with His Word to us, which there were only one set of manuscripts available, until they recently found the corrupted manuscripts that no copier would use, mainly because they were missing excessive passages (the modern translators took their liberty to also change this translation via interpolations and transpositions.) Thus, when the footnote that a passage or words should not be there, they are claiming that the Traditional (Majority Text) version is adding words that are not found in the Minority Text. There was no Minority Text before this discovery (1800’s). Why would God allow, at any time, esp. for half a millennium, His children to be without His Word.


"Does the NKJV use the older manuscripts? No, the New King James Version nor the KJV use the older Greek manuscripts" -Google AI (Minority Text, aka, Alexandrian corrupted Text—NC)

"The KJV and NKJV New Testaments are based on the Textus Receptus, a traditional Greek text that reflects the Byzantine manuscript tradition." -Google AI

The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text make up both the KJV and NKJV! —NC

 

[linux.poet]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved from Soteriology DEBATE to Bibliology & Hermeneutics.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

To me the footnotes in the modern versions creates doubt concerning God's Word. They are saying these words shouldn't be in the Traditional Bible. The foot notes in the Traditional translation are saying the words should be there.

There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies (there are no extant original manuscripts – Majority Text/Minority Text) which makes it simple to realize which one is correct; they are too different from one another and only one can claim which is the Word of God because He has given us His promise that His Word will be in the correct translation. I say "the translation" because there is only one complete unaltered version of God's Word, which are translations derived from the Majority Text, Ecclesiastical text, Received Text and Byzantine texts (all of these texts are in agreement with one another).

The "omissions" alone in the modern versions disqualifies them because the Lord Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4). The translation is not perfect, but God's Word in the translation is complete (perfect), if it contains all of the Scriptures.

God allowed almost 500 years to pass with His Word to us, which there were only one set of manuscripts available, until they recently found the corrupted manuscripts that no copier would use, mainly because they were missing excessive passages (the modern translators took their liberty to also change this translation via interpolations and transpositions.) Thus, when the footnote that a passage or words should not be there, they are claiming that the Traditional (Majority Text) version is adding words that are not found in the Minority Text. There was no Minority Text before this discovery (1800’s). Why would God allow, at any time, esp. for half a millennium, His children to be without His Word.

"Does the NKJV use the older manuscripts? No, the New King James Version nor the KJV use the older Greek manuscripts" -Google AI (Minority Text, aka, Alexandrian corrupted Text—NC)

"The KJV and NKJV New Testaments are based on the Textus Receptus, a traditional Greek text that reflects the Byzantine manuscript tradition." -Google AI

The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text make up both the KJV and NKJV! —NC

While I am not an expert in these things by any means, it is pretty clear that in general, you are misrepresenting the evidence we have concerning what was originally written by the NT writers. For one example, you say, "There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies".

This is not a true statement. This article is among many that say we have thousands of NT manuscripts written in Koine Greek. Here is an excerpt:

It has been well publicized that there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT. The manuscripts we have today were created between AD 125 and AD 1516. Scribes copied by hand the books of the NT. The first copies were made directly from the original manuscripts. Then those copies were copied.​

​

The number of available copied manuscripts has grown as new copies are discovered every year. It is now commonly reported that there are about 5,800 manuscripts of the NT. In addition, there are 10,000 ancient Latin manuscripts (translations of the early Greek manuscripts) and 9,300 ancient manuscripts in other languages (e.g., Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic). And the church fathers quoted nearly every verse in the NT in their writings.​

​

The time between the writing of the original manuscripts of the NT and their earliest copies is between 100 and 200 years. Compare that to other major works of antiquity, whose earliest copies date to over 1,000 years after the books were written.​

 

[WordSword]

While I am not an expert in these things by any means, it is pretty clear that in general, you are misrepresenting the evidence we have concerning what was originally written by the NT writers. For one example, you say, "There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies".

This is not a true statement. This article is among many that say we have thousands of NT manuscripts written in Koine Greek. Here is an excerpt:

Hi, and thanks for the instructional comments! Everything you said is of course true, but my reference of "2 texts of copies" concerns the texts sources: The Majority Text source (MAT), which consists of most of extant manuscript copies. The Minority Text source (MIT), which consists of a few manuscript copies recently rediscovered (around mid 1800's) ; Vaticanus codex, Sinaiticus codex, Alexandrinus codex.

The Minority text (MIT) is a recent addition to the manuscript tradition (17th-18th century) and is known as the Alexandrian text (which comprise 30 manuscripts--as opposed to 6,000 copies in the MAT). They were never used for copying purposes, the scribes would reject them because they did not sufficiently represent the Byzantine Text (which is where most of the extant copies reside).

Believers who are not used to Bible study will not understand the extent of difference between the Traditional Text, which has been in use for English speaking Protestants for 500 years; and the Alexandrian Text, which recently became part of the Bible tradition.

They are not even nearly identical, as great masses of Scripture in the Alexandrian Text-type translations are omitted, interpolated and transposed; and only avid readers of the Word can notice the subtle (which are great) variations between the two sources of translations.

"There are approximately 20,000 or more corrections in the Codex Sinaiticus, made by multiple scribes over several centuries. Textual critics have offered slightly different, though similarly high, figures based on their analyses" -Google AI

It's my opinion that the majority of Christians have come short of reading and studying God's Word for the last century, and thus most will never receive enough spiritual-growth in the Lord Jesus so they can be useful, until He returns and brings all up to par!

 

[WordSword]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved from Soteriology DEBATE to Bibliology & Hermeneutics.​

MOD HAT OFF​

Hi, and I think the hat-status is funny; and appreciate your labors on this site! God bless!!

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Hi, and thanks for the instructional comments! Everything you said is of course true, but my reference of "2 texts of copies" concerns the texts sources: The Majority Text source (MAT), which consists of most of extant manuscript copies. The Minority Text source (MIT), which consists of a few manuscript copies recently rediscovered (around mid 1800's) ; Vaticanus codex, Sinaiticus codex, Alexandrinus codex.

The Minority text (MIT) is a recent addition to the manuscript tradition (17th-18th century) and is known as the Alexandrian text (which comprise 30 manuscripts--as opposed to 6,000 copies in the MAT). They were never used for copying purposes, the scribes would reject them because they did not sufficiently represent the Byzantine Text (which is where most of the extant copies reside).

Believers who are not used to Bible study will not understand the extent of difference between the Traditional Text, which has been in use for English speaking Protestants for 500 years; and the Alexandrian Text, which recently became part of the Bible tradition.

They are not even nearly identical, as great masses of Scripture in the Alexandrian Text-type translations are omitted, interpolated and transposed; and only avid readers of the Word can notice the subtle (which are great) variations between the two sources of translations.

"There are approximately 20,000 or more corrections in the Codex Sinaiticus, made by multiple scribes over several centuries. Textual critics have offered slightly different, though similarly high, figures based on their analyses" -Google AI

It's my opinion that the majority of Christians have come short of reading and studying God's Word for the last century, and thus most will never receive enough spiritual-growth in the Lord Jesus so they can be useful, until He returns and brings all up to par!

Bing AI gave me this answer for "what are the competitors for the majority text?":

The Majority Text is one of the three main competing Greek sources for translating the New Testament, alongside the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.​

• Critical Text: This method applies a series of rules to various manuscripts to determine the likely original wording.
• MajorityText: This approach prioritizes readings supported by the majority of manuscripts, assuming scribes would copy better texts over worse ones.
• Textus Receptus: This is a variant of the Majority Text that emphasizes the traditional text of the New Testament.

These competing texts are the subject of Textual Criticism, which aims to recover the original text of the New Testament.​

Another search on "what is the minority text?" yielded this answer: "The Minority Text refers to the various readings and manuscripts of the New Testament that do not conform to the Majority Text".

So, it appears that what we have here is three competing views on how to best compile a complete manuscript from thousands of partial manuscripts. The objective, of course, is to come up with a complete manuscript that most closely resembles the original wording of each book in the NT. It bears saying that there are very few instances of meaningful differences between the results of the three competing methods, and modern translations include notes that allow the reader to make a judgement on each. In addition, the internet provides a vehicle to do additional research if more information is needed. So I don't really see why this is such a nagging issue.

 

[WordSword]

Bing AI gave me this answer for "what are the competitors for the majority text?":

The Majority Text is one of the three main competing Greek sources for translating the New Testament, alongside the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.​

• Critical Text: This method applies a series of rules to various manuscripts to determine the likely original wording.
• MajorityText: This approach prioritizes readings supported by the majority of manuscripts, assuming scribes would copy better texts over worse ones.
• Textus Receptus: This is a variant of the Majority Text that emphasizes the traditional text of the New Testament.

These competing texts are the subject of Textual Criticism, which aims to recover the original text of the New Testament.​

Another search on "what is the minority text?" yielded this answer: "The Minority Text refers to the various readings and manuscripts of the New Testament that do not conform to the Majority Text".

So, it appears that what we have here is three competing views on how to best compile a complete manuscript from thousands of partial manuscripts. The objective, of course, is to come up with a complete manuscript that most closely resembles the original wording of each book in the NT. It bears saying that there are very few instances of meaningful differences between the results of the three competing methods, and modern translations include notes that allow the reader to make a judgement on each. In addition, the internet provides a vehicle to do additional research if more information is needed. So I don't really see why this is such a nagging issue.

Hi NLIC (like your ID)! You are getting closer to what you need to know. I don't want to sound like I have information that others don't have, but rather information that is unknown. The Critical Text falls into the Minority Text, also known as the Alexandrian Text, the Eclectic Text and other text-types. So, in my understanding there are only two Text-types that all manuscript copies comprise: Minority Text (MIT); Majority Text (MAT).

The MAT has been the text used for 1000 years: "The Byzantine, or Majority Text, tradition of the New Testament predominated for over 1,000 years, from approximately 350 to 1516 CE. It is often called the Majority Text because it is found in the majority of surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts, which were copied by hand during this period." -Google AI

The MIT is a recent addition to the Bible translations, and base their text on on 30 or so copies of manuscripts. "The Alexandrian text-type, a family of New Testament manuscripts that serve as the foundation for most modern biblical translations. Though it has significantly fewer surviving copies than the Byzantine text-type (the "Majority Text"), these manuscripts are generally considered by scholars to be more reliable for textual criticism." -Google AI

Now, to get at the roots! When they say older is more reliable, they're wrong, because these oldest copies laid perdu on a Vatican library shelf and abandoned for 1500 years, because the scribes rejected copies that did not parallel and agree with the majority of extant copies. They recently rediscovered them (primarily the Vaticanus codex and the Sinaiticus codex. These codices omit a large number of verses and add much non-scriptural wordings.

These examples of total omissions are now in every modern version except the versions that are derived from the Traditional Text, e.g. NKJV. Below are the comparisons of a few passages among many. "There are thousands of differences between the Alexandrian text and the Majority text" -Duck.ai:

Totally omitted verses between KJV and NIV
Mat 17:21 18:11, 23:14 Act 8:37, 28:29, Jn 5:4, Mar 6:11, 7:16, 9:46, 11:26, Luk 9:55.

I need to end here, but there are more than I can account for in one day (Mat 4:4).

God bless!