Blind Trust

[JM]

Unique and other textual variants for Codex Sinaiticus listed on Wiki:

Page from facsimile edition (1862); 1 Chr 9:27–10:11
Matthew 7:22 – It has additional word πολλα (numerous): "and cast out numerous demons in your name?". It is not supported by any other manuscript.[41]

Matthew 8:12 – It has ἐξελεύσονται (will go out) instead of ἐκβληθήσονται (will be thrown). This variant is supported only by one Greek manuscript Uncial 0250, and by Codex Bobiensis, syrc, s, p, pal, arm, Diatessaron.[42]

Matthew 13:54 – Ordinary reading εις την πατριδα αυτου (to his own country) changed into εις την αντιπατριδα αυτου (to his own Antipatris), and in Acts 8:5 εις την πολιν της Σαμαρειας replaced into εις την πολιν της Καισαριας. These two variants do not exist in any other manuscript, and it seems they were made by a scribe. According to T. C. Skeat they suggest Caesarea as a place in which the manuscript was made.[43]

Matthew 16:12 – It has textual variant της ζυμης των αρτων των Φαρισαιων και Σαδδουκαιων (leaven of bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees) supported only by Codex Corbeiensis I and Curetonian Gospels.

Luke 1:26 – "Nazareth" is called "a city of Judea".

Luke 2:37 – εβδομηκοντα (seventy), all manuscripts have ογδοηκοντα (eighty);[44]

John 1:28 – The second corrector made unique textual variant Βηθαραβα. This textual variant has only codex 892, syrh and several other manuscripts.[45]

John 1:34 – It reads ὁ ἐκλεκτός (chosen one) together with the manuscripts 5, 106, b, e, ff2, syrc, and syrs instead of ordinary word υἱος (son).

John 2:3 – Where ordinarily reading "And when they wanted wine", or "And when wine failed", Codex Sinaiticus has "And they had no wine, because the wine of the marriage feast was finished" (supported by a and j);

John 6:10 – It reads τρισχιλιοι (three thousands) for πεντακισχιλιοι (five thousands); the second corrector changed into πεντακισχιλιοι.[46]

Acts 11:20 – It reads εὐαγγελιστας (Evangelists) instead of ἑλληνιστάς (Hellenists);[47]

In Acts 14:9, the word "not" inserted before "heard"; in Hebr. 2:4 "harvests" instead of "distributions"; in 1 Peter 5:13 word "Babylon" replaced into "Church".[47]

2 Timothy 4:10 – it reads Γαλλιαν for Γαλατιαν, the reading of the codex is supported by along with Ephraemi Rescriptus, 81, 104, 326, 436.[48]

 

[JM]

Here's some interesting information for you.

There are a number of differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; Hoskier enumerated 3036 differences: Matt–656, Mark–567, Luke–791, John–1022, Total—3036.

The above quote was given on Wiki under "Codex Sinaiticus." Notice, less than 300 minor differences in Greek editions of the TR. According to Dr. Daniel Wallace the Textus Receptus (TR) differs from the Byzantine text type (BT) in 1838 places. Dr. Wallace also noted that 1005 of those differences were "translatable," or translated. (Not sure what that means...)

As you can see we have a greater consenus between the TR (which I support) and the BT or MT than we do between the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. We also have a greater consenus among the church as to which readings where accepted by the church for most of our history and that should, IMO, count for something. That is 3036 just in the Gospels alone. The less than 300 differences noted between the different editions of the TR are for the whole NT.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Ok, Dr. White is very believable. So believable that Muslims are using his work to discredit the New Testament text. Is it really corrupt?

Pastor Riddle demonstrates how misleading textual criticism can be and once again, how Dr. White doesn’t seem to know how the NA apparatus actually works.

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/10/word-magazine-29-james-white-luke-2334.html

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

A question to ruminate on...what's the difference between a corruption and a variant?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You may have missed the Jeff Riddle’s blog about textual criticism and other things, so I just wanted to post a link as an FYI.

Last year Pastor Riddle made a few comments that made it on the radar of Dr. James White, Dr. White responded without ever mentioning Pastor Riddle, but you can still view Dr. White’s responses on YouTube if you like. Personally, I was shocked that Dr. White made a mistake about textual criticism, glossed over it and didn't admit it. Normally I watch Dr. White’s videos and just can’t believe the mastery he has over the original languages and feel he often chips away at my faith in God’s province to secure (anything let alone) the scriptures for the church, so much so I stopped listening to him whenever he brings up textual issues.

Pastor Riddle is a Reformed Baptist who believes in the “traditional text of scripture” but not a wacked out KJVOist. His comments on the textual apparatus have, at least to me, proven that even the smartest scholars are not to be blindly trusted.

Have a listen to #25 - #29 to see what I mean.

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/01/the-vision-12413-brief-guide-to-bible.html#uds-search-results

Yours in the Lord,

jm

How do I find #25 and #29 at that link?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Anybody can take a philosophical error, or a Bible doctrine error, and run with it forever and write volumes of books about it believing they are right. That's all modern atheists and textual critics are doing when they say we don't have God's Word. Modern textual critics make the same error as atheism, only atheists say it more boldly; modern textual critics say it the way the Serpent said it to Eve: "Yea, hath God said...?", "you really don't know what God was saying." Atheists say "God was never there to say it." I'm sure there are a lot of children of God, born of His Spirit like my beloved and missed mentor who are not KJV only, but this child of God says my Father told me and I know exactly what He said, I have it in writing.

I wouldn't give Dr. White (with his fake doctoral degree) an audience. People like him try to obscure the simplicity of the doctrine of preservation, how God gave His Word to His prophets and they worked with and for God in preserving it without error to hand it down to future generations and how the devil has always tried to at least change it and put out fraudulent versions just in case he couldn't destroy it.

God did not entrust His Word to cowards or idiots. He gave His Word to men who feared and trusted Him, and He protected and preserved His Word to publish it for the world in these last days, and the blood of martyrs paid the price of serving God to bring it to us and nobody can copyright God's Word. Fraudulent versions are copyrighted.

It's all simple stuff, third grade common sense logic about trusting your Father and being skeptical of strangers. Entertaining somebody like Dr. White in a long debate is entertaining the devil. He'll run you around in circles forever if he can, trying to confuse you and obscure the simplicity of believing God and taking Him at His Word.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The OP alone would be enough to make me reject all versions other than the King James Authorized Version if I were new to this topic.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I agree about some of the reservations with Dr. White. I've found myself listening to some episodes and nodding in approbation while other times I've more or less turned the thing off due to some issues in interpretation. It feels that sometimes Dr. White is more about being anti-KJVO than anything, and while I cannot totally fault him for this, I think the Textus Receptus/Majority Text tradition needs to be given a little more credibility as a potential valid strain of the text rather than kinda the black sheep of Bible manuscripts.

There is plausible evidence that perhaps we just don't have earlier copies of the MT. I trust even the eastern church to steward the manuscripts of Holy Scripture better than most academics, though I am decidedly against any anti-intellectualism that you see in most KJVO circles. I do not know how many of you may be members there, but over at Puritan Board, a member by the name of Jerusalem Blade ad some compelling arguments that don't get a ton of airtime in defense of the TR/MT tradition. If anything, the Byzantine tradition had reason and temptation to insert things that may have been more sympathetic to their way of doing church, but that charge cannot be leveled at the manuscripts at all.

I've sort of fallen back to reading the KJV though I am a little nervous to use it or carry it too much in anticipation of being labeled KJVO. There was a study out a couple of years ago that says your brain actually does better when reading Shakespeare as opposed to more modern reading levels, and I believe this.

I really liked how Pastor Riddle calls the ESV what it really is, which is a poser formal equivalence translation. I don't dislike the ESV, but to treat it like it's not a slightly more archaic form of the NIV is a bit much. The only difference, IMHO, between it (ESV) and the NIV is that it uses the older structural form of inverting some of the sentence structure. Otherwise, the actual diction is quite close to the NIV, and there are very many places where they sound exactly alike.

In fact, I think it's interesting that the KJV pedigree draws from both Rome and Constantinople. For Rome, it was the TR Latin tradition taken originally from the Byzantine tradition where it was preserved, then it was translated by the Anglican tradition and finally employed by the Puritans and later Baptists. To be honest, that's a pretty interesting track record, even if it is somewhat anecdotal!

With that said, definitely would like to see more discussion on this. I am an English major guy, so not too much background in textual criticism of this variety, but I know enough to be dangerous. I don't want to empower the KJVO segment, but at the same time, it's been around for 400 years for a reason. I'm just not yet sure we'll say the same about our NIVs and ESVs.

That said, I like the new designation seemingly birthed by a member here: KJVmostlyism. This seems appropriate.

There's also a reason the KJV is not copyrighted while all other versions are copyrighted. Footnotes and maps in a King James Bible are copyrighted, the version cannot be copyrighted. You have to make a lot of changes from the derived source to obtain copyright. The changes in modern versions preclude them from being the Word of God, they are fraudulent imposters of God's Word.

My Mentor was "KJVmostly", and that was good enough for me because he was an awesome man of God, full of the Holy Spirit so that he seemed to glow with the glory of God shimmering around him. When I brought up the issue, he simply said he always uses the King James Version because of it's obvious majestic beauty and power of language. He knew the King James Bible was head and shoulders above all modern versions, but he did not understand the KJV only issue and I felt no need to convince him of it because I was learning from him how to walk close with God. He was completely solid in doctrine but not a doctrine teacher other than teaching the doctrine of being filled with the Holy Spirit as we are commanded to be, to be holy as we are commanded to be. He was an example of loving God first with all that is in us, and our neighbor as ourselves. KJV only is not something to fight about. Usually when people want to fight about it, there are other issues, heart issues and/or issues of doctrinal error. Textual criticism is the nesting place of evolutionists and atheists who enjoy using textual criticism as a means of saying what we say is from God is from nobody but lying men.
I say it in conversations like this because I think it needs to be said, that I have God's Word in English and I know it. People who disagree with me are wrong to try to take it away from me, and I caution everybody against putting modern versions on the same level as the KJV. If my mentor would have done that, he would not have been my mentor. He said the right thing when he acknowledged the KJV is by far the best for it's beauty of speech and power of sound doctrine.

I find it strange how vehemently Dr. White opposes the King James Bible as the Word of God, and some of the things he says in support of using modern versions are just plain bizzare. I won't give a guy like him much time, he just tries to run listeners down never ending rabbit trails.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I think we need to be careful here brother. It was demonstrated that even Dr. White didn’t know how to use the apparatus for the NA…how can we have such blind faith in the modern method of interpreting, especially now that we know the opinions of biblical scholars are being used IN THE TEXT AS IF THEY WERE SCRIPTURE? I know of three places where that has taken place. It was my experience in the Greek Orthodox church, along with the Reformed confessions, that lead me to trust and use the TR. While attending the Greek Orthodox church the church fathers were often cited during Bible studies. The Priest and Cantor both read biblical Greek, they had exhaustive knowledge of the early church fathers and would explain how the modern text differed to the MT and the TR.

i need not be careful at all on this issue, as i am on fairly solid ground. That Dr. White cannot use the textual apparatus of the NA-27 is not at all relevant to my comment. The apparatus is complicated and difficult to use. That is one of the major complaints against the NA-27. It is also possible that like me, White uses the UBS-4, which is textually identical to the NA-27, yet uses a much simpler apparatus.

At any rate, the real reason that Dr. White's abilities are not relevant is because the posted information did not come from James White. It came from D.A. Carson, who decidedly does know how to use the textual apparatus of the NA-27.

It remains a fact that the Ante Nicean Fathers --some such as Polycarp and Clement of Rome knew the apostles-- do not use an unambiguous Byzantine text type when citing the New Testament.

For sure, there are Byzantine readings in the writings of the Ante Nicean Fathers, however, they are not uniquely Byzantine readings. They are also found in Western, Alexandrian, and Caesarean Manuscript Families. It does not make a case for the primacy of the Byzantine Manuscripts.

Let’s be consistent Reformed presuppoitionalists. It’s not just a matter of evidence but also a matter of presuppositions which leads to a method of how we are to handle scripture.

What presuppositions was Beza using when he changed the text of Revelation 16:5 in spite of having no Greek Manuscript support what-so-ever? That would be in spite of the admonishment of scripture against adding to or taking away any of the word of God. i don't recall seeing that presupposition anywhere.

You have misunderstood the methodology of those who believe in the Byzantine family of MSS. We have ancient translations in existence that agree with the BT, MT and TR. Now, modern scholarship would claim that since we do not have an ancient Greek copy from this MSS family the church “had to wait for the BT to be compiled.” As if the "oldest is the best." This is just an assumption. We are saying the church has always used this type of text in some form, Latin, Syrian or otherwise.

What is utter nonsense is the inclusion of conjectures from scholars AS SCRIPTURE.

As is evidenced by the writings of the Ante Nicean Fathers --who would have had access to them, if such manuscripts existed, and were genuine, they would have resulted in them being cited by those Fathers as the true word of God. They seem to cite a more ecclectic text style. Do you seriously want to accuse them of being revisionists?

I’m running out of time so I’ll ask you this, can you say along with the Reformed confessions, “the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.” LCB 8.14

In as far as the citation agrees with the WCF, i certainly can agree with the statement. Note however that nothing in that statement gives primacy to the Byzantine Manuscript Family.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

JM, i'm having a bit of difficulty in multi-quoting your posts. None of your statements seem to come up when i hit the reply button. Are you using standard BB code in your responses? i've tried it with three different browsers and two operating systems (Windows and Linux), yet it appears as if you are the only person i have this difficulty with. i placed a response to Dr. Jean on another thread earlier today and had no difficulties at all.

i had to go through a bit of 'internet gymnastics' in order to get my response to you in a format that was acceptable.

 

[JM]

No problem brother. I'm just happy we can discuss these issues.

 

[JM]

PS: All Protestants believed in the MT in general and the TR specifically. This has been demonstrated numerous times. I recommend Muller's Post Reformed Dogmatics. What lead Beza to change the TR without any Greek support? Simple...he was Reformed and therefore presupposed the church had the biblical text faithfully transmitted. He approached the text as the God breathed document supposing the church held the Bible. He therefore changed the text using translations held by the church. Besides, the NA adds opinions from scholars to the text, which is a bigger problem, so this shouldn't be an issue. Another note, Metzger approved of Beza's use of this conjectural principle so again, it shouldn't be an issue for those who support the CT. Not to mention Sinaiticus has similar examples were the scribe confused words that were similar to those Beza correctef using the Latin and Latin commentaries, he worked from a position of faith to correct it.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

No problem brother. I'm just happy we can discuss these issues.

Not a problem at all. --incidentally, the difficulty i had yesterday in trying to quote your posts appear to be gone. This one is working quite well.

i had the pleasure of running across the writings of D. B. "Dan" Wallace on the subject of the transmission and preservation of the New Testament Text. Interesting writing. Of course you know his position, but he did have a unique twist and a warning to those who hold to views similar to mine.

That warning was not to minimise the fact that the KJV and the manuscripts behind it are also the word of God. In other words don't hold contempt for KJV and TR users. This seems to be good advice, especially since i use 1599 Geneva for my own English reading.

On the interesting side of the article, Wallace gave examples of how certain English words in the KJV no longer convey the same basic meanings as the KJV translators had in mind when they used the word. The semantic range of words in the English language have changed due to usage over the years. This can have drastic effects on the reader's understanding of passages in that version, and lead to conclusions that are in error.

Rather than cease to use the KJV, --a version which many of us have used to memorise scripture-- Wallace suggests having a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary handy in order to gain understanding of the full semantic range of the so-called 'archaic' words used in that translation, and how that semantic range changed over time.

On the other hand, as time went on, i eventually had to reject the NIV because it appeared that the translation committee was more committed to their technique of dynamic equivalence than they were to rendering the bible so that the English translation was clear and understandable. Many examples have been given where the NIV used dynamic equivalence and obscured the meanings of passages where a more literal rendering would have generated a clearer understanding of the passage, and better readability.

To be sure, every English translation, including the KJV uses dynamic equivalence in some parts --concepts often do not translate well from the donor language to the recipient language-- but their commitment was to a clear rendering of the text rather than a method of translation.

Over the years i have developed my own theories about the Byzantine Manuscript families. Because of those theories, i cannot reject them out of hand. The theory is basically that the Byzantine Manuscript Family was created by native Greek Speakers as opposed to African, European and Middle Eastern people using what was a secondary language to them. Our discoveries over the years have been more along the lines of discovering how the Koine Greek used in the region where the apostles lived and worked was used. However, have we really done the work on how the Greek Language was used by first language Greek speakers --such as those who would have copied what became the Byzantine Manuscript family? Therin i think lies many of the differences in this controversy of manuscripts.

Just some thoughts to consider. Enjoy your day brother.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

PS: All Protestants believed in the MT in general and the TR specifically. This has been demonstrated numerous times. I recommend Muller's Post Reformed Dogmatics. What lead Beza to change the TR without any Greek support? Simple...he was Reformed and therefore presupposed the church had the biblical text faithfully transmitted. He approached the text as the God breathed document supposing the church held the Bible. He therefore changed the text using translations held by the church. Besides, the NA adds opinions from scholars to the text, which is a bigger problem, so this shouldn't be an issue. Another note, Metzger approved of Beza's use of this conjectural principle so again, it shouldn't be an issue for those who support the CT. Not to mention Sinaiticus has similar examples were the scribe confused words that were similar to those Beza correctef using the Latin and Latin commentaries, he worked from a position of faith to correct it.

If this is the case, then one might as well have remained within the Roman Church. i find such thinking to be a logical contradiction. In many areas Beza rejects the Vulgate rendering in preference to the Greek text, yet rejects the reading of the Greek text where it does not suit his own pre-conceived notions of what is correct.

Paul describes the Church as the "pillar and ground of trueth" --I Tim 3:15b 1599 Geneva --Both the TR and the NA agree in text on this verse.

Where something is demonstrated to be wrong, we must conclude that the church has not erred because the church being the pillar and ground of truth does not err. We also must conclude that men who presumed to speak for the church -incorrectly- have erred and were in fact NOT speaking for the church, no matter what positions they held. This is in support of the Reformation principle that the church is always reforming as it is being conformed to the bride of Christ.

This was in essence a violation of the Reformed principle of Sola Scriptura. Rather than letting the text speak for itself, Beza presumed to correct the text based on no textual evidence at all!

What you are seeing is question begging. One presumes that a certain reading is correct in order to prove that the reading is correct.

i am not impressed.

 

[JM]

If this is the case, then one might as well have remained within the Roman Church.

​

Brother, I see it the other way around. The way in which modern translators approach scripture, as something broken or incomplete that needs repair. This philosophy is similar to RC and the idea that scripture "contains" the word of God is essentially Roman Catholic. All that's left is to allow a magisterial leadship of scholars, unbelieving scholars, to decide what is the word of God.

i find such thinking to be a logical contradiction.

Again brother, I see it the other way around. It's illogical to say you believe in divine preservation of scripture but that it has been corupted and must be restored. Are you saying God preserved His word only partially?

In many areas Beza rejects the Vulgate rendering in preference to the Greek text, yet rejects the reading of the Greek text where it does not suit his own pre-conceived notions of what is correct.

Wouldn't it be nice to have more of Beza's works available in English? Beza's preconceived notions were the same as every single Protestant, this is the essence of the Reformed position know as presuppositionalism.

Dr. Edward Hills sums up the translation philosophy of the Reformers nicely in the following quote. His summation can be confirmed by Muller as mentioned before.

Luther, Melanchton, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, and the other scholars of the Reformation Period who labored on the New Testament text were similarly guided by God’s special providence. These scholars had received humanistic training in their youth, and in their notes and comments they sometimes reveal traces of this early education. But in their actual dealings with the biblical text these humanistic tendencies were restrained by the common faith in the providential preservation of Scripture, a faith which they themselves professed along with their followers. Hence in the Reformation Period the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of any other book. The humanistic methods used on other books were not applied to the New Testament. In their editions of the New Testament Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided by the common faith to adopt the current text, primarily the current Greek text and secondarily the current Latin text. … thus the logic of faith led true believers of that day, just as it leads true believers today, to the Textus Receptus as the God-guided New Testament text..."

Where something is demonstrated to be wrong, we must conclude that the church has not erred because the church being the pillar and ground of truth does not err. We also must conclude that men who presumed to speak for the church -incorrectly- have erred and were in fact NOT speaking for the church, no matter what positions they held. This is in support of the Reformation principle that the church is always reforming as it is being conformed to the bride of Christ.

Agreed but this is where I find the inconsistency in the CT position. The church has already declared the canon. Both WCF and LCB agree, they even cite portions of scripture now doubted to support confessional doctrine. To appeal to 1 John 5.7 by the Westminster Divines, knowing that only a small portion of MSS contain this reading, should cause the CT proponent to reconsider removing it. What you have is a jockeying of unbelieving scholars (Dan Wallace stated that and I quoted him in this thread already) who deny cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith telling you what is "wrong." Those men do not speak for the church and their philosophy is rationalistic rather than biblical.


Oh well, I'll quote Wallace again, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."


Doug Wilson drives this point home.

“This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it."

This was in essence a violation of the Reformed principle of Sola Scriptura. Rather than letting the text speak for itself, Beza presumed to correct the text based on no textual evidence at all!

The essence of the Reformed faith is Jesus Christ. Our Bible is a covenant document, a revelation of our God acting in history for the salvation of His people and His glory. This is why we claim sola scriptura because it is "kept pure in all ages." I understand you now have to set aside a portion of our Confessions to make room for the CT. Please reconsider. The Reformers took the scriptures and Reformed the church according to them. This was done by faithful men who held to a biblical wordview. What you are suggesting is that a reconstructed NT based on an unbelieving philosophy is acceptable when it's not. There is evidence for what Beza did with one text of scripture, and one in principle that Metzger would have accepted based on the faulty readings of Sinaiticus, Latin translation and Latin commentaries but you will not accept the witness of the church.



The church has given witness to these passages now doubted by keeping the work Beza had published. My posts in this thread tried to convey the idea that we place too much trust in the vain philosophy of unbelievers when we preform textual criticism. The "majority" according to Wallace are unbelievers, there still exists a remnant of believing scholars that support the traditional text and I believe we will see more in the future.


A valuable summary of why Beza kept Revelation 16.5:




Summary

• "Which art, and wast, and shalt be" completes a formula.
• Beatus' excerpt mentions the future aspect of God.
• Haimo alluded to this formula.
• Copies of Revelation were extensively corrupted very early.
• Revelation 15:4 in P47 has a corruption involving "οσιος".
• Revelation 11:17 has a variant related to Revelation 16:5, but with more witnesses.
• Bruce Metzger approved the use of conjectural emendations in principle.
• There is rabbinical and Greek authority for Beza's conjectured triadic formula.
• There are only four witnesses of Revelation 16:5 prior to the 10th century.
• There is evidence of textual corruption in three of these earliest manuscripts.
• "ο εσομενος" may have been abbreviated as a nomen sacrum, which may have been confused with a nomen sacrum of "ο οσιος".
• εσομενος and οσιος can look similar if the quality of the writing or material is poor.
• Sinaiticus has confirmable examples of a scribe confusing similar-looking words.
• Sinaiticus exhibits a case where the writing of ο οσιος is poor.
• οσιος may look similar to an abbreviated form of ο εσομενος.
• P47 exhibits a scribal tendency to create strange abbreviations to common words.
• Manuscripts were prone to damage.
• There is contextual motive to harmonize Revelation 16:5 with Revelation 11:17.
• The grammatical construction, completely acceptable in Greek, may have appeared erroneous to a Hebraist.

Beza’s conjectural emendation seems reasonable under these circumstances.


Beza and Revelation 16:5 - King James Version Today

What you are seeing is question begging. One presumes that a certain reading is correct in order to prove that the reading is correct.

i am not impressed.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I do believe God's word has been preserved and as our confessions read, "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them."

Thank you brother for the back and forth.

For those who may investigate presuppositionalism and the New Testament Text you will find a quick intro here: Presuppositionalism in Textual Criticism | GospelSpam.com

Many times we hear that “no doctrines are changed” with the different Greek texts or different translations that are used, but that is not the truth. In fact, the biggest doctrine that is changed is the doctrine of preservation.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[SaintJoeNow]

NA = Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: Home

Nestle Aland is a CT (critical text) edition of the New Testament. The # after NA refers to the edition. Nestle Aland #28 is the newest edition of their critical text which includes conjecture by scholars as scripture. So, if someone tells you that 1 John 5.7 is not in the oldest Greek MSS they are being inconsistent. 1 John 5.7 can be traced to the 3rd or 4th century but the NA conjecture goes no further than a modern, unbelieving scholar.

jm
PS: Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert on ancient / Biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. Without putting forth the idea of New Testament eclecticism I’d like to post a quote from one of his recent blog posts about the the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature :

​

The issue here is much simpler than those who are oppose to the King James Bible as being the Word of God wish to admit. The issue is believing God preserved His Word in spite of human weakness, and delivered it to the English speaking world under the authority of King James, or He did not. It's really very simple. It is very easy to see in any version after the King James Bible why they cannot be the Word of God because of changes in doctrine by changing key words and phrases, and deletions, and footnotes which imply the text is unreliable. It is very easy to see why the King James Bible replaced all prior versions to become the Authorized English Bible.

It is not easy to see easy things if faith in God's desire for us to know exactly what He said in our own language is excluded. In excluding such simple faith, the entire Biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture must be ignored, abandoned, and the whole Word of God must be considered forever lost and uncertain of it's origin because the original writings are lost. When the doctrine of human error obscuring and losing God's Word is upheld consistently, even the original holy men of God by through whom the scriptures were given from God, must be considered to be possibly flawed because of human error; but that doesn't really matter because the people who made the copies were presumed to be careless and there was supposedly no chain of correct copies preserved and God had no way of correcting error or replacing small parts that may have been lost. Even if the originals were the Word of God, they are lost and gone forever so if you don't believe you have the Word of God in English now, you will never have it because of human error in copies.

The whole issue is about believing God and taking Him at His Word or believing God didn't care about clearly giving us His Word in English so that we know exactly what He said today. People who take this approach generally (or figuratively) say God gave them the Holy Spirit to search for the Holy Grail of the Lost Originals. I don't need to waste time that way.

I know what God said. He put it in His Word for me. He gave me His Word. I thank Him for it. I thank Him for giving me His Word in my own language. It's good to know what God said. I'm sorry many are not sure what God said and they feel that they have to try to figure it out by getting back to the originals which is impossible because the originals are lost.

 

[JM]

Can you have the doctrine of inerrancy without the doctrine of preservation? Nope.

 

[JM]

Johannine Comma thread

Nolan on 1 John 5:7: Johannine Comma

Minute vs. adequate preservation: Johannine Comma

Pickering on the early history of the text: Johannine Comma

Holland on 1 John 5:7: Johannine Comma

“Phantom Manuscripts”? thread

“Phantom Manuscripts”?

WCF 1.8 and CT thread

Extended quote of Letis on Warfield and WCF 1:8: WCF 1.8 and CT

and: WCF 1.8 and CT

Burgon on Matt 5:22: WCF 1.8 and CT

KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority thread

Burgon on John 3:13: KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority

Textual Manuscripts thread

Lane vs. Steve on Alexandrian/W&H (& Asa – Amon): Textual Manuscripts?

What is the authentic New Testament text? thread: (A partial list of contents in the OP)

What is the authentic New Testament text?

Quoting Letis’ essay responding to D.A. Carson: What is the authentic New Testament text?

CONCERNING ERASMUS (Coats, Cloud, etc): What is the authentic New Testament text?

Letis / Borland on Asa and Amon (Matt 1:7, 10 ESV): What is the authentic New Testament text?

Kirsopp Lake, “It is hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books.”: What is the authentic New Testament text?

Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text? thread

Byz priority: “Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?”

TTer gone CTer thread (many posts)

Warfield assertion countered by Lake: TTer gone CTer

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin thread

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Hort on early Byz majority: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

Borland essay; Lake, allegation Alexandrian text majority examined: ibid

W&H text not the same as CT/ET per White: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

History of the KJV and TR thread

Owen on variants (from Letis): History of KJV and TR

A History Of The Authorized Version thread

Extended discussion of the Septuagint starting at post #40: A History Of The Authorized Version

Byzantine readings of Paul thread

Byzantine readings of Paul

Pickering and Robinson on “no early Byz mss”: Byzantine readings of Paul

Do textual variants give us confidence? thread

Some posts on the OT text: Do textual variants give us confidence?

Verses omitted from the ESV thread

Extensive Nolan quote: Verses ommited from the ESV

Linguistic Superiority between Geneva and KJV? thread

Links to “Easter” discussions in KJV: Linguistic Superiority between Geneva and KJV?

Responding to James White of AOMIN thread

Responding to James White of AOMIN

Pascha in Acts 12:4 thread (re “Easter”) thread

Steve’s input starting in post #10: Pascha in Acts 12:4

Defending the Lord’s Prayer 1 thread (Matt 6)

Defending the Lord’s Prayer 1

Defending the Lord’s Prayer 2 thread (Luke 11)

Defending the Lord’s Prayer 2

On Gathering Intelligence and Evidence thread
On Gathering Intelligence and Evidence

Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad? thread(my first post #14)

Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?

pierced/like a lion…need Hebrew help thread

pierced/like a lion…need Hebrew help

NASB / ESV Revisions?? thread

NASB / ESV Revisions??

THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CRITICAL TEXT thread (bare-knuckled poem)

THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CRITICAL TEXT

On Enoch in Jude thread

Peter Enns, A Blog

A History Of The Authorized Version

Colossians 1:14 thread

Colossians 1:14

Did Lazarus write the Gospel of John? thread (starting at post #18)

Did Lazarus write the Gospel of John?

The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries

The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries

Inspired in Teachings Only? thread

Inspired in Teachings Only?

Biblical Preservation thread (RE: Tischendorf rescued [Codex Sinaiticus] from a waste basket)
/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/biblical-preservation-17739/#post223739

Mark 16:12 thread

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/mark-16-12-a-20445/

John 7:53-8:11 thread

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/john-7-53-8-11-a-25089/

King James Only Movement thread

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/king-james-only-movement-36217/

Verbal Plenary Preservation thread

Discussion of Reformation texts: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/

Arians in power for 50 years in Greek empire:http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/verbal-plenary-preservation-21765/#post273656

 

[JM]

Where did the time go!?! The older I get the more I forget.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I think some of our old posts got compressed and shrunk in font size, because I don't remember having to squint to read posts.