Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Neither do I condemn those who use other versions. I simply state that after many years of study and research, I have come to the conviction that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the KJV for English speaking people.
There are today, over 100 versions of the English Bible, all having obtained a copyright. This means that each of these "Bibles" must be significantly different, in order to avoid plagiarism; yet, they all claim to be the same Word of God. How can this be?
Jack
Ancient texts have no copyright. What is copyrighted are the translational works of the teams.
The problem with Westcott and Hort is they rely on two of the oldest translation. In fact one of them is missing the Mark passage clearly had enough room to write was there, so it is not like that there isn't evidence it shouldn't be part of the Bible. Sinaiticus and Vaticanicus are both survivors because they were simply discards. Sinaiticus was found in the rubbish dump on Sinai near the monastery there. Eramus ha access to the library at the Vatican and he had read the manuscript, but rejected it as flawed as a result of it's massive deviation from the norm.Well, you can only definitively consider them omissions if you hold that the TR is more accurate. Otherwise they may be additions.
That is a major problem with the manuscript and it shows scribal error, which does explain why it is still around being so old, because no one was using it.What is the writer talking about? Did you note the phrase "to disentangle the various stages?" This indicates that there is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,
"...the New Testament...is extremely unreliable...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped...letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."That brings me to the problem of the di homoeotéleuton omissions in Sinaiticus. The word di homoeotéleuton is Greek for "because of a similar ending." Here are some examples of the sloppy work of the scribes.
Note: In the following passages the italicized, bold words are omitted in Sinaiticus...
1 Cor. 13:1-2. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
Here the scribe had copied the verse up to the end of the first "and have not charity," but when he looked up to his example again to continue copying, his eye fell upon the second occurrence of the phrase, from which he continued, omitting all of those words between the two occurrences of the phrase.
Now a more complicated example:
1 Cor. 15:25-27. "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. [27] For he hath put all things under his feet."
Here it is not immediately clear what has happened. But when it is known that in some early manuscripts the order of clauses is as shown below, once again we see that the scribe's eye has jumped from the first occurrence of a phrase to the second occurrence:
[27] "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. For he hath put all things under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
And in the very next verse another such omission:
1 Cor. 15:27-28. "But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did subject unto him all things. 28 And when there shall be subjected unto him all things, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
These di homoeotéleuton omissions number about 300 in the New Testament of Codex Sinaiticus. They are not taken seriously as variant readings by the editors of critical editions and in fact are not even mentioned in the notes of the critical editions of currently used translations. But, the sloppy scribal work, as in "The Vinegar Bible" precludes this old manuscript as being characterized as "the best" does it not?
Perhaps this is slightly non-linear, but I feel like the KJV is fine for those who like it, but equally fine is relating to a modern translation of the Bible.
Language evolves constantly, and it's totally reasonable that something written hundreds of years ago wouldn't appeal to a lot of people today. I'm of the view that it doesn't matter how His message is conveyed to us, so long as we hear His word in some form.
Personally, I'm a fan of the NIV Inclusive Language edition.
That is interesting, because even. Dr. James White doesn't support the NIV.
Jack
That is a major problem with the manuscript and it shows scribal error, which does explain why it is still around being so old, because no one was using it.
Beware of brother James White, though I like his presentations in the Islamic forums for their information [and also serves to benefit Romanism], his material elsewhere in his assault on the KJB, and its manuscripts, is stemming from the Roman element, and his ministry even bears the symbol that Rome carries in the Alpha, Omega all over their materials, and James White even utilizes the Triquetra of Roman Catholicisms in his materials, as well as teaching the same Trinity of Romanism [and endorsed on the back of his book by Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa, a Roman Catholic] which is unscripturally defined [there is a Scriptural 'Trinity'; Godhead, but it is not as defined by Romanism], and some of his logic, whether he knows it or not is Jesuit inspired... Hegelian... synthesis...Um I don't think so: ...
Beware of brother James White, though I like his presentations in the Islamic forums for their information [and also serves to benefit Romanism], his material elsewhere in his assault on the KJB, and its manuscripts, is stemming from the Roman element, and his ministry even bears the symbol that Rome carries in the Alpha, Omega all over their materials, and James White even utilizes the Triquetra of Roman Catholicisms in his materials, as well as teaching the same Trinity of Romanism [and endorsed on the back of his book by Jesuit Mitchell Pacwa, a Roman Catholic] which is unscripturally defined [there is a Scriptural 'Trinity'; Godhead, but it is not as defined by Romanism], and some of his logic, whether he knows it or not is Jesuit inspired... Hegelian... synthesis...
Desiderius Erasmus,did not translate the Bible in order to publish his own version.
He simply translated the Greek and showed the error in the Vulgate.
The primary purpose of Erasmus was to publish his annotations along with his Latin translation. The Greek text was only there for the purpose of confirming the Latin translation...Erasmus was concerned about the Greek text only to the extent that it proved his Latin translation was not plucked out of thin air. That he was not primarily interested in the Greek text is clear from the fact that he never brought out a separate edition of just the Greek text, in spite of the fact he was encouraged to do so.
Not necessarily.
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, William Combs, Purpose of the Novum Instrumentum, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Vol. 1, Spring 1996, p. 44, 45
God Bless
Till all are one.
Yes, really, you can even hear about the portion of the endoresment of James' "Trinity" book by Jesuit Pacwa, in his debate with Jesuit Pacwa. Though I like James [and have seen much of his materials], I think he is funny/serious in a witty way, but be careful of him, for some of his material is also not fully based, but only partially based and therefore in error, and also of the Calvinistic portions though that is not the focus here.Really...
The Following Link and materials therein * may be useful for those considering the MSS** of, and/or other [generally corrupted/altered/'emended'] MSS other than, those found as the basis of the King James Bible:
The King James Bible Vindicated
* Use caution when considering the various materials, judge according to the Law and to the Testimony [Isaiah 8:20], for not everything therein is Seventh-day Adventist scholarship and may carry an individuals/groups unScriptural doctrine here or there, which is of course to be rejected/reproved in Charity.
**MSS is short for Manuscripts.
This Link or this Link may be used for anyone of the Roman Catholic faith [of which I used to be, 30 years, born, raised, confirmed, etc]
There is a difference between variant reading and scribal error. I am surprised you never would have thought that out? What I showed was clear error.Well then, why not throw all the manuscripts away because all show kind of scribal work done to them?
No two Greek manuscripts, read exactly the same, none.
God Bless
Till all are one.
There is a difference between variant reading and scribal error. I am surprised you never would have thought that out? What I showed was clear error.
Another problem is clear edited verse so that they fit false doctrine. John 1:1-18 is the best case to see if a manuscript has been altered to fit false doctrine. To try and fit the doctrine of gnosticism, that Jesus and Christ are two different persons in changing the phrase "only begotten son" to "only begotten god", which makes a massive difference, but the weird thing is that they focused so much on that passage, since it is the clearest passage describing the deity of Jesus. They don't change the phrase in John 3:16 which shows their bias because the John 3 passage isn't as clear as the John 1:18 passage is but they are the only times that phrase is used in the Bible.
Two thing things a good Bible needs is to be translated from the Greek majority texts(The Byzantine texts) and to be a mostly formal equivalence, but understanding that translating from 3 different languages makes a 100% translation that way impossible, but it should be done as much as possible while making sense in the language translated into.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?