Missing verses, Added words, and missing words from Modern Translations

[createdtoworship]

Basic notions and objectives
The basic problem, as described by Paul Maas, is as follows:

We have no autograph [handwritten by the original author] manuscripts of the Greek and Roman classical writers and no copies which have been collated with the originals; the manuscripts we possess derive from the originals through an unknown number of intermediate copies, and are consequently of questionable trustworthiness. The business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as possible to the original (constitutio textus).[7]

Maas comments further that "A dictation revised by the author must be regarded as equivalent to an autograph manuscript". The lack of autograph manuscripts applies to many cultures other than Greek and Roman. In such a situation, a key objective becomes the identification of the first exemplar before any split in the tradition. That exemplar is known as the archetype. "If we succeed in establishing the text of [the archetype], the constitutio (reconstruction of the original) is considerably advanced.[8]

Higher Critics as I say usually don't adhere to inspiration of Scripture, or at very minimal have a very limited view of inspiration. They are scientists (many humanistic) not scholars. So I need not really even reply to them as they have anti spiritual biases in favor of humanism. But I will reply to it, as well as provide an alternative essay on higher criticism that you should read when you have time here:
The History of the Higher Criticism2.pdf

But let me analyze what he says...

We have no autograph [handwritten by the original author] manuscripts of the Greek and Roman classical writers and no copies which have been collated with the originals; the manuscripts we possess derive from the originals through an unknown number of intermediate copies,

Again inspiration of the Bible and authenticity of the Bible is sort of a broad topic, but I will reply briefly, if we continue this discussion (which I don't mind) I would prefer to split off from this thread into a separate topic. If you don't mind. But anyway, every thing he said above is true. We do not have the original Bible, and there is no "Holy" Bible in existence. All we have is copies of the original, and those copies have been translated into entirely new dialects harboring numerous errors, it is the purpose of this thread to talk about those errors. And how the byantine tradition has typically been more faithful to the greek texts, and thus has limited the errors quite a bit.

and are consequently of questionable trustworthiness. The business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as possible to the original (constitutio textus).

I would disagree here. We have entire collections of lectionaries that quote eary nicene scripture to a 95% accuracy. So even if we did not have ANY manuscripts we could still attest to their quotations and piece together a text. God's word cannot be defeated. Secondly we have over 5000 manuscript fragments, and the latest called the chester beaty papyri collection has dated to roughly a few decades after Christ, it just happens to be a word for word direct quotation of other texts we have. Lastly you have the Dead Sea scrolls which have a coplete copy of Isaiah again 95% accurate to manuscripts we have of the copy of Isaiah. I could quote stuff like this ad nauseum. I literally have hundreds of pages of evidence on it, so like I said we should start another thread on it.

Maas comments further that "A dictation revised by the author must be regarded as equivalent to an autograph manuscript". The lack of autograph manuscripts applies to many cultures other than Greek and Roman. In such a situation, a key objective becomes the identification of the first exemplar before any split in the tradition. That exemplar is known as the archetype. "If we succeed in establishing the text of [the archetype], the constitutio (reconstruction of the original) is considerably advanced.[8]

this is where the higher a lower criticism differs. Before going further in this discussion you should know why we have a diffrentiation between lower and higher criticism:
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/presidentialaddresses/JBL67_1_1Colwell1947.pdf

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Sir it's not my words you are questioning, God's words literally says in revelation "if ANY MAN adds to the words of this prophecy, I will add to Him the curses of this book." These are my words not exact quote. But look it up. God does not want accuracy sacrificed for readability. If you do so, it's not a translation but a paraphrase

So in other words you are reading stuff online but wont bother to learn Greek yourself. Outta here

 

[createdtoworship]

So in other words you are reading stuff online but wont bother to learn Greek yourself. Outta here

You don't need to know greek to use an interlinear, that is what they are for. Besides, my limited knowledge of greek has not even been refuted. I pointed out how the KJV has 5 times less word additions and 40% less exclusions. And I don't even know greek. You can see it obviously in the interlinear.

but I quoted someone who is a translator and who DOES know greek in this post, if you would like to respond...
Missing verses, Added words, and missing words from Modern Translations

 

[HARK!]

Higher Critics as I say usually don't adhere to inspiration of Scripture, or at very minimal have a very limited view of inspiration. They are scientists (many humanistic) not scholars. So I need not really even reply to them as they have anti spiritual biases in favor of humanism. But I will reply to it, as well as provide an alternative essay on higher criticism that you should read when you have time here:
The History of the Higher Criticism2.pdf

But let me analyze what he says...

The link that I posted concerns Textual Criticism (lower criticism), not Historical Criticism (higher criticism).

 

[createdtoworship]

The link that I posted concerns Textual Criticism (lower criticism), not Historical Criticism (higher criticism).

how do you know? From what you posted it's identical to skeptics of higher criticism.

 

[HARK!]

Are you familiar with textual criticism?

Textual criticism - Wikipedia

Textual criticism of the New Testament - Wikipedia

Here is a list of major variants in the NT:

List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

Matthew 17:21

MT: However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.
CT: Verse omitted

how do you know? From what you posted it's identical to skeptics of higher criticism.

Look at the links. They speak for themselves; but if it still isn't clear; just follow them.

 

[createdtoworship]

Look at the links. They speak for themselves; but if it still isn't clear; just follow them.

sorry sir I don't have the desire, nor the time to do you homework for you. But feel free to make a case that those guys are lower critics, the first guy you posted I already refuted as a higher critic, so if you desire to drop more names and some quotations go ahead.

 

[createdtoworship]

Look at the links. They speak for themselves; but if it still isn't clear; just follow them.

Anyway to get back to your original post, the verse about fasting and praying is a variant, all critics agree with that. But what I am saying is that ONLY 2 manuscripts leave those verses out, sinainiticus and vaticanus. The majority have them.

 

[HARK!]

Anyway to get back to your original post, the verse about fasting and praying is a variant, all critics agree with that. But what I am saying is that ONLY 2 manuscripts leave those verses out, sinainiticus and vaticanus. The majority have them.

So what? Are you seriously telling me that if I take an autograph copy; and I make 100 forgeries; that because there are more copies of the forgery; that the forgery is more accurate?

sorry sir I don't have the desire, nor the time to do you homework for you.

Maybe you need to go back and do your own homework.

 

[createdtoworship]

So what? Are you seriously telling me that if I take an autograph copy; and I make 100 forgeries; that because there are more copies of the forgery; that the forgery is more accurate?



Maybe you need to go back and do your own homework.

when I called the sinaiticus and vaticanus forgeries, I provided proof via direct pictures of pages that had different ages. In a manuscript you don't have one page dark, and the page right behind it lighter in color signifying a newer age. That doesn't make logical sense. However you simply say that "majority" of the 5500 greek manuscripts are fake. That takes a whole lot of external evidence you simply don't have sir, so again, do your homework and find some evidence of fraud and deliver it here. I have done my homework.

 

[HARK!]

when I called the sinaiticus and vaticanus forgeries, I provided proof via direct pictures of pages that had different ages

What pictures? What post number? I see no evidence that you did any such thing.

 

[createdtoworship]

What pictures? What post number? I see no evidence that you did any such thing.

well I could not find the thread I think it was deleted, but there was at least two other threads on it. But anyway, I saved the image, and have backups of everything

(click to enlarge)​

I have confirmed the image and have a separate image of the above image if you wish that I collected myself from the sinaiticus online data bank. The color bar on the right of the image is to show that the images were from the same camera setup and to show contrast. One should not be lighter than the other, darkness is oxidization from age, so these two are different ages, other manuscripts when you look online don't have the contrast from one page to the next. But if however I was forging a codex, I would look for pages that were blank, assemble them together into a codex book of sorts, and then if some were different ages, then that would make sense. See a normal wear and tear of a manuscript shows that the edges age more than the inside, and there is evidence as well that the sinaiticus was artificially aged from quotations of several sources that say when they saw it initially it was bright white.

 

[HARK!]

well I could not find the thread I think it was deleted, but there was at least two other threads on it. But anyway, I saved the image, and have backups of everything

Seriously your counterargument is: "Go find my counterargument, in another unnamed thread, which doesn't exist anymore;" and you have the audacity to imply that I don't do my homework, and that I'm wasting your time?

That's laughable!

What does Tobit have to do with the verse in question? Your counterargument is non sequitur.

 

[createdtoworship]

So what? Are you seriously telling me that if I take an autograph copy; and I make 100 forgeries; that because there are more copies of the forgery; that the forgery is more accurate?



Maybe you need to go back and do your own homework.

so this was the post I was commenting on that started our conversation, I provided proof or my allegation by quoting tobit which was part of sinaiticus manuscript that makes up all modern versions. Then you said "what does tobit have to do with the verse in question." Which is moving the goal posts. See originally you took exception that I said the sinaiticus was fraudulent, then I proved it with photographs, now you want me to find a fraudulent text regarding the actual verse. yes sir that is moving the goal posts.

 

[HARK!]

so this was the post I was commenting on that started our conversation, I provided proof or my allegation by quoting tobit which was part of sinaiticus manuscript that makes up all modern versions. Then you said "what does tobit have to do with the verse in question." Which is moving the goal posts. See originally you took exception that I said the sinaiticus was fraudulent, then I proved it with photographs, now you want me to find a fraudulent text regarding the actual verse. yes sir that is moving the goal posts.

By arguing that because a manuscript contains a variant, it is a forgery in its' entirety; of the approximately 5000 ancient manuscripts of Bible scripture, there are variants in every last one. By your reasoning, every last one of those manuscripts are forgeries in their entireties.

Fortunately textual criticism brings reason to these wild notions.

 

[createdtoworship]

By arguing that because a manuscript contains a variant, it is a forgery in its' entirety; of the approximately 5000 ancient manuscripts of Bible scripture, there are variants in every last one. By your reasoning, every last one of those manuscripts are forgeries in their entireties.

Fortunately textual criticism brings reason to these wild notions.

sir the variant thing was your argument, not mine. My manuscripts are based on the majority of all greek manuscripts. Again, only 2 do not contain the verses about fasting, the sinaiticus and the vaticanus. There is a lot of evidence of forgery with sinaiticus, and some evidence of forgery with sinaiticus. you have to look at the whole picture.