The Origen of All Modern Versions

[verysincere]

7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origen’s 5th column and brings them back to Constantine. Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them – God didn’t have His hand on them. The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them – in other words God used them.

Well there it is – I’m sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and I’m sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it – the new versions are basically Catholic bibles – I’m sure Rome is tickled.

The choice was difficult (of all of the points in the OP) but I have to confess: I just printed the above and it's going on my office door.

 

[kiwimac]

A warning label noting that it is heiferdust might be useful. Someone might be ignorant enough to actually believe it.

 

[verysincere]

A warning label noting that it is heiferdust might be useful. Someone might be ignorant enough to actually believe it.

Point well taken. However, if I ever discover that a student of mine (even a new one just starting his studies) was unable to make that determination, I will be torn between investigating his/her qualifying examination scores and checking my own pulse!

[And frankly, I'm still not entirely confident that we are not being POE'd for someone's amusement. With the hyper-KJV pretenders on some forums, I've been fooled before and I will probably be fooled again. Unless one inspects a poster's history, it can be very hard to tell the pranksters from the die-hards. But I do thank you for making an excellent point for the benefit of those who may read our posts in the future.]

 

[Biblewriter]

Let’s stir it up a bit - A quick history lesson showing the Origen of all modern versions: Many people have been sold a bill off goods – they’ve been taught that the new versions are just updated King James Bibles with new information. All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D. A few comments were added for interest – some may find them worthless but that’s fine.

1. Origen – 3rd century philosopher (Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,) – Origen – 6 letters – number of man

2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt – 5 letters – number of death - (a type of the world, God called His Son out of that country; Joseph didn’t even want his bones to stay in Egypt)

3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).

4. Origen’s beliefs – didn’t believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, allegorized most of Bible

5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala (5 – the number of death) – had 4 of his philosophers (Col. 2:8) to help him – 4 being the number of the world. Each philosopher (Col. 2:8) took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said. Origen’s column was the 5th (5 – the number of death). The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in).

6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, “I know just the place!” So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, “I’ve done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column.” (5 – the number of…you guessed it)

7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origen’s 5th column and brings them back to Constantine. Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them – God didn’t have His hand on them. The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them – in other words God used them.

8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).

9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).

10. In 1400’s or so these manuscripts become the Duhay Rheims (Roman Catholic).

11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.

12. The rest of the “Alexandrian bibles” stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. God didn’t want them circulated to the common people anyway.

13. These “bibles” were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.

14. In 1881a conference was called to “update” the AV1611. Two “Christian” bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts. Where do you think they got them? You got it – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff. They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.

15. From this committee you got the RV 1881

16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 – they used the same junk the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 – from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.

Well there it is – I’m sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and I’m sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it – the new versions are basically Catholic bibles – I’m sure Rome is tickled.

Even if this were completely true, which it isn't, it contains one very essential error. There is one modern translation of the Bible that is based on the same manuscripts as those used in preparing the King James Bible. That is the New King James Version of the Bible.

So your accusations simply do not apply to the NKJV.

 

[a pilgrim]

Even if this were completely true, which it isn't, it contains one very essential error. There is one modern translation of the Bible that is based on the same manuscripts as those used in preparing the King James Bible. That is the New King James Version of the Bible.

So your accusations simply do not apply to the NKJV.

but your mistaken, sir. Read the footnotes in you NKJV, it contains some translation out of the NU-Text. What is that?

NU-Text - These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text...found in the Critical Text...of the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies third edition (U), hence the term, ‘NU-Text.’

This is NOT the same as the TR. Here is an excellent article:
THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION

 

[OzSpen]

but your mistaken, sir. Read the footnotes in you NKJV, it contains some translation out of the NU-Text. What is that?

NU-Text - These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text...found in the Critical Text...of the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies third edition (U), hence the term, ‘NU-Text.’

This is NOT the same as the TR. Here is an excellent article:
THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION

Let's put your NU-Text quote in context. This is what the preface of the NKJV states:

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:
1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”

2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in “The New Testament Text.” It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament.

However, on what Greek text of the NT was the NKJV based? The preface of New King James Version reads:

Since the latter nineteenth century the theory has been held by some scholars that this traditional text of the New Testament had been officially edited by the fourth-century church. Recent studies have caused significant changes in this view, and a growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought. In light of these developments, and with the knowledge that most textual variants have no practical effect on translation, the New King James New Testament has been based on this Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version (This is found in the NKJV of 1982. Holy Bible: The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. v.)

So, the NKJV, according to the translator's preface, is based on the Received Text (the Textus Receptus).

As Dr. Arthur L. Farstad, Executive Editor of the New King James Version wrote: "the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it [the Textus Receptus] was made..."'

We also need to realise that the original KJV of 1611 was not a new translation, but a revision of other earlier translations. How do we know? This is what the preface of the 1611 edition stated:

Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke.

As Bruce Metzger stated of the 1611 edition of the KJV: "It is in fact a revision of the Bishops' Bible, as this itself was a revision of the Great Bible, and the Great Bible a revision of Coverdale and Tyndale" (Metzger, B M 2001. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, p. 76).

And Tyndale's NT of 1382, hand written as printing had not been invented, was based on the Latin Vulgate.

The fact remains that the translators of the NKJV state clearly in the Preface that the NT translation is based on the Textus Receptus (the Received Text). No amount of talking about footnotes will change that fact.

Sincerely, Oz