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.
Yes the more I read on that thread the clearer it became what Paul meant. It's clear the editors of that version had an agenda and wanted to be PC Beware Liberal NRSVue Bible Translation UpdateThey obfuscated the translation in what I regard as a transparent attempt to make it politically correct.
KJV is a great version of the bible. I want to read the Wycliffe bible or The Tyndale Bible.
Blue Letter Bible is another good one.You can go here and compare many translations at a glance ... and also look up same using the greek and hebrew lexicons .... very useful and informative.
www.biblhub.com
You can go here and compare many translations at a glance ... and also look up same using the greek and hebrew lexicons .... very useful and informative.
www.biblhub.com
You can go here and compare many translations at a glance ... and also look up same using the greek and hebrew lexicons .... very useful and informative.
www.biblhub.com
the new translation speaks right to me but some I find leave out verses at the end of the chapters.You can go here and compare many translations at a glance ... and also look up same using the greek and hebrew lexicons .... very useful and informative.
www.biblhub.com
KJV is a great version of the bible. I want to read the Wycliffe bible or The Tyndale Bible.
the new translation speaks right to me but some I find leave out verses at the end of the chapters.
For example? The additional words of Romans 8:1 and the "long ending" of Mark's gospel have very weak support for their authenticity.
Also biblegateway.com.
See post #17Actually its misleading to characterize it as “very weak.” There is a distinct possibility that even the Comma Johanneum is authentic. As regards the Longer Ending of Mark, some manuscripts have it and some do not. It is entirely possible that some scribes of the early church, acting on instructions from their bishop, dropped the Longer Ending of Mark in order to avoid their laity getting injured by deliberately handling snakes and stomping on scorpions, in the manner of the modern day Snake Handling Pentecostals of the Appalachians.
tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima, “the Spirit and the water and the blood”) at the beginning of v. 8, the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in ten late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. These mss range in date from the 10th century (221) to the 18th (2318). They include the following (with dates in parentheses) 221 (X), 177 (XI), 88 (XII), 429 (XIV), 629 (XIV), 636 (XV), 61 (ca.1520), 918 (XVI), 2473 (1634), and 2318 (XVIII). There are minor variations among these codices. The earliest ms, codex 221, includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 177 (11th century), 88 (12th), 429 (14th), and 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). Codex 177’s Comma is in a marginal note that must be dated after 1551, the year of the first Greek New Testament with verse numbers added. The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (the Comma Johanneum) found a place in the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order, but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and in a form significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others. For a recent discussion of the Comma Johanneum, see Rodrigo Galiza and John W. Reeve, “The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8): The Status of Its Textual History and Theological Usage in English, Greek, and Latin,” AUSS 56 (2018) 63–89.What is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)? | GotQuestions.org. I prefer the MT over the TR. Thanks for your post
Notes from the NETSo how do you know if your Bible has had scriptures removed? Well you can Google “Verses not in the NIV” and get some of the verses and check that way, but I have found 3 verses you can use as a test and if your Bible changes these 3 verses it probably takes liberty in other places.
1Co 7:36
¶
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry
1Co 7:37
But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well
1Co 7:38
So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
This is about a father choosing whether or not to let his daughter marry. Paul was talking about how the married person is concerned about pleasing their spouse in verse 34 he said,
There is[fn a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband.
So this verse is about a father letting his daughter get married or not.
What does the NIV say?
1Co 7:36
If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
1Co 7:37
But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.
1Co 7:38
So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.
If your Bible changes this to be about a man deciding if he should marry or not then it probably changes other scriptures too. (To be fair, the NIV does give footnotes.)
So what do you do with this information? Well I like the New King James Version. It’s in modern language but it’s translated from the Textus Receptus. But you don’t have to go out and buy one. You can keep reading the Bible you have. Just pay attention to verse numbers as you read and when something is missing check the footnotes, find out what is missing.
When you see a note like this
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
Realize they’re only talking about a couple of documents. If the first 11 verses of John 8 are excluded there is no woman caught in adultery. Jesus never said “Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.”
But I’m not trying to get you to change Bibles, just be aware of these things. When I just want to read through the Bible, I enjoy the NLT. But I’m aware when something is left out. God designed His word in such a way that even if something is left out, the message still gets through.
If you were going to send a radio message to North Korea, you would anticipate that it would be blocked. You wouldn’t send one powerful message, that would be easy to block. You spread out your bandwidth and send thousands of messages knowing they can’t block them all.
God anticipated hostile jamming. Even if something is taken out of His word, the message still gets through.
Can you explain Proverbs 18:1? It seems to say one thing in the KJV and the opposite in almost all other versions including the NKJV. Maybe I’m reading the KJV wrongBibleGateway is good. I personally prefer BibleHub because it has more translations available, however, BibleGateway appears easier to use.
You may like the NET Bible full notes editionHere is my issue with modern Bibles, and yes that includes Catholic ones: They are all hodge podged together. What I mean by this is you have a a scholar or group of scholars setting in a room somewhere who are taking multiple manuscripts and/or biblical text types (or I would prefer traditions) and when there is a difference in the reading, they make an executive decision on which one to go with. Sure they may set up criteria to follow, but in not every situation that criteria will work, and if it did or didn't we don't know because no one really knows what the original rendering was!
Who gave scholars the authority to determine what is and is not in the Bible, and which rendering is the right one and which one is not?
In my opinion, what should be done when it comes to the Bible, is translate a manuscript, biblical traditional text and/or text type; and in either your title or on the cover say: This Bible is translated from the Critical Text or Majority or Received or etc.
This way you know what you are getting with a Bible and you are not getting a Bible where in some potentially important passages may be using one text type over another because that one jives better with my theology over that one.
I own modern Bibles, both Protestant and Catholic ones, and even a Jewish one; but I no longer read them. Rather I prefer to follow what I call the Biblical Traditional Texts and read them, primarily the Vulgate (being Catholic), but also the Septuagint and the Masoretic Texts for the OT for example.
No I think not. Still a hodgepodge Bible, except this one lets you see how they got what they got.You may like the NET Bible full notes edition
Here is my issue with modern Bibles, and yes that includes Catholic ones: They are all hodge podged together. What I mean by this is you have a a scholar or group of scholars setting in a room somewhere who are taking multiple manuscripts and/or biblical text types (or I would prefer traditions) and when there is a difference in the reading, they make an executive decision on which one to go with. Sure they may set up criteria to follow, but in not every situation that criteria will work, and if it did or didn't we don't know because no one really knows what the original rendering was!
Who gave scholars the authority to determine what is and is not in the Bible, and which rendering is the right one and which one is not?
In my opinion, what should be done when it comes to the Bible, is translate a manuscript, biblical traditional text and/or text type; and in either your title or on the cover say: This Bible is translated from the Critical Text or Majority or Received or etc.
This way you know what you are getting with a Bible and you are not getting a Bible where in some potentially important passages may be using one text type over another because that one jives better with my theology over that one.
I own modern Bibles, both Protestant and Catholic ones, and even a Jewish one; but I no longer read them. Rather I prefer to follow what I call the Biblical Traditional Texts and read them, primarily the Vulgate (being Catholic), but also the Septuagint and the Masoretic Texts for the OT for example.
Didn't realize that at least some Baptist scholars have great respect for the Vulgate. Thank you.What's wrong with the Vulgate?
I have seen a number of oblique (but negative) references to the Vulgate in discussions and literature of textual criticism. I think that is interesting because the Vulgate is quite old (400's I believe). I would like to know more about the problems with the Vulgate and even the Old Latin Bible...www.baptistboard.com
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot
Note: The following is from a study I did and not taken from the above link. The linked article is very long but very informative.
So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the Bible? Let’s review quickly:
At the end of the 3rd century, Lucian of Antioch compiled a Greek text that achieved considerable popularity and became the dominant text throughout Christendom. It was produced prior to the Diocletain persecution (~303), during which many copies of the New Testament were confiscated and destroyed. (This was not the first persecution and the earliest copies of the New Testament were rounded up and destroyed going all the way back to around 70 AD.)
After Constantine came to power, the Lucian text was propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan School throughout the eastern world, and it soon became the standard text of the Eastern Church, forming the basis of the Byzantine text. (Today the majority of surviving copies of the New Testament in Greek are Byzantine text type.)
From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, in Greek. It was in 1525 that Erasmus, using five or six Byzantine manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries, compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press, subsequently known as Textus Receptus ("Received Text").
The translators of the King James Version had over 5,000 manuscripts available to them, but they leaned most heavily on the major Byzantine manuscripts, particularly Textus Receptus because it agreed with the majority of manuscripts. The King James Version was published in 1611 and for 270 years was the accepted Bible of record.
Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were Anglican churchmen who had contempt for the Textus Receptus and began a work in 1853 that resulted, after 28 years, in a Greek New Testament based on the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts, particularly two documents; The Codex Vaticanus and The Codex Sinaiticus.
They had some rules for their method of translation, foremost was that the oldest manuscripts are closest to the originals. This seems reasonable until you investigate what the oldest manuscripts are.
They said that shorter is better. If you’re looking at manuscripts and one has less words than the other, they preferred the shorter version because they said it was more likely that something was added than that something was omitted. That’s pure speculation, but that’s how they did it.
They said that the more difficult a reading was, the closer it was to the original, because they said copyists had tried to make the scriptures easier to read over the years.
They said if there was a mistake, the mistake was closer to the original because it was probably corrected in later texts. That’s how you get mistakes like Mark 1:2.
And they said that the majority means nothing. So if you have over 5,000 documents and they are in agreement 90% of the time and you have 2 documents that are older than all the rest, where there is a difference you ignore the majority and use the 2 oldest documents as your source. That’s what they did. They preferred the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus over the majority. Let’s look at these documents.
The Codex Vaticanus gets its name from the place where it is stored the Vatican library. It is regarded as the oldest and rarest existing Greek copy of the Bible. It has been dated to around 350 AD. It’s over 90% intact which is incredible for a manuscript its age. The reason it’s rare is because it wasn’t copied. People realized there was a problem with it and they didn’t copy it. That’s also why it’s in good shape. It wasn’t handled and worn by people copying it.
It’s one of four uncial manuscripts dating before the year 1,000 and it is considered the most significant. It’s curious that it’s given the position of most important when the actual quality of the manuscript leaves much to be desired.
Dean Burgon describes the quality of Vaticanus as follows:
“Codex Vaticanus comes to us without a history, without recommendation of any kind except that of antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.”
The New Westminister Dictionary of the Bible concurs:
“It should be noted however that there is no prominent Biblical manuscript in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammer and omission as in Vaticanus.”
So the Vaticanus scribe wasn’t top tier. Some scholars would say he wasn’t even middle of the pack. In the 10th or 11th century at least 2 scribes made corrections to Vaticanus so that means it’s not entirely a 4th century version, some of it is from the 10th or 11th century. One of the correctors even left a note for the other corrector.
Someone corrected Hebrews 1:3 but the other corrector objected and wrote “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!” Apparently the note writer regarded the document as a museum piece to be protected and preserved and not as a copy of scripture to be used as such.
The Codex Vaticanus is a mediocre document at best. It’s held in such high regard simply because it is old.
Codex Sinaiticus takes its name from where it was found, St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. It was found by a man named Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf. He was going through documents that were going to be burned when he found Sinaiticus. So it was found in the trash.
Even those who love the manuscript will admit it has serious quality problems. The Codex Sinaiticus website says the following;
No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.
They aren’t the only ones to say this either. The manuscript’s finder Tischendorf – who reckoned it as the greatest find of his life – said the following:On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.
Tischendorf also that said he: “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” He 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.
By any conceivable metric (except age), Codex Sinaiticus is one of the worst manuscripts ever found. You probably couldn’t find a scholar who would praise the scribal work in Sinaiticus, and it’s easy to find those who deride it as the worst scribal work among the manuscripts that have been found.
Yet Westcott and Hort preferred these 2 manuscripts and the critical text used for today’s versions of the Bible are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts and mostly agree with Westcott and Hort’s work.
Both men were strongly influenced by those who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and embraced the prevalent Gnostic heresies of the period. There are over 3,000 contradictions in the four gospels alone between these manuscripts. They deviated from the traditional Greek text in 8,413 places.
They conspired to influence the committee that produced The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881 revision), and, thus, their work has been a major influence in most modern translations, dethroning the Textus Receptus.
Detractors of the traditional King James Version regard the Westcott and Hort as a more academically acceptable literary source for guidance than the venerated Textus Receptus. They argue that the disputed passages were added later as scribal errors or amendments.
Defenders of the Textus Receptus attack Westcott and Hort (and the Alexandrian manuscripts) as having removed these many passages, noting that these disputed passages underscore the deity of Christ, His atonement, His resurrection, and other key doctrines. They note that Alexandria was a major headquarters for the Gnostics, heretical sects that had begun to emerge even while John was still alive.
(It is also evident that Westcott and Hort were not believers and opposed taking the Bible literally concerning the Atonement & Salvation, they didn’t believe in Hell and the most damning evidence against them is their own words. If you read their personal writings you wouldn't dream of letting them lead your Sunday School class!)
Most modern versions of the Bible are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they are the oldest. The experts say the Majority Text (the Byzantine type) are corrupted and these verses missing from the Alexandrian texts were added later to the Byzantine texts (the Majority). They say the Byzantine texts should not even be considered. But the evidence is that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt.
There remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in Critical Text advocates. Here’s Dan Wallace – arguably the most respected New Testament textual critic alive today – talking about one of our oldest manuscripts, the Codex Alexandrius.
“Codex Alexandrius is a very interesting manuscript in that in the Gospels, it’s a Byzantine text largely, which means it agrees with the majority of manuscripts most of the time. While as, in the rest of the New Testament, it is largely Alexandrian. These are the two most competing textual forms, textual families, text types if you want to call them that, that we have for our New Testament manuscripts. So when you get outside the Gospels, Alexandrius becomes very important manuscript.” – Dan Wallace
Source: YouTube. (Only 1:35 long, starting at about 0:53)
Please notice the casual dismissal of the Byzantine text type by one of the most respected textual critics of our age. I’m honestly not sure why it’s dismissed so easily. Codex Alexandrius is the third oldest (nearly) complete manuscript, dating from the early 400s. Why dismiss the Gospels just because they are a different text type?
We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. In the last ~140 years since the Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text, we’ve discovered Papyri from the 300s, 200s, and even a few from the 100s. Despite this, the Critical Text of the New Testament remains virtually unchanged from ~140 years ago. Because they prefer the Alexandrian text types.
The following is regarding the Alexandrian text type manuscripts.
However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts were already corrupt by the third century. Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:
“…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.”
( From Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152). (Bruce Metzger was one of the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament that is the basis for modern translations.)
Origen is of course speaking of the manuscripts of his location, Alexandria, Egypt. By an Alexandrian Church father’s own admission, manuscripts in Alexandria by 200 AD were already corrupt. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, “Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted — within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse.
There’s an argument to be made that the Alexandrian Text type was corrupted very early.
So the same argument they use against The Majority Text can be used against the Alexandrian Texts.
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?