maybe due to the truth that only the Originals themselves were inspired and inerrant?
Condensed Compilation
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
That does not address the my questions.
“Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good.” (Proverbs 20:23)
In the case of 1 John 5:7 are the Majority\Byzantine manuscripts wrong?
Numerous times and in numerous post you have told everyone that the Majority\Byzantine text is the correct text. However, in this case you reject the Majority\Byzantine text. Why all of a sudden is it now wrong?
Hi and appreciate your reply! "Erasmus used a Greek manuscript known as the Codex Montfortianus to include the Johannine Comma in his 1522 edition of the New Testament." -Wikipedia/confessionalbibliology.com
Hello Origen;
Sticking to the manuscripts specifically stated in this topic, what is your study of what is agreeably correct and what you don't agree with?
Please outline it. You're good at that.
God bless you, brother.
Bob
Hello netchaplain;
The manuscripts and the Bible are two specific teachings. That's the best way I can explain, brother.
God bless you, Bob and your entire family.
Bob
I don't have a problem with any manuscript. Nor do I have a problem with someone using the Majority Text, Byzantine Text, Textus Receptus, or the Critical Text. I believe they are all the word of God.
My issues is with netchaplain inconsistencies and double standards. “Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good” (Proverbs 20:23).
He claims we should follow the Majority text. When it is pointed out to him that 1 John 5:7 is missing in the Majority text, he changes his mind and is no longer willing to accept the Majority text. He is upset when Modern versions leave out the above passage, but he will not acknowledge the same thing with the Majority text because he knows it completely undermines his view on the Majority text.
Hi Brother! If I got you right, the Bible is the translation of the manuscript.
God's blessings to your Family!
The MT and the Byzantine manuscripts are not wrong concerning the CJ verse.. If I can ask you a question, are you judging by age or support? Thanks!
That is not possible given your claims. You have set up a logical contradiction.
You criticize modern versions because they lack Johannine Comma. Following your line of thought, if it is wrong when they leave it out, then it is equally wrong when the Majority text does. “Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good” (Proverbs 20:23).
You have been misinformed. Textual critics just don't slavishly and blindly follow either age or support alone nor should they. I think both can be helpful. I weight the totality of the evidence, not just manuscripts but also citation in the church fathers and early translations of the NT.
As I said above I have no problem with someone using the Majority Text, Byzantine Text, Textus Receptus, or the Critical Text. I believe they are all the word of God. If you want to follow the Majority text, have at it. God bless you. But when you are clearly shown a passage is missing (and you know this for a fact), and then you abandon your claim one ought to follow the Majority text reading for a minority reading, you are using unequal and false weights and scales. You have refuted your own claims concerning the Majority text.
Last edited:
You need not make false accusations, it can detract from your credibility!
The CJ is the least of my interest at present, considering how great of a travesty the modern translators have produced. They are like children after a different kind of candy; or different Gospel!
This comment has been overstated and repetitive for me to answer you, because I have a few times answered you concerning the CJ. You should be concerned of how degrading the Alexandrian Text to God's Word. I don't accuse you anything here, but want to admonish you to truth!
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, being the primaries of the Alex.Text, need only be judged by one of two factors; age or support. This includes all extant manuscripts of every kind
It's my opinion that many believers have so minimal of Word knowledge that the modern translations are getting by them by the hundreds of thousands. They don't realize the seriousness of this situation. Thankfully what one chooses to read cannot effect one's salvation--but it will effect one's strength of faith and spiritual growth. This problematic issue manifests that not many read Scripture anyway, or they would easily see the difference!
I haven't.
Have you or have you not criticize modern versions because they lack the Johannine Comma?
Have you or have you not claimed we ought to follow the Majority text?
If it is indeed wrong, as you have said, for modern versions to leave it out, then it follows that is also wrong for the Majority to leave it out?
Therefore it logical follows, your claim we ought to follow the Majority text is false because haven't followed the Majority. You have refuted your own claims concerning the Majority text.
“Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good” (Proverbs 20:23).
Oh, I see. Now you want to change the topic. That find by me and I can understand why you would.
Let's examine Rev. 22:19.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (KJV)
"and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (NKJV)
How many Byzantine manuscripts have the reading "book of life"?
That is merely your opinion and certainly not the view of qualified New Testament textual scholars.
"There are many thousands of Byzantine manuscripts containing the text of the New Testament, but an exact number of those featuring the reading "book of life" is not readily available, as it would require a detailed textual analysis of the entire extant manuscript tradition. The phrase "book of life" appears in Revelation 20:12 and 21:27 within the Byzantine text-type, which is well-represented in the approximately 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts." -Google AI
"The Byzantine manuscripts largely agree with the Majority Text, as the Majority Text is based on readings found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, which are predominantly Byzantine in nature. This text type is considered to represent the New Testament text used by the Eastern Orthodox Church and is supported by a significant number of surviving manuscripts".
-Wikipedia
I count eight is the KJV. Not to be nosey, but why are you asking this question?
There are not 5800 manuscripts containing the book of Revelation. That is the total count of manuscripts. The vast majority of those don’t contain the book of Revelation.
What does “I count eight is the KJV”?
It is not a problem. We’re testing your claims concerning the Byzantine text.
Right, I got mixed up (71 years old and with a 25 year old quintuplet bypass surgery).
Eight times repetition of "the book of life" in the KJV.
Now that's something I didn't know.
"Some Bible translations, particularly those that focus on specific religious traditions, may exclude the Book of Revelation. For example, certain versions of the New Testament may only include texts accepted by specific denominations, which can lead to the omission of Revelation.
-WikipediaI also wanted to mention that I am grateful for us sharing what we know of Scripture. Thanks for the learning experience and God bless!
As you stated here, one can use with confidence any of the standard Greek NT, and can use them to study and translate the bible with, al all of them indeed would be seen as the very word of God unto us. Those who stick to exclusive use of any single Greek NT or translation would seem to be denying that only the originals themselves were inspired and inerrant, and try to force that into one standard text and translation, same way Muslims would their Koran
Hello YeshuaFan;
I gave your post some thought. I know not one who would assume a disciple studying a single translation in the New Testament "seemingly" denying the originals or hold the position of one standard translation. I would never conceive such a thought.
"The same way Muslims approach the Koran" in this position isn't necessarily correct. There are expanded forms of teachings such as the Sunnah, Hadith and the additional recitations, the Qira'at.
I am blessed to witness and praise God for an individual disciple for their personal growth and knowledge of the Word that enables the Christian be more effective and confident in sharing the Gospel.
I do discuss with those who preach and teach their practice using several translations to aid them in the message.
God bless you, brother.
Bob
No worries.
Let me say a few words about the word "manuscript" in the context of this subject.
First, the number 5800 is an estimate. And that number fluctuates both up and down.
Second, the number 5800 refers to manuscripts that are whole or fragmentary. Check out this thread.
The earliest known manuscript (or manuscript fragment in this case) is P 52. Some have suggested a date as early as ca. 125. However most scholars opt for a mid 2nd century date (ca. 150). Since there is writing on both sides, P 52 was not part of a scroll but a codex.
John 18:31-33 (recto)
ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΕΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ
ΟΥΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ
ΠΕΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ
ΘΝΗΣΚΕΙΝ ΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ
ΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ...
John 18:31-33 (recto)
ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΕΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ
ΟΥΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ
ΠΕΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ
ΘΝΗΣΚΕΙΝ ΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ
ΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ...
P52 is a fragment of the Gospel of John.
P104 is a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew.
P98 is a fragment of Revelation.
P77 is another fragment of Matthew.
All of these are considered manuscripts even though they are fragmentary.
Third, we have more manuscripts for some book than we do for others. For example, I asked about the Book of Revelation. According to Garrick V. Allen, Manuscripts of the Book of Revelation: New Philology, Paratexts, Reception, there are 314 manuscripts containing all or part of the text of Revelation. Some manuscripts contain only the book of Revelation, while others include it among collections.
Fourth, there are ca. 60 complete or near-complete Greek manuscripts of the whole New Testament. However, most New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary or contain only parts of the N.T. text, such as a single book or a collection of some of the books.
Last edited:
Those holding to just a single Greek NT text is correct, or that 1 translation only is correct do indeed view them in same fashion muslims do their Koran
God did wrote only one Bible. He does not need more than One. He often likes keeping it simple. There are a few (5 that I'm familiar with) translations that derive from the Traditional/Majority/Byzantine Texts, and any others not from these Text-types are God's Word. The modern versions (Alexandrian Text type) aren't of the Word of God, they just mix the Word with what they wanted to do with it; and is why there aren't many translations from the Majority/Byzantine Texts.
The esv/nas are just as much the word of God to us in English as the Kjv is