Bible Problem

[forgiven61]

That is because it was the only Bible translation that was commissioned to produce by a King. The best term is Traditional text because it is the one that has been most widely used for 500 years. Below is an example of all the modern translations (except NKJV retains the entire Word) that omit Scripture.

yes i am familiar with the history of kjv . i sue kjv bible but what folks fail to realize it was KING JAMES who ordered it wrote.

i also like how the Bible came to print William Tyndale literally gave his life to printing the Bible. most forget while what they feel is the accurate version . there was a time we did not have the Bible and had to depend on man to tell us.

Tyndale was captured and burnt at the stake. they still was worried dug his body up finished of his body by grinding his bones and dumped then in the river. there were others who gave their life also

 

[forgiven61]

There are two passage needed to check to determine if the translation is from the detracted text or the Traditional Text: 2Sam 21:19 omits the phrase "the brother of" rendering a reading that says "Elhanan slew Goliath." the other passage is 1JN 5:7 omits the primary Trinity passage. If these are the translation readings they are from the detracted text and contain hundreds of omitted Scriptures.

i dont know much about this my Bible says David and thats good enough for me.. we talk about other versions being watered down. i have read others online in comparing scripture .that was far more stern than kjv

 

[crossnote]

Perhaps we put to much emphasis on the original copies. It’s only natural that the originals are no longer with us and would wear out. But there were numerous faithful copies within the early church that flourished flourished throughout the Roman Empire. View attachment 9450 So what are we to evaluate from those who say that we can never fully know the word of God because we not have the originals. How long before they are saying how can we believe the word of God at all. How long before they are saying anything goes ? The reality is this, that there has always been a faithful stream of scripture that has come down to us from generation to generation. We need only to look upon the church fathers many volumes of scripture quotations in those 30 or 40 volumes to account for 95 percent of the bible maybe more. . And that’s without the thousands of papyrus pieces, manuscripts and ancient bibles. So I guess we have a choice . Do we go with the ney sayers who demand the impossible with the original manuscripts and that we can never truly know the word of God without them ? . Or do we go in confidence and faith that the God is able to protect and faithfully preserve his word.

There always have been a faithful stream, but the way the two sides go at it, it leaves one wondering, which stream? MT or CT?

 

[forgiven61]

yes i am familiar with the history of kjv . i sue kjv bible but what folks fail to realize it was KING JAMES who ordered it wrote.

i also like how the Bible came to print William Tyndale literally gave his life to printing the Bible. most forget while what they feel is the accurate version . there was a time we did not have the Bible and had to depend on man to tell us.

Tyndale was captured and burnt at the stake. they still was worried dug his body up finished of his body by grinding his bones and dumped then in the river. there were others who gave their life also

that should say use ==not sue gezzz

 

[netchaplain]

Tyndale was captured and burnt at the stake. they still was worried dug his body up finished of his body by grinding his bones and dumped then in the river. there were others who gave their life also

Yes, they were very crazy and angry men who went through all the trouble to do that.

 

[forgiven61]

Yes, they were very crazy and angry men who went through all the trouble to do that.

crazy possible maybe dedicated most likely

 

[netchaplain]

crazy possible maybe dedicated most likely

They were dedicated to evil, that's certain!

 

[crossnote]

They were dedicated to evil, that's certain!

I take it that you are referring to those who persecuted Tyndale, Huss, etc?

 

[forgiven61]

They were dedicated to evil, that's certain!

i was referring to the ones martyred. you was referring to the ones doing the evil . our wires crossed

 

[bobinfaith]

Perhaps we put to much emphasis on the original copies. It’s only natural that the originals are no longer with us and would wear out. But there were numerous faithful copies within the early church that flourished flourished throughout the Roman Empire. So what are we to evaluate from those who say that we can never fully know the word of God because we not have the originals. How long before they are saying how can we believe the word of God at all. How long before they are saying anything goes ? The reality is this, that there has always been a faithful stream of scripture that has come down to us from generation to generation. We need only to look upon the church fathers many volumes of scripture quotations in those 30 or 40 volumes to account for 95 percent of the bible maybe more. . And that’s without the thousands of papyrus pieces, manuscripts and ancient bibles. So I guess we have a choice . Do we go with the ney sayers who demand the impossible with the original manuscripts and that we can never truly know the word of God without them ? . Or do we go in confidence and faith that the God is able to protect and faithfully preserve his word.

Hello Prim90;

I thought and asked the same questions. It would be nice if someone was there during the originals and this would help minimize the errors.

I still have a few textbooks of 1000 pages plus. I would find typos!! and address it to my professor and we'd laugh about it.

Just like everything else in our lives, we fall short of perfection, including the Bible scholars that put together and published the Bible translations.

Still, God already knows this, sees the heart and efforts of the scholars. He will not allow errors to thwart His plan and purpose and make a way for His Word to reach all of us.

God bless you, sister.

 

[Origen]

There seem to be a great deal of confusion concerning the terms used here.

The majority text is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others.

The majority Text is not the same as the textus receptus. They are not identical. The two differ from each other ca. 1900 places.

Here is a partial list of some of the places they differ. This list is far from complete.

Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus

King James Onlyists often defend their position by claiming that the KJV is based on the vast majority of manuscripts, but this is not really the case.

carm.org

The term textus receptus and means received text. The term textus receptus was first used in 1633 edition produced by Bonaventura Elzevir and Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden (note that the KJV was published in 1611). The term caught on and now any edition is referred to as the textus receptus. However, no two edtions of the textus receptus is exaclly alike.

There have been many edtions of the textus receptus, and they all have differences between them.
Erasmus 5 edtions: (1516 1st, 1519 2nd, 1522 3rd, 1527 4th, 1535 5th)
Robert Estienne = Stephens 4 edtions: (1546 1st, 1549 2nd, 1550 3rd, 1551 4th)
Theodore Beza 3 editions (1565 1st, 1582 2nd, 3rd 1588, 1598 4th)
Isaac Elzevir (1624 1st ed, 1633 2nd ed) see Bonaventura Elzevir and Abraham Elzevir above

Also note the above list is by no means exhaustive.

The KJV did not used Greek manuscripts. They used printed edtions of the Greek text. Primarily they used Erasmus editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Robert Estienne 1550, and Beza 1598. However, these are not the only edtions they consulted.

Erasmus used only 7 manuscripts for his edtion. They are:

And lastly when discussing the Hebrew old testament scholars also used the abbreviation MT. This does not mean majority text. In the case of the Hebrew text it mean Masoretic Text.

 

[bobinfaith]

There seem to be a great deal of confusion concerning the terms used here.

It is majority text is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others.

The majority Text is not the same as the textus receptus. They are are not identical. The two differ from each other ca. 1900 places.

Here is a partial list of some of the places they differ. This list is far from complete.

Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus

King James Onlyists often defend their position by claiming that the KJV is based on the vast majority of manuscripts, but this is not really the case.

carm.org

The term textus receptus and means received text. The term textus receptus was first used in 1633 edition produced by Bonaventura Elzevir and Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden (note that the KJV was published in 1611). The term caught on and now any edition is referred to as the textus receptus. However, no two edtions of the textus receptus is exaclly alike.

There have been many edtions of the textus receptus, and they all have differences between them.
Erasmus 5 edtions: (1516 1st, 1519 2nd, 1522 3rd, 1527 4th, 1535 5th)
Robert Estienne = Stephens 4 edtions: (1546 1st, 1549 2nd, 1550 3rd, 1551 4th)
Theodore Beza 3 editions (1565 1st, 1582 2nd, 3rd 1588, 1598 4th)
Isaac Elzevir (1624 1st ed, 1633 2nd ed) see Bonaventura Elzevir and Abraham Elzevir above

Also note the above list is by no means exhaustive.

The KJV did not used Greek manuscripts. They used printed edtions of the Greek text. Primarily they used Erasmus editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Robert Estienne 1550, and Beza 1598. However, these are not the only edtions they consulted.

Erasmus used only 7 manuscripts for his edtion. They are:
View attachment 9453
And lastly when discussing the Hebrew old testament scholars also used the abbreviation MT. This does not mean majority text. In the case of the Hebrew text it mean Masoretic Text.

Hello Origen;

Thank you for blessing us with good information.

My personal kind of exclamation reaction, "Who thought this stuff up back in the early centuries?" It's amazing the ones who were dedicated and took on the research of the manuscripts. As you pointed out, for example, "The majority Text is not the same as the textus receptus. They are not identical. The two differ from each other ca. 1900 places."

Even back then, the scholars had differences in the manuscripts between the textus receptus, the "Alexandrian texts" and more.

What you shared brings the KJV and other translation texts to where we are today. What comes to mind is a renowned preacher by the name of Alistair Begg, Senior Pastor from Parkside Church in Cleveland, OH. I could hear him incorporating some of the texts as you shared in his sermons.

God bless you, Origen, and thank you for sharing.

 

[Origen]

Hello Origen;

Thank you for blessing us with good information.

My personal kind of exclamation reaction, "Who thought this stuff up back in the early centuries?" It's amazing the ones who were dedicated and took on the research of the manuscripts. As you pointed out, for example, "The majority Text is not the same as the textus receptus. They are not identical. The two differ from each other ca. 1900 places."

Even back then, the scholars had differences in the manuscripts between the textus receptus, the "Alexandrian texts" and more.

What you shared brings the KJV and other translation texts to where we are today. What comes to mind is a renowned preacher by the name of Alistair Begg, Senior Pastor from Parkside Church in Cleveland, OH. I could hear him incorporating some of the texts as you shared in his sermons.

God bless you, Origen, and thank you for sharing.

The majority of manuscripts (especially those of significance size) have mistakes\errors,.

In post 7 of the thread below I point out one example from P77. The scribe left out the word και (i.e. and) from the body of the text. He corrected his mistake my writing the word in between the lines.

New Testament Manuscripts

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)...

christianforumsite.com

I also give an example from a Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah in post 10.

The truth is some scribes were very good at their job while others were not. People make mistakes when copying documents, and the longer the document the more likely the changes of a scribe more than one mistake.

 

[netchaplain]

I take it that you are referring to those who persecuted Tyndale, Huss, etc?

Yes, and there were many others with them in all they did to him!

 

[netchaplain]

The KJV did not used Greek manuscripts. They used printed edtions of the Greek text. Primarily they used Erasmus editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Robert Estienne 1550, and Beza 1598. However, these are not the only edtions they consulted.

Erasmus used only 7 manuscripts for his edtion.

The printed editions were the exact same Greek manuscripts as the manuscripts used; and just Erasmus alone outweighs the evidence of the Minority Text, because it retains the entire Word. The Majority Text has 3000 plus manuscripts to go by. Stephanus and Beza also are two more witnesses. The detractors of the modern translations primarily have only two manuscripts; the Vaticanus and Sinaiticis (I don't count the Alexandrian because it is worse than the prior two).

It's a shame that I'm not seeing much from anyone saying anything about the omitted Scriptures in the modern texts (examples of a few of hundreds of omissions on post # 66). It appears that numerous detractions of Scriptures aren't that significant to many Christians, and I think it's probably due to the fact that most do not read much in the way of studying the Bible.

 

[netchaplain]

crazy possible maybe dedicated most likely

Murderers for sure!

 

[netchaplain]

Shortly after, I found a decent article touching on the problem of not having the originals...

Although it is dealing with innerrancy, the principles are similar

Common Objections to Inerrancy

Many objections have been leveled against the doctrine of inerrancy; common objections to inerrancy are addressed here.

defendinginerrancy.com

The Objection That Inerrancy Is Based on Non-Existent Originals​

Some object to inerrancy because it affirms that only the original text is inerrant (there being admitted errors in the copies), and the originals are not extant. Hence, all the doctrine of inerrancy provides is a non-existent authority; supposedly, this isn’t any different than having no Bible at all.

This allegation is unfounded. First of all, it is not true that we do not possess the original text. We do possess it in well-preserved copies; it is the original manuscripts we do not have. We do have an accurate copy of the original text represented in these manuscripts (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapter 11); the nearly 5,800 New Testament manuscripts we possess contain all or nearly all of the original text, and we can reconstruct the original text with over 99 percent accuracy.

Also, there is a difference between the text and the truth of the text. While the exact text of the original can only be reconstructed with 99 percent or so accuracy, nevertheless, 100 percent of the truth comes through. For example, recall that if you received notification that “Y#U HAVE WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS,” you would have no problem understanding 100 percent of the message, even though the text is nearly 4 percent in error (1 letter out of 26).

To illustrate, were the original U.S. Constitution to be destroyed, we would not lose the constitutional authority for our country, even if all we had were copies with flaws in them. The original could be reconstructed with enough certainty to assure the continuance of our constitutional republic. The same is true of the Bible in our hands. Even though it is based on copies, they are accurate copies that convey to us 100 percent of all essential truths in the original.

In brief, the Bible in our hands is the infallible and inerrant Word of God insofar as it has been copied accurately. And it has been copied so accurately as to assure us that nothing in the essential message has been lost (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapters 22 and 26).

The Word of God in the translation is perfect, but not the translation. The need is that the translation retains the entirety of Scripture. Only translations that are derived from the Traditional Text retain the whole Word of God (which none of the modern translations do except the NKJV and others like it.

 

[forgiven61]

The Word of God in the translation is perfect, but not the translation. The need is that the translation retains the entirety of Scripture

i can agree with that if not careful it can appear as discounting the Bible as to what being read is not authentic

 

[blueskies]

I do not see these problems in the NKJV. It would help if you could provide enough evidence of what you speak.

Wether I could provide “enough evidence” to convince you is indeed a curious thing. However, here are four general examples.

Please don’t interpret this an invitation for debate, I just want to satisfy your curiosity.

1) The NKJV translation was commissioned in 1975. The translators wanted to create a new translation and not an update to the KJV so the name itself is a deception. The NKJV is an altogether new translation of the source material, a fact that is apparent in side-by-side comparisons. So why the deception you should ask right off the get-go.

2) The KJV is a word-for-word translation, while the NKJV is a more of a thought-for-thought translation. I prefer to do my own thinking when it comes to the word of God.

3) An example: Acts 3:26, the NKJV calls Jesus God's "Servant." The KJV correctly calls Him God’s "Son." These are words not the same.

4) Pronouns, the NKJV changed thousands of pronouns to modernize for the stated purpose of clarity but at the expense of correct context. When translators change “ye” to “you,” they are necessarily changing God’s words.
A specific example to illustrate:

John 3:7 NKJV - “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.”

John 3:7, KJV
“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
In old English “Ye” was originally used only for the nominative case (as the subject), and only for the second-person plural.

In modern English, especially “American English”, it is most common to often add another word to the 'you' to show that 'you' here is plural. As in “you guys, you people or you Americans.” Consequently there is a huge difference in the possible interpretation of what Jesus is conveying to Nicodemus. Is he speaking of mankind or only of Nicodemus. There are literally thousands of these pronoun repackaging in the NKJV.

Another example of pronoun changing the meaning:

Exodus 16:28, NKJV
“And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?”

Exodus 16:28, KJV
“And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”

Again, is God speaking to Moses or to all Israel? It seems clearer in the KJV to me.

I hope this answers you question and satisfies your curiosity.

God bless you and whatever version brings you closer to God my friend.

 

[crossnote]

The Word of God in the translation is perfect, but not the translation. The need is that the translation retains the entirety of Scripture. Only translations that are derived from the Traditional Text retain the whole Word of God (which none of the modern translations do except the NKJV and others like it.

I'm sure glad as Christians we have the Holy Spirit who is the Author of Scripture to help navigate us through muddy waters by His clear Providence.