Sorry to inform you but that is not correct. Some manuscripts do have it but the majority do not. That it why it is not part of the majority text. Can you provide any objective evidence?
When you read the KJV or NKJV you are reading from the Majority Text. The thousands of manuscript copies (3000 plus) contain the entire Bible in at least triplicate.
Sorry to inform you but that is not correct. Some manuscripts do have it but the majority do not. That it why it is not part of the majority text. Can you provide any objective evidence?
i am sorry to crash the party but what good is this doing i dont read greek or hebrew . my Bible has been getting me by for close to 30 years. once again if not careful this post could very well say the Bible is written by man and full of errors .
is this wrong to
2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version
NIV says God breathed
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
i am sorry to crash the party but what good is this doing i dont read greek or hebrew . my Bible has been getting me by for close to 30 years. once again if not careful this post could very well say the Bible is written by man and full of errors .
is this wrong to
2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version
NIV says God breathed
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Yes that’s right. That is what the NIV SAYS FOR NOW But like many of the new translations the word of God is never settled for them. And who knows what the next edition shall add, change or delete. Perhaps the Bibles of the future shall one day read ( all scripture is inspiring minus the words ( inspired by God ). What’s to stop them ? Let’s face the reality. Our bible seminaries are now full of scholars who no longer believe in the word of God. Others have darker ulterior motives whose intentions are high and that is to render the bible useless as the final authority or to be more accommodating to a one world universal religion. It something to think about the Church was fooled by the Sinaiticus what other deceptions lay in wait ( from the city of forgers) A ancient proverb for those who have spiritual eyes.
Yes that’s right. That is what the NIV SAYS FOR NOW But like many of the new translations the word of God is never settled for them. And who knows what the next edition shall add, change or delete. Perhaps the Bibles of the future shall one day read ( all scripture is inspiring minus the words ( inspired by God ). View attachment 9467 What’s to stop them ? Let’s face the reality. Our bible seminaries are now full of scholars who no longer believe in the word of God. Others have darker ulterior motives whose intentions are high and that is to render the bible useless as the final authority or to be more accommodating to a one world universal religion. It something to think about the Church was fooled by the Sinaiticus what other deceptions lay in wait ( from the city of forgers) A ancient proverb for those who have spiritual eyes.
Whatever the minority text has or does not has nothing to do with the majority text. Either something is part of the majority text or it is not. The ONLY way to know is to check the majority text as I did with Matthew 10:8. The phrase "raise the dead" is not in the majority text. And that is not the only example.
This is not correct. Both the KJV and the NKJV followed the textus receptus not the majority text, and again they are not identical. If anyone cares to read the preface to the NKJV, it clearly states that translation used the textus receptus.
In regard to the textus receptus the NKJV Preface states:
"The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text."
In regard to the majority text the NKJV Preface states:
"The Majority Textis similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition."
I feel that I must point out that the textus receptus and majority text are not the same with another example. Note there is no verse 37 in the majority text.
Verse 37 is not part of the majority text.
The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text Second Edition
archive.org
Then I checked the Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Byzantine Textform, and again verse 37 is not there.
Keep in mind the above is the Byzantine text form.
Second Edition (2005, 2018) The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005). ISBN-10: 0-7598-0077-4 | ISBN-13: 978-0-7598-0077-9. This work has been released into the public...
byzantinetext.com
Then I checked Wilbur N. Pickering's apparatus note for more information (p. 272).
Pickering points out that 88% of manuscripts DO NOT HAVE verse 37. Only 0.6% have the same reading as found in the TR.
This claim that the majority text and the textus receptus are the same is demonstrably false.
The modern translations primarily only use three manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaitcus, Alexandrinus – but the latter codex is worse than the prior two and so they did not use much of it at all - this is the Minority Text). The manuscripts for the Traditional Translations use thousands of manuscripts:
"4,489 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Of these, 170 are papyrus fragments, dating from the 2nd-7th centuries; 212 are uncial (capital letter) manuscripts, dating from the 4th-10th centuries; 2429 are minuscule (small letter) manuscripts dating from the 9th-16th centuries; and 1678 are lectionaries (lesson books for public reading containing extracts from the New Testament). -David Otis Fuller, D.D., "Counterfeit Or Genuine", pg. 18, 2nd paragraph.
This will probably be my last reply Brother, because we are too far apart in our opinions to continue debating this issue. Appreciate your replies though!
The modern translations primarily only use three manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaitcus, Alexandrinus – but the latter codex is worse than the prior two and so they did not use much of it at all - this is the Minority Text).
"4,489 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Of these, 170 are papyrus fragments, dating from the 2nd-7th centuries; 212 are uncial (capital letter) manuscripts, dating from the 4th-10th centuries; 2429 are minuscule (small letter) manuscripts dating from the 9th-16th centuries; and 1678 are lectionaries (lesson books for public reading containing extracts from the New Testament). -David Otis Fuller, D.D., "Counterfeit Or Genuine", pg. 18, 2nd paragraph.
The Majority Text is the most reliable source of manuscripts, and regardless of the differences, it is the most numerous manuscript source by far of any other source of manuscripts; it has near identical agreement with the Textus Receptus; Authorizsed Version, Byzantine Text; Traditional Text (named by Dean Burgon).
It is close. However it is missing significant material. Another is example Matthew 27:35. The following is missing from the majority text:
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."
ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν υπο του προφητου διεμερισαντο τα ιματια μου εαυτοις και επι τον ιματισμον μου εβαλον κληρον
Everyone can see the large majority text symbol M. That section is missing from the majority text.
After the vs abbreviation there is a plus sign (i.e. +). This tell the reader the phrase "ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν υπο του προφητου διεμερισαντο τα ιματια μου εαυτοις και επι τον ιματισμον μου εβαλον κληρον" is found in the TR but not the mamjority text.
The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text Second Edition
archive.org
Then I checked Wilbur N. Pickering's apparatus note for more information (p. 59).
The abbreviation rell refers to all other manuscripts (Latin reliqui "the rest"). Pickering points out that only 5% of manuscripts have the TR reading.
The differences is the above translations are so minimal that it is as I mentioned, they are nearly identical, as none of them detract from the Word of God, as is the common production of the Minority Text.
"The worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected originated within 100 years after it was composed: that Irenaeus and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts than those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, 13 centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus." -"Counterfeit or Genuine," David Otis Fuller, D.D., pg. 75, paragraph 4.
The differences is the above translations are so minimal that it is as I mentioned, they are nearly identical, as none of them detract from the Word of God, as is the common production of the Minority Text.
"The worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected originated within 100 years after it was composed: that Irenaeus and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts than those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, 13 centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus." -"Counterfeit or Genuine," David Otis Fuller, D.D., pg. 75, paragraph 4.
Do you have any primary source material yourself? You keep using somewhat dated (half-century old) secondary sources as your authority. Do you lack the requisite skills needed for primary sourcing so that you must rely on fringe secondary sources to address the textual issues?
The differences is the above translations are so minimal that it is as I mentioned, they are nearly identical, as none of them detract from the Word of God, as is the common production of the Minority Text.
"The worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected originated within 100 years after it was composed: that Irenaeus and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts than those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, 13 centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus." -"Counterfeit or Genuine," David Otis Fuller, D.D., pg. 75, paragraph 4.
I see an opinion and at least one error, but I see no objective verifiable evidence.
Jacobus Lopis Stunica was the leader of the team of editors on the Complutensian Polyglot Bible. No one knows for certain which manuscripts and how many were examined\used. Therefore Fulller's claim concerning Stunica is false, and the rest is just opinion.
Do you have any primary source material yourself? You keep using somewhat dated (half-century old) secondary sources as your authority. Do you lack the requisite skills needed for primary sourcing so that you must rely on fringe secondary sources to address the textual issues?
I like using the best knowledge and information, and it appears the farther I go back to seek good and truthful material, the better the source. It's the modern Christians that think they know the truth. Many are well educated but are quite ignorant of much truth on this issue. Many are unaware that Gnostic scholars were used to produce the Minority source of manuscripts, which answers to the many transpositions and interpolations of Scripture in attempting to defame the Lord Jesus' Deity.
It's my belief that this issue will go unnoticed with most, but that's not a big issue either, for many if not most do not read much of the Word, which answers to the reason why most show a lack of true interest with this very serious problem.
Many are unaware that Gnostic scholars were used to produce the Minority source of manuscripts, which answers to the many transpositions and interpolations of Scripture in attempting to defame the Lord Jesus' Deity.
I am aware of that charge, but still have yet seen it proven. I think a more fruitful approach is to show how the majority text was quoted by the early Church Fathers and to use the Providence/preservation angle.
