True, but the wish is towards all people, and a few from all people will display the wish of peace and good will. If it's not all people it's limited. The change of thought presented in the modern translation shouldn't be there, making it a paraphrase, because the words are not original.
List of Totally and Partially Omitted Passages in the Modern Translations
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
First, it is translation not a paraphrase. That reading is found in Greek texts.
Second, you have no evidence it is not original. Your claims are based on the ad populum fallacy. The truth of a matter is not decided by counting noses. If that were the case then Christianity is false, since the majority of people on the planet are not Christians.
The N/A and UBS use the "critical edition" of text types (also known as the Alexandrian Text Type) for their translations, which are the same manuscripts used by Wescott and Hort.
"Aland refers to the Critical Text (CT) as "the modern SCHOLARLY text." This is because it is based mainly on the Alexandrian text-type, which he believes to be "of A VERY SPECIAL QUALITY which should always be considered in establishing the original text." And Aland considers this type of text to be the "Standard text" for our day (Aland, pp.viii,31,155).
In contradiction to this view is that of the Majority Text (MT) proponents. J.P. Green, for instance, claims the CT is based on "a handful of CORRUPTED Egyptian manuscripts." And further, he believes these manuscripts were produced by "GNOSTIC HERETICS." Thus, by basing their Greek text on these Alexandrian type texts, the CT scholars are, "RE-INSERTING THESE HERESIES into what they boldly call a 'Holy Bible'" (from press releases for the LITV and MKJV)."
And this is from a site that is a proponent of the Critical text!
But their primary source is the Critical Edition, and is why they contain the same readings. As you know there are only 2 primary manuscript traditions; the Majority Text and the Minority Text. All modern translations (except NKJV and others like it) use the Minority Text, which is the Critical text.Second, they discuss\examine more than two sources. Pages xii-lii covers manuscripts, early version, patristic sources, and they even note printed editions.
The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
cii p., 1 l., [1], 3-539, 3-539, [1] p. 22 cmarchive.org
I believe it is in comparison to the true manuscripts, but I do realize technically it's a translation.
The majority of manuscripts is not the same meaning as the majority of people. The primary reason why so many are deceived by the critical edition is due to the age of these corrupted manuscripts; and it's the age of these documents that separates itself into its own category; which manuscripts were abandoned (for 1500 years) to nonuse because they are too different from most manuscripts, and so were always rejected by the early scribes.
There are at least five difference text type categories. And if you were to do some research on the list I provide in post 25 you would know your claim is false. Modern critical texts are eclectic.
Opinions are not concrete verifiable evidence.
Opinions are not concrete verifiable evidence. Cite the early primary sources.
That depends on which scholar you ask. There are at least five difference text type categories.
Erasmus had only a handful of Greek manuscripts and the reason why some of the manuscripts were different from the MT is because he found them pertinent enough to use them (as additions and not reiterations of a corrupt text). He did not use any of the CT, but instead rejected them.
"Critics often assert that ‘Erasmus did not have the manuscripts we have today.’ In fact, he had access to every reading currently extant, and rejected those matching the Catholic Vulgate (and the TNIV, NIV ESV, HCSB, and NASB today). Because Westcott and Hort followed Vaticanus as their primary manuscript, the majority of readings were also available to Erasmus and most reformers."
"Erasmus and Codex Vaticanus: "The problems presented by these two manuscripts [the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus] were well known, not only to the translators of the King James, but also to Erasmus. We are told that the Old Testament portion of the Vaticanus has been printed since 1587.
The third great edition is that commonly known as the `Sixtine,' published at Rome in 1587 under Pope Sixtus V ... Substantially, the `Sixtine' edition gives the text of B ... The `Sixtine' served as the basis for most of the ordinary editions of the LXX for just three centuries" (Ottley, Handbooks of the Septuagint, p. 64)."We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible, p. 84)."There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).
"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138)."`Since the famous manuscripts of Rome, Alexandria, Cambridge, Paris, and Dublin were examined ... a verdict has been obtained in favor of the Vulgate. At the Reformation, the Greek Text, as it then stood, was taken as a standard, in conformity to which the versions of the Reformers were generally made; whilst the Latin Vulgate was depreciated, or despised, as a mere version'" (H. Cotton, quoted in Rheims and Douay, p. 155).
Desiderius Erasmus - Textus Receptus
The variants between the MT and the TR are miniscule compared to the variants of the CT and the MT.
The phrase "true manuscript" reflects a bias opinion not facts.
Sorry, but it is very much the same. Your claim is others ought to believe these manuscripts because there are more of them. That is classic ad populum fallacy.
You have provide zero evidence for your claim.
However, here is manuscript evidence proving your claim wrong.
0243 - date 10th century
Uncial 0243 - Wikipedia
81 - date 11th century
Minuscule 81 - Wikipedia
323 - date 12th century
Minuscule 323 - Wikipedia
579 - date 13th century
Minuscule 579 - Wikipedia
1076 - date 14th century
322 - 15th century
Minuscule 322 - Wikipedia
I have provide manuscript evidence examples from 10th through to the 15th century. And these are not the only examples. Thus your claim that these "manuscripts were abandoned for 1500 years" is blatantly false.
Rather than simply believing what you read you ought to do your own research.
First, your claim is false. We know which manuscripts he used and why from his annotations. I provide that list here.
Bible Problem
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...
christianforumsite.com
Second, no one knew how many manuscripts there were at the time, not Erasmus not anyone. He used the manuscript that were available to him at the time.
Third, Erasmus had no idea what a text type was. Therefore he could not have rejected any manuscript for that reason. And again we know which ones he found and used from his annotations. There is zero evidence he search and search for manuscripts.
Last edited:
True, meaning no Gnostic influence!
I believe I have shown you enough information to know the truth of this issue. I think we should discontinue our discussion and move on to spiritual growth issues. So don't feel I'm ignoring you if you continue this subject.
So you don't consider Acts 8:37 (a verse missing from the Majority Text) or Matthew 27:35b (the last half of the verse missing from the Majority Text) a problem? You find it minuscule. Interesting!!!
Acts 8:37, Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” He answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”, is missing from the Majority Text.
Matthew 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: ‘They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots;’”
No evidence. Cite early primary sources.
No evidence cited, only personal opinion.
Not at all. And please don't be too upset when I provide verifiable concrete evidence in rebuttal.
Last edited:
Not saying your evidence is not good, but that I don't understand how to use your evidence. Sorry! God bless!!
People using the wrong translation doesn't put me in an uproar, just trying to share what I believe is truth! God bless!
The CT omits the entire verse (Acts 8:37), and half of the Mat 27:35. The KJV retains all of both.
Since none of us are well-studied in the Biblical languages (esp. Greek) (except perhaps Origin), this whole matter comes down to personal preference, especially when we see the CT leaving out and adding words as well as the MT.
Which set is closest to the 'originals'? I don't know, but I just don't think there is some type of conspiracy at play.
Which set is closest to the 'originals'? I don't know, but I just don't think there is some type of conspiracy at play.
I would go with the text that contains the most manuscripts, and that are mostly void of errors (Majority Text). There are far too many omissions, interpolations and transpositions in the Minority Text. These are primarily the only two sources of manuscript copies. God has preserved His Word only in one or the other!
Like I said, personal preference.
Got it.
The Majority Text also omits it. That means the majority of manuscripts do not have verse Acts 8:37 and half of Mat 27:35. The KJV follows the textus receptus, NOT the Majority Text.
You said in post 49:
Are these omissions from the MT minuscule?
If these example are minuscule (as you claim) why? Objective reasons please, no opinions.
Since the majority of manuscripts omit these examples (and many others as well), and given the fact you have claimed the majority reading is the one to be accepted, why don't you following reject the majority reading?