Bible Problem

[St. SteVen]

The sole reason why these oldest manuscripts are so popular is because of their antiquity

Seriously?
Their "antiquity" means that they are CLOSEST to the originals.

Biblical translation accuracy:
1) The oldest manuscripts
2) The most manuscripts (among the oldest)
3) The most agreement (among the oldest)

 

[Netchaplain]

If not enough manuscripts include something, then why include it?

Even 1 manuscript would be enough, but there are always at least a few. The modern translations use only 2 manuscript copies, because they are the oldest. The Traditional translation uses 3000 plus manuscript copies.

 

[Netchaplain]

John 3:13 NIV
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[a]
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

1. John 3:13 Some manuscripts Man, who is in heaven

Ephesians 3:9 NIV
and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
Read full chapter

John 5:3-5 NIV
Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. [4] [a] 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.
Read full chapter

​

You presented what the modern translations have, but not what the Traditional translation have, which are the missing Scriptures.

 

[RLT63]

Seriously?
Their "antiquity" means that they are CLOSEST to the originals.

Biblical translation accuracy:
1) The oldest manuscripts
2) The most manuscripts (among the oldest)
3) The most agreement (among the oldest)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1Jo 5:7
Entirely omitted, with the footnote "not found in any Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century." As I said, the age of a manuscript is irrelevant because it is a manuscript. This was enough for the KJ translators to include it.

Sorry but you need evidence to support it not being found for 14 centuries of writing to say it is part of the original.

The mantra date doesn't matter is generally not true.

 

[St. SteVen]

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

Thanks. I'll check it out.
Did you reply to the OP?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Act 8:37
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." [entirely omitted].

28 of 32 English translations have this verse in it.

Jhn 5:4 Entirely omitted.

31 of 34 English bibles have this verse.

Jhn 3:13 Partially omitted "even the Son of man which is in heaven." The omission detracts a significant truth, that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent in heaven while on earth.

38/38 English bibles includes the whole passage.

Eph 3:9 "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." This reiteration of the Lord Jesus' creative power is a significant detraction of Scripture.

Half the bibles have this insertion. Only the textus receptus has the insertion. All other available manuscripts do not. I need to study this more.

Jhn 5:3 Partially omit "waiting for the moving of the water."

31/45 English bibles have this insertion.

I know there are many conspiracies out there to discredit the wqord of God. I lived through the jesus Seminar Days and their heretical pronouncements.

This however is more a tempest in a teapot.

I am a big fan of the KJV and the Textus REceptus, but they are not infallible.

 

[RLT63]

Thanks. I'll check it out.
Did you reply to the OP?

I like the NKJV and I like the NET Bible for the notes

 

[Netchaplain]

Sorry but you need evidence to support it not being found for 14 centuries of writing to say it is part of the original.

The mantra date doesn't matter is generally not true.

I think we're too far apart from any use of continuing on this subject.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Most modern translations are based on the best source documents that have been discovered to date, along with other documents of the time that clarify the ancient languages. The art/science of textual criticism has likewise advanced, insuring that the basis for the translations are as accurate as possible. And of course, the purpose of any translation is to give the reader the clearest understanding of what the authors (and copyists) intended the meaning to be, insuring that we understand the text in a similar fashion to the original hearers. And also very important, the English language is constantly changing, so words and phrases are understood differently than they were previously. Some consider this as stating gender incorrectly. adelphoi used to be translated in the masculine, whereas modern translations render the word as "men and women". Similar as saying to a group of men and women, "where do you guys want to go now?". Now it means males only; it is clearer to say "where do you all want to go", meaning both genders.

Of course, some people claim that as caving in to gender inclusiveness, but that doesn't mean they are correct. I rely on the committees of scholars to give us the best, most accurate translations in the clearest possible language. They have done an excellent job!

Hi Jim. I was just hearing something about the translations and it is just the opposite. The modern translations are based on Alexandrian texts translated by agnostics and spiritualists, Westcott and Hort, who were also fans of Darwin. Their translation has many errors and deletions, whereas KJV and NKJV is based on Textus Receptus and has more text. Personally, I don't want my Bible missing anything.

 

[Netchaplain]

28 of 32 English translations have this verse in it.

31 of 34 English bibles have this verse.

38/38 English bibles includes the whole passage.

The majority of modern translations omit the same passages, only a few retain some of them but still omit much; but all omit entire passage of 1Jn 5:7--the primary Trinity Scripture.


I am a big fan of the KJV and the Textus REceptus, but they are not infallible. (No translation is infallible, for it's the Word in the translation that is infallible, if it's all there)

 

[Netchaplain]

Sorry but you need evidence to support it not being found for 14 centuries of writing to say it is part of the original.

The mantra date doesn't matter is generally not true.

The Vaticanus and Sinaitcus both fell into disuse from 381AD to 1881AD due to being to inconsistent with most of extant manuscripts, and so were never use by anyone for copying purposes for 1500 years, until they recently found them.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The majority of modern translations omit the same passages, only a few retain some of them but still omit much; but all omit entire passage of 1Jn 5:7--the primary Trinity Scripture.


I am a big fan of the KJV and the Textus REceptus, but they are not infallible. (No translation is infallible, for it's the Word in the translation that is infallible, it it's all there)

I prefer Textus Receptus also and use the NKJV Open Bible as my main Bible, but I do like to compare translations and pull up a text with biblegateway.com and just put in one verse then compare that verse with all the other Bible versions in their data bank. A whole list appears! It's great.

Just because the Alexandrian texts don't have the the missing words in 1 John 5:7 and Romans 8:1, doesn't mean they were ADDED later, but SUBTRACTED due to unbelief in those doctrines on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Netchaplain]

I prefer Textus Receptus also and use the NKJV Open Bible as my main Bible, but I do like to compare translations and pull up a text with biblegateway.com and just put in one verse then compare that verse with all the other Bible versions in their data bank. A whole list appears! It's great.

Just because the Alexandrian texts don't have the the missing words in 1 John 5:7 and Romans 8:1, doesn't mean they were ADDED later, but SUBTRACTED due to unbelief in those doctrines on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the modern translations (except NKJV) have detracted a great deal from the Traditional Text, and have not added what the majority of existing manuscripts contain.

The two Cambridge professors Wescott and Hort were the primary scholars who produced what Nestle, Aland and the United bible Society used for the modern translations; and Wescott and Hort were occultists:

XI. Were Westcott and Hort Secret Practitioners of the Occults?​

In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement

This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is important.

Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and super- natural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsvchologv, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.

This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of It's History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.

Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew..

Westcott's son refers to his father's life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson's son re- ferred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered un- seemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescott's son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.

Bible translator J. B. Phillips also believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis visited him after his death. According to Arthur Wescott, Bishop Wescott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Wescott's daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Either Dr. Wescott's children lied about him or Dr. Wescott was used to meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Wescott and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to 12 members. One of the other members was Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several professors at Trinity College into secretly practicing the occult. Wescott, his close friend, was also a professor at Trinity College. Strange company for a Christian teacher and Bible translator.

In 1872 Wescott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of England), Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford. Both Trench and Alford would be involved in Bible revision work. Balfour became famous for his seances and practice of spiritualism. The Eranus Club would eventually become known as an occult secret society.

Wescott's defenders point out that Wescott also eventually dropped out of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period of time.

Balfour and Sidgwick were involved in several occult organizations, socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in the practice of the occult?

Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the League of Nations and in forming a secret society with Cecil Rhodes (the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations).

The evidence for Mrs. Riplinger's assertions is strong. Would Westcott and Hort's defenders accept anyone today who had such connections? They were clearly in contact with people who were "familiar" with spirits. There is every reason to suspect that they might also have been in contact with spirits. Based upon their associations, there is no clear reason to reject the suggestion that they were involved in the occult. The balance of evidence creates, at the very least, a strong suspicion of occult influence on both Wescott and Hort (especially Dr. Wescott).
"The Dean Burgon Society"

deanburgonsociety.org

 

[RLT63]

Yes, the modern translations (except NKJV) have detracted a great deal from the Traditional Text, and have not added what the majority of existing manuscripts contain.

The two Cambridge professors Wescott and Hort were the primary scholars who produced what Nestle, Aland and the United bible Society used for the modern translations; and Wescott and Hort were occultists:

XI. Were Westcott and Hort Secret Practitioners of the Occults?​

In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement

This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is important.

Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and super- natural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsvchologv, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.

This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of It's History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.

Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew..

Westcott's son refers to his father's life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson's son re- ferred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered un- seemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescott's son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.

Bible translator J. B. Phillips also believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis visited him after his death. According to Arthur Wescott, Bishop Wescott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Wescott's daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Either Dr. Wescott's children lied about him or Dr. Wescott was used to meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Wescott and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to 12 members. One of the other members was Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several professors at Trinity College into secretly practicing the occult. Wescott, his close friend, was also a professor at Trinity College. Strange company for a Christian teacher and Bible translator.

In 1872 Wescott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of England), Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford. Both Trench and Alford would be involved in Bible revision work. Balfour became famous for his seances and practice of spiritualism. The Eranus Club would eventually become known as an occult secret society.

Wescott's defenders point out that Wescott also eventually dropped out of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period of time.

Balfour and Sidgwick were involved in several occult organizations, socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in the practice of the occult?

Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the League of Nations and in forming a secret society with Cecil Rhodes (the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations).

The evidence for Mrs. Riplinger's assertions is strong. Would Westcott and Hort's defenders accept anyone today who had such connections? They were clearly in contact with people who were "familiar" with spirits. There is every reason to suspect that they might also have been in contact with spirits. Based upon their associations, there is no clear reason to reject the suggestion that they were involved in the occult. The balance of evidence creates, at the very least, a strong suspicion of occult influence on both Wescott and Hort (especially Dr. Wescott).
"The Dean Burgon Society"

deanburgonsociety.org

What's missing from your Bible?

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...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Netchaplain]

I like the NKJV and I like the NET Bible for the notes

Hi, and just wanted to let you know, and not to pick on the NET, but the NET also omits scripture like all the other modern translations do, verses like 1Jn 5:7, the verse is entirely omitted, along with hundreds of other Scriptures.

 

[RLT63]

Hi, and just wanted to let you know, and not to pick on the NET, but the NET also omits scripture like all the other modern translations do, verses like 1Jn 5:7, the verse is entirely omitted, along with hundreds of other Scriptures.

Yes but the full notes version tells you what was omitted and explains the reasoning behind it. I like it for the notes, it’s not the best version. The NKJV is my favorite.

 

[Netchaplain]

Yes but the full notes version tells you what was omitted and explains the reasoning behind it. I like it for the notes, it’s not the best version. The NKJV is my favorite.

I know your concern, but the notes only say "some manuscripts say," meaning that some manuscripts are not enough to retain a reading. One manuscript is a manuscript, but it's never one but "a few," which is enough. If the detractors went by too little manuscript evidence, then they have the least because they primarily only use two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus manuscripts (I don't count the Alexandrinus because it's worse than the other two). The Majority Text uses 3000 plus manuscripts for the Traditional Text.

 

[RLT63]

I know your concern, but the notes only say "some manuscripts say," meaning that some manuscripts are not enough to retain a reading. One manuscript is a manuscript, but it's never one but "a few," which is enough. If the detractors went by too little manuscript evidence, then they have the least because they primarily only use two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus manuscripts (I don't count the Alexandrinus because it's worse than the other two). The Majority Text uses 3000 plus manuscripts for the Traditional Text.

Yes their claim is that the omitted verses are not in the oldest ( Alexandrian) manuscripts and they were added later to the Majority (Byzantine) manuscripts. But just because something is older doesn’t necessarily make it better and the material could just ss easily been removed from the oldest manuscripts

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Yes their claim is that the omitted verses are not in the oldest ( Alexandrian) manuscripts and they were added later to the Majority (Byzantine) manuscripts. But just because something is older doesn’t necessarily make it better and the material could just ss easily been removed from the oldest manuscripts

So when they say "oldest" what century are they talking about?