Bible Problem

[RLT63]

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

4th century I think

 

[quietthinker]

Bible Problem​

I've heard it said, 'spare the rod and spoil the child'......and who wants that solution?

 

[St. SteVen]

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.

Currently reading this article provided by @RLT63 -- link below
Author makes the statement that it is better to judge a work on its merits than by the translators personal views.
I think the slam on Westcott and Hort is mostly a KJO apologetic in defense of their translation.
The KJO folks even criticize other translations for REMOVING verses. - LOL
(verses that should not have been there in the first place actually)

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

 

[Netchaplain]

But just because something is older doesn’t necessarily make it better

Hi, and like what you said here. The antiquity of these two manuscripts (Vatcanus/Sinaiticus--I don't count the Alexandrinus because it's shortened more and more corrupt than the other two) is why many are so ignorantly swayed to the corrupt texts. These are the primary manuscripts used for the modern translations; but the Traditional Text uses 3000 plus manuscripts for their translations, and is the only texts that retain the entire Word of God.

 

[RLT63]

Currently reading this article provided by @RLT63 -- link below
Author makes the statement that it is better to judge a work on its merits than by the translators personal views.
I think the slam on Westcott and Hort is mostly a KJO apologetic in defense of their translation.
The KJO folks even criticize other translations for REMOVING verses. - LOL
(verses that should not have been there in the first place actually)

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

I’m not King James only. I use modern versions as well I’m currently using the NET Full Notes Edition. But I don’t believe the Critical Text is more accurate than the Majority Text

 

[RLT63]

Hi, and like what you said here. The antiquity of these two manuscripts (Vatcanus/Sinaiticus--I don't count the Alexandrinus because it's shortened more and more corrupt than the other two) is why many are so ignorantly swayed to the corrupt texts. These are the primary manuscripts used for the modern translations; but the Traditional Text uses 3000 plus manuscripts for their translations, and is the only texts that retain the entire Word of God.

I’ve heard some people say the rarest texts but they are rare because no one copied them

 

[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.

Yes, but there's no explanation than can excuse detracting from the Word; and it's a serious amount omissions, which there should be none. The NKJV is best for reading because it and others like it retain the entire Word. All the other modern translations have briefed the Word of God a great deal with the numerous omissions.

 

[RLT63]

Currently reading this article provided by @RLT63 -- link below
Author makes the statement that it is better to judge a work on its merits than by the translators personal views.
I think the slam on Westcott and Hort is mostly a KJO apologetic in defense of their translation.
The KJO folks even criticize other translations for REMOVING verses. - LOL
(verses that should not have been there in the first place actually)

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

I found this article to be very helpful in understanding the sources Bibles are translated from.

 

[Netchaplain]

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

3rd--4th centuries. The age of these three manuscripts (Vaticanus/Sinaiticus/Alexandrinus) they primarily use is due to the fact that they were so corrupt that most scribes would not use them for copying purposes, and thus did not wear out like most did, from repetitious use and copying. They fell into disuse for 1500 years until they were discovered in the mid 1800's. The scribe would copy a manuscript that was near illegibility and destroy the exemplar. The modern translations use manuscripts 5th century and later, because their earlier manuscripts (which were even older than those used for the modern translations) wore out from much copying.

 

[Netchaplain]

Bible Problem​

I've heard it said, 'spare the rod and spoil the child'......and who wants that solution?

What are you trying to say here? Thanks!

 

[Jim B]

The modern translations are technically at best paraphrases. Here is one example of an "interpolation," of which there in these Bibles many: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:6). Here, it's saying that Jesus did not think it is stealing from God to be equal with Him, which He was, in essence. The change of wording (interpolate) berefts the reader with something like this: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

This in no way says the same as the Majority reading; and there are hundreds of this type of change in their texts, because the manuscripts they use read this way. Many are unaware that the two manuscripts they use (Vaticanus and Sianiticus) are corrupt. But that's ok, because proponents of these Bibles are getting some of the essential doctrine in them, but not all doctrine, as these versions have a great deal of less of the Word of God from the many detractions of the Word.

Many are also unaware that most the writers of these manuscripts were Gnostics!!

This is absurd.

a) You cannot lump "the modern translations" into one group, then make a meaningless statement. Most modern translations (with the exception of paraphrases) are carefully crafted, accurate translations, meticulously created by committees of scholars from various denominations.

b) It is ridiculous to take one verse from a single translation to prove your point. Here is that verse from several modern translations...

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" NIV

"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped," NET

"who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped," NRSVue

"Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to." NLT

And here is that same verse from the KJV, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

So if you're going to extract a single word -- robbery -- then the KJV is the one to criticize, since the Greek word obviously means something else. Jesus was not a thief!

You clearly have no idea of the methodology and sources used to create modern translations. You start with a pre-formed opinion then create a bogus argument to "prove" your point. As an "ordained chaplain" (what denomination?) you should know better than this!

 

[Jim B]

Hi, and appreciate the encouraging and accurate reply! There were even men, within 100 years after the death of John, writing manuscripts and claiming that they were actually correcting them.

God will show those who are open to the truth, even if its not what they want to hear...

 

[Jim B]

Most do not read much of the Word, and the reason why many choose a modern translation is because it's something new.

a) How do you know how many people read the Bible?
b) Many choose a modern translation because it is based on better and more sources, better methodology, and written in clear, correct, modern English.

 

[RLT63]

This is absurd.

a) You cannot lump "the modern translations" into one group, then make a meaningless statement. Most modern translations (with the exception of paraphrases) are carefully crafted, accurate translations, meticulously created by committees of scholars from various denominations.

b) It is ridiculous to take one verse from a single translation to prove your point. Here is that verse from several modern translations...

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" NIV

"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped," NET

"who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped," NRSVue

"Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to." NLT

And here is that same verse from the KJV, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

So if you're going to extract a single word -- robbery -- then the KJV is the one to criticize, since the Greek word obviously means something else. Jesus was not a thief!

You clearly have no idea of the methodology and sources used to create modern translations. You start with a pre-formed opinion then create a bogus argument to "prove" your point. As an "ordained chaplain" (what denomination?) you should know better than this!

I don’t find those translations objectionable but your characterization of the KJV is absurd saying Jesus was not a thief when the verse says he thought it NOT robbery

 

[Netchaplain]

Bible Problem​

I've heard it said, 'spare the rod and spoil the child'......and who wants that solution?

What are you trying to say here? Thanks!

This is absurd.

a) You cannot lump "the modern translations" into one group, then make a meaningless statement. Most modern translations (with the exception of paraphrases) are carefully crafted, accurate translations, meticulously created by committees of scholars from various denominations.

Most readers of the modern translations are unaware of the transpositions, interpolations and omissions (producing thousands of differences from the Traditional Text, which is the goal of the Gnostics that wrote them), which effects the meaning of Scripture from which it is suppose to present.

Like a frog in a pan of warm water, you keep turning up the heat in slight increments to where it won't jump out but rather like it, even until you reach the boiling point.

 

[St. SteVen]

I don’t find those translations objectionable but your characterization of the KJV is absurd saying Jesus was not a thief when the verse says he thought it NOT robbery

Wait...
Doesn't it MEAN the opposite.
"When I took your watch, I thought it was NOT robbery."
Did I take it, or didn't I?
Was it robbery, or wasn't it?

 

[Jim B]

Of course the detractors will make false accusations. It's the Majority Text in question, which consists of three-thousand plus manuscript copies, against two false witnesses, namely the Vaticanus and the Sianiticus manuscripts. Two (and sometimes three with the Alaxandrinus, which is very erroneous) manuscripts against thousands. This is a no brainer for me Brother.

The detractors want confusion in the Body of Christ by presenting much of what is too different from the Authorized version, and also different from one another.

Are you serious??? If so, you are deluded. Modern translations are based on far better source documents and far better methodology than the KJV.

The Majority Text, also known as the Byzantine and Ecclesiastical Text, is simply one method of determining the original reading of a Scripture by discovering what reading occurs in a majority of the manuscripts. The problem is that the Majority Text method does not take into account two very important factors: (1) The age of the manuscripts, and (2) the location of the manuscripts.

The more times a manuscript is copied, the more likely it is that errors will occur. A first-generation copy——one that was copied directly from the original——is very likely to be closer to the original than a tenth-generation copy (a copy that was copied from a copy, from a copy . . . from the original). Manuscripts from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries should be far closer to the originals than manuscripts from the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. The problem is that the majority of the manuscripts are from the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries.

The best method takes into account all factors: majority, age, location, difficulty of the reading, and which variant best explains the origin of the other variants. This method is known as the “Eclectic Text” or “Critical Text.” Other than the King James Version, the New King James Version, and the World English Bible, all of the modern English translations are based on the Eclectic Text. Most assume that the King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Majority Text. This is not correct. The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus.

Your statement that "The detractors want confusion in the Body of Christ by presenting much of what is too different from the Authorized version, and also different from one another" is laughable.

Finally, say hello to your unicorn.

 

[Jim B]

Bible Problem​

I've heard it said, 'spare the rod and spoil the child'......and who wants that solution?

Child abusers who prefer violence to instruction.

 

[Jim B]

The KJV is based on a limited number of Medieval manuscripts, is based partly on earlier translations, and was ordered by a secular king to bolster his claim to be a ruler. Modern translations are created by scholars from a large collection of sources and reviewed by a committee of people from various denominations to make sure that there is no sectarian bias.

That is the difference.

 

[Jim B]

All translations have to use many words that were not found in the manuscripts (the translation isn't perfect but the Word of God in it is). The King James translators were laborious enough to indicate to the reader what were not in the manuscripts by italicization. A highly significant advantage!

Clearly you have not even looked at modern translations. They clearly indicate to the reader what were not in the manuscripts by italicization. And often provide additional explanatory notes. The NET translation has over 65,000(!) such notes.

And they indicate those parts of Scripture that are highly questionable, such as the "long ending" of Mark's gospel. (Watch out for those snakes while you drink deadly poison!) and don't add words such as these in Romans 8:1 : "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Don't worship a book; worship God!!!