Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[Stranger]

I don't know if you are asking a question or being a dumb smartass.

Didache:
Chapter 8. Fasting and Prayer (the Lord's Prayer). But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever..
Pray this three times each day.

Greek:
VIII
1. Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν. 2. μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, οὕτω προσεύχεσθε· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς οφειλέταις ἡμῶν, καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ· ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 3. τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω προσεύχεσθε.

google search: About 558,000 results for "Didache". The doxology was added by the "all holy and infallible scripture scholar" Queen Elizabeth I, as a shot against Catholics, even though it was EXCLUDED by the same monarchy by King Edward. That's why it's in the "flawless" KJV of 1611, with 30,000 "accidental" errors in it.

The Church is the custodian of Scripture, and she was just doing her job keeping it pure, even though the doxology is found in the liturgy that predates any Protestant Bible by 1450 years. It's a big fuss about nothing IMO.

Why do Protestants cling to one phrase of the Didache that predates ANY Greek manuscript, (50-120 AD) but ignore everything else in it?

First of all, the Didache is not Scripture. Its manuscripts are not manuscripts of Scripture. It was rejected as Scripture.

Second of all, if you want to say the doxology is not part of Scripture because of this note in the Didache, then why not remove the whole Lords Prayer? The whole prayer was given.

Again, the majority of Greek manuscripts of Scripture contain the doxology.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The reason for so many versions is because corrupt ancient MSS from the RCC and Alexandrian - the capitol of occultism - are presumed to be the "best" while the true MSS which find their origin in the place where Christianity was born are said by "scholars" to be the worst.

Every new version of the NT is based on the corrupt "Critical Text", the champion the the RCC long awaited to come along and destroy the Textus Receptus of the Protestant Reformation, which is derived from such a minuscule pile of MSS which are set apart from the VAST MAJORITY of ancient MSS which support the "Textus Receptus" NT simply because these corrupt MSS have the distinction of being the oldest MSS we have.


"Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing as it threatens us (the Jesuits) with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it...for three centuries past (From 16th century Luther to 19th century Protestantism) this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." The Jesuits in History



But, older doesn't mean "best", it just means "older", and since Paul said they were corrupting the Word of God in his day, we should revisit this ridiculous claim that "since certain verses do not appear in our darling Critical Text which appear later in the Textus Receptus, then the Textus Receptus must be have ADDED them."

If that's true, then why do letters from the Early Church Fathers WHICH ARE OLDER THAN ANY BIBLE MSS ON RECORD contain references to verses that appear in the Textus Receptus BUT NOT in the Critical Text? The only explanation is that the Critical Text discarded verses and is guilty of "taking away from the Word of God".

Amen to that. And most all modern versions today are based on the corrupt minority text.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

First of all, the Didache is not Scripture. Its manuscripts are not manuscripts of Scripture. It was rejected as Scripture.

OK, Einstein, who do you think rejected the Didache as scripture? Protestants in the 4th century?
Second of all, if you want to say the doxology is not part of Scripture because of this note in the Didache, then why not remove the whole Lords Prayer? The whole prayer was given.

Didn't you just say the Didache is not Scripture? I agree it is not scripture, but you are just being argumentative.

Again, the majority of Greek manuscripts of Scripture contain the doxology.

There is no "majority of Greek manuscripts" that leans one way or the other. That's why you haven't given me a list that I asked for. There is the Majority Text, also known as the Byzantine and Ecclesiastical Text, The Textus Receptus was first published in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus from which the KJV was derived. That explains the numerous errors in the KJV. The TR is a bad translation, late in arrival, and never used by the historical Church.

The late Theodore Letis, a Lutheran theologian, argued in his book The Ecclesiastical Text, that there was a fundamental shift in Protestant theology with B.B. Warfield. Traditionally, in both Lutheran and Reformed scholasticism, authority was to be found in the preserved apographa rather than the original autographa. After the rise of textual criticism in the nineteenth century, Protestant theologians began arguing that Biblical inerrancy is to be found solely in the original autographs. Thus, the critical methods of Wescott, Hort, and many others were adopted by the church. Essentially, in this view, the textual criticism of Scripture should not differ from criticism of any other text. Letis argues that, for Protestants, the canon should be identified with the Textus Receptus, which was the Bible used by both the Reformed and Lutheran churches during and after the Reformation., not before.

There are several advocates of a type of “King James Only” position who have utilized similar arguments. Two prominent examples are Edward F. Hills and Thomas Holland. These two writers are the most scholarly of KJVO advocates, and present some convincing arguments for certain TR readings in opposition to the Critical Text. They argue that God especially preserved his word at the time of the Reformation, and thus the texts used in that time period should remain standard for the church. (the addition of the doxology by British royalty has already been explained).

My personal view is something of a moderated Ecclesiastical Text position. Letis is absolutely correct in his historical overview of the shift from the Reformation to B.B. Warfield. Unfortunately, since the time of Westcott and Hort, Protestants have examined the New Testament manuscripts in the way that they do any other piece of literature. It’s my contention that our view of the canonical text should be guided, in part, by our theology of preservation. We should trust that God provided the necessary text for the church’s theology and life, and consequently that he preserved that text throughout the centuries of the church’s existence.

For these reasons, I prefer the Majority Text over the Critical Text. It’s my contention that we should privilege readings which appear in the majority of New Testament manuscripts over those that don’t. God has promised that he would preserve his Word, and we should trust that he has. This then leads to the question of the TR. Most proponents of the Ecclesiastical Text view tend to privilege the TR over both the Critical Text, and the Majority Text. I prefer the TR for English translations for the simple reason that no modern translation uses the MT. There are, however, some real inconsistencies with the TR for those holding to the Ecclesiastical Text position. The most obvious is 1 John 5:7, which has almost no basis in the entire manuscript tradition. Erasmus didn’t even want to include that text in the first place.

If the argument is from preservation, why privilege this one particular text which actually doesn’t seem to have been preserved for the majority of church history? I see no reason from the theology of preservation to somehow assume that the half dozen manuscripts utilized by Erasmus in the compilation that is the TR were providentially used more than any other NT text in church history. The argument of people like Edward Hills that even the Latin renderings of the TR are somehow better than the preserved Greek text, is more than a little absurd.

Let me just give one example as to how my perspective on this issue works. The long ending of Mark has been quite a debated issue for some time. There are several early manuscripts which do not contain the long ending, which are in the Alexandrian family. However, the long ending of Mark has clear attestation as early as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. The Critical Text proponents tend to reject the long ending of Mark, arguing that
1. It was lost, or
2. It never had an ending.
From a theological perspective, the problems with option one are obvious. If we do believe in preservation, then we necessarily have to reject the idea that God inspired an ending to one of the canonical books only to have it lost almost immediately. The only two options then are:
1. the long ending is inspired, or
2. Mark just ends abruptly.
Because the long ending was accepted so unanimously in church history, even though it’s missing in some early manuscripts, it should be accepted as canonical. This same logic, however, negates the canonicity of 1 John 5:7 and some other TR readings.
I hope this clarifies my position, because I know that my ESV post was used by some to promote a TR only position. While I like the TR, I prefer the Pierpont/Robinson NT Majority Text.

The Ecclesiastical Text Versus the Critical Text by Dr. Dave Armstrong

 

[Stranger]

kepha31

Why do you make your words look like they are mine? Get it separated else I have no interest in speaking with you.

Well, yes I am being argumentative. You didn't answer the question. If the doxology is to be rejected because it's found in the Didache, then why isn't the Lord's Prayer rejected?

Next time get the quotes identified with the right person.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

exactly. I know it sounds very pious on the surface, ok, and i am not arguing that 3 times a day is better than none. But what i am saying is that it is an arbitrary number, not found in Scripture, and strictly a religious convention that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ or the Bible.

Eph 6:18
1Thess 5:17
et al

You STILL haven't told m how praying the Lord's Prayer 3 times a day is "anti-Biblical". The Didache doesn't make the claim that this is a Biblical mandate any more that Protestant practices like "Altar Calls", "Infant Dedications", accepting Jesus Christ as your "Personal Lord and Savior" or the "Sinner's Prayer".

If you're going to make these kinds of claims - you need to back them up with Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Amen to that. And most all modern versions today are based on the corrupt minority text.

Stranger

Then, tell me why there are over 150 references to the Deuterocanonical Books in the NT.
Not ONE of you has been able to answer this question.

 

[Stranger]

Then, tell me why there are over 150 references to the Deuterocanonical Books in the NT.
Not ONE of you has been able to answer this question.

Because there are no references to the apocryphal books in the New Testament.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

interesting to me that Deuteronomy is the Book thought to have been "hidden under the altar" in the sanctuary. When one relates the symbology to themselves, anyway.

 

[bbyrd009]

You STILL haven't told m how praying the Lord's Prayer 3 times a day is "anti-Biblical"

if it has meaning for you, then do that, ok, i am not putting it down as a personal conviction, but a corporate one, that cannot be found in the Book, and thus has no application to me personally, same with this "Didache" thing, which if that is in the Didache, then i would suspect the whole treatise of being a fiction, because you of course cannot refer to Scripture for any "pray 3 times a day," and i listed a couple of Scriptures that refute it already. If you want to be religious, and do things by ritual and rote, that is all the grave to me, but that does not speak to your understanding of that particular matter imo, which might mean something different to you. I might note that anything done often enough becomes essentially meaningless, as we can observe IRL, but still i recognize that this does not speak to where your heart might be on the matter. Do as you are led, and i can certainly think of worse ways to seek God, ok.

But see that if you are forwarding "3 times a day" in a public Christian forum, it becomes relevant to suggest that Muslims are 2 ahead of you, every day, in that case? Lol. Iow it is not a competition, at least in that sense. Surely there are purer hearts practicing this "3 a day" than some who avoid that, and practice "always in prayer." But your RCC is showing imo, in that i am, once again, led away from Scripture for some now nebulous confirmation, and informed that i am the one not using Scripture, to boot, when i quoted two. So you got jokes, iow, no offense meant.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because there are no references to the apocryphal books in the New Testament.

Stranger

REALLY??

First of all - the Deuterocanonical Books are not "Apocryphal. BUT, as to your false claim that apocryphal works were NOT mentioned in the NT - turn your Bible to Colossians 4:16. Here, we read about Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans - which is NOT in Scripture.

While you're at it - look up Eph. 6:13-17. Here, we read about the "Armor of God", which is an almost verbatim reference to the armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield, etc. from Wis. 5:17-20.

So much for your impotent claims . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

if it has meaning for you, then do that, ok, i am not putting it down as a personal conviction, but a corporate one, that cannot be found in the Book, and thus has no application to me personally, same with this "Didache" thing, which if that is in the Didache, then i would suspect the whole treatise of being a fiction, because you of course cannot refer to Scripture for any "pray 3 times a day," and i listed a couple of Scriptures that refute it already. If you want to be religious, and do things by ritual and rote, that is all the grave to me, but that does not speak to your understanding of that particular matter imo, which might mean something different to you. I might note that anything done often enough becomes essentially meaningless, as we can observe IRL, but still i recognize that this does not speak to where your heart might be on the matter. Do as you are led, and i can certainly think of worse ways to seek God, ok.

But see that if you are forwarding "3 times a day" in a public Christian forum, it becomes relevant to suggest that Muslims are 2 ahead of you, every day, in that case? Lol. Iow it is not a competition, at least in that sense. Surely there are purer hearts practicing this "3 a day" than some who avoid that, and practice "always in prayer." But your RCC is showing imo, in that i am, once again, led away from Scripture for some now nebulous confirmation, and informed that i am the one not using Scripture, to boot, when i quoted two. So you got jokes, iow, no offense meant.

For your claims to have ANY merit - you need to show me where the Scriptures tell us that everything that is NOT in Scripture is "fiction".

Can you show me where the Bible talks about:
"Altar calls"??
Christian "Infant Dedications"??
The "Sinner's prayer"??
Accepting Jesus Christ as "Personal Lord and Savior"??
"Perspecuity" of Scripture??

Are these things "fiction" as well??

 

[bbyrd009]

For your claims to have ANY merit - you need to show me where the Scriptures tell us that everything that is NOT in Scripture is "fiction".

No, really i don't, wadr. "Pray 3 times a day" is nowhere in the Book, and i never said everything not in Scripture is fiction anyway; i just said that is, and i provided Scripture to suggest otherwise. As to the rest, i do not hold any of those as doctrines, even if i do have a personal understanding of some of them, and they have nothing to do with the subject at hand anyway, of course.

 

[mjrhealth]

Are these things "fiction" as well??

you would be suprised, could add another but wil ony fire up some very angry people. When people disocver God the world will change till than we just have "christianity" teh other religion, with it 10 000 versions of the truth.

 

[Stranger]

REALLY??

First of all - the Deuterocanonical Books are not "Apocryphal. BUT, as to your false claim that apocryphal works were NOT mentioned in the NT - turn your Bible to Colossians 4:16. Here, we read about Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans - which is NOT in Scripture.

While you're at it - look up Eph. 6:13-17. Here, we read about the "Armor of God", which is an almost verbatim reference to the armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield, etc. from Wis. 5:17-20.

So much for your impotent claims . . .

Actually there is nothing firmly said that Paul was the author of the letter from Laodicea. And it says 'from' not 'to', meaning it would have been to some other church. I believe Paul probably did write it. But we no longer have it. The apocryphal book by its name isn't it. This letter from Laodicea was not apocryphal. It just wasn't included by God into the Scriptures. Meaning it wasn't inspired by God.

Yes I know, 'almost verbatim'. Everything is always almost, or similar to, etc. etc.

There are no quotes or references to the apocryphal books in the New Testament.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, really i don't, wadr. "Pray 3 times a day" is nowhere in the Book, and i never said everything not in Scripture is fiction anyway; i just said that is, and i provided Scripture to suggest otherwise. As to the rest, i do not hold any of those as doctrines, even if i do have a personal understanding of some of them, and they have nothing to do with the subject at hand anyway, of course.

Uhhh, no - you didn't provide Scripture to counter the teaching from the Didache.
You also didn't show me where the list of Protestant teachings are in Scripture - namely:

"Altar calls"??
Christian "Infant Dedications"??
The "Sinner's prayer"??
Accepting Jesus Christ as "Personal Lord and Savior"??
"Perspecuity" of Scripture??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually there is nothing firmly said that Paul was the author of the letter from Laodicea. And it says 'from' not 'to', meaning it would have been to some other church. I believe Paul probably did write it. But we no longer have it. The apocryphal book by its name isn't it. This letter from Laodicea was not apocryphal. It just wasn't included by God into the Scriptures. Meaning it wasn't inspired by God.

Yes I know, 'almost verbatim'. Everything is always almost, or similar to, etc. etc.

There are no quotes or references to the apocryphal books in the New Testament.

Stranger

Do you even understand what "apocryphal" means??
Doesn't sound like you do . . .

As for the "Armor of God" reference in Eph. 6:13-17, it is abundantly clear that Paul lifted this from Wisdom 5:17-20.
The only explanation would be that the whole comparison is simply a "coincidence".

Only a person who is ignorant of the fact that Paul was educated in OT Scripture by Gamaliel - perhaps the greatest Jewish scholar of them all - would come to this absurd conclusion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

you would be suprised, could add another but wil ony fire up some very angry people. When people disocver God the world will change till than we just have "christianity" teh other religion, with it 10 000 versions of the truth.

Actually - in Protestantism, there is almost 50,000 versions of the "truth" . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Yes God is protesting loudjy but the religious dont listen, He has only one truth, its not thre bible,

 

[Stranger]

Do you even understand what "apocryphal" means??
Doesn't sound like you do . . .

As for the "Armor of God" reference in Eph. 6:13-17, it is abundantly clear that Paul lifted this from Wisdom 5:17-20.
The only explanation would be that the whole comparison is simply a "coincidence".

Only a person who is ignorant of the fact that Paul was educated in OT Scripture by Gamaliel - perhaps the greatest Jewish scholar of them all - would come to this absurd conclusion.

When Paul quotes or alludes to the Old Testament, he prefaces it with 'as it is written' or 'what saith the Scripture', or as in Eph.4:8 he says 'Wherefore he saith'. No such preface is given for Eph 6:11-18.

Stranger

 

[Phoneman777]

REALLY??

First of all - the Deuterocanonical Books are not "Apocryphal. BUT, as to your false claim that apocryphal works were NOT mentioned in the NT - turn your Bible to Colossians 4:16. Here, we read about Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans - which is NOT in Scripture.

While you're at it - look up Eph. 6:13-17. Here, we read about the "Armor of God", which is an almost verbatim reference to the armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield, etc. from Wis. 5:17-20.

So much for your impotent claims . . .

Curious to know how "The Letter to the Laodiceans" has been authenticated as the same letter that Paul refers to in Colossians. Considering the existence of the many counterfeits claiming to be the Word of God in Paul's day and the fact that so much intrigue has happened over the course of Christian history, I'm inclined to accept the skepticism of the Reformers regarding the canon of Scripture. thanks. Phoneman777