-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This is a possible theory, but there are no proofs of it.
So its about what we believe about it.
I personally also prefer majority text, but I cannot say that if somebody has a translation based on a minority text, he has a corrupted Bible.
Two translations of the same manuscript differ much more than two manuscripts. So the work of the translator is much more important than minority vs majority.
So its about what we believe about it.
I personally also prefer majority text, but I cannot say that if somebody has a translation based on a minority text, he has a corrupted Bible.
Two translations of the same manuscript differ much more than two manuscripts. So the work of the translator is much more important than minority vs majority.
Last edited:
This is so hilarious, I thought you posted it as a joke!
First, it is totally and patently untrue! Shame on you for posting a lie, with no evidence whatsoever! In fact, the opposite is true. The reason that there are so many Byzantine Manuscripts is because the Greeks retained their language, and many monks devoted their lives to copying the texts. And other scribes copied their copies. And the next generation, other scribes copied the copies of the manuscripts, with each generation of manuscripts picking up errors - intentional and unintentional. Greek scribes loved to embellish the texts. But wait, I already posted a whole bunch about that already.
In actual fact, it is the earliest copies that were lost and only recently discovered. The KJV translation committee had only 7 very bad versions of the Greek, and mostly relied on Erasmus' translation of the Bible from Greek, in 1516 which he admitted was faulty. The Catholic Church would not allow him to follow the earlier manuscripts, because there were things in Jerome's Latin version they wanted kept in to reinforce Catholic doctrine. And until the the mid 19th century the Byzantine (or Texts Receptus) manuscripts were considered to be the standard. However, extensive study of this manuscripts convinced scholars they were a later conflation, and they lost their primacy to "eclectic" scholarly editions, like Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Greek texts.
Lower Text Criticism has some basic principles.
External Criteria
1. Favour the older manuscripts. Closer to the date of the original inspired writings is better than later conflated manuscripts. Through carbon dating and other methods they are able to date ancient manuscripts. Comparison with early church father's quotes of the NT also help to establish the words that were there in the originals, and not added later. (And words not in the early church fathers' quotes were likely added later.
2. Favour the reading that is supported by the majority of texts. "Manuscripts must be weighted, not counted" however. This means that 50 medieval Byzantine manuscripts that all rely on the same 10th century exemplar should be counted as one, in light of their common origin.
3. Favour the reading that is best attested across various families of manuscripts. Over time various streams of text transmission developed. Within these streams (delineated by geography) flowed manuscripts with similar patterns of variants. So the disputed readings are best represented by a broad swath of the 4 transmission streams or families:
a. Alexandrian
b. Caesarian
c. Western
d. Byzantine.
Internal Criteria
1. Favour the reading that best fits the literary context. This holds true as a general rule, but can have exceptions.
2. Favour the reading that best corresponds with writings by the same NT author. Authors have stylistic patterns and theological motifs. Although sometimes authors can be unpredictable, perhaps because of use of an amanuensis (ancient secretary.
3. Favour the reading that best explains the origin of the other variants. Similar to a detective story, it is sometimes possible to reconstruct a series of mistakes that all flow from a scribal alteration of the original or early reading.
4. Favour the shorter reading. As texts were often lengthened or clarified, the shorter reading should be preferred.
5. Favour the more difficult reading. Often the more difficult reading should be favoured as later additions are attempts to "fix" a perceived problem. The criterion can not be applied in isolation, from the other principles mentioned above, but scribes, when not making mistakes of hearing or sight, were prone to smooth out difficulties rather than introduce them.
God has left us so many manuscripts of such high quality, that even in places where there are variants in the manuscripts, we can reach a high level of certainty as to what the original autographs said. And while God has not seen fit to preserve the original autographs go the NT, he has preserved ALL the words of the original authors in the many manuscripts that have come down to us.*
* Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament, by Kostenberger, Merkle and Plummer. pas 24-28
"When one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between "who" and "whom!) . . . When one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000 -- and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree." Daniel Wallace
"At present, we have more than 6,000 manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers. Homer's Iliad, the greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; and Euripides' tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts. The numbers on all the other works of Greek literature are far less. Furthermore, it must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. The lapse for most classical Greek works is about eight hundred to a thousand years; whereas the lapse for many books in the New Testament is around one hundred years. Because of the abundant wealth of manuscripts and because several of the manuscripts are dated in the early centuries of the church, New Testament textual scholars have a great advantage over classical textual scholars. The New Testament scholars have the resources to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with great accuracy, and they have produced some excellent editions of the Greek New Testament."Finally, it must be said that, although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Frederic Kenyon, a renowned paleographer and textual critic, affirmed this when he said, 'The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.' " -- Philip W. Comfort, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1991."
New Testament Textual Criticism | Theopedia
First, it is totally and patently untrue! Shame on you for posting a lie, with no evidence whatsoever! In fact, the opposite is true. The reason that there are so many Byzantine Manuscripts is because the Greeks retained their language, and many monks devoted their lives to copying the texts. And other scribes copied their copies. And the next generation, other scribes copied the copies of the manuscripts, with each generation of manuscripts picking up errors - intentional and unintentional. Greek scribes loved to embellish the texts. But wait, I already posted a whole bunch about that already.
In actual fact, it is the earliest copies that were lost and only recently discovered. The KJV translation committee had only 7 very bad versions of the Greek, and mostly relied on Erasmus' translation of the Bible from Greek, in 1516 which he admitted was faulty. The Catholic Church would not allow him to follow the earlier manuscripts, because there were things in Jerome's Latin version they wanted kept in to reinforce Catholic doctrine. And until the the mid 19th century the Byzantine (or Texts Receptus) manuscripts were considered to be the standard. However, extensive study of this manuscripts convinced scholars they were a later conflation, and they lost their primacy to "eclectic" scholarly editions, like Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Greek texts.
Lower Text Criticism has some basic principles.
External Criteria
1. Favour the older manuscripts. Closer to the date of the original inspired writings is better than later conflated manuscripts. Through carbon dating and other methods they are able to date ancient manuscripts. Comparison with early church father's quotes of the NT also help to establish the words that were there in the originals, and not added later. (And words not in the early church fathers' quotes were likely added later.
2. Favour the reading that is supported by the majority of texts. "Manuscripts must be weighted, not counted" however. This means that 50 medieval Byzantine manuscripts that all rely on the same 10th century exemplar should be counted as one, in light of their common origin.
3. Favour the reading that is best attested across various families of manuscripts. Over time various streams of text transmission developed. Within these streams (delineated by geography) flowed manuscripts with similar patterns of variants. So the disputed readings are best represented by a broad swath of the 4 transmission streams or families:
a. Alexandrian
b. Caesarian
c. Western
d. Byzantine.
Internal Criteria
1. Favour the reading that best fits the literary context. This holds true as a general rule, but can have exceptions.
2. Favour the reading that best corresponds with writings by the same NT author. Authors have stylistic patterns and theological motifs. Although sometimes authors can be unpredictable, perhaps because of use of an amanuensis (ancient secretary.
3. Favour the reading that best explains the origin of the other variants. Similar to a detective story, it is sometimes possible to reconstruct a series of mistakes that all flow from a scribal alteration of the original or early reading.
4. Favour the shorter reading. As texts were often lengthened or clarified, the shorter reading should be preferred.
5. Favour the more difficult reading. Often the more difficult reading should be favoured as later additions are attempts to "fix" a perceived problem. The criterion can not be applied in isolation, from the other principles mentioned above, but scribes, when not making mistakes of hearing or sight, were prone to smooth out difficulties rather than introduce them.
God has left us so many manuscripts of such high quality, that even in places where there are variants in the manuscripts, we can reach a high level of certainty as to what the original autographs said. And while God has not seen fit to preserve the original autographs go the NT, he has preserved ALL the words of the original authors in the many manuscripts that have come down to us.*
* Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament, by Kostenberger, Merkle and Plummer. pas 24-28
"When one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between "who" and "whom!) . . . When one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000 -- and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree." Daniel Wallace
"At present, we have more than 6,000 manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers. Homer's Iliad, the greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; and Euripides' tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts. The numbers on all the other works of Greek literature are far less. Furthermore, it must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. The lapse for most classical Greek works is about eight hundred to a thousand years; whereas the lapse for many books in the New Testament is around one hundred years. Because of the abundant wealth of manuscripts and because several of the manuscripts are dated in the early centuries of the church, New Testament textual scholars have a great advantage over classical textual scholars. The New Testament scholars have the resources to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with great accuracy, and they have produced some excellent editions of the Greek New Testament."Finally, it must be said that, although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Frederic Kenyon, a renowned paleographer and textual critic, affirmed this when he said, 'The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.' " -- Philip W. Comfort, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1991."
New Testament Textual Criticism | Theopedia
Actually, the longer ending of Mark does appear fairly early, (late 2nd century?) but is not in the very earliest manuscripts nor quoted by the early Church fathers. Most scholars believe that the original ending for Mark was somehow torn off the original scrolls, very early on. There seem to be no copies of anything different than the shorter and longer endings of Mark, both of which have been definitely shown to be not Markian origin. (I can tell you why, if you want me to!)
The Byzantine copyists were a huge source of additions in the manuscripts, down through the ages. Some of them small, others larger, but compounding the farther they got from the original autographs. But again, none of their additions affect any doctrines. And I don't think I have heard of a single case where the scribes missed things, in their copyin.
God has preserved his word. And that doesn't just mean the KJV. It means the 6000 or so manuscripts, and all those scholars who have dedicated their lives to tracking literally each word in the NT, and where the later manuscripts deviate and even which manuscript was copied from which other manuscripts.
It is really a science and people need to learn more about it. Not for the purpose of arguing here, but for apologetics, and defending it to unbelievers who have erroneous ideas about what the Bible says, and the evidence for it being accurate and true!
And thanks for the kind words from several people on this thread. I'm sorry if sometimes I get too technical, but sometimes I just get so excited about the Bible, and what we know about God's Word, I just get carried away!
I loved how Angela brought out the history of the manuscripts. Thank you and great job!
I love the nuances that are in the Greek text and I studied it for 2 years but the Lord had be do it for a specific purpose and so I have no desire to learn again all the "endings" of the words. That is good for others and if that is what the Lord has them to do - then I say "Do it!"
But we don't need to be able to reads the Greek to have the Holy Spirit reveal Christ to us out of the scriptures. I love the Greek scholars but I listen to the Spirit within me to validate what they are saying because they could be just giving their opinion - which is fine.
The Lord had the NT written in Greek for a reason. It is after all a study of a language and with modern scrolls found to show further evidence of the scriptures that adds to the validity of it.
That being said - it is a common language spoken by the people in the NT days and they would have understood the words according to their own culture that they were brought up in. It would be different for a Greek then for a Gentile because they would have different backgrounds.
We can read the Greek fluently and still not know the spiritual reality that is behind it as we need the Holy Spirit to illuminate the scriptures to us.
I firmly believe that we are just as dependent on the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus to us in the scriptures as Mary was dependent on the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus in her womb ( Whether we can read fluent Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. )
We can read the scriptures through the lens of the Old Covenant mindset and we will interpret New Testament realities in Christ wrong. We can read the Greek fluently and be influenced by our religious background and church teachings as well.
We all can have our favorite bible teachers and view everything through what they say too - which may or may be correct in some areas. IMO we just need to be 100% dependent on the Holy Spirit as that is one of His roles in our lives.
We will only know in part while we are here so we need to be humble and depend on the Holy Spirit for all things. He will be faithful to us!
I love the nuances that are in the Greek text and I studied it for 2 years but the Lord had be do it for a specific purpose and so I have no desire to learn again all the "endings" of the words. That is good for others and if that is what the Lord has them to do - then I say "Do it!"
But we don't need to be able to reads the Greek to have the Holy Spirit reveal Christ to us out of the scriptures. I love the Greek scholars but I listen to the Spirit within me to validate what they are saying because they could be just giving their opinion - which is fine.
The Lord had the NT written in Greek for a reason. It is after all a study of a language and with modern scrolls found to show further evidence of the scriptures that adds to the validity of it.
That being said - it is a common language spoken by the people in the NT days and they would have understood the words according to their own culture that they were brought up in. It would be different for a Greek then for a Gentile because they would have different backgrounds.
We can read the Greek fluently and still not know the spiritual reality that is behind it as we need the Holy Spirit to illuminate the scriptures to us.
I firmly believe that we are just as dependent on the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus to us in the scriptures as Mary was dependent on the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus in her womb ( Whether we can read fluent Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. )
We can read the scriptures through the lens of the Old Covenant mindset and we will interpret New Testament realities in Christ wrong. We can read the Greek fluently and be influenced by our religious background and church teachings as well.
We all can have our favorite bible teachers and view everything through what they say too - which may or may be correct in some areas. IMO we just need to be 100% dependent on the Holy Spirit as that is one of His roles in our lives.
We will only know in part while we are here so we need to be humble and depend on the Holy Spirit for all things. He will be faithful to us!
Last edited:
lists of which versions have the wrong translation and which ones don't are no kind of refutation.
the fact is, this is a word used only once in the whole of scripture. but outside sources indicate it should be a type of lizard. it fits better in the context of the meaning of the proverb, too.
sorry.
the fact is, this is a word used only once in the whole of scripture. but outside sources indicate it should be a type of lizard. it fits better in the context of the meaning of the proverb, too.
sorry.
T
What kind of authority are you to summarily dismiss what Angela wrote?
The sources she quotes are very reasoned and reasonable.
You obviously have no clue about textual criticism nor how current translations came into being.
Please don't tell me you are another one of the: 'don't confuse me with facts brigade.'
The sources she quotes are very reasoned and reasonable.
You obviously have no clue about textual criticism nor how current translations came into being.
Please don't tell me you are another one of the: 'don't confuse me with facts brigade.'
That is sourceS to you! I guess you missed that! I used the following in my post above:
* Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament, by Kostenberger, Merkle and Plummer. pgs 24-28
Daniel Wallace - The premier Greek Grammarian in the world.
And one internet source:
New Testament Textual Criticism | Theopedia
Oh, right and my personal studies and cross checking manuscripts with the UBS 4th edition NT.
* Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament, by Kostenberger, Merkle and Plummer. pgs 24-28
Daniel Wallace - The premier Greek Grammarian in the world.
And one internet source:
New Testament Textual Criticism | Theopedia
Oh, right and my personal studies and cross checking manuscripts with the UBS 4th edition NT.
Angella said: … kjv is unreadable!
My response: An online test is available and sees if the readability of KJ would not pass from a standpoint of a translator. Using 8 Readability Formulas, we can gain a right readability consensus. See
http://www.readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php
Using Psalms 23 as test parameter the result is outstanding!. You can similarly if you wish…
[TABLE="width: 90%"]
[TR]
[TD]Text Readability Consensus Calculator
Purpose: Our Text Readability Consensus Calculator uses 7 popular readability formulas to calculate the average grade level, reading age, and text difficult of your sample text.
Your Results:
Your text: Psalms 23(A Psalm of David.) 1 The LORD is my shep ...(show all text)
Flesch Reading Ease score: 83.2 (text scale)
Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: easy to read.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Gunning Fog: 9 (text scale)
Gunning Fog scored your text: fairly easy to read.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 6.3
Grade level: Sixth Grade.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
The Coleman-Liau Index: 4
Grade level: Fourth Grade
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
The SMOG Index: 5.2
Grade level: Fifth Grade
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Automated Readability Index: 5.2
Grade level: 8-9 yrs. old (Fourth and Fifth graders)
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Linsear Write Formula : 9
Grade level: Ninth Grade.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Readability Consensus
Based on 8 readability formulas, we have scored your text:
Grade Level: 6
Reading Level: easy to read.
Reader's Age: 10-11 yrs. olds (Fifth and Sixth graders)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
My response: An online test is available and sees if the readability of KJ would not pass from a standpoint of a translator. Using 8 Readability Formulas, we can gain a right readability consensus. See
http://www.readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php
Using Psalms 23 as test parameter the result is outstanding!. You can similarly if you wish…
[TABLE="width: 90%"]
[TR]
[TD]Text Readability Consensus Calculator
Purpose: Our Text Readability Consensus Calculator uses 7 popular readability formulas to calculate the average grade level, reading age, and text difficult of your sample text.
Your Results:
Your text: Psalms 23(A Psalm of David.) 1 The LORD is my shep ...(show all text)
Flesch Reading Ease score: 83.2 (text scale)
Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: easy to read.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Gunning Fog: 9 (text scale)
Gunning Fog scored your text: fairly easy to read.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 6.3
Grade level: Sixth Grade.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
The Coleman-Liau Index: 4
Grade level: Fourth Grade
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
The SMOG Index: 5.2
Grade level: Fifth Grade
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Automated Readability Index: 5.2
Grade level: 8-9 yrs. old (Fourth and Fifth graders)
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Linsear Write Formula : 9
Grade level: Ninth Grade.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]
Readability Consensus
Based on 8 readability formulas, we have scored your text:
Grade Level: 6
Reading Level: easy to read.
Reader's Age: 10-11 yrs. olds (Fifth and Sixth graders)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Last edited:
Angella said: …never studied, the grammar and vocabulary of the 16 Ce. English.
My Response: Why? The credibility of the translator is at stake since the KJ translators were well verse in grammar and conversant in many oriental languages.
John Bois, one of the KJB translators in Cambridge Group 2 “is a scholar of scholars. By the age of five he had read his Bible through, and his father is teaching him Greek and Hebrew pre-school. He was admitted to St. John College aged fourteen, given special tuition in the most demanding Greek authors by Downes. Age twenty, he was elected fellow. He worked for four in the morning till eight at night in the University Library. He was the most exact grammarian having read as sixty grammars, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac…”
The King James Bible, A short History from Tyndale to Today
David Norton p.71
By Canbridge Press
So this gives us a glimpse on the credibility of one of the king’s men which sometimes ignored, belittled and ridiculed. They are of course, outstanding! But a mere 2-3 years of seminary degree or online degree courses would qualify someone to be a translator at best or at par with them.
My Response: Why? The credibility of the translator is at stake since the KJ translators were well verse in grammar and conversant in many oriental languages.
John Bois, one of the KJB translators in Cambridge Group 2 “is a scholar of scholars. By the age of five he had read his Bible through, and his father is teaching him Greek and Hebrew pre-school. He was admitted to St. John College aged fourteen, given special tuition in the most demanding Greek authors by Downes. Age twenty, he was elected fellow. He worked for four in the morning till eight at night in the University Library. He was the most exact grammarian having read as sixty grammars, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac…”
The King James Bible, A short History from Tyndale to Today
David Norton p.71
By Canbridge Press
So this gives us a glimpse on the credibility of one of the king’s men which sometimes ignored, belittled and ridiculed. They are of course, outstanding! But a mere 2-3 years of seminary degree or online degree courses would qualify someone to be a translator at best or at par with them.
The Bible does not mention the "originals" nor does it give them a superior distinction over the copies that Timothy had. The highest adjective to express scriptures is "holy" as in "holy scriptures". What Timothy had are copies of manuscript not the "originals"yet still the copies are called "holy". A friendly advice: need to review your belief on inspiration before taking up translation.
T
Some bibles are not bibles. The new living translation for example is a guy trying to better describe each verse for his son. Some are commentary and heavily influenced by human opinions and religions, instead of emphasizing on keeping the meaning while putting it into a more understandable and up to date speech. My favorites are the niv and the nkjv.