Bible versions-Is there only one?

[SoulWeaver]

The Bible is just "a finger pointing at a star" but is not the star itself.
People get stuck on the finger when it serves to show them where the star is.
Once one realizes presence of God is everywhere, inside and outside, if they are willing to discover it and make more place for that presence, one starts worrying less about the text and simply uses the directions in it to further their spiritual journey. The Spirit was always there to guide us, text was a vessel to carry and reveal the Spirit, and not to replace the Spirit. It didn't have to be perfect, just to be good enough to fulfill its purpose, which it is, and did.

 

[John146]

His goal is to find the original autographs, which God may make available as we grow closer to the return of Jesus.

Where’s the “original” Ten Commandments? what happened to Jeremiah’s original?

 

[Angela53510]

That’s comical.😂. Where were these manuscripts found? The Vaticanus and sinaiticus?

What are you talking about?

As I said there are 6000 different catalogued manuscripts, up to and including the ones from the 15th century used to translate the KJV. and certainly including Vaticanus and Sinicatus which are nearly complete manuscripts. That is a fact. Here is a link you MUST read, since you know so little about the whole issue of lower textual criticism, and manuscripts. This article is from 2012, and cites 5800 manuscripts, but the number has risen considerably since then.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...l-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/


Here is an article about manuscripts with many references listed to find copies and more information on Biblical textual criticism. And remember, lower textual criticism is totally different than the so-called higher criticism. Lower criticism is the nuts and bolts about manuscripts higher criticism is about doubting the Word of God. Those who study lower criticism are dedicated, born again believers who have dedicated their lives to understanding the manuscripts better, including the archeologists who find new manuscripts in various places, like burial chambers, or libraries, or buried in the desert, or caves, as the Dead Sea Scrolls were in Qumran.


https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Three “yes” votes, and I know the three who voted “yes”.

@John146
@Nehemiah6

The third guy‘s username has slipped my mind.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Well, 2 outta 3 ain’t bad. I almost included @KJV1611 but didn’t.

 

[KJV1611]

In fact, I do! Why? Because we are fallen. True, Christ has saved us, but we are not perfect or glorified. That is why the earliest manuscripts are more accurate, because the hand of imperfect people has touched them less. The Byzantine manuscripts have all been logged and the mistakes charted through families. The errors are well known, in every one of the 4 families. Constantly, the other 3 families tend to agree with one another, when compared to the Byzantine, too.

On the other hand, God has preserved the Bible, by allowing well studied and humble men to compare texts, to find the errors and eliminate them. Is the Bible accurate? Of course!! Is it perfect? It cannot be, as long as men are involved.

Your faith in the perfection of the KJV is pure and unadulterated magic. God knew from when Adam and Eve fell in the garden, he would have to arrange to have the best possible manuscripts be discovered. Daniel Wallace was given permission to go into the libraries of Constantinople, (Now know as Istanbul) and Greece and photography, copy and name every unknown manuscripts. His goal is to find the original autographs, which God may make available as we grow closer to the return of Jesus. If not, he has still found thousands of new manuscripts, older, better, or perhaps newer and even more corrupt, for scholars to ponder for decades to come. With computers, this job may also be much easier than it ever was.

There are over 6000 manuscripts of the Greek NT extant. The KJV used 7 corrupt ones. It baffles me how someone could ever believe the KJV could be perfect. God says his Word will be preserved. For me, right now, that is the NET in English, the Revised Martin Luther Bible in German, the Septuagint, which the disciples and Jesus quoted over 80% of the time. And funny how the disciples and Jesus never got hung up on whether the Hebrew or Septuagint were more perfect versions. No, they just quoted both, although the Septuagint was used so much more in the first century, because besides Aramaic in the NME, Greek was the common language of the Roman world, reflected in the word, Koine, which means common.

You start out by saying that God's word corrupts because of corruptible men. Then in your next paragraph you say that God preserved his word by allowing corruptible men to eliminate the errors.

The most telling part and as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that matters is that provided no bible verses to back your OPINION that the word God can be and was corrupted.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Since 1611, there have been standardized spelling changes in the King James Bible. In the early editions of the KJB, words like "bear," "dark" and "fear" had the letter "e" on end of them. Words like "mooued," "bee" and "mee" were changed into "moved," "be" and "me." These changes made no change in the context or in any doctrine.

This doesn't comply with what I asked. You stated 10000 differences. In the modern translations. Offer a few to be discussed.

Also prove by evidence that the KJV was accurately transcribed to begin with.

 

[KJV1611]

Do I "even" acknowledge? I suspect an agenda behind that.

I acknowledge that there are differences in the original-language manuscripts. I prefer to reserve the word "corrupt" for malintentioned mistranslations.

If all the copies are actual copies of the originals, then why do they differ from one another?

 

[KJV1611]

The ancient manuscripts, fragments, codex's, artifacts, ancient historians, early church writings, early Christian apologist, and translations. All can be used within textual criticism and cross examination to determine how close our Bible is to the original wording.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[JohnR7]

This has been refuted.

Are you an astrophysicist? Where did you get your PhD from? I am going by Carl Sargon & Neil Degrasse Tyson. I have Tyson's book here if you have a question on any of this.

 

[JohnR7]

If all the copies are actual copies of the originals, then why do they differ from one another?

The Hebrew has a numerical value. So the scribes could do a count to make sure the passage was accurate. If they made a mistake they would find it right away.

 

[KJV1611]

The Hebrew has a numerical value. So the scribes could do a count to make sure the passage was accurate. If they made a mistake they would find it right away.

Why do the same texts vary between copies?

 

[oyster67]

We would all be up the creek without a paddle if we did not have the Holy Spirit to guide us unto Knowledge of Truth. The physical Bible is only one of many thing He can use to teach us.

John 16
16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

 

[oyster67]

I am going by Carl Sargon

That explains many things.

 

[JohnR7]

Point well taken however time is not my foundation but rather God is my foundation.

God is infinite, we are finite. Time did begin in the beginning. God does not do everything, He has things He wants us to do. He has a work He wants to do in us and through us. Jesus had a beginning. There was a time and a place where He was born and the wise men managed to figure it out and they were there to greet Him with gifts. It is nice that God is outside of time. He can take us into the past and He can take us into the future. The time we live in has a lot of people wanting to look upon this time. People from the past and people from the future. They are wanting to know the experience that we are having.

 

[JohnR7]

The physical Bible is only one of many thing He can use to teach us.

God does not do anything in my life that I can not find a verse in the Bible.

 

[Lightskin]

Jesus had a beginning.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

 

[Dino246]

Are you an astrophysicist? Where did you get your PhD from? I am going by Carl Sargon & Neil Degrasse Tyson. I have Tyson's book here if you have a question on any of this.

Bahahahaha! Carl Sagan (not Sargon) was an outspoken atheist, and Tyson is his disciple. Why would I take their opinions on events they weren't around to witness? No thanks. Their "big bang" is a big empty hypothesis resting on very unscientific, antitheistic foundations.

 

[JohnR7]

That explains many things.

My wife is a Sargon. But when I ran the DNA on my son he has only 3% middle east. We received a lot from the these people. The wheel, the chariot - even they defeated Egypt. They gave us mathematics. My son had taken a huge amount of math to the point where he will almost have a masters degree in applied math along with a degree in computer engineering. If you think there is a problem with that then maybe you should look at his pay check and see how much they pay him.

Anyways, the point is we have the spectrograph. Every element burns at a different color. WE also have the early universe to look at. So we know what the composition of the early universe was. Just as we know the elements are produced in Stars. You should study up on the Hubble a little so you can study the evidence we have that supports the theory.

This is my WHOLE point is that God gives us evidence to study. HE WANTS us to know what He has done from the beginning. Science does an excellent job of gathering that evidence for us to examine and study. Of course I realize we want to take their opinion with a grain of salt and we want to directly study the evidence for ourselves.

 

[JohnR7]

Carl Sagan (not Sargon)

There is going to be variations in the spelling. The Bible actually uses Sargon so I went with the spelling so we could see who we were talking about.