How can we know for certain...

[trofimus]

Textus receptus is about as good as it gets.

Didn't the dead sea scrolls authenticate several books?

I think niv used the Alexandrian text. A corrupted text

Dead sea scrolls have nothing to do with the New testament nor with Textus Receptus.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Textus receptus is about as good as it gets.

Didn't the dead sea scrolls authenticate several books?

I think niv used the Alexandrian text. A corrupted text

But how can anyone call, or quantify, the Alexandrian test corrupt?

 

[MarcR]

But how can anyone call, or quantify, the Alexandrian test corrupt?

If you practice allegorical interpretation, you are in effect saying that the text doesn't really mean what it says; so what incentive do you have to faithfully preserve it.

If you believe in direct inspiration, and take the text literally; there is a strong incentive not to tamper with it.

When 2 chronologically older MSS from 1 place, that practices allegorical interpretation, disagrees with more than 8 MSS from 5 different places, widely removed from one another, where literal interpretation was practiced; I believe the geographically separate texts in agreement are more credible.

 

[trofimus]

If you practice allegorical interpretation, you are in effect saying that the text doesn't really mean what it says; so what incentive do you have to faithfully preserve it.

If you believe in direct inspiration, and take the text literally; there is a strong incentive not to tamper with it.

When 2 chronologically older MSS from 1 place, that practices allegorical interpretation, disagrees with more than 8 MSS from 5 different places, widely removed from one another, where literal interpretation was practiced; I believe the geographically separate texts in agreement are more credible.

Can you post some examples in manuscripts you think are a result of "allegorical interpretation"?

So we know what you mean.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If you practice allegorical interpretation, you are in effect saying that the text doesn't really mean what it says; so what incentive do you have to faithfully preserve it.

If you believe in direct inspiration, and take the text literally; there is a strong incentive not to tamper with it.

When 2 chronologically older MSS from 1 place, that practices allegorical interpretation, disagrees with more than 8 MSS from 5 different places, widely removed from one another, where literal interpretation was practiced; I believe the geographically separate texts in agreement are more credible.

Thanks for your answer. Now, where has it been proven the Alexandrian texts employ allegorical intrepretations of the scriptures?

Who has asserted this notion, iow?

 

[MarcR]

Thanks for your answer. Now, where has it been proven the Alexandrian texts employ allegorical intrepretations of the scriptures?

Who has asserted this notion, iow?

I did not intend to suggest that. My assertion, for what it is worth, is that the well documented practice of allegorical interpretation in Alexandria suggests a lack of respect for God's word that might lead to less careful transcription.

This is more informed speculation or hypothesis than proven fact. It is just an alternative approach to accounting for the discrepancy.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I did not intend to suggest that. My assertion, for what it is worth, is that the well documented practice of allegorical interpretation in Alexandria suggests a lack of respect for God's word that might lead to less careful transcription.

This is more informed speculation or hypothesis than proven fact. It is just an alternative approach to accounting for the discrepancy.

But don't we need more than just speculation and hypothesis/hypotheses to prove anything correctly?

 

[MarcR]

But don't we need more than just speculation and hypothesis/hypotheses to prove anything correctly?

Indeed we do. Hypothesis is only a starting point. However my point is that my hypothesis is intended to counter the equally unproven hypothesis that older is better.

 

[MarcR]

I have tried to defend my hypothesis with what I hope are reasonable arguments in its favor.

You can judge for yourselves how successful I was.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Indeed we do. Hypothesis is only a starting point. However my point is that my hypothesis is intended to counter the equally unproven hypothesis that older is better.

Well, if the mss used in newer versions are truly older than the seven used by the KJV translators(not saying they are older, btw), I think older would be better.

Go into a room and whisper something in someone's ear and have them say that to others. By the time it gets back to you, its completely different. So, the older mss would seem more accurate, seeing they weren't copied as much as the ones used in the KJV.

 

[MarcR]

I have tried to defend my hypothesis with what I hope are reasonable arguments in its favor.

You can judge for yourselves how successful I was.

It may be the case that we can't be certain and need to decide by preponderance of the evidence.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I have tried to defend my hypothesis with what I hope are reasonable arguments in its favor.

You can judge for yourselves how successful I was.

It may be the case that we can't be certain and need to decide by preponderance of the evidence.

I have tried. The sites I have read are biased, some defending the newer versions, others the TR. So, how can I know which one is correct?

I am trying to be as diplomatic as I can, not desiring to castigate either side. I just want proof, not speculations and hypotheses. Thanks for your much needed involvement in this thread, my Brother.

 

[trofimus]

I have tried. The sites I have read are biased, some defending the newer versions, others the TR. So, how can I know which one is correct?

I am trying to be as diplomatic as I can, not desiring to castigate either side. I just want proof, not speculations and hypotheses. Thanks for your much needed involvement in this thread, my Brother.

Probably the only thing we can do is:
a) read best pages and arguments for so called majority text (not the same thing as the Textus REceptus)
- by Robinson-Pierpont?
- Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

b) read best pages and argumetns for so called minority text
- by Wallace?
- https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

And decide for ouselves which arguments seem more logical or persuasive to us.

---

Or, we can ignore this issue altogether like orthodox do and say "its not important what was original or added, what really matters is what is useful for Church, Scripture is living and growing with Church".

 

[SovereignGrace]

Probably the only thing we can do is:
a) read best pages and arguments for so called majority text (not the same thing as the Textus REceptus)
- by Robinson-Pierpont?
- Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

b) read best pages and argumetns for so called minority text
- by Wallace?
- https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

And decide for ouselves which arguments seem more logical or persuasive to us.

---

Or, you can ignore this issue altogether like orthodox do and say "its not important what was original or added, what really matters is what is useful for Church".

Thank you...

 

[MarcR]

I have tried. The sites I have read are biased, some defending the newer versions, others the TR. So, how can I know which one is correct?

I am trying to be as diplomatic as I can, not desiring to castigate either side. I just want proof, not speculations and hypotheses. Thanks for your much needed involvement in this thread, my Brother.

Some things don't give us enough information to know for certain. This is likely one such.

It still seems to me that multiple MSS in agreement from diverse places are more credible than 2 documents from 1 place regardless of age.

I think it reasonable that if a MS were corrupted it would be by error rather than by intent. When MSS from Turkey, Carthage, Ethiopia, Syria, and Macedonia are in agreement and 2 older MSS from Alexandria disagree; the MSS from diverse places are more credible.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Some things don't give us enough information to know for certain. This is likely one such.

It still seems to me that multiple MSS in agreement from diverse places are more credible than 2 documents from 1 place regardless of age.

I think it reasonable that if a MS were corrupted it would be by error rather than by intent. When MSS from Turkey, Carthage, Ethiopia, Syria, and Macedonia are in agreement and 2 older MSS from Alexandria disagree; the MSS from diverse places are more credible.

But wasn't Ethiopia the center of Christianity at one time? That's what my pastor told me. If so, then mss from there would be correct, imo.

 

[trofimus]

So called "Majority" changes in time.

First 4 centuries, majority was what was minority in 9th century.
Today, because of printed Bibles with so called minority text, its again a majority.

So, is majority always right? If so, from which era?

---
Img is from https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

 

[trofimus]

But wasn't Ethiopia the center of Christianity at one time? That's what my pastor told me. If so, then mss from there would be correct, imo.

Also, Alexandria, so "corrupted" for the TR proponents, was the only center of Trinity teaching when whole the West and Byzantine church turned to Arianism.

The bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, fought for the deity of Christ and won the fight. His creed is well-known.

 

[trofimus]

First 4 centuries, majority was what was minority in 9th century.

Correction: First 8 centuries.

 

[MarcR]

Also, Alexandria, so "corrupted" for the TR proponents, was the only center of Trinity teaching when whole the West and Byzantine church turned to Arianism.

The bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, fought for the deity of Christ and won the fight. His creed is well-known.

I agree that Arian heresy caught hold in Byzantium and the West; but it was never a large problem in Syria, Ethiopia, or Carthage.