Bible Problem

All I know is that I would rather have thousands of manuscript evidence (regardless their age), than just mainly two (Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts). I don't count the other old one, the Alexandrinus because it is worst than these two.

Good find! Wasn't aware of this one, but it is so far as I know it is attributed also to scribal error, unless other suspicions are true. Take a look if you like: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/two-ages-at-once/

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine.

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC

Ah... scribal error. It's so convenient to use in your favour, but irrelevant when it's used in defense of other translations. A person with integrity doesn't use arguments this way.

I use Bible Hub, mostly the Berean, NASB, and Amplified. The argument about which version to use mystifies me. The Holy Spirit is given to lead us into all truth. Let Him reveal the meaning of God's word to us. It is possible to read a passage 50 times before we realise what it means, not just what it says.

I don't agree with the "Scribal error" view that commentators insert into their study Bibles when they can't explain a parallel passage.
There are answers for the surface "discrepancies". But why waste the day answering Dino and the critics who attack the Bible. They will never be convinced by any amount of evidence. I would rather spend time encouraging faith in the lost and leading them to Christ than to bother with those who undermine the faith if the simple.

The fact is that the KJV accurately and correctly translates from the Hebrew. It's always been correct and preserved without errors. I would rather use our Bible and realize that I don't know it all than to read some fake translation that "corrects "those so called "errors."
We have the true Word of God friend.
The enemy will always try to throw out a curve ball with their, "Yea, hath God said?..." attacks.
We have a more sure word of prophecy....
☕🙂👍📖

There are two passage needed to check to determine if the translation is from the detracted text or the Traditional Text: 2Sam 21:19 omits the phrase "the brother of" rendering a reading that says "Elhanan slew Goliath." The other passage is 1JN 5:7 omits the primary Trinity passage. If these are the translation readings they are from the detracted text and contain hundreds of omitted Scriptures.

Amen, no worries with the KJV or NKJV and a few other Bible like them. I don't mind the labor of answering anyone, because the answer is read by everyone and can learn from it.

Concerning "scribal error," this is just what translators and scribes have attributed to this problem.

Amen, no worries with the KJV or NKJV and a few other Bible like them. I don't mind the labor of answering anyone, because the answer is read by everyone and can learn from it.

Concerning "scribal error," this is just what translators and scribes have attributed to this problem.

I have come across nothing that in any way affects the fundamental truths of the gospel. That David killed Goliath is obvious from the account, even if one sentence can be misunderstood. I have one complaint about various versions. That is the translation of "pseuche". The earliest version of the NASB translated this "soul-life". I believe this to be 100% accurate. Now translators interpret the word as either soul or life. This is unnecessary and hinders, rather than helps, the understanding of what it means to lose one's life. However, it will not lead anyone into heresy unless they really want to be deceived.

The best version of God's word is one that people are studying and allow God to reveal Himself through. We have the Holy Spirit to lead us in this. The only versions I avoid are the paraphrases and the KJV. English is hard enough without having to learn the 17th century dialect.

Hi NetChaplain,

I listened to 2 sermons recently that shed light on the subject. As a non Greek speaker I found them very informative. Perhaps you will like to listen in your leisure when you have time? They built my faith for sure.

Bible Translations that Change Doctrines

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine.

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC

i use the nelson king james & the old time gospel hour edition. the nkj has a superb liner note-study help-concordanceformat.

Great teaching and very informative. It's my opinion that most will never realize this travesty of the Word of God; and I also believe that most of the Body of Christ will be at its lowest level of maturity in Christ (Eph 4:15) when Jesus returns. But that's ok, He will make up for it! Below is an example of all the modern version omitting Scripture.

I would rather trust a translation with many manuscript evidence (about 3,000 manuscripts, regardless the age) than only 2 or three. The antiquity of the copies are the reason why they are so venerated. They are only good as antiques for the archeologist; and the footnotes expressing the reason why they omit its not a good enough reason for taking away Scripture.

Act 8:37
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." [entirely omitted].

1Jo 5:7
Entirely omitted, with the footnote "not found in any Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century." As I said, the age of a manuscript is irrelevant because it is a manuscript. This was enough for the KJ translators to include it.

Act 28:29 Entirely omitted.

Jhn 5:4 Entirely omitted.



I wanted to present 4 entirely omitted passages, and 3 partially omitted passages.

Jhn 3:13 Partially omitted "even the Son of man which is in heaven." The omission detracts a significant truth, that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent in heaven while on earth.

Eph 3:9 "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." This reiteration of the Lord Jesus' creative power is a significant detraction of Scripture.

Jhn 5:3 Partially omit "waiting for the moving of the water."


There are two passage needed to check to determine if the translation is from the detracted text or the Traditional Text: 2Sam 21:19 omits the phrase "the brother of" rendering a reading that says "Elhanan slew Goliath." the other passage is 1JN 5:7 omits the primary Trinity passage. If these are the translation readings they are from the detracted text and contain hundreds of omitted Scriptures.

I used to use NIV which is what most of my reference material is, but now I mostly use ESV.

Thanks for the list of omissions.
That reminds me of the another point related to that topic. Sorry if you already covered this.
Some translations are so insincere as to say, "Not in the originals" or " not in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts" in the footnotes, but they add them to their translation because they are sincerely interested in the love of $.

I used to use NIV which is what most of my reference material is, but now I mostly use ESV.