-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is Considered best 'proof" The CT is Corrupted/tainted?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
There is no proof. If anything a case can be made that the TR, which its backwards translations from Latin to Greek, is corrupt.
The truth of the matter is the present day CT is an excellent resource for translation that is far superior to the MT.
The truth of the matter is the present day CT is an excellent resource for translation that is far superior to the MT.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
There is also no proof of this contention since we don't have the original manuscripts.
The CT texts are corrupt.
The CT texts are corrupt.
The CT texts are corrupt.
Just keep repeating it, eventually it will become real.
On a serious note, I've asked this question here before (and on other Christian boards) and I've never gotten an answer.
The CT texts are corrupt.
The CT texts are corrupt.
Just keep repeating it, eventually it will become real.
On a serious note, I've asked this question here before (and on other Christian boards) and I've never gotten an answer.
"Far superior???" Care to prove that? Not one single doctrine changes, not one single name of Christ is lost whichever you use. How could the CT then be "far superior?"
stilllearning
Active Member
Hi Japheth10, and thanks for the observation.....
I never realized that, until you pointed it out.
And welcome to the BB.
stilllearning
Active Member
Good afternoon Mexdeaf
I just got home and found this thread.
The first(and only), proof that came into my mind, in answer to the OP, is the character(or lack there of), of W&H.
I am far from being an expert, but it seem to me, that although W&H didn’t come up with the idea of higher criticism, they were the first ones who’s work was recognized an respected.(But I may be wrong)
As for the truth about their character, you can’t find it on the internet.
But it can be found in books, authored by them and from books written by men who actually knew them.
I have already read enough from these sources, to come to my own conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------
Which bring up another question...........
Does character really matter?
“If” it turns out that W&H were unsaved, but were well educated as translators; would that matter to you.
Some people I have spoken to, seem to think that all that is needed for someone to translate the Bible, is a good education in that field; And that their relationship with Christ just doesn’t matter.
I just got home and found this thread.
The first(and only), proof that came into my mind, in answer to the OP, is the character(or lack there of), of W&H.
I am far from being an expert, but it seem to me, that although W&H didn’t come up with the idea of higher criticism, they were the first ones who’s work was recognized an respected.(But I may be wrong)
As for the truth about their character, you can’t find it on the internet.
But it can be found in books, authored by them and from books written by men who actually knew them.
I have already read enough from these sources, to come to my own conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------
Which bring up another question...........
Does character really matter?
“If” it turns out that W&H were unsaved, but were well educated as translators; would that matter to you.
Some people I have spoken to, seem to think that all that is needed for someone to translate the Bible, is a good education in that field; And that their relationship with Christ just doesn’t matter.
Actually, W&H didn't do higher criticism, they did lower criticism, which is another name for textual criticism. Higher and lower criticism are totally different.
Welcome to the BB.
Since your post came after mine, I assume you are aiming it at me. But I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Please explain.
I'm wondering the same thing.
The verse says: And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Not at all. I might ask the same of your highly esteemed KJV translators. God often uses unsaved people to accomplish His perfect purposes.
is it possible for we who believe in the infallibility of the sacred texts in the Bible agree that though we might hold that the CT is better than MT, or visa versa, that NO major doctrines are affected regardless of preferred greek text used, and that BOTh accurately reflect the original manuscripts?
jonathan.borland
Active Member
One proof is in the sheer numbers of manuscripts that oppose the CT, such as 1600+ Greek manuscripts that have "and fasting" in Mark 9:29 and only three that omit; 1600+ Greek manuscripts that have the last 12 verses of Mark and only two that omit; 1800+ Greek manuscripts that have "Jesus" in Matt 4:23 and only one that omits; 1800+ Greek manuscripts that omit "without cause" in Matt 5:22 and only a handful that omit. It is easy to understand why one or a few related manuscripts could have produced an offshoot twig from the mother tree containing hundreds of branches. It is purely conjecture that a single manuscript (or a small group of related manuscripts) should probably contain the original reading against all other manuscripts. If the historical copying process was so disjointed as to produce a resultant text where at any given time all preserved manuscripts came to be corrupt except one, which in other places is itself often corrupt, then the text of the Bible is indeed as extremely unreliable as Bart Ehrman logically argues.
Another proof is in the sequential internal evidence against the minority readings explaining how and why they arose; for an example of this see my blog posts covering every CT variation from the consensus of all Greek manuscripts in the first few chapters of Matthew.
Another proof is in the sequential internal evidence against the minority readings explaining how and why they arose; for an example of this see my blog posts covering every CT variation from the consensus of all Greek manuscripts in the first few chapters of Matthew.
Last edited by a moderator:
But aren't the sheer number of TR manuscripts the result of copying and copying and copying the same text over the centuries? Besides, sheer numbers don't indicate correctness.
Arguing that a phrase is missing from one manuscript whereas it is present in another doesn't necessarily mean it is corrupt. If so, why does the TR omit "Jesus Christ our Lord" and the CT doesn't in Jude 25? Same thing in Romans 1:4.
Regarding Mark 9:29
A part of the NET note on this says "This seems to be a motivated reading,due to the early church's emphasis on fasting...The most important witnesses lack it[fasting] when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find,argues strongly for the shorter reading."
Bruce Metzger thought it was a gloss added by later scribes.
A part of the NET note on this says "This seems to be a motivated reading,due to the early church's emphasis on fasting...The most important witnesses lack it[fasting] when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find,argues strongly for the shorter reading."
Bruce Metzger thought it was a gloss added by later scribes.
There are two places where the Critical Text seems to me to be just plain wrong (I posted this on another thread but can't find it):-
Eph 3:14-15, NKJV. 'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.'
Eph 3:14-15, NIV. 'For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.'
You see the difference? The words 'of our Lord Jesus Christ' are missing in the Critical Text (though the vast majority of Greek texts contain them). Now, whom is the whole family of God. living on earth and in glory, named? After Christ of course. We're Christians (Acts 11:26), not Fatherians. So it seems to me that the CT must be wrong at this point.
Another text is Luke 4:44 & 5:1, where the C.T. seems to think that the Lake of Gennesaret is in Judea. I think there's another as well but I can't remember it right now.
Steve
Eph 3:14-15, NKJV. 'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.'
Eph 3:14-15, NIV. 'For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.'
You see the difference? The words 'of our Lord Jesus Christ' are missing in the Critical Text (though the vast majority of Greek texts contain them). Now, whom is the whole family of God. living on earth and in glory, named? After Christ of course. We're Christians (Acts 11:26), not Fatherians. So it seems to me that the CT must be wrong at this point.
Another text is Luke 4:44 & 5:1, where the C.T. seems to think that the Lake of Gennesaret is in Judea. I think there's another as well but I can't remember it right now.
Steve
Last edited by a moderator: