The Bible wars.

While I believe we should seek and desire to have the Greek text closest to the autographs, I can read my TR (which I really never do), f35(also, rarely use it), Robinson - Byzantine, SBL(rarely use), NA28 or THGNT, and I will still hold the same doctrines I hold now.

Most of our issues of "Bible Wars" seem to be issues of translation, not the underlying text. Outside of this board or a few YouTube debates, most people inside the church debate or question translastion.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

The most accurate Greek Text seems to me to be the Majority/Byzantine Text. Not that it is always right/correct, but it seems to me to be the most accurate.

Then next it seems the Textus Receptus is highly accurate. It definitely has some mistakes, sometimes even agreeing with the Nestle/Aland against the Majority Text in a few cases. But still highly accurate.

Then comes Nestle/Aland, and it seems to me to be the lest accurate of the three. Still highly accurate, just not as accurate usually as the above two. However there a few cases where this text could be correct against the above-mentioned Greek Texts where words were accidentally skipped in the Majority Text yet preserved in Nestle/Aland.

I think we are blessed to have all 3 Greek Texts. One is not always right against the others all of the time. Or so it seems to me.

 

The enormous number of Greek manuscripts, and collated Greek New Testaments are certainly a blessing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

the modern translations such as the nas and esv actually do give to us what the Originals were teaching better then the Kjv does!

 

Indeed, as we can be assured that any of the 3 main greek texts do give to us an accurate representing of what the originals were to us!

 

The NA and the Majority texts seem to be better as in closer to what the originals were then the TR text, as that text was put together based upon eranmus and took in renderings from latin Vulgate, and from unknown sources to thias very day!

 

1. The MT, TR, CT agree. Highest percentage.
2. The MT, TR agree verses the CT. Next highest percentage.
3. The MT, CT agree verses the TR. 3rd or 4th highest percentage.
4. The TR, CT agree verses the MT. 3rd or 4th highest percentage.

Even with all the mistakes of Erasmus and every editor of the TR's the Majority Text and TR still have far more agreements than with any CT's. Critical Text editors have their "Erasmus" type blunders as well.

 

The great news is that as you stated earlier, one can use with confidence any of those 3 greek texts with confidence that one has the word of the Lord!

 

I do not see the 1 John 5:7 as having that much support from Greek text/sources, as believe even Erasmus himself did not see it supported at all until third edition!

 

The 3 that bear record were not the three of the kjv text reading though is the point!

 

The Joker Popcorn GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

 

The shorter reading of John has strong support. But regardless, one is justified in translating the shorter the same as the longer. Context makes it clear Jesus is the object of the participle πιστεύων (pisteuon). Having the Greek εις εμέ (in me) doesn't change the meaning. One can rightly add the words in English based on the shorter reading.

Luke 4:4 is a little more questionable for me. Though I lean towards the shorter reading. Luke has a habit of being more concise at times(compared to Matthew; see also Matt 6:10 vs Luke 11:2) since he adds elsewhere and nearly uses 100% of a scroll; perhaps Luke is being aware of the word count. Luke also shows no interest in copying Matthew word for word. Note the temptations are in a different order. We see the the reading lengthened to various lengths in lectionary and corresponding manuscripts of their era. Do we go with the medium length, the one that harmonizes with Matthew, or do we go with longest that gives us Matthew plus Deut. 8:3?

Luke 4:4 is likely scribal harmonization.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk