-
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 Difference Does It Make?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
There are theories supporting both the older manuscripts and the Byzantine text-type.
I think what needs to be presented are the doctrines that are taught or negated.
Too often people get into the weeds and worry about whether the Gospels should match word for word, or if one manuscript added words to Luke to match what Matthew wrote. These people typically do not understand the Word of God and prefer to go down verses as if the Bible was a text book in college.
The issue is what doctrines are added or omitted. Once we have a list then we can determine tge probability of one adding or one omitting doctrines.
The problem with the article in the OP is that it is impossible to know if the earlier sources are correct (they are from the 2nd century) or if the Byzantine text-type is correct (they span from the 5th to 10th century) because we do not have the autographs.
I believe it is more likely that words were added (either for clarity or to make a gospel more inline with another). Others believe it is more likely Christians omitted words.
But those are theories explaining the differences.
Bottom line has to be with doctrine. What does one teach that the other does not?
I think what needs to be presented are the doctrines that are taught or negated.
Too often people get into the weeds and worry about whether the Gospels should match word for word, or if one manuscript added words to Luke to match what Matthew wrote. These people typically do not understand the Word of God and prefer to go down verses as if the Bible was a text book in college.
The issue is what doctrines are added or omitted. Once we have a list then we can determine tge probability of one adding or one omitting doctrines.
The problem with the article in the OP is that it is impossible to know if the earlier sources are correct (they are from the 2nd century) or if the Byzantine text-type is correct (they span from the 5th to 10th century) because we do not have the autographs.
I believe it is more likely that words were added (either for clarity or to make a gospel more inline with another). Others believe it is more likely Christians omitted words.
But those are theories explaining the differences.
Bottom line has to be with doctrine. What does one teach that the other does not?
37818
Well-Known Member
Each variant on a case by case issue only changes affected teachings.
John 1:18, the Son versus a God explaining the Father.
You are making the mistake of presenting verses against verses. The actual chapter and verse numbers were later additions. You cannot examine doctrines by narrowing down to verses.
Regardless, here are the two at question:
John 1:18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18 (NASB): No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
If your complaint is "begotten Son" vs "begotten God", "begotten" implies that Jesus is God's Son by definition.
The argument, if I held your method, is that the KJV denies that Jesus is God. Obviously the KJV doesn't, but that illustrates the flaw in your method of isolating sentences.
"Declared" vs "explain" is the other difference. "Explain" is more accurate to what Jesus did. God was already declared.
In this case one reading is correct and one is not correct. One reading is in error, one is not in error. It may be good to have the true reading at times, even if we not sure about all of them, or always which one it is.
You do not know that one reading is in error.
More importantly, by your standard, you do not know either is correct.
These letters were written and copied by congregations. You assume they were Jewush scribes focused on each stroke. But what if they were Christians simply writing down the message for their congregation so they woukx have a copy? They woudd be focused on accuracy of the letter, but not necessarily in a scribe type mentality.
That said, if we get into these theories, you have to ask whether you believe Christians would add to the message for clarity (like carrying over a complete OT quote rather than leaving it as a reference because it was well known) or if they would remove words.
I believe the former is more likely in terms of these theories. Some believe the latter.
I am not sure either is correct word for word to the original, but if I chose one it'd be the latter. I tend to side either these being letters that churches copied to maintain the message - God maintaining His Word.
This is interesting when it comes to Luke. But in the end it is not important as nobody has been able to provide a teaching absent from their opposing text choice.
37818
Well-Known Member
I was referring to John 1:18. The author of John's Gospel either wrote one or the other in your example above between variants.
Quite to the contrary, I know beyond dispute one of them is correct. Whatever John wrote was correct. Whatever a later scribe changed whether accidently or on purpose would be the error.
Excellent point! I'm sure both of us would want to make a perfect copy. Your's may be more perfect than mine, but we would both try to make a good copy to provide the congregations.
I believe you are correct here sometimes. Some scribes, although not commonly may add from their version of the Greek Septuagint. But not all nor the majority of scribes would do so. It is also true that scribes accidentally deleted words and phrases through eye skip.
Short Definitions
Here I was talking John, but you Luke I believe. I suppose each case is different. I see your point in Luke, but not in John. But that was my mistake, not yours.
What variant (both refer to Christ as God's Son who explained God.....do you mean the Byzantine text-type leaving out Jesus being God?)
John 1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be which has come to be.
1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
1:15 John testified concerning Him and has cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me, has come to be before me, because He was before me.' "
1:16 And out of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ.
1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him]
English Majority Text Version
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/EMTV/43/1
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
The reality is that since we do not have the original autographs it is always just a guess as to what the original text was. We can make an educated guess based on the available documents we have but that is all it is, an educated guess. God has preserved His word for us. We have all that we need for salvation and Christian living. This topic has been tortured to death and we still do not have a clear answer and we never will have one.
So you are saying the Byzantine text-type omitts that Jesus is God.
But we do not know that one is exact to John and another is not. Neither could be an exact copy.
More importantly, there are no differences in doctrines.
No, it says clearly that Jesus is God. Read it again.
No, a lot of people know that the reading in the Byzantine Text, plus virtual all independent text type manuscripts in existence from all over the ancient world has one reading, and a small, one hand full of ancient manuscripts that died out has another reading. It was not an accidental scribal change, but a deliberate change. Closer to 2000 Greek manuscripts from all over the Mediterranean verse a hand full. We know the answer.
No, you seem to be saying that almost all Gospel Manuscripts of John say that .....something isn't true.
No, It doesn't.
NASB: John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
KJV: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No, It doesn't.
NASB: John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
KJV: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No, It doesn't.
NASB: John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
KJV: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No, It doesn't.
NASB: John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
KJV: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Does 'Christian living' include being honest on a Christian Forum?
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Of course, that is why I point out the errors of calvinism.
37818
Well-Known Member
The manuscript count percentages.
ο μονογενης υιος 99%
ο μονογεννης υιος 0.6%
μονογενης θεος 0.3%
ο μονογενης θεος 0.1%
- Status