Featured Biblical errancy?

Maybe add anti-Christian agenda.

 

The bible says it is trustworthy and useful for all sorts of things. Most people agree that the inspired texts in the original autographs were without errors, but we do not have the originals so the claim is unprovable as of today.

There are certainly passages that appear to be corruptions, as shown by variants.

But the intended message of the text is certainly trustworthy and useful.

 

Obviously the scholars disagree, with the Critical Text removing what they think are "additions" and the Majority Text often going with the longer variant thinking the shorter one is an omission.

I generally go with the Critical Text, based on the assumption that the later scholars recognized errors made by the earlier scholars.

 

Am I aware that the CT may be in error and either or both the TR and MT might on occasion be correct? Yes.

 

A bible difficulty: One staff only or not even one staff?

Since the idea is they are worthy of receiving what they need because of the work they are doing, Jesus tells them not to take extra provisions.

At Matthew 10:10 the KJV (TR) says not to take staves (plural) but the same verse reads not to take a staff (singular) in the NASB (CT). And using the WEB, the MT apparently also has the singular for staff.

So we can resolve this "difficulty" by assuming the idea of a staff is an extra staff, based on the context of not taking extra stuff.

 

I can't, personally. I've not studied Greek or Hebrew, so I consult (reading or talking) with those who have done the studies and whose doctrinal statement would be similar to mine, and/or whose knowledge of the Bible languages have earned respect from people that I respect.

 

The KJV (the one that pops up when you click on the blue Matthew 10:10, which is the TR is plural.

 

The CT is singular. The MT, based on the WEB has singular. Since the KJV is plural, I do not think the TR is singular.