A complete Bible is NOT necessary to trust God, nor for preservation!

[annsni]

99%? How do you know this? Oh, the manuscript we have, blah blah blah. The manuscripts we have are copies of the original, not the originals themselves. Many of them differ one from another. Which one has what the originals had? Nobody knows. People guess, they theorize, they work off of assumptions and man-made principles, but nobody knows for sure what the originals said. That 99% you gave is a bunch of bologna. You have no way of testing that and proving it true.

How can I take the scriptures as authoritative? By faith. That's the only way. The manuscript route using textual criticism fails every time. It's failure is in the fact that no original copy exists and we have no eyewitness of those copies. It is trying to bring the bible as close to something that the practitioners of this process have never seen. How can you know whether 1 John 5:7 is original or not? What about the disputed portions of John 8 and Mark 16? Textual criticism hasn't answered these questions.

If you argue textual criticism, then you deny all translations beyond the originals and you have no Bible. If you cannot trust translators, every single Bible out there is unreliable and questionable. You MUST paint with the same brush all of the Bibles or none of the Bibles. Your choice.

 

[dwmoeller1]

No. They gave their own personal testimonies. Each gospel was written for a particular audience.

I would quibble over typifying the gospels as "personal testimony" (Luke, for one, explicitly introduces his gospel as something he researched and sought out, not merely what he saw with his own eyes). However, thats a different thread...

My question then is, if each was written for a particular audience, and if each gospel contains "additions" and "deletions" to the story of Christ, does this mean that they are somehow deficient? Or, instead, do all contain the concepts necessary for true faith and sufficient understanding of the gospel? Is the ascension of Christ somehow called into doubt because John deleted it from his telling? Is Great Commission somehow to be consider weakened because neither John or Luke mention it in their gospel?

Would you apply this same logic to other written works? Would it be ok with you if college textbooks were all different and some left out important information? How well might you do on an exam?

They *are* all different. Compare several Algebra 1 texts and you will find a wide range of different ways to teach the same basic concepts - different order of approach, different wordings, different practical applications, different emphasis, different assumptions, etc. Yet in the end, they all teach the same basic concepts. Despite the wide differences, they are all teaching the same things.

So, for instance, one might teach binomial factoring using of 3 different methods. Each teacher has a preference, and the particular of each method can be quite different, but once a student has grasped the concept behind binomial factoring, he understands the same basic concept regardless of the method used to get him to that point. Now personally, I think one method is a bit better for several reasons, BUT this doesn't change the fact that my preferred methods is trying to teach the exact same concept as another.

 

[dwmoeller1]

If you argue textual criticism, then you deny all translations beyond the originals and you have no Bible. If you cannot trust translators, every single Bible out there is unreliable and questionable. You MUST paint with the same brush all of the Bibles or none of the Bibles. Your choice.

What do you mean by "textual criticism" here?

 

[annsni]

What do you mean by "textual criticism" here?

I was actually kind of responding to this post. I guess I should have quoted it. I meant that if you argue AGAINST textual criticism, then all Bibles must be tossed out. Sorry - Hubby was trying to rush me out to dinner. Can you imagine??? He wanted to take me out to eat and I HAD to quickly post. LOL

99%? How do you know this? Oh, the manuscript we have, blah blah blah. The manuscripts we have are copies of the original, not the originals themselves. Many of them differ one from another. Which one has what the originals had? Nobody knows. People guess, they theorize, they work off of assumptions and man-made principles, but nobody knows for sure what the originals said. That 99% you gave is a bunch of bologna. You have no way of testing that and proving it true.

How can I take the scriptures as authoritative? By faith. That's the only way. The manuscript route using textual criticism fails every time. It's failure is in the fact that no original copy exists and we have no eyewitness of those copies. It is trying to bring the bible as close to something that the practitioners of this process have never seen. How can you know whether 1 John 5:7 is original or not? What about the disputed portions of John 8 and Mark 16? Textual criticism hasn't answered these questions.

 

[jbh28]

It takes words to create a concept. If words are deleted, the concept will change.

Words create a concept. Deleted words change the concept.



maybe not then.

Though I do understand your point, but it's not true in a universal sense.

 

[jbh28]

This is key. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the concept that we can pick one translation out of the many works done and then insist that this translation, and this translation alone, is the perfect translation. I can't even see how someone can hold to that view.

And yet, that does not mean that those who think that way are dishonest or piglike in their ignorance.

It simply means that my brother and I see things differently. The scriptures say nothing about translations. We don't know which body of manuscripts is best. Therefore neither of us can claim some kind of higher ground and condemn the other.

We will know the truth one day. In the meantime would we not be best to allow each other the liberty to hold their own view without questioning their motivation, honesty, or integrity?

Well said.

I'm glad you liked my point. Now the next point. In view of the fact that nobody alive today has ever seen an original copy of scripture and has no idea what exactly was contained therein, the argument for "better and more accurate" manuscripts should be obviously viewed as a complete farce. How does one know they are better or more accurate? The answer is, noone can.

We can look at evidence and have a good idea was to what is more accurate. We need to be careful not to give the idea that we have no idea what the Bible really says. This is what the liberals try to get us to believe. We know what the Bible says. The few areas that are in question are not that crucial. Now you may say, what about I John 5:7 with the trinity. Is that important? Sure it is. It's all important. But is the doctrine changed? Is our view of the doctrine any different with or without the verse? No. The doctrine of the trinity does not rest on this one passage. So if you think it's original and I think it's not, our doctrine doesn't change at all. We still know without a doubt that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.

But as was said before, we can have our opinions. Some hold majority. Some hold older. We will never all agree, but that's fine. We are still reading the Word and loving our God.

I see people saying the disputed passages are not crucial for doctrine. Every scripture in the bible is important and helps frame the entirety of truth concerning God. It amazes me that people think that you could do away with verses and it is no big deal. Regardless of which translation you prefer, we should all agree that every word in the bible is important and that every section of scripture is vital to help us understand more about God.

I think you do bring out a good point here. Sometimes in discussions, we tend to move to an extreme to counter an opposing view. I hope I haven't come across that the words are not important. The words are very important. My point that I make is that the doctrine(lets say of the virgin birth) is not changed by a variant that rests in one verse. Is it important? Yes. Is it crucial for doctrine? No. Variants are there. We can't ignore that they are there. But no doctrine rests on any one variant.

 

[franklinmonroe]

If you argue textual criticism, then you deny all translations beyond the originals and you have no Bible. ...

Actually, if one denies the importance of textual criticism they are still left with nearly 6,000 Greek 'Bibles'! (and thousands of Latin and other incomplete ancient Scriptures which would be found to contain obvious errors, omissions, and 'additions'.)

I hope you enjoyed your dinner.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I think you do bring out a good point here. Sometimes in discussions, we tend to move to an extreme to counter an opposing view. I hope I haven't come across that the words are not important. The words are very important. My point that I make is that the doctrine (lets say of the virgin birth) is not changed by a variant that rests in one verse. Is it important? Yes. Is it crucial for doctrine? No. Variants are there. We can't ignore that they are there. But no doctrine rests on any one variant.

That is also a point I was trying to bring out. Just because 1 John 5 is missing a few words in it does not negate the truth of the existence or unity of the Godhead.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... the concept that we can pick one translation out of the many works done and then insist that this translation, and this translation alone, is the perfect translation. ...

It would truly have to be a Divine miracle.

 

[franklinmonroe]

1 John 5:12

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son . . . hath not life. (AV 1611, with modern spelling)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (currently published KJVs)​

What I DON'T do, as some on here do, is declare them BOTH to be the inerrant Word of God. Since one is right and the other wrong, that cannot be.

 

[annsni]

Actually, if one denies the importance of textual criticism they are still left with nearly 6,000 Greek 'Bibles'! (and thousands of Latin and other incomplete ancient Scriptures which would be found to contain obvious errors, omissions, and 'additions'.)

Absolutely.

I hope you enjoyed your dinner.

Prime rib. Need I say more???

 

[Winman]

1 John 5:12

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son . . . hath not life. (AV 1611, with modern spelling)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (currently published KJVs)​

Neither the original rendering or the latter rendering are error, they are both 100% accurate. The latter rendering is more specific however.

dwmoeller1 wrote:

So can we at least agree that the changing or maybe deletion/addition of single words is not necessarily a problem?

If so, then lets consider whole sections deleted...
Would you agree with me that the accounts of Jesus' ministry differs between the 4 gospels? And would you agree that the various writers both left out and added different sayings and actions of Jesus?

The reason the four gospels are different is because you have four different witnesses. Witnesses always give different details. If for instance when the police question suspects in a crime, if all suspects give a similar word for word alibi they become suspect, the alibi is probably rehearsed and memorized.

Let's say a fellow goes into a bank, goes to the teller and pulls out a pistol. The teller notices that he also has another pistol inside his jacket. Two people standing behind the robber see only one pistol, and a third cannot see a pistol at all from his vantage point. So later when testifying against the robber the defending attorney will point out an inconsistency in witnesses's testimonies. He will point out the teller said the robber had two guns, two witnesses said he had only one gun, and yet another witness said he saw no gun at all. He will do this in an attempt to discredit the witnesses's testimonies.

Is this an error? No, this is exactly what each witness saw, and each one is telling the truth. Witnesses often give differing details of any event. And this is the case with the four gospels as well.

 

[glfredrick]

99%? How do you know this? Oh, the manuscript we have, blah blah blah. The manuscripts we have are copies of the original, not the originals themselves. Many of them differ one from another. Which one has what the originals had? Nobody knows. People guess, they theorize, they work off of assumptions and man-made principles, but nobody knows for sure what the originals said. That 99% you gave is a bunch of bologna. You have no way of testing that and proving it true.

How can I take the scriptures as authoritative? By faith. That's the only way. The manuscript route using textual criticism fails every time. It's failure is in the fact that no original copy exists and we have no eyewitness of those copies. It is trying to bring the bible as close to something that the practitioners of this process have never seen. How can you know whether 1 John 5:7 is original or not? What about the disputed portions of John 8 and Mark 16? Textual criticism hasn't answered these questions.

Do any of the disputed texts effect the rest of the Word that we do know? You are suggesting that they do. I (and textual scholars) are saying that they do not.

I'd humbly offer that the millions upon millions of people in the world who have had a life-changing experience with Jesus Christ based on the hearing of the Word -- in whichever fashion they heard it (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, English, German, French, etc., etc., etc.) -- have been saved in exactly the biblical fashion, by belief upon hearing of the Word.

In part, what I think that you are suggesting is that the game of "telephone" was played with the Scriptures (where one person whispers into another's ear, and the message is passed along -- changing wildly by the end person in a group), but that is not how the texts were passed on. They were written, cherished, copied, and distributed widely. They were cited, prayed, included in the worship services, inscribed on tombs, etc. When ALL these sources are compared, we end up not with a game of "telephone" but rather a science of comparison of texts to derive textual families, and textual transmission.

Above, I asked if you had any ability to work in the original languages. I see that you failed to respond to that question, which implies that you do not. I must then presume that you are getting your knowledge about the Word from some other source than your own informed study -- perhaps Bart Ehrman, who was once a decent textual scholar, but who lost faith and turned from the Word to his own reason and insight. I feel for him and those whom he has led astray, perhaps even you...

Finally, and again, if you cannot accept the veracity of the texts we have, then you need to turn your back on Christianity, for you are basing your belief in something other than the Word of God handed down through the ages. Is that the case? Or, can you trust the work done by scholars who have dedicated their lives to the study and accurate transmission of the Word of God down through the ages, knowing that God will and has preserved His Word, just as He said He would?

 

[Winman]

Do any of the disputed texts effect the rest of the Word that we do know? You are suggesting that they do. I (and textual scholars) are saying that they do not.

Yes they do. Look at Matthew 9:13 for example.

KJB- But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

ESV- Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

Note the ESV omits "to repentence". This is a huge difference in meaning. We are to repent, that is, have a change of mind toward ourselves and see ourselves as sinners in need of a Savior.

We can't come to Jesus as we are in the sin of unbelief. We have to repent and see ourselves as lost sinners unable to save ourselves and depend only on Jesus to save us.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Yes they do. Look at Matthew 9:13 for example.

KJB- But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

ESV- Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." ...

Neither the KJV rendering nor the ESV rendering are in error; both are 100% accurate. The latter rendering is less specific however.

 

[Winman]

Neither the KJV rendering nor the ESV rendering are in error; both are 100% accurate. The latter rendering is less specific however.

Baloney and you know it. The ESV rendering is not accurate. Jesus said we must repent.


Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matt 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

The church is full of sinners today who come to church and act the part, but in their hearts have never repented and seen themselves as lost sinners and trusted on Christ, just as these chief priests and elders who came to Jesus. They were religious, they professed God with their mouths, but they never repented and trusted Jesus.

You must repent.

 

[Baptist4life]

Neither the KJV rendering nor the ESV rendering are in error; both are 100% accurate. The latter rendering is less specific however.

Makes ya wanna go.........:BangHead: :BangHead:

 

[Winman]

Here is a verse that gives very different meanings as compared to the KJB and some modern versions.

KJB-Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NASB- Matt 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be *guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, '*You good-for-nothing,' shall be *guilty before *the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be *guilty enough to go into the *fiery hell.

The KJB shows that it is not a sin to be angry at someone for a just cause. If someone breaks into your house and steals all your possessions, you have a perfect right to be upset and angry.

The NASB omits "without a cause" and gives the impression it is a sin to be angry at your brother at any time for whatever reason.

These two versions do not give the same understanding in this verse whatsoever. Other MVs omit "without a cause" in the text but do include it in the footnotes leaving the reader to speculate whether these words belong there or not.

 

[annsni]

Baloney and you know it. The ESV rendering is not accurate. Jesus said we must repent.


Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matt 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

The church is full of sinners today who come to church and act the part, but in their hearts have never repented and seen themselves as lost sinners and trusted on Christ, just as these chief priests and elders who came to Jesus. They were religious, they professed God with their mouths, but they never repented and trusted Jesus.

You must repent.

Yes, the ESV is accurate to the earlier manuscripts. However, note that the ESV has "repent" in the parallel passage in Luke:

"I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

So how has the ESV removed repentance from it's doctrine? It hasn't. It was just being faithful to the manuscript evidence.

 

[annsni]

Makes ya wanna go.........:BangHead: :BangHead:

Actually, it makes me want to study more. Banging your head just gives you a headache. Instead be like the Bereans.