Bible Study

[Trotter]

Considering the earliest available MSS come from a group comprised of a certain majority which that group consists, it is most logical the originals would have stood apart from them without any possibility of error. What this suggests is those less consistent in a family of texts to have produced suppositional ideals their respective versions are made up of.

Logical, is it? Hmmm... the "originals" would have perished rather quickly due to use. Without copying them to preserve them we would not have any scriptures today. Copyists are only human; the OT was meticulously copied and counted, but the NT was not so much. Even the differences in the various types show how these copies were influenced by the times.

Errors appear over time, as a copy is slightly different from the one before it. Later manuscripts have a much greater chance of error than do earlier manuscripts. Later manuscripts also accumulate additions that were inserted along the way, things that were not originally in the earlier manuscripts. That's not to say that there is no chance for any errors in early manuscripts, but these errors would have been carried over into later manuscripts as well.

What this suggests is that all manuscripts are valuable, but the earlier should be used more as a plumb line for the later and not the other way around.

The KJV is most consistent while others jump to and from perspective versions and thereby a dissimulation occurs within the ranks. The versions placed into the mix the lessening of consistency and the greater dissimulation, or should I say division?

The KJV is consistent in that it does not acknowledge that there are other variants out there that may be more valid than the choice laid before the reader. Modern versions, for the most part, are guilty only of being honest with the text and the reader of it. "Jumping to and fro", is it? Literary honesty with the word of God is the proper phrase.

_____________________________________

Back on topic...

I wish you well with your study, thecross2. You already know you will come up against a lot of willful ignorance in this, but you sound like you already know and are prepared to face it. Jesus said that the truth will set you free, and this situation is no exception.

It is an amazing thing to see God lift the scales of ignorance from the eyes of the people. Some will thank you for it, but some will be staunchly opposed ("I've never used/heard anything else" "It was good enough for Paul" "My great grandaddy used it" blah blah blah). Let God be your guide and you and your congregation will be just fine.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Logical, is it? Hmmm... the "originals" would have perished rather quickly due to use. Without copying them to preserve them we would not have any scriptures today. Copyists are only human; the OT was meticulously copied and counted, but the NT was not so much. Even the differences in the various types show how these copies were influenced by the times.

Errors appear over time, as a copy is slightly different from the one before it. Later manuscripts have a much greater chance of error than do earlier manuscripts. Later manuscripts also accumulate additions that were inserted along the way, things that were not originally in the earlier manuscripts. That's not to say that there is no chance for any errors in early manuscripts, but these errors would have been carried over into later manuscripts as well.

What this suggests is that all manuscripts are valuable, but the earlier should be used more as a plumb line[\Quote] the most accurate plumbline "May be" LOL!

 

[Baptist4life]

Best I can do for you right now is to post links. I don't have time tonight to write a paper since hubby is looking for hot soup on the table when he gets home. Hope you don't mind.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#MxD3htsMihwc
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm
http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC.html

Having read most of those, I see no real proof for any of what they write. It is only their opinions on the texts, and the KJVO proponents can make arguments for their views also. It still boils down to PERSONAL belief in my opinion.

 

[TC]

That is because it is personal preference. Since we do not have the originals, all we can do is look at the texts and make a choice between them. Some say the CT is better and some say the TR/MT is better. I tend to lean towards the TR/MT (because I grew up on the KJV and NKJV), but I also use CT based Bibles.

 

[robycop3]

Logical, is it? Hmmm... the "originals" would have perished rather quickly due to use. Without copying them to preserve them we would not have any scriptures today. Copyists are only human; the OT was meticulously copied and counted, but the NT was not so much. Even the differences in the various types show how these copies were influenced by the times.

Errors appear over time, as a copy is slightly different from the one before it. Later manuscripts have a much greater chance of error than do earlier manuscripts. Later manuscripts also accumulate additions that were inserted along the way, things that were not originally in the earlier manuscripts. That's not to say that there is no chance for any errors in early manuscripts, but these errors would have been carried over into later manuscripts as well.

What this suggests is that all manuscripts are valuable, but the earlier should be used more as a plumb line[\Quote] the most accurate plumbline "May be" LOL!

HG, the "older is better" theory is generally rejected by KJVOs, as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are among the oldest extant mss known.