Evidence of textual corruption

[Mexdeaf]

So are you saying that even if there are variations in texts with all copies of all the manuscripts, that none of these texual errors affect Christian doctrine as a whole? In other words, are they just that? textual errors and not doctrinal errors?

The KJV1611 translators said just exactly that in their Preface-

" • 5 it hath pleased God in His divine providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem {be suitable to} us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to revolve upon modesty with S.Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis: [S.August. li. 8. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.

 

[grahame]

I didn't say that.
But I wish I had said that.

All the great schisms of the 19th century (1801-1900)
were based on the same KJV1769 Edition Bible
as the mainline churches in the USA: Baptist, Lutheran,
Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian.
It was the understanding of what the Bible meant that
made the difference in doctrine - not the words which were
pretty much the same.

The great schisms of the 19th century are:

1. Latter Day Saints (Mormons, etc.)
2. Christian Science
3. Adventist
4. Jehovah's Witnesses

Are saying then that all these "schisms" as you call them (I would call most of them heresies) were all caused only because of the wording of the KJV and not the doctrine then? You seem to have something against the KJV? Although you say that it was not the wording. But surely if all these schisms occurred and the KJV was somehow at fault, then it must have been the wording? I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning here. I know I know I am a bit slow to catch on sometimes.

 

[Deacon]

So are you saying that even if there are variations in texts with all copies of all the manuscripts, that none of these texual errors affect Christian doctrine as a whole? In other words, are they just that? textual errors and not doctrinal errors?

Errors in doctrine can occur whether there is textual variation in a biblical text or not.
There ARE doctrinal errors that are caused by textual variants
(e.g. read Mark’s ending [16:8f] and check out the number of people are bitten by rattlesnakes in Kentucky each year).

One of the causes of textual variation was the purposeful altering of the text to strengthen or change a doctrine.

Correct doctrine requires an inspired text and it’s proper interpretation.

Rob

 

[Mike Berzins]

This may help.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [LINK]
Article X.​

E. Transmission and Translation
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Psalms Chapter 12

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. 3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

The bible says that the Lord will preserve his word. What makes anyone think that he would not do it inerrantly?

I understand that many will say that the translation in the KJB of Psalms 12 is wrong. But explain a few things to me plainly then.

Is my King James Bible the word of God? If so, please show me, using only the King James Bible, that I am misunderstanding the promise of preservation. If you can't show me using the King James Bible, why not? Are you telling me that I can't just trust the plain words of the King James Bible? Is it just in Psalms 12, or are there all sorts of places where the bible is wrong?

Are you saying that God gives a word of God that can not be trusted? I know you would say it is man that makes the errors, not God. Then why would you call it the word of God? I know that if I wrote a book, and someone else mangled up my work and introduced a bunch of errors into it, I would not like them attributing the book to me. How much more must the most high God be angered if men are making errors, and saying "thus saith the Lord"?

If you showed me some ancient scraps of paper that had Psalms 12 rendered differently, should I trust in those instead of my bible? Why? Or should I believe some lexicon if it contradicts what the "word of God" says? Surely all agree that any lexcion was written by men, and is not scripture. So should not the King James Bible, being as it is the "word of God" have supreme authority over all lexicons?

We don't need the "verdict of science" to tell us that the bible is well preserved. We have a holy bible that declares itself to be divinely authored and preserved.

 

[grahame]

Errors in doctrine can occur whether there is textual variation in a biblical text or not.
There ARE doctrinal errors that are caused by textual variants
(e.g. read Mark’s ending [16:8f] and check out the number of people are bitten by rattlesnakes in Kentucky each year).

One of the causes of textual variation was the purposeful altering of the text to strengthen or change a doctrine.

Correct doctrine requires an inspired text and it’s proper interpretation.

Rob

The American Association of Poison Control Centers National Data Collection System reported 2814 crotalid snakebites in 2003, one of which was fatal. :thumbs:

 

[Mike Berzins]

//The Bible is without error - The Bible is
the Word of God and God doesn't make errors.
If there appears to be
an error within one Version or among versions -
the error is NOT introduced by God but is due to our
own miss-thinking or our own misunderstanding.

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that any apparent errors in a version or versions are not really errors, but that we, the reader, are just misunderstanding God? Or are you saying that the perceived errors in the versions are actual errors that were put there by men but not by God?

 

[grahame]

Are you saying that God gives a word of God that can not be trusted? I know you would say it is man that makes the errors, not God. Then why would you call it the word of God? I know that if I wrote a book, and someone else mangled up my work and introduced a bunch of errors into it, I would not like them attributing the book to me. How much more must the most high God be angered if men are making errors, and saying "thus saith the Lord"?

You are right. We would soon be up in arms denouncing those who had changed a particular word in what we wrote. With good reason as well. Because one word could change our whole essay. But you can see the reasoning of some surely, who say things like, if the text can become corrupted, then is it not reasonable to asume that quite probably a great deal of other things can become corrupted as well? So in the end we can say, "Well, what can we trust?" If the text can become corrupted, then why are we wasting time arguing about the meaning of different words?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Grahame: //Are saying then that all these "schisms" as
you call them (I would call most of them heresies)
were all caused only because of the wording
of the KJV and not the doctrine then?//

No, I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying the doctrines of these heresies are
made, defended, and proved using the same words
that the mainline denominations use, namely
the words in the KJV1769 Edition.

Grahame: //You seem to have something against the KJV? //

No need to shoot the messenger.
I post more from the KJVs on this
BB (Baptist Board) than anybody else.
I've used the KJVs as a Christian
for the past 55 years, exclusively for half
that time (27-1/2 years).

Grahame: //But surely if all these schisms occurred and the KJV
was somehow at fault, then it must have been the wording?//

the wording was the same for all readers.
The reading of the words were different, and as you say,
they came up with heresies from thier reading of
those words. It is not the WORDS them selves that
have great signifiance but the change they make in
people's lives. There is nothing wrong with the KJVs.
There is something wrong with people who get the
wrong message from the right words.

Mike Berzins: //Are you saying that any apparent errors
in a version or versions are not really errors, but that we,
the reader, are just misunderstanding God?//

Yes. That is what I said.
I believe it axiomatically & by faith.
God doesn't make errors - people do.

And here is a derived truth from that axiom:

God has Preserved His truth in a multitude of
English Versions for the people of this time (which is
2007 not 1762-1769).

 

[Mexdeaf]

Gentlemen, PLEASE! As the one who started this thread I would like to remind you of the OP-

I have been studying a bit more about texts and it seems to me that all of the hoopla about the 'Alexandrian texts' being corrupt is based on supposition and hearsay rather than facts.

Is anyone here aware of specific examples of corruption of the texts?

This is NOT a KJV thread. If you want to fuss about that please start your own thread.

THANK YOU!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mexdeaf: //I have been studying a bit more about texts
and it seems to me that all of the hoopla
about the 'Alexandrian texts' being corrupt
is based on supposition and hearsay rather than facts.//

Amen, Brother Mexdeaf -- Preach it. :thumbs:
The Alexandrian texts are not corrupt and there
is no facts to prove it at all.
So I wanted to talk about something and thought
I'd talk about how God preserves His Word of
God in a multitude of different Bible Versions.
It behoves us to compare them and see what the
real words are AND to try to understand the words
right.

 

[Mike Berzins]

Gentlemen, PLEASE! As the one who started this thread I would like to remind you of the OP-

I have been studying a bit more about texts and it seems to me that all of the hoopla about the 'Alexandrian texts' being corrupt is based on supposition and hearsay rather than facts.

Is anyone here aware of specific examples of corruption of the texts?

This is NOT a KJV thread. If you want to fuss about that please start your own thread.

THANK YOU!

The fact is that that any text, "Alexandrian" or otherwise, that does not line up with the Holy Bible I have in my hand is corrupt. This is neither supposition nor hearsay, but can be clearly proven. Of course, if you don't want to talk about the King James Bible, I have no way to prove it.

P.S. You don't have to YELL. We are not all (mex)Deaf.

 

[Deacon]

The bible says that the Lord will preserve his word. What makes anyone think that he would not do it inerrantly?
[SNIP]
Is my King James Bible the word of God? If so, please show me, using only the King James Bible, that I am misunderstanding the promise of preservation.

The King James Version is the word of God, as are all faithful translations.
God says that "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."
(Matthew 24:35, ESV)

Even when everything else has passed away, God’s word endure.
I don’t find any reference that it will be preserved by man’s hand.

We are instructed that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV)

Regardless of the variation in the Greek texts, we can be assured that his word will continue to work effectively in the lives of his chosen ones.

Granted, the older Greek texts have a bit of variety among them.
Some may call that corruption but these very manuscripts were regarded by our early Christian brothers as inspired Scripture and profitably used to teach, reprove, correct and train in righteousness.

Similar types of variety in the Scriptures didn't seem to bother Jesus or the apostles when they quoted OT Scripture.

Sure I want to read what God originally inspired the original authors to write, but what he has allowed to be preserved on earth is suffice to my need.
Truly, it is many times more that I can really handle alone.

Rob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mike Berzins:

The fact is that that any text, "Alexandrian"
or otherwise, that does not line up with
the Holy Bible I have in my hand is corrupt.

Mike Berzins: // This is neither supposition nor hearsay,
but can be clearly proven.//

Actually that statement is supposition AND hearsay
and cannot be proven.
Logically speaking You assume (make a supposition) that
your statement is proven. But that just isn't a good
logical assumption. For example, which of the KJV[b[s[/b]
is the standard? The other KJV[b[s[/b] do not
LINE UP with the one you choose.

All the doctrinal variations can be made using your
bench mark KJV words but understanding the words
different. And I've read both the 10th l& 11th edition
of HANDBOOK OF DENOMINATIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES and find no doctrine that is totally
dependant upon any modern version (MV).

Now, an incorrect logical assumption (formerly
'axiom') can lead to correct conclusions - it is a logical
truth. So by assuming your above assumption you can
conclude that your KJV1769 Edition Bible Version is without
error -- and be absolutely correct in your conclusion.

Brother Deacon is correct when he says:
//The King James Version is the word of God, as are
all faithful translations.//

 

[grahame]

Similar types of variety in the Scriptures didn't seem to bother Jesus or the apostles when they quoted OT Scripture.

I admit that I am not very knowledable when it comes to the original languages. But I am sure that I read somewhere that Paul the apostle used the Alexandrian text of the OT and not the Hebrew text? The reason being that all his dealings were with those who spoke Greek. Am I correct in saying that? Or have I been misinformed?
Also am I right in thinking that the Catholic English translation of the OT is taken from the Alexandrian text? Forgive me for my ignorance. I'm not a scholar like all you other chaps.

 

[Keith M]

Forgive me for my ignorance. I'm not a scholar like all you other chaps.

Grahame, while some here are scholars, and some are not scholars and know it, there are others who are scholars only in their own minds.

:thumbs: :wavey:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Grahame: //But I am sure that I read somewhere
that Paul the apostle used the Alexandrian text
of the OT and not the Hebrew text?//

That should be the 'Alexandrian texts'
and the 'Hebrew texts'
As both are plural. This is one of the deceptions
that some practice (they are probably also deceiving
themselves) all the types of text are PLURAL -- there
are multiple sources. Even the KJV should usually
be plural as well: 'the KJVs' each contain the
inerrant Written Word of God.

"Alexandrian texts refer to
a family of Hebrew Texts probably copied
in Alexandria. This family includes two of
the oldest surviving texts.

There is also a Greek translation of the
Old Testament. It is called the LXX (roman numeral 70)
or Septuigent (the 70).

Catholic translations were made from the TRs
(Textus Receptus) source documents
much like the KJV was. (BTW, the TRs refer
usually to New Testament source documents in Greek.)

The variatiions in the the 'Alexandrian texts'
and the 'Hebrew texts' and the 'Aitioachin texts'
and the 'Majority Texts' do not constitute serious
textual corruption. Any group of the saved who is serious about
studying the source texts (and this can be done totally in
English) can figure out which was most likely the original
saying.

Again, the meaning of the words is where the divisions come
from, not from the words themselves. God had the words put
down inerrant, this does not imply that there is inerrancy
in anybody's implimentation of those words of God.

 

[El_Guero]

The standard texts on the subject were written by Metzger and Comfort. The Alands were not bad . . . but they were not great - may have been the translator's fault (TC issues even in modern works). This website may help: http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html

The over view (detail is DETAILED) would be something like this:

Corruptions enter into the process mostly by accident.

There are those errors that crept in from commentary in the margins that later editors felt should have been in the text itself.

Some errors were errors in spelling caused by like sounding words. seem and seam for example.

Some errors were errors because the words looked alike.

Some errors might have been intentional.

Some errors were errors of translation (while most of the textual examples "autographs" were in Greek - most of the scribes at later times were not primary Greek speakers . . . )

Some errors were caused by differences in dialect.

WHEW! I hope that helps . . .

I have been studying a bit more about texts and it seems to me that all of the hoopla about the 'Alexandrian texts' being corrupt is based on supposition and hearsay rather than facts.

Is anyone here aware of specific examples of corruption of the texts?

Thanks

 

[El_Guero]

Ed . . .

Where should I start?

The Alexandrian text form deals with the NEW TESTAMENT not the old - IMHO.

 

[grahame]

Why was the LXX in Greek then? and when was it originally copied? I thought it was copied by the Jews in Alexandria? Just shows you how much I know then. :tonofbricks:

 

[TCassidy]

But I am sure that I read somewhere that Paul the apostle used the Alexandrian text of the OT and not the Hebrew text? The reason being that all his dealings were with those who spoke Greek. Am I correct in saying that? Or have I been misinformed?

I can't address whether or not you read the above somewhere, but you probably did read something to that effect. However, the claim that the NT quotes the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament rather than the Hebrew Old Testament is merely speculation. And, I might add, a speculation that does not stand up to close scrutiny. The fact is that when the NT quotes the OT the quotes disagree with the LXX more often then they agree, and they virtually never agree totally with the LXX. It is more likely that the NT writers were quoting the same Hebrew text the LXX was translated from and were doing their own translation into Greek "on the fly" so to speak.

Also am I right in thinking that the Catholic English translation of the OT is taken from the Alexandrian text? Forgive me for my ignorance. I'm not a scholar like all you other chaps.

The Catholic English translation, usually called the Rheims version, was a translation of the New Testament done primarily by Gregory Martin, late of St. John's College, Oxford University, and was based on the Latin Vulgate. 24 years later the NT was followed by the Old Testament translation done at Douai (commonly Anglicized to Douay) giving the English Catholics what became known as the Douay-Rheims version. The text underlying the Douay OT was the Latin Vulgate, using originally the edition of Jerome, then the Sixtine edition of 1590 and the Clementine edition of 1592. The Latin texts were preferred by Roman Catholics over the Hebrew and Greek texts due to the Council of Trent having declared that the Vulgate was "without error."