How much of the Bible do we actually have today?

[Daniel David]

Have you ever heard someone say that with all the manuscript evidence, we have about 98% of the original writings? I have. I do not think that is a true statement though. In fact, as a non-KJVO, I totally reject it.

I would say that we have about 102%. That extra 2% is due to the variations found between all the witnesses.

For example, one manuscript says: Jesus wept. Another says: and Jesus wept. Still another says: then Jesus wept. Our Bibles (all of them to my knowledge) contains: Jesus wept. Now, what do we do with the manuscripts that contain: then and and? Whichever one you use, absolutely nothing changes. Only one can be correct. We all agree on the "Jesus wept" part. So, when we talk about the percentage of the writings that we have today, isn't it more likely that we have more rather than less?

 

[Johnv]

You make a good point

 

[go2church]

I praise God for all the mutiple copies manuscripts of the scriptures.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

All that God wants us to have, complete and inerrent.

 

[Ransom]

Exactly! That's the ironic thing about the KJV-onlyists. Instead of rejoicing that despite using sinful man to preserve his Word in such a way that no earthly power could destroy it, they are devoted to casting doubt and skepticism about all the copies that don't match theirs precisely.

 

[Dr. Bob]

102% I like this. So many well-meaning scribes adding so many great extra words, phrases and verses (none of which really hurt) have expanded and conflated the text.

But I have the Word of God. And I have good English translations of it to boot!

 

[Arubian Baptist]

With all respect, the problem is not the simple words that has no actually meaning and or chance in the Word...the problem is when there are vital parts being messed with...

This can happen in various ways, either by changing the word(s) so its power will be lessened. (So bye bye Hebrew 4:12)

Or word(s) are simply left out or in the best case, placed in braccets...and by doing so, casting a shadow of doubt on the word of God, by stating that "older manuscripts don't have this part" implying that perhaps it might not be part of that text of the Bible.

For example, if you talk to your about the prayer that Jesus set as a example. It will make a big difference which bible you will use...

Luke 11:2 (KJV) And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth

Luke 11:2 (NIV) He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, ?? hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.??

Luke 11:2 (NASB) And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father??, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. , ??

Luke 11:2 (TLB) And this is the prayer he taught them: "Father??, may your name be honored for its holiness; send your Kingdom soon. , ??

Now look it up in your own bible...are these words there??

If not..is your bible then right? and should you teach your children the prayer now without the "Father wich art in heaven"? and "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth"

Or are these words placed in bracets? thus casting a shadow of doubt if these belong actualy in the prayer Jesus gave us?

What will you do now?

Daddy:
Son, this is the prayer Jesus taught us, but these parts, wel..we do not know if Jesus realy said that, you see son, these parts are placed in bracets...that means that people smarter than we, people who are more learned in this subject, tells us that we can not be sure that these verses realy belong there in your bible...son just pray it anyway, but remember..we are not sure that they belong in that prayer..ok, lets see what more does your bible say...look son, I like this verse: Psalm 12:7,8 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

son: Daddy?...I do not understand?

daddy:...euh...

This was just 1 example, but there are much more changes that really affect the Word of God.

 

[Daniel David]

Just a couple of things:

1. Matthew 6: 9-13

9 Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Wow, if you read the NASB in Matthew 6, you see those very things. Good grief. Sometimes, the gospel writers only include portions of a quote from Christ.

2. I wouldn't invent errors and manipulate my children into believing a lie.

3. I wouldn't trump up charges against a version I didn't like.

4. I wouldn't ignore the point of a thread in order to hijack it. Good grief.

 

[Arubian Baptist]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Just a couple of things:

1. Matthew 6: 9-13

9 Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Wow, if you read the NASB in Matthew 6, you see those very things. Good grief. Sometimes, the gospel writers only include portions of a quote from Christ.

2. I wouldn't invent errors and manipulate my children into believing a lie.

3. I wouldn't trump up charges against a version I didn't like.

4. I wouldn't ignore the point of a thread in order to hijack it. Good grief.

Woow...now take that same verse and use the NIV...woow...it left out the part that says; "
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Woow, now what????, in the marginals notes it says, that SOME LATE MANUSCRIPTS have it...casting doubt, casting doubt...is it or is it not part of the Lords prayer, in Luke they leave it out, in the NASB they (according to you) they put it in in matthew, but again in the NIV it is being left out again...o God, I want to know for sure what your words says!!! Which bible can I trust Lord, which bible can I take up and say without any doubt...this part of the Lords prayer belongs here, because your Word said so??? Which Bible Lord??...where is your Word...o why did you left so many versions and all having one thing in common, all same to dissagree against each other, and in particular all against the KJB

2. Now I want to learn my kids the Lords prayer...what must I tell them?? Follow the Matthew NASB version, which include the which art in heaven and thy will shall be done in heaven and earth, but leaves out these same words in luke, or shall I take the NIV which leaves out the "father in heaven and thy will be done..etc. etc. plus casting doubt by their marginal notes about the kingdom and power forever in the matthew? What a dillema!!!

3. It is not a matter of what you like or not, it is a matter of what do you do, when you see such obvious tampering with Gods word.

The point of the tread included the statement that sometimes were just small insignificant changes in the words, which I try to show that some times these changes are not that insignifficant at all....

Talking about GOOD GRIEF!!

 

[Johnv]

The confusion over the Lord's prayer is that the Greek word in question that identifies God is ouranos, which typically referrs to the sky, or to the home of God. The lack of a word for God in the sentence (such as Abba or Pater) tells us that the word ouranos was being used as a noun to identify God. So whether it reads "Our Father in Heaven" or "Father", there's a good arguement for both. The best translation might be "Heavenly Father", but that's technically not exactly correct.

This is one of those problematic situations inhierent in translating Greek to English.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Arubian Baptist:
...now take that same verse and use the NIV...woow...it left out the part that says; "
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

It's not left out in the NIV. It's included in the footnotes, as you indicated:

6:13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

As for, what do you teach your kids? Teach them the truth: That some manuscripts include it, and some don't. That's what my kids know, and it hasn't done harm to them at all.

 

[Alcott]

'Arubian Baptist,' I have a question about the reasoning you are trying to use...

Matthew 27:37 (KJV) -- And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 (KJV) -- And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

According to Mark's gospel, the sign placed above Jesus on the cross does not include the words "THIS IS JESUS", as Matthew does. Does this "cast doubt" on whether those words were actually inscribed there, and if so does it invalidate the gospel of Mark as a book which can not be trusted?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Arubian Baptist:
1. Woow...now take that same verse and use the NIV...woow...it left out the part that says; "
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

2. Woow, now what????, in the marginals notes it says, that SOME LATE MANUSCRIPTS have it...casting doubt, casting doubt...is it or is it not part of the Lords prayer, in Luke they leave it out, in the NASB they

3. (according to you) they put it in in matthew,

4. but again in the NIV it is being left out again...o God, I want to know for sure what your words says!!! Which bible can I trust Lord, which bible can I take up and say without any doubt...this part of the Lords prayer belongs here, because your Word said so??? Which Bible Lord??...where is your Word...o why did you left so many versions and all having one thing in common, all same to dissagree against each other, and in particular all against the KJB

5. Now I want to learn my kids the Lords prayer...what must I tell them?? Follow the Matthew NASB version, which include the which art in heaven and thy will shall be done in heaven and earth, but leaves out these same words in luke, or shall I take the NIV which leaves out the "father in heaven and thy will be done..etc. etc. plus casting doubt by their marginal notes about the kingdom and power forever in the matthew?

6. What a dillema!!!

7. It is not a matter of what you like or not, it is a matter of what do you do, when you see such obvious tampering with Gods word.

8. The point of the tread included the statement that sometimes were just small insignificant changes in the words, which I try to show that some times these changes are not that insignifficant at all...

1. First, I don't give a lick about the NIV. I have never used it. I have never liked it. I disagree with the philosophy behind the translation. However, it is a translation of a particular greek text. So, let me think this through. The NIV is translated from a different text than the KJV. My well thought out conclusion is that there might be differences.

2. That is being honest. If you used a 1611, you would see that they did THE EXACT SAME THING. Did you know that? Did you know the original KJV had footnotes about better and different translations?

3. I posted the text. Look it up on the internet if you think I am part of some conspiracy. Frankly, I tire of posting stuff only to have the KJVO crowd cover their eyes and ask where the evidence is.

4. You trust what God actually had written. That is the greek. The job we have is to compare the texts and see why the KJV is always adding to the originals. Just as a side note (and this has nothing to do with the debate issue), the KJV translators included a picture of Eve in it without something to cover her breasts. I don't want to use something where the translators were into topless women. Only the KJV translators could get away with that.

5. If it weren't so tragic, I would be laughing right now.

6. Only for KJVO.

7. What I do is what all good students of Scripture do, I check the passage, check the underlying texts, find out why one has it and another doesn't, and preach the text with all the authority God has given.

8. Is that what you have come up with in regard to false doctrine? I am just so glad that the Lord saved me from KJVO stuff.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Arubian Baptist:
With all respect, the problem is not the simple words that has no actually meaning and or chance in the Word...the problem is when there are vital parts being messed with...

This can happen in various ways, either by changing the word(s) so its power will be lessened. (So bye bye Hebrew 4:12)

Or word(s) are simply left out or in the best case, placed in braccets...and by doing so, casting a shadow of doubt on the word of God, by stating that "older manuscripts don't have this part" implying that perhaps it might not be part of that text of the Bible.

For example, if you talk to your about the prayer that Jesus set as a example. It will make a big difference which bible you will use...

Luke 11:2 (KJV) And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth

Luke 11:2 (NIV) He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, ?? hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.??

Luke 11:2 (NASB) And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father??, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. , ??

Luke 11:2 (TLB) And this is the prayer he taught them: "Father??, may your name be honored for its holiness; send your Kingdom soon. , ??

Now look it up in your own bible...are these words there??

If not..is your bible then right? and should you teach your children the prayer now without the "Father wich art in heaven"? and "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth"

Or are these words placed in bracets? thus casting a shadow of doubt if these belong actualy in the prayer Jesus gave us?

What will you do now?

Daddy:
Son, this is the prayer Jesus taught us, but these parts, wel..we do not know if Jesus realy said that, you see son, these parts are placed in bracets...that means that people smarter than we, people who are more learned in this subject, tells us that we can not be sure that these verses realy belong there in your bible...son just pray it anyway, but remember..we are not sure that they belong in that prayer..ok, lets see what more does your bible say...look son, I like this verse: Psalm 12:7,8 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

son: Daddy?...I do not understand?

daddy:...euh...

This was just 1 example, but there are much more changes that really affect the Word of God.

Amen and Amen!!!

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Alcott:
'Arubian Baptist,' I have a question about the reasoning you are trying to use...

Matthew 27:37 (KJV) -- And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 (KJV) -- And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

According to Mark's gospel, the sign placed above Jesus on the cross does not include the words "THIS IS JESUS", as Matthew does. Does this "cast doubt" on whether those words were actually inscribed there, and if so does it invalidate the gospel of Mark as a book which can not be trusted?

Here you mentioned two different accounts by two different people. Arubian Baptist mentioned same book, same verse.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
8. Is that what you have come up with in regard to false doctrine? I am just so glad that the Lord saved me from KJVO stuff.

[rule violation deleted]

[ May 31, 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Arubian Baptist]

2. That is being honest. If you used a 1611, you would see that they did THE EXACT SAME THING. Did you know that? Did you know the original KJV had footnotes about better and different translations?

3. I posted the text. Look it up on the internet if you think I am part of some conspiracy. Frankly, I tire of posting stuff only to have the KJVO crowd cover their eyes and ask where the evidence is.

4. You trust what God actually had written. That is the greek. The job we have is to compare the texts and see why the KJV is always adding to the originals. Just as a side note (and this has nothing to do with the debate issue), the KJV translators included a picture of Eve in it without something to cover her breasts. I don't want to use something where the translators were into topless women. Only the KJV translators could get away with that.

5. If it weren't so tragic, I would be laughing right now.

6. Only for KJVO.

7. What I do is what all good students of Scripture do, I check the passage, check the underlying texts, find out why one has it and another doesn't, and preach the text with all the authority God has given.

8. Is that what you have come up with in regard to false doctrine? I am just so glad that the Lord saved me from KJVO stuff.

2. No I did not know, are these actual footnotes that could cast a doubt if a text should be in that bible, or are these footnotes to help explain wat was written?

3. I do not think you are in some sort of conspiracy, the reason I wrote that was to make clear that I personally did not looked that verse up in a NASB,...sadly I failed to clear that up...my fault

4. Did you search for a possible explanation in the culture and custom at the time? And do you know the background of the motives that they used that picture?
Let her breasts satisfy you always
How about this text how to handle breast, can I consider this pornographic? Do you? Certainly you must consider it at least the same as showing a picture of breast? So now you have a picture and you have a text...what do you do now? Better get rid of your bible now, and btw, this was taken from the New Living Translation, but the King James has it also...proverbs 5:19

5. As long as my believe in a perfect copy of the word of God and your believe that God has not preserved His word in 1 book, buth rather left us with hundreds of bibles which all tend to dissagree with eachother....as long as these 2 believes don't (And it doesn't

)take away our salvation, there is no need to feel tragic.

6. I am not KJB O, I just did not find another bible except for the King James Bible, that I believe is perfect.

7. So tell me, you good student, why has the words "on me" been removed from the newer versions in John 6:47? How do you preach with authority now?

Will it sound like this? : The bible says: Whoever believes has everlasting life...now that is a statement my brethren, whosoever believes has everlasting life, isn't that great to know, you just gotta believe?, Hey what do you say dear brother? Believe on who/what you ask? Does not matter, the bible, Gods word just says believe...you fill in what to believe dear brother...mickey mouse, fairytale, I don't care...just believe...what do you say dear brother? You have believe "on me" in your bible?......sigh....brother, I told you to not rely on that silly old dated KJV, we have better translations now...go get your NIV brother..

Of course this is al fictional and I am sure that if this was for real you would use other verses in your bible to let them know it is Jesus they gotta believe in...just being sarcastic a little bit.

I am so glad that the Lord saved me from my sin, that is one thing for sure that I can prove from the bible...

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alcott:
'Arubian Baptist,' I have a question about the reasoning you are trying to use...

Matthew 27:37 (KJV) -- And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 (KJV) -- And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

According to Mark's gospel, the sign placed above Jesus on the cross does not include the words "THIS IS JESUS", as Matthew does. Does this "cast doubt" on whether those words were actually inscribed there, and if so does it invalidate the gospel of Mark as a book which can not be trusted?

Here you mentioned two different accounts by two different people. Arubian Baptist mentioned same book, same verse. </font>[/QUOTE]Is it 2 different signs? 2 different crosses? 2 different Jesus''?

Yes or No --- Do the variant readings in the 'gospels' of the sign on the cross of Jesus prove the Word is not necessaarily a one-to-one rendering in all cases? [The same question could be asked about NT passages where an OT passage was being quoted less than verbatum.]

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alcott:
'Arubian Baptist,' I have a question about the reasoning you are trying to use...

Matthew 27:37 (KJV) -- And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 (KJV) -- And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

According to Mark's gospel, the sign placed above Jesus on the cross does not include the words "THIS IS JESUS", as Matthew does. Does this "cast doubt" on whether those words were actually inscribed there, and if so does it invalidate the gospel of Mark as a book which can not be trusted?

Here you mentioned two different accounts by two different people. Arubian Baptist mentioned same book, same verse. </font>[/QUOTE]I think you may have missed Alcott's point. All four Gospel writers record the exact words of the inscription above the cross. All four versions of those exact words disagree. If this sort of "versional" disagreement *within* the KJV poses no problem for the believer, then why should versional disagreements among different English Bible translations pose a problem for the believer?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Arubian Baptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2. That is being honest. If you used a 1611, you would see that they did THE EXACT SAME THING. Did you know that? Did you know the original KJV had footnotes about better and different translations?

2. No I did not know, are these actual footnotes that could cast a doubt if a text should be in that bible, or are these footnotes to help explain wat was written?

</font>[/QUOTE]Most of the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV gave alternate translations. Some of them, however, commented on the text. Some examples:

- Judges 19:2 - "Or, a yeere and foure moneths. Heb. dayes, foure moneths"

- Ezra 10:40 - "Or, Mabnadebai, according to some copies"

- Psalm 102:3 - "Or, (as some reade) into smoke"

- Matthew 1:11 - "Some reade, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias"

- Matthew 26:26 - "Many Greeke copies haue, gaue thanks."

- Mark 7:3 - "Or, diligently, in the originall, with the fist: Theophilact, up to the elbowe."

- Luke 10:22 - "Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said"

- Luke 17:36 - "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies"

- Acts 25:6 - "Or, as some copies reade, no more then eight or ten dayes"

- Ephesians 6:9 - "Some reade, both your, and their master"

- James 2:18 - "Some copies reade, by thy workes"

- 1 Peter 2:21 - "Some reade, for you"

- 2 John 8 - "Or, gained. Some copies reade, which yee haue gained, but that ye receiue &c.