Jesus used a “version” of the Bible

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Surely he can't be that obtuse. The Received Text = Textus Receptus. One just happens to be the English form of the Latin title. And if he is holding that the TR is different from the RT, then NO English Bible comes from the supposed RT. Surely he can't be that obtuse!

No English Bible comes completely from the TR anyway.

On the OP - hey, if Jesus used a version that's good enough for me! And since He didn't tell me which one to use I suppose I have the liberty to pray, research, investigate, and use the one that I find to be the most reliable. For me that means one that it taken from the Byzantine text body and is translated using formal equivalence wherever possible.

 

[RAdam]

Paul, though probably possessing actual Hebrew skills as trained by one of Israel's finest teachers, spoke not in Hebrew, but in the dialect of the Hebrews, in other words, Aramaic. Virtually every commentator agrees. Hebrew was not a common spoken language at this time.

Here is one of the places where insistence on a KJV translation has let you down and suggested something that is not precisely translated. The Greek says "hebrais dialektos" = Hebrew dialect, not Hebrew "tongue," which would imply, as you suggested, that the actual language of Hebrew was spoken by Paul.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
"in the Hebrew tongue-the Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular tongue of the Palestine Jews since the captivity"

Wesley's Notes:
"In the Hebrew tongue - That dialect of it, which was then commonly spoken at Jerusalem (Aramaic)"

Vincent's Word Studies:
"Lit., dialect: the language spoken by the Palestinian Jews - a mixture of Syriac and Chaldaic"

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
"he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue; which the people he spoke to best understood, and was his own mother tongue; the Alexandrian copy reads, "in his own dialect"; this was not pure Hebrew that was spoke in common in those times, but the Syro-Chaldean language"

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
"He spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue - What was called then the Hebrew, viz. the Chaldaeo-Syriac; very well expressed by the Codex Bezae, τῃ ιδιᾳ διαλεκτῳ, in their own dialect."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
"In the Hebrew tongue - The language which was spoken by the Jews, which was then a mixture of the Chaldee and Syriac, called Syro-Chaldaic. This language he doubtless used on this occasion in preference to the Greek, because it was understood better by the multitude, and would tend to conciliate them if they heard him address them in their own tongue."



About "Jewish notions at that time..." I humbly suggest a study of Jewish culture. They were very Hellenized. Greek or Aramaic were the languages of the day.

In other words, the bible told us it was the Hebrew tongue but it really meant something else - the Syro-Chaldaic. Of course, where the bible elsewhere mentions that people spoke in Syrian or Chadean, the bible specifically said so and didn't call it Hebrew. But nevermind that, the scholars have spoken, it must be so.

I respect many of those you quoted, but I'll take the word of the bible over them, thank you very much.

 

[RAdam]

The TR is not perfect. The CT is not perfect. The MT is not perfect. But in the superabundance of manuscripts is the Word of God preserved for scholars to find.

We use them all, compare them all and thereby have little trouble finding the Word of God.

This is probably my favorite post of this entire thread.

Here is your stance:

God preserved His word in thousands of manuscripts so that some scholars could find them in modern times and piece together a bible. These scholars have had little trouble piecing this bible together and it is obviously the inspired word of God.

I love it. That all sounds great, doesn't it? Only one problem: it doesn't work. The scholars fight and bicker about what should be in the bible. The manuscripts don't agree with each other. The same passages are still argued about. The english translations we see on the market are all different one from another.

In other words, it's not quite the utopian wonderland you described. No, textual criticism is one giant mess. What's worse is there is no solution to be found in this practice.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This is probably my favorite post of this entire thread.

Here is your stance:

God preserved His word in thousands of manuscripts so that some scholars could find them in modern times and piece together a bible. These scholars have had little trouble piecing this bible together and it is obviously the inspired word of God.

I love it. That all sounds great, doesn't it? Only one problem: it doesn't work. The scholars fight and bicker about what should be in the bible. The manuscripts don't agree with each other. The same passages are still argued about. The english translations we see on the market are all different one from another.

In other words, it's not quite the utopian wonderland you described. No, textual criticism is one giant mess. What's worse is there is no solution to be found in this practice.

How is this different than the situation in 1610?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Hey, we're on page 11!

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[glfredrick]

In other words, the bible told us it was the Hebrew tongue but it really meant something else - the Syro-Chaldaic. Of course, where the bible elsewhere mentions that people spoke in Syrian or Chadean, the bible specifically said so and didn't call it Hebrew. But nevermind that, the scholars have spoken, it must be so.

I respect many of those you quoted, but I'll take the word of the bible over them, thank you very much.

Your insistence on your own interpretation of two words in one version of Scripture is misleading you. I refer to the original text (and I even cited the TR) which says a dialect of Hebrew, which is universally agreed by conservative scholars to be the Syro-Chaldai (otherwise called Aramaic) language. The word "tongue" is a mis-translation of the word "dialect." The same mis-translation has caused countless pentecostals to go off the deep end with their mystical utterances also...

 

[glfredrick]

This is probably my favorite post of this entire thread.

Here is your stance:

God preserved His word in thousands of manuscripts so that some scholars could find them in modern times and piece together a bible. These scholars have had little trouble piecing this bible together and it is obviously the inspired word of God.

I love it. That all sounds great, doesn't it? Only one problem: it doesn't work. The scholars fight and bicker about what should be in the bible. The manuscripts don't agree with each other. The same passages are still argued about. The english translations we see on the market are all different one from another.

In other words, it's not quite the utopian wonderland you described. No, textual criticism is one giant mess. What's worse is there is no solution to be found in this practice.

You seem to desire "proof" positive of God or His Word. I doubt that you'll find that here in this sin-cursed world.

Perhaps it is time to inject a discussion of the levels of knowledge into this thread. The sort of utter and absolute "proof" desired by many is non-existent. That is not to say that truth does not exist -- we are not post-modern, where the concept of truth is community or individually-based -- but there are levels of surety that we ought to consider.

We cannot "know" with the sort of surety that many desire anything in this world. Even mathematical numbers are based on axioms (things we take for granted and hold as true because they have never been proven false). We cannot "prove" God, much less His Word, save for that we can bring evidence to bear by testimony and other sources that demonstrate that the probabilities are of the highest order that they are what they are.

Based on a continuum, from utter surety to utter impossibility we also have likely, high probability, probability, possibility, potential, unlikely, un-probable, and not probable, that fall between those two poles.

Most everything that we hold as truth falls somewhere in that continuum, and the truths of the Bible, textual evidence for the Word of God, etc., fall into the highest level -- but we can never utterly prove or utterly know with complete certainly those things until we stand face-to-face with God in eternity. At that point, the "glass darkly" (KJV) or "mirror dimly" (ESV, NASB) will be clear and we will see and know with the utter surety that we desire.

At that point, "faith" will no longer be necessary, for we will, as Paul says, "know fully."

I wish that we could "prove" God or God's Word as handed down through the ages, but that is simply not possible. I believe that God designed it that way, for He requires our "faith," not our "sight." Our "faith" is not a "blind faith" nor is it uninformed -- as I said above -- we hold to the highest levels of probability that God is, and any "surety" about God or God's Word resides in our own hearts and minds based on the confirmation brought by the Holy Spirit, something we cannot share with others. They need their own salvific encounter to have the same assurance.

You have had that salvific encounter, right?

 

[RAdam]

I fully believe that God has preserved His word. I believe it because God promised, and God cannot lie. My main point here is that people place their trust in the wrong things. They speak of scholars piecing together a bible out of all the manuscripts that exist. There are two problems there: 1) Many of these manuscripts do not agree and 2) there is no original copy to compare with what we have today. So, when people speak of God having preserved His word, they don't place their faith in God, but rather in the fact that man has compiled various manuscripts and somehow figured out what constitutes the true bible. The latter there is complete nonsense because some passages are disputed. To be fair, some KJ supporters do essentially the same thing.

 

[glfredrick]

I fully believe that God has preserved His word. I believe it because God promised, and God cannot lie. My main point here is that people place their trust in the wrong things. They speak of scholars piecing together a bible out of all the manuscripts that exist. There are two problems there: 1) Many of these manuscripts do not agree and 2) there is no original copy to compare with what we have today. So, when people speak of God having preserved His word, they don't place their faith in God, but rather in the fact that man has compiled various manuscripts and somehow figured out what constitutes the true bible. The latter there is complete nonsense because some passages are disputed. To be fair, some KJ supporters do essentially the same thing.

Please (and I've asked you this before in other threads) explain how else we can know.

God has indeed preserved His Word. But He has chosen to not preserve the original autographs -- likely because He knows us better than we know ourselves -- we would probably bow down and worship them. In fact, that may indeed be what some KJVO fans are doing.

You continually ignore the FACT that scholarship has indeed given us the most accurate and complete textual transmission of the original texts possible. Our faith is not, however, in these scholars, nor should it be in some form of Christian magic, whereby ONE translation (already proven flawed) is called THE Word of God. Our faith is in God, who preserved His Word, which we can read in a number of forms, dependent on the particular language in which it has been translated. That virtually every one of these various translations have been used by God to convince, convict, and ultimately save souls, is the proof that these are God's Word preserved.

Are you prepared to make the argument that a version such as the NIV (ESV, HCSB, NASB, RSV, NKJV, etc.) is not the Word of God? If so, are you also then prepared to tell all the various people who have come to faith under its reading and study that they are not actually Christians saved by the atoning work of Jesus Christ, which they read of in that Word?

You'll have to make that argument in order to continue on your same tack...

 

[RAdam]

I haven't argued that the NIV isn't the word of God, have I? Of course, if you dare question textual criticism and the "fact" that it has given us as close a textual transmission of the originals as possible (how one can come to this conclusion without the originals is beyond me) then you must be arguing against every single english translation after the KJ and believe the KJ to be the only word of God in english. Surely, that must be true, right? Wrong. I'm not arguing that.

Here's the facts as they exist:

1) The originals are gone.
2) Nobody alive today has seen a copy of the originals and has no idea what they contained.
3) Many of the manuscripts we have do not agree with each other.

In light of these facts, which are beyond dispute, using textual criticism to attempt to put together a bible that is preserved and accurate is an exercise in futility. I've seen both sides argue for pretty much the same ground and I find it amusing and sad.

How else can we know? Trust in God.

 

[jbh28]

Here's the facts as they exist:

1) The originals are gone.

As far as we know, yes

2) Nobody alive today has seen a copy of the originals and has no idea what they contained.

First part of number 2 is accurate, second part is not accurate. We have plenty of copies to know what the original had. Yes, there are questions, but your statement sound just like what the atheist say about the Bible...and I know you are not an atheist. To say we don't know what the Bible really says is not accurate. We have over 5600 manuscripts of the NT. The vast majority of variants are of no issue whatsoever. Yes, there are a few that we disagree over (end of Mark, I John 5:7...) but that doesn't mean we say we don't know what the original had. That would mean that we don't have a Bible. You said you believe God to preserve His word, as do I. Saying we don't know what the original said is denying that.

3) Many of the manuscripts we have do not agree with each other.

Correct

In light of these facts, which are beyond dispute, using textual criticism to attempt to put together a bible that is preserved and accurate is an exercise in futility. I've seen both sides argue for pretty much the same ground and I find it amusing and sad.

How else can we know? Trust in God.

So, how do you suggest we have the Bible then? You realize you have just removed every translation from the scene because ALL have come together using textual criticism. I trust God to preserve His word. I know He has because He, as you said, cannot lie.

God has promised to supply all of our needs, but that doesn't mean I stop working.

worth repeating...

You continually ignore the FACT that scholarship has indeed given us the most accurate and complete textual transmission of the original texts possible. Our faith is not, however, in these scholars, nor should it be in some form of Christian magic, whereby ONE translation (already proven flawed) is called THE Word of God. Our faith is in God, who preserved His Word, which we can read in a number of forms, dependent on the particular language in which it has been translated. That virtually every one of these various translations have been used by God to convince, convict, and ultimately save souls, is the proof that these are God's Word preserved.

 

[Winman]

This is simply untrue. The TR did not exist till Erasmus put it together.

Technically yes, but the texts that comprise the RT can be traced back to the earliest centuries, well before the CT. The writings of early church fathers support the RT but not the CT. Scriptures written in the early centuries in other languages support the RT.

The ONLY argument the CT has ever had is age. It was argued it was older than the RT and therefore closer to the originals. That itself is a false argument, age does not prove authenticity whatsoever. But the fact is, there is evidence for the RT texts well before any CT texts.

 

[Winman]

First part of number 2 is accurate, second part is not accurate.

No, RAdam is correct and you are in error. The original autographs do not exist and have not for many centuries. There is no way to prove exactly what the original autographs contained.

We have over 5600 manuscripts of the NT. The vast majority of variants are of no issue whatsoever.

Yes, but the vast majority (over 90%) support the RT. The RT's variants are small and minuscule, the variants in the CT are many and major.

It is ridiculous, no thinking person would support the CT over the RT unless they had a bias. The Sinaiticus was full of obvious errors.

"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition…." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

What is the writer talking about? Did you note the phrase "to disentangle the various stages?" This indicates that there is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

The Sinaiticus was a horribly sloppy work full of obvious errors and had been obviously tampered with by many different scribes. And these facts were pointed out by Tischendorf who supported this text. Unbelieveable.

 

[RAdam]

You say that we have plenty of manuscripts so we can know what the original contained. Wrong. We have manuscripts that at times do no agree with each other. Which is right? Which is a true representation of the original? How do you know? That's a tough question isn't it. Guess what, nobody is consistent in how they deal with it. Some apply the majority principle, but they don't always do this, such as with 1 John 5:7. Others go with the older manuscripts, but not always. Some translations will leave out what the translators believed to lack authenticity, while others leave them in but put them in brackets or place a note pointing to their being in dispute. The issue is, nobody on this planet, using textual criticism, can tell what the originals said.

This bears repeating: scholarship and textual criticism haven't solved the biggest textual problems of the bible. Those passages are still in dispute. They also cannot tell us what the originals contained using their approach. They can only tell us what they think the originals contained using copies that don't agree with each other.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This bears repeating: scholarship and textual criticism haven't solved the biggest textual problems of the bible. Those passages are still in dispute. They also cannot tell us what the originals contained using their approach. They can only tell us what they think the originals contained using copies that don't agree with each other.

Which is exactly what every single translating team has done all through history.

 

[jbh28]

No, RAdam is correct and you are in error. The original autographs do not exist and have not for many centuries. There is no way to prove exactly what the original autographs contained.

That's different from what he had said. He said that we "no idea what they contained." I was cautioning him over how he stated what he was saying.

Yes, but the vast majority (over 90%) support the RT. The RT's variants are small and minuscule, the variants in the CT are many and major.

Again, as I pointed out the other day, over 90% support the CT as well. It's only the few places where the minority reading is used that we could say that.

It is ridiculous, no thinking person would support the CT over the RT unless they had a bias. The Sinaiticus was full of obvious errors.

No person would support the RT over the CT unless they had a bias. I'm assuming your bias is that they have more support for older manuscripts or bias for majority manuscripts. And no need to say "no thinking person." Let's keep this at an adult level please.

The Sinaiticus was a horribly sloppy work full of obvious errors and had been obviously tampered with by many different scribes. And these facts were pointed out by Tischendorf who supported this text. Unbelieveable.

Well, if the CT people though that the Sinaiticus was perfect, they would have just copied it down as it was, which didn't happen. the Sinaiticus isn't copied down like some want to make it look like. It is used as a source(and older source) when we come up with variants. I know of no place where we use a variant that only has the support of the Sinaiticus.

 

[glfredrick]

The Sinaiticus was a horribly sloppy work full of obvious errors and had been obviously tampered with by many different scribes. And these facts were pointed out by Tischendorf who supported this text. Unbelieveable.

IF... We were basing all textual criticism on the one text of the Sinaiticus, then you would be correct in your assertions. But we are not. Biblical scholars compare ALL the extant manuscripts to discern the original text, and the word "all" encompasses the TR as well.

Seeing as how I love to ask side questions, here is another... How many persons posting on this topic have ever actually met and known one of these biblical textual scholars and know what it is that they do?

 

[jbh28]

You say that we have plenty of manuscripts so we can know what the original contained. Wrong.

So, are you saying nobody knows what the Bible really says. you believe that yourself? You sound just like the liberals that deny the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

We have manuscripts that at times do no agree with each other.

Yes and your point?

Which is right? Which is a true representation of the original? How do you know? That's a tough question isn't it.

Your statements are hilarious. Do you ever hear anybody going around and asking what homer really said in the Iliad? No? but there are variants there and only about 900 manuscripts. A far cry from 5600. It's called comparing. No, we don't know 100% certain on 100% of the variants, but we have a pretty good idea.

Guess what, nobody is consistent in how they deal with it. Some apply the majority principle, but they don't always do this, such as with 1 John 5:7. Others go with the older manuscripts, but not always. Some translations will leave out what the translators believed to lack authenticity, while others leave them in but put them in brackets or place a note pointing to their being in dispute. The issue is, nobody on this planet, using textual criticism, can tell what the originals said.

Nobody can tell you with 100% certainty on100% of the variants. Yes, we have different ideas. I'm glad you said that it isn't "consistent" though I wouldn't have used it that way. It carries a negative connotation. Only the majority text uses the majority all the time. The TR uses the majority family(thought as you said doesn't always have the majority reading) the CT uses older manuscripts(though does have majority readings.) btw, it isn't just which is the older reading for the Ct, that would be inaccurate to say.

This bears repeating: scholarship and textual criticism haven't solved the biggest textual problems of the bible. Those passages are still in dispute. They also cannot tell us what the originals contained using their approach. They can only tell us what they think the originals contained using copies that don't agree with each other.

Yes, to a degree. there are some variants that we are not 100% sure of. Only a very small number. But what is your point then? you are in the same boat you know.

 

[annsni]

The sky was blue with big pffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big white puffy clouds.

The heaven was sky blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue and had big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big puffy clonds.

The heaven was blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky wsa blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was azure with big poofy clouds.



Not one of these 8 sentences are the same - none of them agree. What is the original sentence?

 

[Mexdeaf]

The sky was blue with big pffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big white puffy clouds.

The heaven was sky blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue and had big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big puffy clonds.

The heaven was blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky wsa blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was azure with big poofy clouds.



Not one of these 8 sentences are the same - none of them agree. What is the original sentence?

El cielo era azul con grandes nubes blancas.