MUST we have only one text?

[Winman]

I think of other versions as corrupted. I believe a person can be saved using these versions, a person can be saved reading a tract, through hearing a sermon, or the testimony of a believer. But I believe a believer will get more out of the true text and is less likely to fall into error.

I have never said the word of God is preserved in English only, if you were to faithfully and accurately translate the KJB text into another language, that would be the preserved and pure word of God in that language. I understand you might have to supply some words, as the KJB translators had to do. I know you cannot translate word for word from one language to another.

You are entitled to disagree with me, as I am with you.

 

[gb93433]

The majority of Majority Text advocates do not use that last line of yours as a reason to go their route.

Some majority text advocates do.

Take a look at http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

 

[gb93433]

I think of other versions as corrupted. I believe a person can be saved using these versions, a person can be saved reading a tract, through hearing a sermon, or the testimony of a believer. But I believe a believer will get more out of the true text and is less likely to fall into error.

The more I Study the more I see the ignorance of so many who have not studied the historical context of the scripture they read. About 98% of those during the time of the NT could not read.

 

[Winman]

The more I Study the more I see the ignorance of so many who have not studied the historical context of the scripture they read. About 98% of those during the time of the NT could not read.

What are you saying? What does a high rate of illiteracy have to do with the preservation of scripture?

 

[gb93433]

What are you saying? What does a high rate of illiteracy have to do with the preservation of scripture?

It has everything to do with understanding what they are reading rather than thinking "what it says to me."

 

[jbh28]

This issue will never be settled through scholarship or scientific proof, so if you believe God perfectly preserved his word, by faith you must choose one of the texts. I chose the KJB.

Did God perfectly preserve his word prior to the TR coming out? If yes, then your reasoning is bad. You can't say you have to choose one text as perfectly preserved if you believe that it was perfectly preserved prior to it existence.

The problem isn't with your research, it's with kjvo propaganda that you have bought into.

 

[Mexdeaf]

You may disagree with my logic and method, but this is how I have done it. I freely admit it is based on some presumptions, which I make through faith.

Can "presumptions" really be a basis of faith?

I do not believe so, because presumptions by definition are merely assumed truths, as opposed to the Bible itself, which IS truth, and makes no claims whatsoever for a preserved text outside of the originals.

 

[Winman]

Did God perfectly preserve his word prior to the TR coming out? If yes, then your reasoning is bad. You can't say you have to choose one text as perfectly preserved if you believe that it was perfectly preserved prior to it existence.

The problem isn't with your research, it's with kjvo propaganda that you have bought into.

If you read the OT, you will see the word of God was lost at various times, such as shown in 2 Kings 22:8.

2 Kings 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard these words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.

The word of God was lost for a period of time in the OT. Was it preserved? Yes, but the people did not have it for awhile. But under Josiah, who was one of the good kings it was recovered.

I believe something very similar happened with the KJB. I truly believe God's hand was behind it and brought it to pass. One of the great evidences for the KJB has been how it has survived, and the great period of worldwide evangelism that began just as it became prominent. I do not think it coincidence that England became the first worldwide super-power, with trade and colonies all over the earth, even remote islands, at this very time. The English took the word of God to the world.

 

[Winman]

Can "presumptions" really be a basis of faith?

I do not believe so, because presumptions by definition are merely assumed truths, as opposed to the Bible itself, which IS truth, and makes no claims whatsoever for a preserved text outside of the originals.

We are all forced to make some assumptions, whether you believe in the KJB or CT text. None of us was there when God inspired his prophets to record the word.

I believe it is a perfectly safe assumption to believe God desires to reveal himself to us, otherwise we would have no scriptures at all. Besides being promised that his word would be preserved, it is a safe assumption that it would be. God is not the author of confusion, why would he spread his word through many various texts where we would have to guess where his word is? That doesn't make sense to me at all. It is the devil that wants us to be confused, he is the one that would introduce corrupt manuscripts to confuse us.

So, I stick to my point, that only one text can be preserved, or else they are all corrupt. They cannot both contain and omit scripture like the ending of Mark 16, that is utterly illogical.

And if they are all corrupt, might as well throw them all in the trash. How can you have faith in that which you believe is corrupt?

So, you have to take a stand by faith IMO, you will never figure it out scientifically. If anything, with each new discovery, MORE confusion is introduced.

My 2 cents, take it or leave it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

We are all forced to make some assumptions, whether you believe in the KJB or CT text. None of us was there when God inspired his prophets to record the word.

I believe it is a perfectly safe assumption to believe God desires to reveal himself to us, otherwise we would have no scriptures at all. Besides being promised that his word would be preserved, it is a safe assumption that it would be. God is not the author of confusion, why would he spread his word through many various texts where we would have to guess where his word is? That doesn't make sense to me at all. It is the devil that wants us to be confused, he is the one that would introduce corrupt manuscripts to confuse us.

So, I stick to my point, that only one text can be preserved, or else they are all corrupt. They cannot both contain and omit scripture like the ending of Mark 16, that is utterly illogical.

And if they are all corrupt, might as well throw them all in the trash. How can you have faith in that which you believe is corrupt?

So, you have to take a stand by faith IMO, you will never figure it out scientifically. If anything, with each new discovery, MORE confusion is introduced.

My 2 cents, take it or leave it.

Actually with each new discovery, the Bible is more thoroughly vindicated. It's our lack of faith that God did what He said He would do in the first place that causes confusion.

 

[jbh28]

If you read the OT, you will see the word of God was lost at various times, such as shown in 2 Kings 22:8.

2 Kings 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard these words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.

The word of God was lost for a period of time in the OT. Was it preserved? Yes, but the people did not have it for awhile. But under Josiah, who was one of the good kings it was recovered.

Was there no other copies?....well anyway, todays critical texts are based on almost 5600 manuscripts. The majority of them discovered after the KJV.

I believe something very similar happened with the KJB. I truly believe God's hand was behind it and brought it to pass. One of the great evidences for the KJB has been how it has survived, and the great period of worldwide evangelism that began just as it became prominent. I do not think it coincidence that England became the first worldwide super-power, with trade and colonies all over the earth, even remote islands, at this very time. The English took the word of God to the world.

As i said, you have bought into the KJVO propaganda. What you are stating has absolutely no biblical nor historical evidence. Besides, if you are going to say that God's hand was behind the KJV in the sense that he kept them from error, you are basically giving the KJV translators the same authority as the original writers. This is what is usually described as double inspiration with God giving us the words in English. Now, if you are speaking of the Greek here, then don't say KJV as that is confusing. (I know the multiple TR's, but there are also multiple KJV's).

 

[jbh28]

So, I stick to my point, that only one text can be preserved, or else they are all corrupt. They cannot both contain and omit scripture like the ending of Mark 16, that is utterly illogical.

Again, which you keep not understanding is that you cannot be right here. A specific text(NA27, UBS 4th, MT or the TR) has to be 100% perfect.

And if they are all corrupt, might as well throw them all in the trash. How can you have faith in that which you believe is corrupt?

What, you mean like the 1500 years before anything called a TR was in existence? And what do you mean by "corrupt"? Do you mean if there is one error in the people compiling the Greek text that it's corrupt?

So, you have to take a stand by faith IMO, you will never figure it out scientifically. If anything, with each new discovery, MORE confusion is introduced.

My 2 cents, take it or leave it.

Faith in the Bible or faith in the mysterious KJVO propaganda?

 

[JesusFan]

Again, which you keep not understanding is that you cannot be right here. A specific text(NA27, UBS 4th, MT or the TR) has to be 100% perfect.
What, you mean like the 1500 years before anything called a TR was in existence? And what do you mean by "corrupt"? Do you mean if there is one error in the people compiling the Greek text that it's corrupt?

Faith in the Bible or faith in the mysterious KJVO propaganda?

Both the TR/CT are 'enough/close to" the original manuscripts to warrent them as being essentially the "word of God" for today, either can be the basis for translation!

 

[Amy.G]

....well anyway, todays critical texts are based on almost 5600 manuscripts. The majority of them discovered after the KJV.

I saw a program the other night called "The Bible on Trial". It was done by a trial lawyer who used "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible. In it he said that there are over 5000 manuscripts of the NT in comparison to only a dozen or less of other works such as Plato or Shakespeare. Quite a difference!
Every manuscript that is discovered only helps to confirm the truth of the bible as God's word. I don't think we should just throw them away because they aren't the TR. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. (southern talk )

 

[Mexdeaf]

I saw a program the other night called "The Bible on Trial". It was done by a trial lawyer who used "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible. In it he said that there are over 5000 manuscripts of the NT in comparison to only a dozen or less of other works such as Plato or Shakespeare. Quite a difference!
Every manuscript that is discovered only helps to confirm the truth of the bible as God's word. I don't think we should just throw them away because they aren't the TR. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. (southern talk )

:thumbsup::thumbs::godisgood:

 

[jbh28]

I saw a program the other night called "The Bible on Trial". It was done by a trial lawyer who used "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible. In it he said that there are over 5000 manuscripts of the NT in comparison to only a dozen or less of other works such as Plato or Shakespeare. Quite a difference!
Every manuscript that is discovered only helps to confirm the truth of the bible as God's word. I don't think we should just throw them away because they aren't the TR. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. (southern talk )

Yep! Homer's Iliad that has around 643 manuscript copies. There are 5600 just in Greek for the NT. If you include all manuscripts, it's closer to 24,000. Sophocles has 193 manuscripts with a 1400 year span between the original writing and the earliest manuscripts. The Iliad has a 500 year gap. The NT has a 25 year gap. After Sophocles, its Aristotle with 49 and the rest are 20 and below. Plato is 7. As you said, "quite a difference!"

It's not even close. We have plenty of evidence for the Bible and what it says.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... There are 5600 just in Greek for the NT. If you include all manuscripts, it's closer to 24,000. ...

Thanks for your posts, jbh28.

It is interesting to note here that there are more Latin manuscripts (about 10,000) than Greek. The Latin MSS are overwhelmingly classified as the 'Western' texttype. Therefore, if all manuscripts were taken into consideration then a different 'majority' text would emerge (a non-Byzantine one).

There is no doubt that Greek was the original language that the Apostolic writers would have employed. But copies of Christian writings would have began appearing in the the 4th Century or earlier. Therefore, the Latin manuscripts are, on the whole, just about as ancient as the main body of Greek MSS that are primarily categorized 'Byzantine'. Prima facie, there really is no reason to declare the (Greek) Byzantine copies as being more faithful copies than the Latin translations since, for the most part, the Latin can readily attest to the underlying Greek. Am I right?

BTW- does any one know right off hand the age of the earliest Latin MSS?

 

[Rippon]

Thanks for your posts, jbh28.

I appreciate his posts too.

It is interesting to note here that there are more Latin manuscripts (about 10,000) than Greek. The Latin MSS are overwhelmingly classified as the 'Western' texttype. Therefore, if all manuscripts were taken into consideration then a different 'majority' text would emerge (a non-Byzantine one).

Yep.

BTW- does any one know right off hand the age of the earliest Latin MSS?

Perhaps (Vercellenis) of the 4th century. It dealt with the Gospels. The symbol is it with a tiny a.