Phillip, thank you for your reply.
First, I'm NOT a scholar, as it's often defined. I'm just a lay person trying to learn more about both what's in the scriptures and how they came about. In my study, I've run across the issue of the "original manuscripts" many times. Sometimes the points being made are valid. At others the term is just a smoke screen. The "original manuscripts" don't exist. Period. Even, the first set of the 10 commandments were destroyed. Other examples of destruction of the original documents is recorded in the scriptures themselves.
I beg to disagree with any Bibical Scholar who claims any percentage of either the OT or the NT is the "original". I'm trying to be careful here and not read into your words more than you intend. And, further, I'd like to be corrected if the following statement isn't true.
There isn't a shard of clay, piece of parchment, scroll of papyrus, or any other means of recording words in existence that were touched by the hands of the authors of the books of the Bible. Copies, yes. Numerous copies, in some cases, yes. God did promise to preserve His word.
Here's the quandry, in layman's terms, as I understand it. I've picked a chapter in the Bible, at random, to make the point. The numbers used are not actual. Daniel Chapter 11.
Thus far there are 20 manuscripts in existance that agree with each other on the text they contain. There are 5 manuscripts that have slight variations with the 20. And, there are 2 manuscripts that have major variations.
Bible translators have all 27 texts in front of them to be translated into English. Additionally, they have the works of others who have done some or all of the translation of Daniel 11 at an earlier point in time.
Translation team A's completed work is based primarly on the 20 that are in agreement. Plus, studying the works of those preceeding them, and reviewing any available texts that were not included in the final product.
Translation team B's completed work is centered on the 2 manuscripts that have material disagreement with the majority of the copies of the "originals".
If your life depended on chosing which completed translation of Daniel chapter 11, is God's preserved word, which one would you choose? Where the two translations are in agreement, there is no problem. God's preserved word is in both of them. But, your life depends on knowing the truth for all of Daniel 11.
IMHO, this is the quandry. This is the arguement that's been brewing since 1881 with most "modern" translations. It's not about the "originals" as they don't exist. It's whether we choose to support the impact that Hort and Westcott had with their choices of manuscripts, or not, for English bibles.
Again, IMHO, debates over the correct spelling of Savior vs Saviour, while important on some levels, are immaterial when compared to doctrine differences resulting from the choices made by translation teams A & B.
In closing, these comments are just a layman's observations for whatever they may be worth.
