Rev 1:6 and the Majority Text

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Scott J,

Apparently you and I have much different sources. Of the seven books on my shelf dealing with this issue, all seven use the terms I mentioned interchangably.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others.

</font>[/QUOTE]

If that is true then you need to buy better books. The two are not the same. In the quote above, the BT and MT are synonymous with each other and the Textus Receptus and "Received Text" are synonymous with each other but the first two and last to are not equivalent(I am unsure about the term "Eastern Text", I have never heard it before).

Also the vast majority of all existing manuscripts, somewhere around ninety percent, follow the Traditional text.

So the majority is always indicative of truth?

If you were trying to prove a historical event from oral history, would you look for the story with the most proponents (dependent on reproduction) or the one with the fewest generations from the origin and the most written history corroboration?

Also, the BT did not become the majority until around 800-900 AD. This is a tremendous endorsement for the Alexandrian since the worst RCC and Greek Orthodox perversions of doctrine occurred a little before this time then even more after. Historically, the rise of the BT corresponds to the rise of Pope's power, indulgences, mariolatry, iconism, etc.

None the less, the text is not necessarily indicted by its association with copyists with unsound beliefs.

Churches all down through the ages have used the Traditional text.

This is an unprovable assertion. In fact, it appears that churches down through the ages used versions of God's Word that varied much more than ours.... not only in wording but in substance as well.

The churches of the reformation period all used versions based on the Traditional text.

If you read the writings of the Reformers, they used what was popularly available, namely Erasmus' text. The term Textus Receptus wasn't even coined until 1624, long after Luther and others made their landmark translations. BTW, Luther's Bible didn't include the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8.

 

[Japheth]

Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, Luther's Bible didn't include the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8.

Mine does..

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry posts: "The verses you list are what are known as textual variants. Your KJV came from someone either chose to accept or reject these textual variants. God did not inspire that editor to choose them. He chose them because he felt they were most likely to be accurate. You have not placed your faith in God on this matter; you have placed it in men. It is simply that you believe different men and methods than I do."

Brother Larry, my position on the Bible version issue is that God in fact has preserved His inerrant words and I can tell you or anyone else where they are today. My faith is in God who promised that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

Are you able to tell us where we can get a copy of God's infallible words today?

I think it is your position that is man centered, not mine.

[Personal attack deleted]...you have no final authority other than your own mind and understanding. My belief that God has preserved His inspired words and done so in the KJB naturally leads me to conclude this about you. I am just stating facts as I see them.

You are free, of course, to disagree with my conclusions, but I have not come to this position of faith lightly or without prayer and study. Ultimately though, it is a revelation from God and the faith that He gives, though it is a reasonable position of faith that can be defended.

Your position, as I understand it, is that "godly scholars" (all of whom frequently disagree with each other) are sorting through the divergent manuscripts and trying to recreate the original readings.

Well, my position is that God alone knows which readings and meanings are His since He inspired them. He is sovereign and faithful to keep His promises and has already been through this "textual process" and guided in such a way as to give us His pure words in the Bible He has been pleased to use and bless a hundred times more than any other.

The new versions do not always follow the Hebrew texts, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV etc. depart scores of times from the clear Hebrew readings, because they don't make sense to the "scholars".

God has blinded them for their unbelief.

There are numerous theological errors in the new versions which prove them to be false witnesses.

&gt;&gt;&gt;However, the point still stands that the KJV differs from the Majority text about 9 times per page. That is significant no matter which way you cut it. &lt;&lt;&lt;

I have no problem with this statement. You are correct. Of course there really is no fixed "Majority text" is there? Not all the mss. have been collated, the editions that are out there now differ from each other, and to my knowledge there never has been a bible translated from the so called majority text.

I know for a fact that the "science of textual criticism" is as accurate as throwing darts blindfolded.

Will

[ October 22, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Some of the men behind the modern textual theories are a little more honest than others.

Gleason Archer's book, Bible Difficulties, has many references to "scribal errors", "this portion has been lost in the Hebrew" etc.

F.C. Conybeare says: "the ultimate N.T. text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

Kirsopp Lake says: "In spite of the claims of Westcott-Hort and of Von Soden (the Majority text), we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall."

At least these guys are honest in where their thinking and methods have led them.

Will Kinney

 

[HankD]

You have no final authority but your own mind or favorite scholar-priest. I am a King James Bible believer, not a TR or Majority or eclectic, critical text bible doubter like you. Will Kinney

Dear Will, this insult was uncalled for.

What has pastor Larry done any different than you?
In your mind you see the KJV translators as your favorite scholar-priests.

How can you possibly know Pastor Larry's heart?
You cannot know if Pastor Larry's belief is an expression of faith or doubt.

I have known him long enough to assure you (as much as humanly possible) as you should also that the opposite is true and that he is a man of faith.

By the way, I am TRO.

HankD

[ October 22, 2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:


my position on the Bible version issue is that God in fact has preserved His inerrant words and I can tell you or anyone else where they are today.

You can tell me that the Emperor has the most beautiful clothes ever but that won't make it true. The truth is not what [unnecessary adjectives deleted]you[/i] can tell us but what the facts of scripture and history demonstrate.... and they demonstrate your position to be false.

My faith is in God who promised that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

Your "faith" is apparently in your own desire to demand something of God that He chose not to give us (a perfectly worded transmission of text or translation) and the misinterpretation of various scriptures that give you justification. Your "faith" is ultimately in the god of your own will.

Are you able to tell us where we can get a copy of God's infallible words today?

God's infallible Word can be found in several good translations. God's words were in the originals only so unless you can produce them... you have nothing on which to base your claim that the KJV is perfectly worded.

I think it is your position that is man centered, not mine.

No. His is intellectual and factual. Your's is emotional and without foundation. Both are the inventions of men... of course you can prove me wrong by citing a verse that points to the KJV as the only acceptable Bible.

I don't believe it is being a potty mouth to call you a Bible corrector and that you have no final authority other than your own mind and understanding.

No. Neither is it slander to call this statement of yours ignorant.

My belief that God has preserved His inspired words and done so in the KJB naturally leads me to conclude this about you. I am just stating facts as I see them.

Facts are things that can be proven by an objective source and standard. Your belief is not based on anything of the sort. Your statements are unfounded opinions, not facts. The way you choose to see a fact does not change the truth of it.

You are free, of course, to disagree with my conclusions, but I have not come to this position of faith lightly or without prayer and study. Ultimately though, it is a revel

You weren't going to write "revelation" were you? Direct revelation from God ended with the Apostles.

[ October 22, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

[jimslade]

I think we as believers should get our facts right concerning texts. The TR is a compilation of 7-8 byzantine extant manuscripts. The MT is a compilation of a majority of extant manuscripts\byzantine based. The WORD OF GOD is found in even some of the worst translations out there today. It is sad that we spend so much time dividing our churches over issues that are not Bible knowleged based, but are based on man's uneducated opinion or ignorance of knowledge of where our Bible came from. It is a good thing that the originals (manuscripts) are not available today because if they were, many people would be worshipping them instead of the Author.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Japheth:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, Luther's Bible didn't include the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8.

Mine does..</font>[/QUOTE]Here's a link that covers the history of Luther's translation:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

Here is the pertinent excerpts:

"He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death.This is the proper basis of all critical editions.

The edition of 1546 was prepared by his friend Rörer, and contains a large number of alterations, which he traced to Luther himself. Some of them are real improvements, e.g., "Die Liebe höret nimmer auf," for, "Die Liebe wird nicht müde" (1 Cor. 13:8). The charge that he made the changes in the interest of Philippism (Melanchthonianism), seems to be unfounded."

"The printed Bible text of Luther had the same fate as the written text of the old Itala and Jerome's Vulgate. It passed through innumerable improvements and mis-improvements. The orthography and inflections were modernized, obsolete words removed, the versicular division introduced (first in a Heidelberg reprint, 1568), the spurious clause of the three witnesses inserted in 1 John 5:7 (first by a Frankfurt publisher, 1574)..."

Note that the passage was not included until 29 years after his death. Luther did not believe it was canonical... but neither did Erasmus, the collator of the original TR. Erasmus was basically pressured and manipulated into including it by the RCC in the second and subsequent editions.

 

[Japheth]

Then why is it NOT in the RCC Bibles? This would include any Bible(outside of the KJV) from 1882 on.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Japheth:
Then why is it NOT in the RCC Bibles? This would include any Bible(outside of the KJV) from 1882 on.

Is this somehow supposed to refute what I wrote? It has no bearing at all. What I wrote is historical fact. It is affirmed by the writings of Erasmus and his contemporaries.

But to answer your question, I am not familiar with Catholic Bibles (except some issues regarding the Vulgate) past or present and have no interest in them in the future. Why the RCC believes what it believes is a mystery to me, most of the distinctive Catholic views appear to be superstition/mysticism, not Christianity.

If I had to ponder a guess, I would say they didn't want their members to become the prey of other cults. A JW tried to hammer me with this passage once. I guess that she had been taught that the whole doctrine of the Trinity hinged on this one verse. She fell apart when I acknowledged that the phrase was not well supported and took her to John 8:58, John 1:18, II Peter 1:1, and Titus 2:13 in the NASB... which clearly declare Christs' deity. Stick an uninformed Catholic in the same situation and the JW's stand a good chance of making a convert. If I am not mistaken, most JW's are former Catholics.

[ October 22, 2002, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Japheth]

Originally posted by Scott J:
What I wrote is historical fact.

So is what I wrote!!!! (Alexandrian, VATICANUS ,And sinaiticus.. Ad Nauseam, Ad Infinitum..)

[ October 22, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Japheth:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
What I wrote is historical fact.

So is what I wrote!!!! (Alexandrian, VATICANUS ,And sinaiticus.. Ad Nauseam, Ad Infinitum..)</font>[/QUOTE]When did you relate these things to the matter in question? Are you trying to deflect this to some kind of global argument now about how the Alexandrian conspiracy is out to destroy the Bible?

At this point, we are way off topic and I John 5:7-8 has been discussed so thoroughly that anyone who doesn't know by now that the support for its inclusion is terribly weak is willfully ignorant.

If we are going to discuss this further, let's revive one of those threads and not hi-jack this one any more.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Scott &gt;&gt;&gt;Are you able to tell us where we can get a copy of God's infallible words today?
------------------------------------------------------------------------God's infallible Word can be found in several good translations. God's words were in the originals only so unless you can produce them... you have nothing on which to base your claim that the KJV is perfectly worded."

In other words, you have no infallible Bible.
How do you know God's words are in "several good translations"?

These "several good translations" all differ from each other in both text and meaning in scores of verses.

You admit, apparently, that we do not have the originals, so how do you know they are "good translations"? To what are you comparing them. What is your standard? Answer - you have none.

This is modern Christendom [spelling error corrected] . No inspired Bible. No translation is perfect. God's word is only relatively certain and we're not sure how to translate it even if we think we might have it.

Does the phrase "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" ring any bells?

Will

[ October 23, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Does the phrase "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" ring any bells?

Isn't it the rally cry of the KJVO movement?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
This is modern Christiandumb.

This has most certainly crossed the line of proper decorum.

Your question about the location of God's infallible word has been addressed several times, whether you like the answer or not. We do have an inspired Bible and no translation is perfect, including the often changed KJV. Its lack of perfection is seen even today when it disagrees with many of the original language texts that God has preserved to this today so that we can know what his word is. At some point, the facts must take precedence over desires and feelings. We have to submit our theology to the revealed word of God, which nowhere identifies the KJV as the Word of God but in multiple places identifies translations and copies of texts that are not the KJV as the Word of God. I think that is the position that we should take ... the one that Scripture itself takes.

 

[jimslade]

WILL You need to get your facts straight! There is a translation from the Majority text, it is from J P Green and it is called the Literal Bible and I have a copy, and it uses the Majority text from the Trinitarian Bible Society. It is the most accurate translation out there today!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:


In other words, you have no infallible Bible.

No. Apparently, in other words you don't know the meaning of the term 'infallible.' Infallibility does not depend on wording it depends on meaning. Someone's promise is dependent on their character, not the way the promise is phrased.

How do you know God's words are in "several good translations"?

I know for a fact that "God's words" are not in any translation. God's words were in the originals.

Do you know the difference between someone's words and their word? Have you ever promised someone something then later reaffirmed that promise with different words? What mattered, was it critical to use the same words or to communicate the same message?

The US has treaties with Russia. Is the treaty only valid if translated one way? Is not a second translation just as valid as long as the same restrictions and privileges are communicated?

These "several good translations" all differ from each other in both text and meaning in scores of verses.

This statement simply brings us back to the challenge made so many times before that KJVO's always fail to meet... to name one doctrine taught by the KJV that is not taught in good MV's.

You admit, apparently, that we do not have the originals, so how do you know they are "good translations"?

You admit, apparently, that we do not have the originals, so how do you know that the KJV is a "good translation" much less a perfect one?

To what are you comparing them.

What are you comparing it to?

What is your standard?

What is yours?

Answer - you have none.

Right back at you....

This is modern Christiandumb. No inspired Bible.

This statement is willful ignorance and purposeful dishonesty. We do believe in an inspired Bible and several of us have explained that position clearly to you. If you lack the integrity or discernment to honestly evaluate what we say to you then the indictment is of you, not us.

No translation is perfect.

One of the few truths you've posted...

God's word is only relatively certain

God's Word is completely certain. His words (the originals) are certain to 98%+.

Does the phrase "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" ring any bells?

Will

Sure does... and it applies equally to those who would add to God's Word and those who would take away. You ascribe to a doctrine not taught by scripture then condemn others for not agreeing with you. You are doing that which is right in your eyes without the least regard for even what the KJV says.

[ October 23, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[LRL71]

Originally Posted by Scott_J:

God's Word is completely certain. His words (the originals) are certain to 98%+.

Actually, it's even better! God's Word, as far as the actual words apply, is certain to about 99.9% of the originals. This is applying modern textual criticism to the almost 25,000 extant manuscripts available. Homer's Iliad, the Odyssey, and other ancient writings cannot boast of this much textual evidence. Not only that, but the amount of time that has passed from the original writings of Scripture to the earliest known manuscript (in the NT, it's Papyrus #52), where only a few decades span the distance!

Let me ask this to KJVO's: Why is it so important to have '100%' of the Bible when we already have been able to comprise 99.9% certainty without the originals? Do we have the other ~.1% of the Bible text as contained in the originals? YES WE DO! How would we know exactly what these variants should read to make these manuscripts read exactly like the original manuscripts? It's certainly not in the KJV or the TR! You should wonder why God allowed errors to enter into the transmission of the Bible text..... and perhaps wonder why God didn't say that He would preserve the original manuscripts, or even that He would preserve the reading of the original manuscripts in the transmission of the Bible text...... If the KJV-onlyist says that God must have preserved the Bible text exactly like the original manuscripts, where does God say this? (answer: NOWHERE!) KJV-onlyists still have not proven without any shadow of a doubt that their KJV (or the TR) is a document that reads exactly like the original manuscripts read!

----------------------------------------
Moderator Note: Please attack the issues and not the people behind the issues. Personal attacks have been edited.
-----------------------------------------
It's easier to sin than repent;

[ October 24, 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

[Joe Turner]

Well there we have it. Man's reasoning makes sense of God's actions. Did He preserve His word or didn't He? The issue today isn't the fundamentals (we probably agree on those). The issue is final authority and has been and will be till hell freezes over. In all the discussion about wether God perfectly preserved His word or not and what translation is the most accurate, does anybody ever get the feeling that someone is in the background just laughing to himself. Ask yourself what your final authority is and then ask yourself why. Satan is pulling one over on alot of people

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

It is unfortunate that certain people,who call KJVO's fools and heretics, cannot believe that God who spoke the World into creation, created everything that is,and sent his son to die for a sin cursed world,is unable to preserve his word for us to have!!! What causes Bible rejectors/correctors to HATE the acursed KJVO is that WE HAVE A FINAL AUTHORITY;we take God at his word, it is sad that some people DONT....