The objective truth of God's word.

[37818]

We do not have inerrant copies. Just a bit of reading will show you that. Has God preserved all that we need to know so as to know Him, yes. Has He preserved every word as written by the apostles, no I do not think He has. What we have is accurate.

We can create a list of four types of Textual Variant

1. Neither meaningful nor viable (they don’t change the meaning and have no chance of being original)
2. Viable but not meaningful (they don’t change the meaning and have a chance of being original)
3. Meaningful but Not viable (they do change the meaning, but have no chance of being original)
4. Both Viable and meaningful (they do change the meaning and do have a chance of being original)

Textual Variants that are NOT meaningful, even if viable.
These are Textual Variants which have no effect on anything. These comprise over 75% of all textual variants, which means over 75% of textual variants have no effect on anything whatsoever.

In fact, the most common type of Textual Variant is spelling differences, often a single letter. The single most common textual variant is called a “movable Nu“, with “Nu” being the Greek letter which sounds like our “N”. This Textual Variant (movable Nu) is the single most common Textual Variant.


Other examples include when one manuscript has “Jesus Christ”, and another has “Christ Jesus”, with only the order changed. Again, it simply doesn’t matter which is original because there’s no impact on meaning.
Over 75% of all Textual Variants are not meaningful, even if they are viable. (Viable = possibly original)

Textual Variants that are Meaningful, but not viable.
These are variants where it’s essentially impossible for them to have been original, even if they would change the meaning of the text. Typically, these variants are found only in a single manuscript, or in a small group of manuscripts from one small part of the world. Most often, they are simple scribal errors.

I have a rather humorous example:

1 Thessalonians 2:7 But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children.
There’s a Textual Variant on the word “gentle”. Most manuscripts read “gentle”, some read “little children” and one manuscript reads “horses”. It’s easy to explain these variants when you see how these words are spelled in the Greek, so here are the first three words of the verse in each Textual Variant:

• Alla Egenēthēmen ēpioi (gentle)
  
  
• Alla Egenēthēmen nēpioi (little children)
  
  
• Alla Egenēthēmen hippioi (horses)

Context tells us that nēpioi (little children) can’t be intended, and since the previous word begins with “n”, it’s easy to see how the mistake was made (doubling the “n”). Often, one scribe would read while several other scribes copied. If you heard it read, you’d realize it’s an easy mistake to make because they sound almost identical. (Because the previous word ends with an “n” sound)

Further, there’s no possible way that hippioi (horses) was intended. It was a simple scribal error, easily noticed and just as easily corrected. Both Textual Variants are meaningful, but it’s nearly impossible for them to be original (they aren’t viable).

These types of Textual Variants make up ~24% of all Textual Variants.

Combined with the ones that aren’t meaningful, you have over 99% of all Textual Variants make no impact on meaning whatsoever.


Textual Variants that are Meaningful and Viable
These Textual Variants have a good chance of being original (viable), and change the meaning of the text (meaningful). They comprise less than 1% of all Textual Variants.

The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8. Other major Textual Variants include the story of the woman caught in Adultery and the last 12 verses in Mark’s Gospel. Those three are probably the most well-known, but there are many more.
Berean Patriot

You can check out this information at:
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

As they say at this site: "The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article because we’ll look at these topics in exhaustive detail." It is over 50 pages and quite detailed.

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-conten...ous-defection-from-Biblical-infallibility.pdf

 

[Silverhair]

We have completely misunderstood one another. I never said that one of the Textus Receptuses were a gold standard or any such thing. The TR's are good but none perfectly preserved. I was saying that the TR is not the Majority Text. They were 2 different Texts.

The TR came from the majority texts. All you are saying is that the NASB and the NKJV are two different texts. These came through different lines of transmission but they are still the word of God. The TR and majority text came through the same line of transmission but are still the word of God. Did the TR use different manuscripts than the Majority or just additional ones? You are trying to split hairs the do not exist.

 

[37818]

The Majority Text view has a very logical structure of reasoning behind it. I read The Identity of the New Testament Text, and it made sense. However, the Critical Text method, in my humble opinion, is much more closely developed and representative of what I believe is the correct method.

I do not think you understand the real issue. All texts identified as Scripture have common texts which are 100%. Where they differ does not make the 100% text errant. The variants are what are either the word of God or not.

 

[Silverhair]

I do not think you understand the real issue. All texts identified as Scripture have common texts which are 100%. Where they differ does not make the 100% text errant. The variants are what are either the word of God or not.

So what do you do with the texts that are in dispute? I listed three. And who determines 100%?

So what you are saying is the it is really all subjective. It depends upon who you think has the correct answer.

 

[Piper]

I do not think you understand the real issue. All texts identified as Scripture have common texts which are 100%. Where they differ does not make the 100% text errant. The variants are what are either the word of God or not.

Yes, I know that. I do understand the real issue. It is not just a count of how many, but the quality, age and provenance of the mss.

 

[37818]

And who determines 100%?

Where the texts of the manuscripts are the same. What makes a text the book that it is? Matthew or Mark or Romans or Revelation or . . . . They have text in common.

 

[37818]

Yes, I know that. I do understand the real issue. It is not just a count of how many, but the quality, age and provenance of the mss.

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-oldest-MSS-are-not-the-best.pdf

 

[37818]

So what do you do with the texts that are in dispute?

On a case by case basis. Variants are either unique to one ms or family of mss. And as you have noted types of variants. They occur between the 100% common readings.

 

[Silverhair]

Where the texts of the manuscripts are the same. What makes a text the book that it is? Matthew or Mark or Romans or Revelation or . . . . They have text in common.

I agree with what you said but what do you do when you have disagreements as to what the text should be. And there are disagreements. So how can you say the text is inerrant? You can say we have a accurate text based upon the best manuscripts but we can not make the judgement that it is inerrant can we.

Do not misunderstand me on this, I am not saying we can not trust the bible. We can and should. No Christian doctrine is omitted from the Alexandrian text, but some appear strengthened in the Byzantine text. Those texts that are in dispute are not major ones although some would say that they are.

 

[Silverhair]

On a case by case basis. Variants are either unique to one ms or family of mss. And as you have noted types of variants. They occur between the 100% common readings.

Where do you think we have 100% common reading?

 

[37818]

I agree with what you said but what do you do when you have disagreements as to what the text should be. And there are disagreements. So how can you say the text is inerrant? You can say we have a accurate text based upon the best manuscripts but we can not make the judgement that it is inerrant can we.

Do not misunderstand me on this, I am not saying we can not trust the bible. We can and should. No Christian doctrine is omitted from the Alexandrian text, but some appear strengthened in the Byzantine text. Those texts that are in dispute are not major ones although some would say that they are.

Again, case by case. Issue by issue.

 

[37818]

Where do you think we have 100% common reading?

How about in John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; . . . only begotten . . . , which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (word translation issues aside for now.)
The variants are at least three, ". . ." the, Son, God.

 

[Piper]

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-oldest-MSS-are-not-the-best.pdf

That is Pickering's opinion.
Unfortunately, the majority of NT Textual Scholars in the world disagree with him.

 

[Conan]

That is Pickering's opinion.
Unfortunately, the majority of NT Textual Scholars in the world disagree with him.

Piper
Yes, I know that. I do understand the real issue. It is not just a count of how many, but the quality, age and provenance of the mss

 

[37818]

That is Pickering's opinion.
Unfortunately, the majority of NT Textual Scholars in the world disagree with him.

Is it merely just opinion? Or is it really an issue of correct methods to actually identify the original autographs, in that they are, God's inerrant word?

 

[Silverhair]

How about in John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; . . . only begotten . . . , which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (word translation issues aside for now.)
The variants are at least three, ". . ." the, Son, God.

Be more specific with your question.

 

[Silverhair]

Is it merely just opinion? Or is it really an issue of correct methods to actually identify the original autographs, in that they are, God's inerrant word?

adjective
free from error; infallible Please show me the bible that you think is inerrant.

 

[Silverhair]

Again, case by case. Issue by issue.

But if the bible is inerrant then it should not be case by case issue by issue. We should have at least one bible that is perfect, without error. Is that not what you have been arguing for?

 

[Silverhair]

@37818 here are a few of the bibles that I have on my system. Which one or ones are inerrant and which one or ones are accurate?

John 1:18

(BSB 1.2) No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father's side, has made Him known.

(CJB) No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father's side—he has made him known.

(ESV) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

(ISV*s) No one has ever seen God. The unique God, [Other mss. read Son] who is close to the Fathers side, has revealed him.

(KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(LEB Q) No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father one has made him [*Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation] known.

(NASB 95) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him

(NET+) No one has ever seen God. The only one,N45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship withN46 the Father, has made GodN47 known.N48

(NIV 1984) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, , who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John the Baptist Denies Being the Christ

(NKJV) No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

(NLTs) No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is Himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.

(NRSV) No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.

(ABPs+) [3GodG2316 1No oneG3762 2has seen]G3708 at any time;G4455 theG3588 only bornG3439 son,G5207 the oneG3588 beingG1510.6 inG1519 theG3588 bosomG2859 of theG3588 father,G3962 that oneG1565 described him.G1834

(Alford+) θεὸνG2316 οὐδεὶςG3762 ἑώρακενG3708 πώποτε·G4455 ὁG3588 μονογενὴςG3439 υἱός,G5207 ὁG3588 ὢνG1510 εἰςG1519 τὸνG3588 κόλπονG2859 τοῦG3588 πατρός,G3962 ἐκεῖνοςG1565 ἐξηγήσατο.G1834

(TRi+) θεὸν God G2316 N-ASM οὐδεὶς No One G3762 A-NSM ἑώρακεν Has Seen G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πώποτε· At Any Time; G4455 ADV ὁ The G3588 T-NSM μονογενὴς Only Begotten G3439 A-NSM υἱός, Son, G5207 N-NSM ὁ Who G3588 T-NSM ὢν Is G5607 V-PXP-NSM εἰς In G1519 PREP τὸν The G3588 T-ASM κόλπον Bosom G2859 N-ASM τοῦ Of The G3588 T-GSM πατρὸς Father, G3962 N-GSM ἐκεῖνος He G1565 D-NSM ἐξηγήσατο Declared Him. G1834 V-ADI-3S

 

[Piper]

Is it merely just opinion? Or is it really an issue of correct methods to actually identify the original autographs, in that they are, God's inerrant word?

Yes, Pickering is a man just like other men. Opinion on the best method.