The World's Fastest Bible Memory Plan

[standingfirminChrist]

Footnotes in a Bible do not indicate inspiration.

 

[tinytim]

Which footnotes would you suggest are inspired and which are not? If, God forbid, I was reading from a Schofield Bible, do you propose that I should treat the notes in it as inspired?

Scofield are study notes...
Footnotes in translations are translator's notes... Which show honesty in the translation process...
Even the 1611 had them.

 

[tinytim]

Footnotes in a Bible do not indicate inspiration.

Right, they indicate honesty in the translation process...


Something even the 1611 translators actually had, but somewhere along the line publishers became dishonest and took the notes out...
Which may have been one factor in the rise of KJVOism

BTW, it was after 1873 that the notes were removed from the KJV, because I have a KJV copyrighted in 1873 that still have the footnotes(sidenotes) in it.

I would love to have a 1769 KJV with the sidenotes in it... does anyone know a publisher that is currently printing one?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Scofield are study notes...
Footnotes in translations are translator's notes... Which show honesty in the translation process...
Even the 1611 had them.

Yes they did and I do not advocate the 1611 translator notes as being inspired. Nor will I use those notes to establish doctrine. Are you of the same view, relative to the NIV?

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Right, they indicate honesty in the translation process...


Something even the 1611 translators actually had, but somewhere along the line publishers became dishonest and took the notes out...
Which may have been one factor in the rise of KJVOism

BTW, it was after 1873 that the notes were removed from the KJV, because I have a KJV copyrighted in 1873 that still have the footnotes(sidenotes) in it.

I would love to have a 1769 KJV with the sidenotes in it... does anyone know a publisher that is currently printing one?

Cambridge.

 

[tinytim]

If those notes gives us a glimpse of what would have been in the originals, they help establish doctrine.

But this is where we disagree..
I believe they help our understanding of the originals...

 

[tinytim]

Cambridge.

Thanks, I will search for one...

 

[Rufus_1611]

If those notes gives us a glimpse of what would have been in the originals, they help establish doctrine.

But this is where we disagree..
I believe they help our understanding of the originals...

What's the correct understanding then? Should we understand the scripture that omits the verse or the footnote that includes it? If the footnote is accurate, then why isn't it scripture? If the scripture is accurate then why bother with "some other manuscripts"?

 

[av1611jim]

NIV FOOTNOTES
[1]Mat_17:20 Some manuscripts you. 21 But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.



I just wanted to show that it is the NIV. (at least in the footnotes)

Also here is a note from the NET Bible as to why the verse is not in it...
39tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

Then here is the note on Mark 9.29
48tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (Ì45vid א2 A C D L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nhsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.

Now with that said...
I believe "and fasting" should be in Mark 9:29...
But not in the Matthew passage...

Here is my reasoning...
Yes scribes would have tried to make parallel passages read the same.
So they would have inserted the phrase,
"this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."
To make it read the same as Mark 9...

Of course that brings us to Mark 9..."and fasting"
If they wanted to make Matt read the same as Mark, the "and fasting" would have had to be in Mark.
Also.. the notes in the NET Bible clearly says that, "Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones" have "and fasting"

So to sum this up... I believe the NIV is right in Matthew 17:21, and wrong in Mark 9:29

It appears that this whole argument is predicated on the assumption that copyists and scribes would have been less than diligent while handling the Word of God, adding a little here, adding a little there. This argument assumes that they had no concern for the accuracy and inerrancy of God's WORDS!

On the other hand, it is not out of the realm of reason that heretical groups of people would mishandle the words of God thereby omitting certain passages to support their heretical belief systems.

It is for these two reasons (among others) I stand on the side of the KJV.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Which footnotes would you suggest
are inspired and which are not? If, God forbid,
I was reading from a Schofield Bible, do you
propose that I should treat the notes in it
as inspired?

The translator footnotes are inspired and inerrant
(except where removed which makes such a book
and invalid Bible).

For example from the nKJV with Schofield's 'new' notes:

Matthew 17:21 (nKJV):
However, this kind does not go out
except by prayer and fasting.*

(The * denotes a translators note, a number
would indicate one of Schofield's notes.
The same page has a note "1" about the question
asked Jesus in 17:10)

Translators note: 17:21 NU-Text omits
this verse.

I've see other persons other than here damn
my nKJV because it is a Modern Version
(along with the NIV) yet the MV nKJV has
chosen the same source text here as do
the KJVs. Isn't there something in
the Bible warning aginst calling the bad 'good'
or the good 'bad'?

Anyway, it is simple enough for a child to tell the difference
between the Translator Notes which are inspired/inerrant
and the comentary that is only as good as the man
who made the comentary.

I was studying this nKJV for like ten years before
I spilled coffee while teaching a Sunday School class
about at 1 Corinthians 12:4 (nKJV):
There are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.

While there is but one Holy Spirit -- there are
many Holy Bibles -- the inerrant Written Word
of God.

 

[tinytim]

What's the correct understanding then?

This is where indepth study is needed... No one said studying the Bible is easy..

Should we understand the scripture that omits the verse or the footnote that includes it?

Again, studying the context of the scripture, the history of the scripture, and the translator's notes help... this is one reason I like my NET Bible... the translator's put there reasoning down in their notes.

If the footnote is accurate, then why isn't it scripture?

It would depend on the scripture in question, and the note usually alludes to why it was handled the way it was handled.

If the scripture is accurate then why bother with "some other manuscripts"?

To honestly show the Bible scholar that there are other variations of that scripture.

 

[Deacon]

Let's try a little experiment Jim.

Diligently hand copy 10 pages of your favorite passage every day for a week.
Use that text that you copied for the next days text.

A month later check your copy against the original for errors and get back to us.

Rob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: // On the other hand, it is not out of the realm
of reason that heretical groups of people would
mishandle the words of God thereby omitting
certain passages to support their heretical belief systems.//

Strangely, the additions to the so called Antiochian Family
of manuscripts from the so called Alexandrian Family of
manuscripts very poorly do this for the purposes
of supporting the Antiochian Family and true
Eastern Orthodox Religion,
True Cyptoc and true Eastern Syrian Religion.
And they fail totally to support latecomers like the
Roman Catholics and Protestants.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611 Should we understand the scripture that omits
the verse or the footnote that includes it?

Yes

God has divinely preserved both for our edification.
You should believe both. God doesn't make conflicts
in His Written Word -- people make such
conflicts.

 

[Steven2006]

In my opinion, when I study the Bible, I want to be able to try and best understand what God intended when He used the Holy Spirit to breath life into the originals. So I appreciate the value that translator notes and for that matter more than one translation gives me towards that end. It is like looking at a statue of a person. Being able to walk around all sides of him and get a better appreciation of what that person really looked like. Versus looking at just a painted portrait of that same person.

 

[tinytim]

It appears that this whole argument is predicated on the assumption that copyists and scribes would have been less than diligent while handling the Word of God, adding a little here, adding a little there. This argument assumes that they had no concern for the accuracy and inerrancy of God's WORDS!

On the other hand, it is not out of the realm of reason that heretical groups of people would mishandle the words of God thereby omitting certain passages to support their heretical belief systems.

It is for these two reasons (among others) I stand on the side of the KJV.

How do you account for all the differences in the manuscripts that have been found?
I would say, accidental, or intentional....

BUT God.. (I love those two words... do a search on those in a Bible program for a blessing!!!)
BUT God... has preserved so many manuscripts that we have the ability to put the original back together through comparing the different manuscripts...

And when it comes down to it.. there are but a few differences...

And doctrine is not affected...
Even if we look at the "fasting" scripture above...
Even if it were removed... there are other scriptures that teach the importance of fasting.
God designed his word to teach truths more than one place.
It is not good to build a doctrine on only one verse anyway.

(anyone wanna handle snakes?)

God knew that churches through the dark ages would not have access to the whole Bible, but may in some cases have one book, or part of one book... That is why He repeats his major doctrines through out the Bible.

Mistakes did happen...
But were they accidental, or intentional?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Footnotes in a Bible do not indicate inspiration.

Yes, but the following is true:

The 'taking out' of the Translator Footnotes do
indicate LACK of inspiration.

Translator footnotes explain what the translators did
with the source documents that they had. Thus
it gives us an understanding of what is in the
Divinely Preserved inerrant Written Word of God:
the Holy Bible.

 

[Ed Edwards]

In my opinion, when I study the Bible, I want to be able to try and best understand what God intended when He used the Holy Spirit to breath life into the originals. So I appreciate the value that translator notes and for that matter more than one translation gives me towards that end. It is like looking at a statue of a person. Being able to walk around all sides of him and get a better appreciation of what that person really looked like. Versus looking at just a painted portrait of that same person.

Amen, Brother Steven2006 -- Preach it! :thumbs:
http://www.baptistboard.com/member.php?u=7155

 

[Pete]

*sees this thread show up a few times on New Posts page over a few days*

*finally clicks on it out of interest*

*reads a couple of posts*

*says "Oh, it's one of THOSE threads...." and drives off into the sunset*

 

[av1611jim]

Let's try a little experiment Jim.

Diligently hand copy 10 pages of your favorite passage every day for a week.
Use that text that you copied for the next days text.

A month later check your copy against the original for errors and get back to us.

Rob

Flawed experiment at the outset.:laugh:

Your implied conclusion is that there MUST be errors in the FIRST copy. This assumes automatic error. It also assumes that God would NOT direct my hand. It also assumes I would be in some kind of hurry to get it done. It also assumes I have nothing better to do, like make a living to feed my household (which btw, copyists did not need to worry about since it was their JOB to spend all day working on transcription of Scripture).

Secondly you imply that a copyist would neccessarily have to copy TEN pages of Script in a given days work. You also assume automatic carelessness on my part.

Thirdly, you give an arbitrary time frame which I propose the copyists of old were not under such constraints. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume they could have spent an entire WEEK on one page!!!

Tell ya what. YOU do it and get back to me. But be honest and try to do it with the understanding that you are copying SCRIPTURE for the purpose of PRESERVING what God said exactly the way He said it!!! And TAKE YOUR TIME because this is important. K?