Why Wait

He didn't. He allowed/caused His word to be translated to fit the various languages & styles of languages He's chosen for various peoples to use, also updating it for the changes in languages as He allowed/caused them to change.

 

This is one of my key reasons for being a supporter of the traditional body of texts.

 

Could be several reasons for that. We could ask the same thing about those who hold the traditional text position: Why did he wait until the 16th century? What is 200 years? Truth is by the time of the 1800s, advances in preservation and copying had been greatly increased. They were not longer dependent on hand copying and thus the text could be preserved more faithfully. It may be a remarkable testimony to God's providence and control of history not to leave his word at totally at the mercy of hand copyists who frequently make mistakes. Aren't you glad God can see farther than you can.

 

This is one of my key reasons for being a supporter of the traditional body of texts. </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

AMEN!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I agree with C4K, I also have a tendency to believe the traditional texts may contain more accuracy; especially in the area of phrases and verses that are not found in the Alexandrian textform.

God did not wait until the 16th century with the Byzantine text-forms. It is obvious that the Byzantine textforms have been available long before. In fact, the Vulgate holds more true to the Byzantine text-form in many areas, as do other old translations into English--proving these documents are the ones that have been circulated among the churches for thousands of years.

Just because a new, older text-form has been found in a monistary in Alexandria with a verse missing, certainly does not prove that the verse was not in the original manuscripts.

Now this is ONLY an opinion of mine, which is NOT based on any scholarship on my part and it also does NOT have anything to do with KJV onlyism.

It is simply a preference for a certain text-type.

 

First, no one says that any manuscript found in the 17th century is God's Word "completed", because all manuscripts demonstrate scribal errors, some to a higher degree than others.

No one alive today says that Codex Sinaiticus, for example, is as good as Codex Vaticanus due to its more strong mixture of Byzantine readings and also its propinsity to delete words and phrases due to the similarity of endings of words.

I know that catholicity and tradition play a major role in the texttype I prefer, however.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Perhaps you are referring to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts found in the 19th century? If it was not, please state which manuscripts you are referring to.

Here's a question for everyone to think about: Did God stop 'preserving' the written Word, or is God still working to have the text of the Bible become perfected? Here's a theory to what I think may be going on throughout history: God inspired the original autographs (theopneustos), and then the scribes copied through about 16 centuries of hand-written manuscripts. Theologians and scholars from the Reformation down to our day work to collect, collate, and compile the text of the Bible, in which they apply the science of textual criticm in order to work out the differences between all the variants in the text. Bibilical archaologists have been digging up and discovering older manuscripts than the ones that existed in the earlier years of the Reformation. Does anyone here wonder why Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and the host of papyrus manuscripts have been found within the last 150 years? Do you think that God has 'allowed' this to happen for a purpose? Think about this-- the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls just destroyed the JEDP theory about the origins of the OT! If God is working to continue perfecting the preservation of the text of the Bible, I would suggest that He is doing this through modern textual criticism-- and that the modern texts are actually closer to the text of the original autographs! Hmmmm.....?

 

Would God allow part of his Word, such as Deuteronomy, to be unknown ("lost") for a time?

The Book of the Law Found

Hilkiah the high priest told Shaphan the court secretary, "I have found the book of the law in the LORD's temple," and he gave the book to Shaphan, who read it. Then Shaphan the court secretary went to the king and reported, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the temple and have put it into the hand of those doing the work—those who oversee the LORD's temple." Then Shaphan the court secretary told the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book," and Shaphan read it in the presence of the king. When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. Then he commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the court secretary, and the king's servant Asaiah: "Go and inquire of the LORD for me, the people, and all Judah about the instruction in this book that has been found. For great is the LORD's wrath that is kindled against us because our ancestors have not obeyed the words of this book in order to do everything written about us." -- 2 Kings 22:8-13 (HCSB)

 

I second that.

 

Mr Mike
Found is in this case a relative term. The simple fact that a manuscript of the Bible isn't in the hands of Protestant scholars doesn't mean it's lost. Usually it only means it isn't used as efficiently as it ought to be. The interesting part of Sinaïticus for example (it's New Testament) was being used for study in the monastery where it was 'discovered' by Tischendorf.

 

__________________________________________________

Also interesting is many MSS that Tischendorf found is that they were being used for FIREWOOD! In the SAME monasteries! Perhaps the monks were using some parts as a "lamp unto my path" as it were. LOL

In HIS service;
Jim

 

"Also interesting is many MSS that Tischendorf found is that they were being used for FIREWOOD!"
"
Including parts of the Septuaginta Old Testament attached to Sinaïticus.

Ofcourse there is the story that the monks took good care of their manuscripts and Tischendorf simply stole some of them , making up the kindling story as justification.

 

AV1611Jim: Also interesting is many MSS that Tischendorf found is that they were being used for FIREWOOD! In the SAME monasteries! [Laugh] [Laugh] [Laugh] Perhaps the monks were using some parts as a "lamp unto my path" as it were. [Eek!] [Eek!] LOL [thumbs]

Something not considered by the KJVOs...Could God have PROVIDENTIALLY PRESERVED THESE MSS, causing the set of events described by Tischendorf? Same with Vaticanus...If it's so corrupt, why was it not destroyed many centuries ago? Why did the RCC preservet it, yet, not publicize it? Could GOD be behind this?

There's more evidence that this was GOD'S WORK than there is that it was mere happenstance caused strictly by human actions.


This is another possibility that should be fully considered.

 

I agree robycop. I think this is flawed reasoning. If it were a part of the traditional texts being discussed some folks would be thanking the Lord for preserving them from Satan's attacks by allowing them to be found.

 

I actually thought this was funny!

 

Some believe that He waited for the 17th century to complete the Canon of Scripture then waited until 20/21st centuries to re-open the door of the Canon of Scripture with something called "advanced revelation" along with the provision of prophet/prophetess to locate and expound those "advanced revelations".

HankD