| FAQ |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
Menu
| Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
| Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
04-01-2009, 06:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
John 8:16 and the fickle "science" of text crit
John 8:16 - “And if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me.”
The purpose of this little study is not so much to point out a huge difference in the meaning of the text, but rather to expose the fickleness upon which the so called “science of textual criticism” is based. This is just one of a hundred typical examples found in the New Testament. There is a very definite textual difference in the reading of this verse. The words “the Father” are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts as well as in P39, 66 and 75, and in the Sinaiticus correction, Vaticanus, many Old Latin copies, as well as the ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Latin Vulgate and Slavonic. So one would naturally think that there should be absolutely no doubt about the inclusion of the words “the Father” in this text. However, Sinaiticus original (which was later corrected to include the words) as well as manuscript D (well known for its numerous oddities) omit the words “the Father” and so do a number of modern versions. The interesting thing is that the Nestle-Aland critical texts keep on changing every few years and so does the NASB, which is based upon them. When Westcott and Hort came out with their new critical text, they originally put the Greek words for “the Father” [in brackets], indicating doubt about their inspiration. Then in many later editions of the Nestle-Aland critical texts, they completely omitted the words “the Father” from their text. BUT now, based upon the same evidence they have ALWAYS had, the critical text ‘scholar’s’ have put the words “the Father” back into the text, and this time not even in brackets. That makes for THREE changes in the critical text editions over the years concerning just one word in the Greek - Father - pater. The words “but I and THE FATHER that sent me” are found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the KJB, Douay, Darby, Youngs, the Revised Version of 1881 (though WH bracketed the words, the RV included them in their version), the ASV of 1901, the “Rock of Biblical Honesty” [What a joke!] of the NASB, the NKJV, NIV, NRSV 1989, and the ESV of 2004. As for foreign language Bibles, the words “the Father” are found in Luther’s German, the French Louis Segond, Martin, and Ostervald, the Spanish Reina Valera, the Portuguese Almeida and the Italian Diodati, just to name a few. However, the NASB omitted the words “the Father” from all 8 of their revisions dating from 1963 till 1977. For all those years the NASB read: “for I am not alone in it, but I and HE WHO sent Me.” In other words, the NASB “scholars”, in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, omitted the word “Father” and followed the reading of manuscript D in this place. But wait! Now once again in 1995 the NASB has changed and it now includes the word. The 1995 edition of the NASB now reads: “but I and THE FATHER who sent Me.” Other bible versions that omit the words “the Father” and read things like “the One who” or “he who sent me” are the Revised Standard Version (but the later NRSV, and ESV put the words “the Father” back in), the Revised English Bible of 1989, the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic versions of New American bible 1970, the Jerusalem bible 1969 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the New Berkeley version, and the up and coming ISV - International Standard Version. These guys just can’t seem to get their act together, can they. This one example serves to illustrate the fickle and ever-changing nature of what the Bible Agnostics like to call the “science” of textual criticism. For many more examples of this type of thing, see the following link: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/scienceJohn.html “Kept by the power of God through faith” 1 Peter 1:5 Will Kinney |
|
#2
04-08-2009, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Men leaning on their own understanding produces this kind of confusion.
Thanks for the insight. |
|
#3
04-08-2009, 04:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
God's Inspired Book - the KJB, OR None at all
Quote:
The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text. As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable." H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis." Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered." "...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87). "As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998). George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real. Will Kinney |
|
#4
04-08-2009, 10:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Brother Will, if the practitioners of this "science" were to apply the methods of said "science" to the resurrected Body of Jesus Christ today, what would they find? A perfectly healthy man with deep puncture scars at His wrists and a puncture wound scar at His side and a look of DEEP disapproval on His face. With no empiric foundation of a previous OBSERVABLE occurrence, even the most fervent Christian scientist would have to conclude that, with no evidence of the method of reanimation, no theory or fact as to "tissue regeneration"(The Body of Jesus never decomposed)we would have to conclude he never died. I'm a former mortician and know everything there is to know about dead folks. This leads to a conclusion of just exactly there being nothing new under the sun:the "swoon" theory of the Romans and athiest/agnostics today. Edward Hills did it much better than I but there is much we have to accept about the Scriptures that is by faith. One of the most essential verses, one that encompasses so many doctrinal questions, is I John 5:7 and there is so little evidence of it. By their own convoluted rules the quotation of the verse by Cyprian in the second century don't count. 252 manuscripts for I Timothy 3:16 reading "God" don't count, they take the one "he who" because it is "older". I am sure, by faith I know this, somewhere in the world is a complete NT in Greek from the first century AD and it matches the KJV. It'll never be found, because we walk by FAITH and not by the SIGHT something like this would afford. Ask yourself this: If you had the original manuscripts for the NT in your hands, would your faith be greater, or the same? In an age of faith ALONE God will provide no empiric evidence of ANYTHING, otherwise it is no MORE faith. In the Tribulation evidence will be all over the place. By then, it will be too late. You will have provide WORKS for your salvation. Grace and peace Tony Last edited by tonybones2112; 04-08-2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason: typo |
|
#5
04-09-2009, 05:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Once again: very insightful.
Much appreciated. If the text has been lost over time (due to human alteration), how does it yet retain its power on those who open their heart and mind and soul to it? I fight with my OWN mind and understanding everyday; it will do anything to doubt the scriptures, I over come it by submitting to it by faith. “Help thou my unbelief” With the Lord’s abundant grace, bringing back to remembrance what the Lord has done for me thus far reinforces me. A lack of faith naturally leads to this kind of thinking (textual criticism). I’m not interested in a Bible translated by the unfaithful. |
|
#6
04-09-2009, 11:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Our main job is not to contend over textual criticism. Our job as soldiers for Christ is to spread the gospel. To undermine faith in Satan's most deadly enemy on earth, the Scriptures, Satan's ministers asks the same question he did in Genesis 3: Yea, hath God said? I John 5:7? Did He really say that? Did He really say the last twelve verses of Mark? Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: ) 1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Inspiration, on the thrid level, is GOD working in us. Gal. 2:8 defines that what works effectually in us in I Thes. 2:13 is not of OUR efforts, but Gods effort. How do I know the KJV is the word of God? It works effectually in me. Grace and peace Tony |
|
|
Linear Mode
