SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Nestle Greek Text

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread









 The Nestle Greek Text

THE NESTLE GREEK TEXT

Based upon the Westcott and Hort N.T., the text of Eberhard Nestle (or the Aland-Nestle or the third edition of the United Bible Society, both of which are founded on the Nestle text and are almost identical to it), [b]is being used today as the Greek New Testament in most of the seminaries.[/b] It contains about [b]four changes per verse when compared to the Textus Receptus[/b]. Incredibly, we are told this does not affect a single Christian doctrine. But it does – it creates doubt in the minds of even the most devout that they really have an infallible Bible in their hands. It devastates the Christian's faith that the Bible is really the Word of God.

[b]Eberhard Nestle's Greek text has 36,191 changes in the New Testament from the Textus Receptus.[/b]. The resulting text would hardly read as the same book! Yet, it has to do so up to a point. The new translations read differently in some places but not everywhere. What if someone found an ancient Greek text out in the woods or in a cave? Would it be accepted as a genuine New Testament manuscript? What would be the hallmark, the criterion, the standard against which it would be measured?

Believe it or not, after all we have said concerning the textual critics' negative views of the Textus Receptus – it is nevertheless the standard by which all other manuscripts are measured. The new-found ms would have to agree 90% with the Textus Receptus to be considered legitimate.

However, all Satan has ever needed is 10%. If we selectively alter God's Word 10%, we can remove a significant amount of the verses dealing with blood atonement and with Jesus' deity thus casting doubt in the minds of young men and women as to whether they have available to them the Word of God. Or, as the devil said, "Yea, did God really say that? Is that really God's Word? You can't believe that!"

The Catholic Church (Whore of Rome) teaches those very words and now she is continuing to seduce the Protestant church to use the same Greek text upon which the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome is based (as well as the more modern Roman version, the Rheims-Douay).

The Catholic church has almost succeeded in doing away with the Word of God as translated by Tyndale, which God has providentially watched over all of these years. We are always seeing footnotes (such as the Great Commission as given in Mark 16 and many other passages) that inform us that "the oldest, best, most reliable, most trustworthy, manuscripts read differently." What this means in simple language is, according to the scholars, an "untrustworthy manuscript" is one written on poor quality paper, and done in the handwriting of a non-professional scribe. A "trustworthy" one is written on high quality paper or vellum, and obviously prepared by highly educated professional scribes or scholars in neat capital letters – despite the fact that there may be many misspellings and omissions. However, they are referring to less than ten manuscripts and almost always only two – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Aleph.

This is no more logical than if an alien came from another planet in outer space and perhaps found a Bible with notes written on the edges and words highlighted or underlined. If he reasoned as our modern scholars, it would be judged as corrupt and untrustworthy. By the same logic, a Bible on a shelf which had never been used except for occasional reference would be declared good and trustworthy because it was clean and neat.

An example, as noted above, is Mark 16:9-20 where many Bibles contain a very dishonest footnote which states that the oldest and most reliable Greek MSS do not contain these verses. As noted on page 19, we have over 3,000 N.T. Greek manuscripts, none of which is complete – neither does any contain all four of the gospels in their entirety. Over 1,800 contain Mark 16:9-20 and only three do not. So you see, the footnote is both very dishonest and misleading. As mentioned previously, Vaticanus even has a space left exactly the size of those verses. More than ninety-nine percent of the Greek manuscripts have those verses; they are THE WORD OF GOD.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I pray that this might open one persons eyes.

God bless,

Stever

 2006/4/23 17:22









 Re: [b]The Scholars versus the Jesus[/b]

[u][b]THE SCHOLARS VERSUS JESUS - THE BATTLE CONTINUES[/b][/u]

Mark 12:37 relates that the "common people" heard Jesus gladly. With the exception of a few like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, it was the scholars and religious leaders of His own day who rejected and resisted Him most vehemently. Nothing has changed for the great majority of modern scholarship rejects both God's promise that His Word would be preserved as well as the deity of Jesus Christ. It is still the common people who keep holding on to the true God-given, God-preserved Text upon which the King James was based.

The new translations profess to be revisions of the 1611 King James. They are not for they are not even from the same Greek text. A radically different Greek New Testament was produced and has been used as the foundation for the new translations. We have had a new "bible" foisted upon us which is not a Bible at all for God authored only ONE Bible.

Equally distressing is that the numerous modern translations are being sponsored and/or produced by publishing companies and by individuals who answer to no ecclesiastical arm of the Church. There is no one to whom they are accountable. Thus faithfulness to accurate translation is of little consequence to most of them. The criteria has become readability rather than correctness, and after a Madison Avenue sales promotion advertising the product as "easy to understand" or "reads just like today's newspaper", the final criteria and motive become that of profit.

The Westcott-Hort Greek text contains about 5,788 departures from the Greek text of the Textus Receptus. There are about 40 major omissions. These omissions deal with the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the deity of Jesus, and Jesus' authority. The readings of the 1611 King James translation are supported by third and fourth century Western and Byzantine manuscripts which are of the same age as Vaticanus B and Aleph. The Textus Receptus exalts Jesus in about ten passages in which the others tend to disparage and detract from Him. Out of the nearly 8,000 verses in the New Testament, 152 contain doctrinal corruptions in the W-H text.

God bless,

Stever

 2006/4/23 20:45
Ruach34
Member



Joined: 2006/2/7
Posts: 296
Beijing

 Re:

I am interested in more of this dialogue. I have just been revealed to the fact that modern translations have variations and mistakes.
I recently purchased a tyndale NT and have appreciated reading it's pages.
What bible can we rely on and can we truly know? Did Tyndale translate from the textus receptus? And more so on this line, No we can never stray from the written word of God in camparing experiences and lining up teaching with, but doesn't the Lord God write His word upon our hearts. Word on a page cannot transform, the Word of God is life and transforming. Many people know the word of God from the Bible and can quote from memory but have no life in them, reproduceable life.

The early apostles had nothing but the Septuagint and were far greater in power, annointing and faith. Maybe we should study more the septuagint... Just some questions to see if I can get some response. By the way, is there a reliable Septuagint out there. I know tyndale did some translating and another finished after tyndales death?
Rich


_________________
RICH

 2006/4/27 15:48Profile
boomatt
Member



Joined: 2006/3/20
Posts: 235
fredericksburg, Virginia

 Re:

I got turned off to the NASB, NIV and most of the new translations, because of 1 John 5:7, I just could not get that out of my head why that verse was omitted. I'm not really a conspiracy kind of guy, but I do think certain verses were left out to fit in with early church heretics. What are your thoughts?
I read the NKJV, and the KJV and like them a lot.

blessings to all


_________________
Matt Kroelinger

 2006/4/27 16:26Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3708
Ca.

 Re:



1 John 5:7 TNIV (Today's New International Version) Print
< Go to 1 John 4 View this Chapter Go to 2 John 1 >
7 For there are three that testify:

< Go to 1 John 4 View this Chapter Go to 2 John 1 >
Today's New International Version
International Bible Society
© Copyright 2001, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 5:7 NIV (New International Version) Print
< Go to 1john 4 View this Chapter Go to 2 John 1 >
7For there are three that testify:

< Go to 1john 4 View this Chapter Go to 2 John 1 >
New International Version
International Bible Society
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 5:7 KJV (King James Version) Print
< Go to 1john 4 View this Chapter Go to 2 John 1 >

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

< Go to 1john 4 View this Chapter Go to 2 John 1 >
King James Version
Public Domain


_________________
Phillip

 2006/4/27 17:05Profile
BeYeDoers
Member



Joined: 2005/11/17
Posts: 370
Bloomington, IN

 Re:

boomatt, 1 John 5:7 hasn't been "omitted" from any text. It doesn't exist in any manuscript. Never did. Not even the ones used to compile TR. It was a marginal note found in a handful of manuscripts. Erasmus didn't even want to include it in his version, but eventually did. If you read all of 1 John 5, that verse doesn't even make much sense. John is talking about Christ being manifest in the flesh here on earth. The water and the blood refer to his birth, and Spirit testifies of such. Three bearing witness in heaven has nothing to do with what John is saying. When I read it, it just seems out of place. There have been pressures from cults since the 2nd century to "prove" from one passage that the Trinity is true, so this verse would do such that. But it is by no means necessary. The trinity is all over the scriptures, cover to cover. All 66 books scream "TRINITY".
-------------------------------------------------
Ruach34, This topic has been hot and lengthy for years on this site. Stever will try to persuade you to believe that the KJV is the only reliable Bible and all the others are deliberately corrupt. Philologos (where is he by the way?) will thoroughly educate you on translation principles and various manuscript issues and difficulties. He will argue that the KJV is probably the best, but there is nothing damnable about the NASB or a few other "newer" versions. Many of us on this site prefer the KJV, myself included, for various reasons, some "scholarly" and some not ("scholarly" debate aside, I just like the way it sounds, and it makes me think about what is being said). Still others prefer the NASB or NIV. Chrrrriiiiiissss (don't know if I put the right amount of extra letters in there
;-) ) likes the NIV, and has said some very noteworthy things about it.

I suggest going to the thread "Why would anybody still use the KJV". Much can be gleaned from there.

Be ready to step in deep, and have fun on your search :-)



_________________
Denver McDaniel

 2006/4/27 17:06Profile
boomatt
Member



Joined: 2006/3/20
Posts: 235
fredericksburg, Virginia

 Re:

Try Answering These From Your NIV



By Rex L. Cobb

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).


Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."


According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?


According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?


According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?


In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.


In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________


According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?


According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?


In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?


In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?


In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?


According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?


In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?


John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?


What happened each year as told in John 5:4?


In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?


In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?


What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?


Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.


Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?


Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.


First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?


In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?


Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?


Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible




I am not king James Only, I just like to read a more acurate translation.

I dont think bad about anyone who doesnt read the king james.


_________________
Matt Kroelinger

 2006/4/27 23:41Profile
boomatt
Member



Joined: 2006/3/20
Posts: 235
fredericksburg, Virginia

 Re:


I didnt write any of these, but I have checked these sources out, and they are real




© 2001 by David W. Daniels
Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.


The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.


A Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse: 200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.



The Vaudois

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.


Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.



Blessings

:-o :-o


_________________
Matt Kroelinger

 2006/4/27 23:45Profile









 Re:

Quote:

BeYeDoers wrote:
boomatt, 1 John 5:7 hasn't been "omitted" from any text. It doesn't exist in any manuscript. Never did. Not even the ones used to compile TR. It was a marginal note found in a handful of manuscripts. Erasmus didn't even want to include it in his version, but eventually did. If you read all of 1 John 5, that verse doesn't even make much sense. John is talking about Christ being manifest in the flesh here on earth. The water and the blood refer to his birth, and Spirit testifies of such. Three bearing witness in heaven has nothing to do with what John is saying. When I read it, it just seems out of place. There have been pressures from cults since the 2nd century to "prove" from one passage that the Trinity is true, so this verse would do such that. But it is by no means necessary. The trinity is all over the scriptures, cover to cover. All 66 books scream "TRINITY".
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response:

Erasmus had the writings of the early Church Fathers. What do we find there? Westcott and Hort wanted nothing to do with the study of Patristics (the writings of the early Church fathers, other than those found at the Vatican Library)-


"KJV I John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Cyprian (200-258) "The Lord says, "I and the Father are one.,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ‘and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:6)

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

So what it boils down to is either lack of information that creates misunderstanding, or deliberate obfusication of the truth that is meant to mislead.

You will have to be the judge, as the Spirit leads.


God bless,


Stever


 2006/4/28 0:53
BeYeDoers
Member



Joined: 2005/11/17
Posts: 370
Bloomington, IN

 Re:

Quote:
Cyprian (200-258) "The Lord says, "I and the Father are one.,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ‘and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:6)



That's not even what 1 John 5:7 says. "I and the Father are one" are found in the gospel of John, and his letter says the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, not the Son. John never calls the Word "Son". He calls Him God on a couple of occasions, and there is no doubt they are the same. But John uses "Word" to describe the preincarnate Christ and the Christ coming to conquer at the end of the age. He uses "Son" to describe the incarnate Word. No doubt they are the same, but that is just how John uses his words. And again, reading all of 1 John 5, verse 7 doesn't really fit in. You can force it there, but it sounds strained.

All the quotes I have read from early church fathers that KJV-only people cite as proof are quite vague in what they are actually referening. I have yet to read a quote that says "it is written by John, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." All the quotes show nothing more than the early church believed 100% in the trinity and could show it in scripture, but none quote 1 John 5:7 as we have it, at least that I have seen. The correlation is a forced one by KJV-only people.

And why is it that KJV-onlyers damn Latin manuscripts and insist on using only Byzantine Greek and church fathers, but when it comes to this verse, they use some of the very things they damn? You have got to be consistent. If the Greek manuscripts can't be trusted for this verse, why are they trusted for the rest of the New Testament? Stever, many times you have used the fact that over 90% of the manuscripts are Byzantine, and that they agree with each other more than the Alexandrian to show that they are more reliable, but then when it comes to this verse, you have to outside the Byzantine family to make it work? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Question: why does the fact that the Alexandrian texts don't have verses that Byzantines do prove that the Alexandrian scribes intentionally deleted them? It could work the other way around, that the originals didn't have them and Byzantine scribes added them for consistency. OR they could be completely independent events. They all had fragments and had no idea of the existence of the others, so the two families came out different. This whole comparing versions thing and drawing conclusions is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not infer causation. Evolutionists make the same mistake. Just because two things are similar doesn't mean that one caused the other. In reading pages upon pages of this debate, I have seen zero evidence that anything was ever intentionally corrupted. Just speculation and use of the genetic fallacy argument. If y'all can produce a church quote or 3rd century historian showing that Origen did indeed intentionall change something that subsequently affected all the Alexandrian texts and not any others, that would be great. But showing differences in texts and then say that Origen was in Alexandrius and handled those texts in no way proves anything. I have read some of the early church fathers, and both liberal and conservative scholars on this issue, and it is overwhelming that 1 John 5:7 is not original. The only people that claim it to be authentic are highly fringe KJV-only pastors that use horrible logic and very vague sources.

All that being said, I still find the KJV "to be nearest to the best" quoting Ravenhill. I use it most of the time. Every once in a great while, I refer to the NASB. There are a few inconsistencies and errors in both translations that the other seems to clear up and make more readable/teachable. I also can't stand the NIV and think its name should be changed to "Not Inspired Version" :-) It is terribly inconsistent and inaccurate of its rendering of WH. I find it watered down, and you indeed arrive at different views of scripture (not essential doctrines) by using it. I discipled a guy for 2 years with him using NIV and me using NASB, and we came to many different conclusions of what some passages taught. He eventually threw it out and got an NASB. I now use KJV, as I said, and find it somewhat disconcerting that one of the 2 major texts WH used were found in a trash can in a Catholic monastery.

Blessings,
denver


_________________
Denver McDaniel

 2006/4/28 9:31Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy