SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : List of omissions in modern bible translations

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
BranchinVINE
Member



Joined: 2016/6/15
Posts: 689
Australia

 Re:

Hi narrowpath,

Quote:
It is like a coat with many holes. It is still 99% coat, but would you wear it for business, in winter or to protect yourself from rain?
Certainly not!



The only coat with no holes is the original text which no longer exists.


Quote:
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and He will never compromise or overule the written word.



Are you claiming that the TR contains the whole truth and nothing but the truth and God has preserved His whole truth in it? If so, you must give concrete evidence (not opinion) to substantiate your claim.

The fact is: The TR is based on late manuscripts. It is not the original text. Because the original text no longer exists, it cannot be proven that the omissions were in the original text


Quote:
……the Alexandrian texts were weakened according to gnostic influences the scribes were under.



Is this fact or opinion?


Quote:
and last not least the textcritical Westcort-Hort text does not include Mark 16:9-20 but most new translations still keep it in the text body and only mention that they are not included in majority Greek texts.



Again, as the original text no longer exists, we just do not know whether this is in the original text or not.


The issue here is the TR vs. Westcort and Hort. I still cannot see how the critical truths of Christianity have been corrupted by the omissions listed.


Blessings


_________________
Jade

 2020/5/4 10:15Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5483
NC, USA

 Re:

//The issue here is the TR vs. Westcort and Hort. I still cannot see how the critical truths of Christianity have been corrupted by the omissions listed.//

They haven’t been. In many cases especially in the synoptic gospels what KJ only proponents say is missing in one gospel actually shows up in the parallel passage is another gospel.

The story of the woman caught in adultery is also not in the oldest manuscripts. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen(I believe it did) but it does deserve a footnote, which translations like the ESV or NASB provide.


_________________
Todd

 2020/5/4 12:16Profile
narrowpath
Member



Joined: 2005/1/9
Posts: 1091
Germany NRW

 Re:

Hi BranchingVine

You need to read through the comparative chart yourself to make up your mind.

---------------------------
The only coat with no holes is the original text which no longer exists.
--------------------------

I believe the TR is the unadultered version of the NT. The KJV is the best English translation available, but not free from small translation errors. You can never get a 100% accurate translation from one language into the other. Every translator know that.

If God managed to preserve his word through thousands of years without fail, he will also succed to preserve his word throughout the church age, regardless of library fires and efforts to falsify the gospel.

Question back to you: Do you believe that God was unable to provide the church with a proper text?

I am not KJV only, though the KJV is my English bible of choice and we use the NKJV with our family. I would embrace new bible translations in more contemporary language, as long as they are very close translations of the TR.
I use TR based bibles in Chinese and German, too. We have an excellent contemporary TR based German Bibel, called Schlachter2000, published in the year 2000 that is better than Luthers translation.

------------
The fact is: The TR is based on late manuscripts. It is not the original text. Because the original text no longer exists, it cannot be proven that the omissions were in the original text
------------

Earlier manuscript do not necessary mean more acurate.
Also, ever wondered why the critical text differences follow a pattern?


When a text is copied again and again by hand through many hands, it is much more likely that things go missing, not added.

Pour exactly one gallon of water into a bucket. Pour it into into another empty bucket - and another. Repeat it several times and take measurements. It will be definitely less then a gallon.

So I conclude the shorter critical text must have suffered more substraction due to more hands copying and editing it.

-------------------
Todd wrote
They haven’t been. In many cases especially in the synoptic gospels what KJ only proponents say is missing in one gospel actually shows up in the parallel passage is another gospel.
-------------------

Thank God we have four gospels, so that even if the manuscripts are corrupted to a degree, they still render a reasonable acurate translations with the ESV and NASB. Thank God, those translation do not dare to completely leave out the footnote references to the TR, but I fear they will do so in future versions.

As for me and my house, we will follow the TR :)

 2020/5/4 14:01Profile
BranchinVINE
Member



Joined: 2016/6/15
Posts: 689
Australia

 Re:

Hi narrowpath,

Quote:
Pour exactly one gallon of water into a bucket. Pour it into into another empty bucket - and another. Repeat it several times and take measurements. It will be definitely less then a gallon.

So I conclude the shorter critical text must have suffered more subtraction due to more hands copying and editing it.



Equally, pour exactly one gallon of water into a bucket. Pour more water into it. Repeat it several times and it will definitely be more than one gallon.

Therefore the longer text could contain more text due to more hands copying and adding to it.



Quote:
You need to read through the comparative chart yourself to make up your mind.
…………
Question back to you: Do you believe that God was unable to provide the church with a proper text?



I have made up my mind. In my view, the omissions have in no way corrupted the critical truths of Christianity. Both the early and late manuscripts contain the essential text to lead us to the Lord Jesus who Himself is the Way the Truth and the Life. And the message of repentance, of the cross and the resurrection, and of eternal life in Christ Jesus, have been preserved in both the early and late manuscripts.

You have chosen the KJV and NKJV. That is good. These are literal and reliable translations. The NASB has been my preferred choice through my years of personal Bible Study. It is also a literal translation and a reliable text

God has not promised us a flawless written text, but God has promised to send us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

The scribes had the best (i.e. the original) written text yet they were blind and rejected the Saviour.



Quote:
As for me and my house, we will follow the TR :)



Jesus said, "Follow ME.”

And He can be found in all Bible translations when our eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit to see Him only.



_________________
Jade

 2020/5/5 3:46Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2003
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Good morning everyone. It has been a long time since I have posted anything, but I felt like I could add to this discussion.

Before I make any other comment, I want to say that I am primarily a KJV guy, not because I am sold on its accuracy or believe that it is based upon superior texts. I just grew up with it and like it. As a result, I am pretty underwhelmed with every other version I have ever read. I am nearing 50 and all of those years have been spent in the church. This debate about texts and versions has been going on for all of my life. So, from 42 years of following Christ and being in the church world, here is what I have learned.

In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul tells the church that when he ministered to them, he did not come with his own intellectual understanding of scripture, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. He did this so that their foundation would not be on a man but on God. He went on to say this, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth, not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”

The written word of God cannot be understood apart from the Holy Spirit. The natural mind of man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. The Jews had Bible Scholars of the highest quality and degree. Yet Jesus showed them over and over again that they had totally missed the entire point of the law and the prophets. They were angry with Him and labeled Him a false prophet. They were trying to understand a written text with the natural mind and the spiritual message that it conveyed was foolishness to them.

In Hebrews, we read that the word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword and that it is able to divide between what is of the soul and what is of the Spirit in our lives. At that time, the recognized written word of God was only what we now know as the Old Testament. So if the verse is speaking of the Bible, then we would have to say that it is the law and the prophets that divides between soul and Spirit. But that is not at all what this verse is saying. It is saying that when God speaks to us, His word cuts deep and reveals to us what is of us and what is of the Spirit of God.

The purpose of the word of God is to transform our lives. It is to conform us into His image. This is a spiritual process, not an intellectual one. If the Holy Spirit does not reveal the written word of God to us, then we will miss the point and the purpose of the Bible. Granted, there are Bible versions out there that are obviously to be avoided. Many are paraphrases that do not even purport to be accurate translations and there are those that were written with the purpose of pushing a false message. But I am not even considering those when I say that the version you read is not nearly as important as we have made it, and the entire argument over those versions is a vain and empty pursuit. I know that some hard-core apologists will gasp, shake their heads, and reject that last statement and then label me, but it is the truth. The Holy Spirit is the interpreter of the word of God, not my own understanding and intellect. If I am seeking God for truth, the Holy Spirit will make me to properly understand what I read regardless of the version I am reading from.

You see, what we must realize is that people in nations where the Bible is not available are coming to Christ through direct visitation of the Holy Spirit upon their lives. He is teaching them. What is amazing is that what they are being taught by the Holy Spirit, apart from contact with the written word, is in complete agreement with the written word. Why? Because it is the author who is teaching them.

So the version and what original text comes from is not very important at all. The fact that we spend time in communion and intimacy with God and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal the word to us is what is important. The purpose of Bible study is not to make sure our i’s are dotted and our t’s crossed as far as doctrinal exegesis is concerned. It is the fellowship with God and be transformed into His image.


_________________
Travis

 2020/5/7 9:31Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy