Which version of the Bible is most infallible?

[brugsch]

What I claimed was that we have the original text (collective singular), the words, phrases, sentences, books, that they wrote.  Through the copies that we have, we can know with 99.9999% certainty, what they originally wrote, that is, their "text".

Other than that, what would you like explained?

Theophilus

So, according to UBS4, John 7:53-8:11 should be omitted from the New Testament. Do you agree? Why?

In Matthew 5:11 the USB4 committee was uncertain about whether "falsely" should appear in the text. They gave their adopted reading a "D" meaning that they were not certain at all what the reading should be. Does this sound like 99.9999% certainty?

[Theophilus]

Stan wrote:

If the modifications were being done early on, as some early church fathers claimed, and all the surviving manuscripts descended from those early modified manuscripts there is nothing that the textual analysis is going to give you to point to what is really the original.

Yes, "if" that were true, you might have a point, but as it is, it appears to be nothing but speculation. I have faith in God to have preserved His word sufficiently. As for "modfications", you seem to be implying intentional tampering, and I don't know of any evidence to suggest that. Do you have such evidence, or are you simply arguing for argument's sake?

Brugsch wrote:

Which fourth century reading for Matthew 19:9 is the correct one? Sinaiticus or Vaticanus? Vaticanus says that the woman commits adultery and Sinaiticus says the man does? P25, also fourth century, reads differently from either of the other two.

If you compare it to Matt. 5:32, I think you'll find that the two ideas ("the woman commits adultery" and "the man commits adultery") aren't mutually exclusive.

Do you really trust the editorial decisions for UBS4? Why?

I don't blindly trust them, if that's what you mean.

The best part of UBS 4 is that it gives "full disclosure", it gives the variant readings, so the individual can be made aware of the possibilities. And of course, none of the variants are doctrinally significant.

So, according to UBS4, John 7:53-8:11 should be omitted from the New Testament. Do you agree? Why?

Yes, I think it's obvious that that passage is a later addition.

Do you have a problem with that, for some reason?

In Matthew 5:11 the USB4 committee was uncertain about whether "falsely" should appear in the text. They gave their adopted reading a "D" meaning that they were not certain at all what the reading should be.

Personally, I think that "falsely" is implied, even without the explicit term there.

Even so, it doesn't seem like something I need to be too concerned about, as God is the one collecting my blessings for me, not me. He knows what my blessings are, after all.

They gave their adopted reading a "D" meaning that they were not certain at all what the reading should be. Does this sound like 99.9999% certainty?

Well, since the bulk of the Bible contains readings of 100% certainty, then over all, even with a few "D" evaluations, yes, overal it sounds like 99.9999%.

(You did understand, I hope, that my 99.9999% number was about the Bible as a whole, not about each individual variant reading?)

I hope the misrepresentation wasn't intentional...

Theophilus

[Ron Beron]

we can (and do) have the original text of the Bible.

We do? Well, which one contains it?

Refer to BHS for the Hebrew, and UBS4 for the Greek.

And those are the original texts, penned by the apostles and prophets? Please explain.

You seem to have misunderstood my original statement.

I never claimed we had the original "texts" (ie. scrolls, papyrii) that the authors wrote. (I've already acknowledged that we don't have the autographs, that's pretty much universally understood.)

What I claimed was that we have the original text (collective singular), the words, phrases, sentences, books, that they wrote. Through the copies that we have, we can know with 99.9999% certainty, what they originally wrote, that is, their "text".

Other than that, what would you like explained?

Theophilus

No, we don't have any semblance of any original text. There isn't any. The earliest known "fragment" we have dates no later than the middle of the 3rd century and there are so many unintentional and intentional scribal errors as to render a good portion of what we read to be in error. The earliest complete writings are evident until Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century. Ehrman in his latest book, Misquoting Jesus, takes the assumptions of EV's thoughts about the Bible to task. The gospels insertion of Jesus forgiving a woman taken into adultery has always been accepted as, well, gospel. However, the earliest accounts of the gospels we have excluded this from their writings. Does this mean that someone, somehow, later added the story? Probably. The bottom line is that one cannot assume that these words are God's inerrable thoughts and words. They aren't.

[KevinG]

Were all of these passages assumed to have always been written or did they have an oral tradition for several centuries before being scripted?

[Theophilus]

No, we don't have any semblance of any original text.  There isn't any.  The earliest known "fragment" we have dates no later than the middle of the 3rd century and there are so many unintentional and intentional scribal errors as to render a good portion of what we read to be in error.  The earliest complete writings are evident until Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century.

Wow.

You need to do some studying, I think...

As I read the above, I was forming a reply in my head, to the effect of, "who are you quoting from, Bart Ehrman or something?" And lo and behod, you continue...

Ehrman in his latest book, Misquoting Jesus, takes the assumptions of EV's thoughts about the Bible to task.

Tell me, what scholars have you read on this topic besides Ehrman? Or did you simply read him alone, and accept his claims, as, well... "gospel"? Ehrman's a relative newcomer to the field, and his conclusions are, well, questionable. Suffice to say that Ehrman's expectations are a bit unrealistic.

The gospels insertion of Jesus forgiving a woman taken into adultery has always been accepted as, well, gospel. 

Are you saying the story has always been accepted as gospel, or the insertion has always been accepted? If the former, you realize you are arguing a logical fallacy? "It's what we have always believed, therefore it must be true" simply isn't valid argumentation.

Does this mean that someone, somehow, later added the story?  Probably.

Of course.

The bottom line is that one cannot assume that these words are God's inerrable thoughts and words.  They aren't.

Sorry, but that simply doesn't follow.

The reason we know that John 8 was a later edition is precisely because we do know the original text, and comparing to it, we know that it was a later edition.

Again, have you read anything on the issue besides Ehrman?

That's like trying to learn about Mormonism solely from the writings of Steve Benson, and not listening to anyone else's view.

Theophilus

[Ron Beron]

No, we don't have any semblance of any original text.  There isn't any.  The earliest known "fragment" we have dates no later than the middle of the 3rd century and there are so many unintentional and intentional scribal errors as to render a good portion of what we read to be in error.  The earliest complete writings are evident until Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century.

Wow.

You need to do some studying, I think...

As I read the above, I was forming a reply in my head, to the effect of, "who are you quoting from, Bart Ehrman or something?" And lo and behod, you continue...

Ehrman in his latest book, Misquoting Jesus, takes the assumptions of EV's thoughts about the Bible to task.

Tell me, what scholars have you read on this topic besides Ehrman? Or did you simply read him alone, and accept his claims, as, well... "gospel"? Ehrman's a relative newcomer to the field, and his conclusions are, well, questionable. Suffice to say that Ehrman's expectations are a bit unrealistic.

The gospels insertion of Jesus forgiving a woman taken into adultery has always been accepted as, well, gospel. 

Are you saying the story has always been accepted as gospel, or the insertion has always been accepted? If the former, you realize you are arguing a logical fallacy? "It's what we have always believed, therefore it must be true" simply isn't valid argumentation.

Does this mean that someone, somehow, later added the story?  Probably.

Of course.

The bottom line is that one cannot assume that these words are God's inerrable thoughts and words.  They aren't.

Sorry, but that simply doesn't follow.

The reason we know that John 8 was a later edition is precisely because we do know the original text, and comparing to it, we know that it was a later edition.

Again, have you read anything on the issue besides Ehrman?

That's like trying to learn about Mormonism solely from the writings of Steve Benson, and not listening to anyone else's view.

Theophilus

Ehrman is one, Eisenman is another, Metzger is still another. Rather than assume that Ehrman is wrong, show me where he is wrong. Teach me, O Master!

My position is simply that I do not accept the NT as God's infallible word. I think it was inspired...to a point and that is it.

[Stan]

Yes, I think it's obvious that that passage is a later addition.

Do you have a problem with that, for some reason?

So given that you accept it as a later addition, do you think it's a valid addition or tampering?

[Ron Beron]

The reason we know that John 8 was a later edition is precisely because we do know the original text, and comparing to it, we know that it was a later edition.

Yes, and what was earlier than that? We know that Paul wrote originals and we know that they were copied, but by whom? Scribes of dubious ablities? If one tells a story to one and he tells it to ten others and they to ten more what will the final story be at the end of a week or two? Certainly, not the same as that which was the original. What is really missing, either intentionally or unintentionally? If the church orders hundreds of Coptics documents to destroyed in the 4th century what else could have been shred.

[Theophilus]

Stan wrote:

So given that you accept it as a later addition, do you think it's a valid addition or tampering?

The bottom line is that whoever added it didn't sign their name, or tell us the reason for the addition. But in my experience, just about every other addition has been for "honourable" reasons (not that I'm saying that the end justifies the means, of course).

Bottom line is that we don't know, but if you forced me to guess, I would hazard a guess that it was some sort of oral tradition that somebody honestly thought was supposed to be in there. But as I said, that's a guess, and not worth anything more than what you paid for it.

EnemyAce wrote:

We know that Paul wrote originals and we know that they were copied, but by whom? Scribes of dubious ablities?

We know that they were copied by Christians who loved God's word, and treated it with the utmost respect, and simply wanted a copy of an epistle for their church that it didn't have as yet.

If one tells a story to one and he tells it to ten others and they to ten more what will the final story be at the end of a week or two? Certainly, not the same as that which was the original.

Oh, here we go again... The "telephone game" straw-man...

The Scriptures weren't copied "orally", they were copied by writting down as the copyist was reading the original. It wasn't some "telephone game", it wasn't just hard-to-hear "whispering", it wasn't "oral", there is really no comparison.

So yes, many generations can be faithfully made without introducing any "errors".

What is really missing, either intentionally or unintentionally?

"Intentionally"?!

You sure seem to be quick to immediately accuse sincere Christians who love God's word with "intentional" tampering". What evidence do you have for your accusation?

And yes, there was the occasional unintentional error. Sometimes a theta was mistaken for an omicron. Sometimes due to phrases having words with the same ending, the phrase was either duplicated, or mistakenly deleted. In the case of the former, the mistake is obvious. In the case of the latter, we have enough copies with the authentic rendering that we can recognize the deletion and therefore know the original rendering.

Ehrman is one, Eisenman is another, Metzger is still another. Rather than assume that Ehrman is wrong, show me where he is wrong. Teach me, O Master!

First of all, if you've seriously considered Metzger, then I can't offer you anything better to change your mind.

Second of all, I didn't simply "assume" that Ehrman is wrong.

Third, due to your "teach me, O Master" crack, I have absolutely no interest in trying to converse with someone with such a disrespectful attitude.

Theophilus

[Cold Steel]

One can't say that the age of a document means nothing; neither can one say it means everything. Documents, like people, have a parentage. Thus it's entirely possible for a later text to be more accurate than an older one.

Who, for example, changed Nabonidus to Nebuchadnezzar in the Hebrew texts of Daniel 4 and 5? (See my post above.) How can a text be inerrent when it's been demonstrably tampered with? And if a scribe can change Nabonidus to Nebuchadnezzar, what other little "corrections" can he make?

It takes only one slip of the pen to ruin a document. Simply saying an earlier text doesn't have a phrase and a later one does is only a first step in a hypothesis. One still has a few steps yet to go.

C.S.

[Ron Beron]

We know that they were copied by Christians who loved God's word, and treated it with the utmost respect, and simply wanted a copy of an epistle for their church that it didn't have as yet.

That is not the way that Origen or other church fathers felt. Origin proclaims, "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."

Oh, here we go again... The "telephone game" straw-man...

The Scriptures weren't copied "orally", they were copied by writting down as the copyist was reading the original.  It wasn't some "telephone game", it wasn't just hard-to-hear "whispering", it wasn't "oral", there is really no comparison. 

I never said it was a oral transmission although given the relative illiteracy among the followers of Jesus I wouldn't be surprised if it was oral as certainly the gospels and the letters were intended to be read not written as per Paul's comments (I Thess. 5:27: Col. 4:16 and certainly I Tim. 4:13 which indicates little need to write down the words preferring to read them due to the sudden advent of a resurrected Jesus).

Again in Origin..."55 We see, indeed, in private houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of the most uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a word in the presence of their elders and wiser masters; but when they get hold of the children privately, and certain women as ignorant as themselves, they pour forth wonderful statements, to the effect that they ought not to give heed to their father and to their teachers, but should obey them; that the former are foolish and stupid, and neither know nor can perform anything that is really good, being preoccupied with empty trifles; that they alone know how men ought to live, and that, if the children obey them, they will both be happy themselves, and will make their home happy also. And while thus speaking, if they see one of the instructors of youth approaching, or one of the more intelligent class, or even the father himself, the more timid among them become afraid, while the more forward incite the children to throw off the yoke, whispering that in the presence of father and teachers they neither will nor can explain to them any good thing, seeing they turn away with aversion from the silliness and stupidity of such persons as being altogether corrupt, and far advanced in wickedness, and such as would inflict punishment upon them; but that if they wish (to avail themselves of their aid,) they must leave their father and their instructors, and go with the women and their playfellows to the women's apartments, or to the leather shop, or to the fuller's shop, that they may attain to perfection;--and by words like these they gain them over."

You sure seem to be quick to immediately accuse sincere Christians who love God's word with "intentional" tampering".  What evidence do you have for your accusation?

Wow...you really do need to study, don't you? Sorry, couldn't help it. Read the above.

Third, due to your "teach me, O Master" crack, I have absolutely no interest in trying to converse with someone with such a disrespectful attitude.

Yes, you will because, one, you need to get your message across and secondly, if you hadn't come across as so piously superior in your "need to study" comment then perhaps I wouldn't have attempted to zing you. Or, perhaps, you have no wish to continue because your point isn't substantiated. Or maybe you didn't realize I was joking and not being malicious in my intent.

In the case of the latter, we have enough copies with the authentic rendering that we can recognize the deletion and therefore know the original rendering.

And which renderings are these? Codex S and V? 4th century documents?

[Deborah]

The problem with any translation is that it's sometimes difficult to transfer a word or phrase to show what the the original writer intended, when the languages may not have words that really fit the context. Or the context may not be understood by the person in some other time or language. This of course can result in errors. That is why when reading the scriptures it's important to have the spirit impart the meaning.

[Ron Beron]

The problem with any translation is that it's sometimes difficult to transfer a word or phrase to show what the the original writer intended, when the languages may not have words that really fit the context. Or the context may not be understood by the person in some other time or language. This of course can result in errors. That is why when reading the scriptures it's important to have the spirit impart the meaning.

Your comments prompt me to ask whether or not you have actually felt the promptings of the spirit to dissuade you from any particular passage of scripture? I have felt so about the Song of Solomon and in someways the Book of Eccliastes, although, I like it.

[MasterMahan]

Refer to BHS for the Hebrew, and UBS4 for the Greek.

Does that help? (Didn't think so.)

Have a nice day.

Theophilus

So which one do you read? Do either of these offer texts of all the original writings? You know, like the books that Moses read from that are not contained within the Bible...

And why would you offer help, knowing it wouldn't?

Have a nice day.

[Deborah]

Your comments prompt me to ask whether or not you have actually felt the promptings of the spirit to dissuade you from any particular passage of scripture?  I have felt so about the Song of Solomon and in someways the Book of Eccliastes, although, I like it.

I've always looked at Song of Solomon as some romantic poetry, not anything doctrinal. Ecclesiastes likewise is like a book of wise sayings but not anything doctrinal. I've often wondered why SoS was included in the Bible.

[Zakuska]

Theo said...

I don't blindly trust them, if that's what you mean.

The best part of UBS 4 is that it gives "full disclosure", it gives the variant readings, so the individual can be made aware of the possibilities.And of course, none of the variants are doctrinally significant.

Well yes and No. The mere fact that there are variants stricks at the core of the EV doctrine of Inerrance in the scripture of the Lord preserving every Jot and Tittle so carefully. Was it not you who earlier said that some where?

Have you really even looked at Erhmans work, Metzinger (sp)?

[Zakuska]

In my experience... the SOS is a wonderful book of prophecies. There's Gems to be had for those who have eyes to see them. !!!

[Ron Beron]

In my experience... the SOS is a wonderful book of prophecies. There's Gems to be had for those who have eyes to see them. !!!

Prophecies?! Hmmm...maybe I'll have to read it a bit more closely...perhaps with my wife.

[Theophilus]

I don't blindly trust them, if that's what you mean.

The best part of UBS 4 is that it gives "full disclosure", it gives the variant readings, so the individual can be made aware of the possibilities.And of course, none of the variants are doctrinally significant.

Well yes and No. The mere fact that there are variants stricks at the core of the EV doctrine of Inerrance in the scripture of the Lord preserving every Jot and Tittle so carefully.

Not at all.

If you're not an "EV", then it's really not your place to speak on whawt may or may not "stricks at the core of the EV doctrine of Inerrance".

Take my word for it, it's not a problem.

Of course, if your only purpose is to try to attack the doctrines of others without even understanding them, and ignoring the actual facts of the matter, then I can well understand your intent... :-(

Theophilus

[Theophilus]

So which one do you read?  Do either of these offer texts of all the original writings?

Well, since you asked, I read UBS4, as well as the LXX.

You know, like the books that Moses read from that are not contained within the Bible...

I don't kow of any "books that Moses read from that are not contained in the Bible". Please, "enlighten" me...

And why would you offer help, knowing it wouldn't?

Because there are others here besides you who read these MB's, that's why...

If that weren't the case, I don't think I'd waste my time with people who seem to have nothing better to do than to engage in name-calling and insult all day, and from self-professing "Christians" no less... :-(

Theophilus

[StudioD]

Quick note: My favorite is the New English Bible from Oxford press. I sometimes wish the Church would move away from the KJV to something else--but that is for another discussion.

Textual Criticism is not an absolute science, because there are some many interpretations, critical and subjective readings; and quantitative measurements. One must considered that scholars like Kurt and Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, Arthur Voobus, etc., are reviewing/working from multiple manuscripts, many from Greek, Latin, Coptic, The Church Fathers, etc., sources--with a wide range of variant readings. I appreciate what they bring to the table; there is some much to learn and we

[MasterMahan]

I don't kow of any "books that Moses read from that are not contained in the Bible". Please, "enlighten" me...

Exodus 24:7, Num. 21:14 (this refers to what was written about his proceedings in the Red Sea).

Because there are others here besides you who read these MB's, that's why...

Are you saying that you provided help for others, knowing it wouldn't help me?

[Deborah]

In my experience... the SOS is a wonderful book of prophecies. There's Gems to be had for those who have eyes to see them. !!!

I suppose you can read anything you want into it.

Sometimes called Canticles (as in Latin) or Song of Songs (as in Hebrew). Whether Solomon is actually the author is doubtful. The composition has many beautiful phrases and lyrical prose, often quoted in nonreligious literature. The JST manuscript contains the note that

[Neighbor]

I have most confidence in the KJV or NKJV - speaking from the perspective of being an English speaking person in the United States of America.

I would say the most original language version is the best version - the untranslated version - but I wouldn't be able to understand the voice. As Paul said, better five words with understanding than five thousand in an unknown tongue:

Some newer versions are dissecting some of the turth out of the Scriptures, and I will not suport even one verse being perverted.

How about you?

[Theophilus]

I don't kow of any "books that Moses read from that are not contained in the Bible".  Please, "enlighten" me...

Exodus 24:7, Num. 21:14 (this refers to what was written about his proceedings in the Red Sea).

I'm not convinced that the text referred to in Ex. 24:7 isn't presently in the Bible.

I'm not convinced that the "Book of the Wars" referred to in Num. 21:14 is "Scripture", that it even should be in the Bible.

Theophilus