most accurate Bible ?

[lizzyhermit]

text family debate

have any of you heard reasonable explanations as to why there are apparently no manuscripts of the Byzantne text type older than the fourth century? (This is the text famly that the KJV is drawn from as I'm understanding).



But that there are extant manuscripts of the other three text types (Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean) that are older and that "church fathers before the fourth century cited every text type except the Byzantine".



I would question as to why manuscripts, regardless of text type, would not age, fall apart, wear out or decompose at the same rate and that Byzantine manuscripts should be extant from before the 4th century.

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by lizzyhermit

two interesting comments I've read (re-read) lately:



... thy word is truth - jo 17:17



and



"the original writings of the NT were inerrant, not the copies.

Hi,

Just some thoughts:

1. On the above comments you made,--- which I've heard many times,--- and are prevalent in most all bible colleges.

Since no one has seen the original autographs how do they know that the copies are in error?



Example: If I wrote to you; "The dog went up the hill"

and then you copied down what I wrote"The dog went up the hill"

--

and then we destroyed the original note that said "The dog went up the hill"---------------the thinking above would state that your copy would be errant because it wasn't the original.



This is not logical to me, but many have bought into it. Again, If no one has seen the originals, how do they know that the copies are in error?



The New Testament that the KJV came from has over 5100 manuscripts ( over 98% of all manuscripts known) that say the same thing and they came from all over Europe in different languages. Why would they agree with each other if they errored from the originals which came through Antioch. (Not Egypt) -----God said in Psalms 12:6-7 that he would preserve his word pure forever; well, either he did or he lied. Which Bible did he preserve his word pure in if he didn't lie? That is the question you put forward in this post.



Lowell

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by Tejas Deezul

Very good except I differ slightly on the "falling away". Look here:



http://12.45.90.10/kjv/study/strong.asp Type in "falling away" and you will find it is the root for apostasy, Greek # 646 is is described as "defection from truth". To 'defect' from the truth, one must be in the truth first and then turn away (defect) to another. Since the subject is the appearance of the "Anti-Christ" (really should read instead of Christ) we may interpret this to mean a "falling away" from the True Christ to the Instead-of Christ.

Hi,

I don't think that there is a disagreement here, but I will clarify my thoughts.



1. II Thessalonians 2:2-3; the first part of these scriptures states that the (1)"Day of Christ is at hand". ----(2)and then speaks that that will not happen until a falling away comes first,------(3)and then the man of sin will be revealed. I believe that the subject is the Day of Christ. Paul then states that these other things have to happen prior that that day.



I agree with the word definition totally. "Defection from the Truth", -- But I do believe the early church was IN the truth. The Church, from the beginning, has been fought on all sides, down through the centuries on apostacy creeping in.



Jude 3-4 "-----it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. "



This scripture about the "defecting from the truth" was written probably A. D. 66, -- my belief is that it has been getting worse and worse. The Big Defection from the truth really began with the Alexanderian Cult of philosophers--Then went to Constintine and the Roman Catholic Church----Then had a resurgence in the 1860-1880's with Hort and Westcott--- and then the 1960's--till now with all of the corruptions that are on the market and in the churches today.



The word antichrist is the greek word = antichristos (#500 strongs) which means an opponent of the Messiah. So, I think I will have to disagree with you on your last statement, but not with the truth found in it.



Regards,

Lowell

 

[lpearson]

Re: text family debate

Originally posted by lizzyhermit

have any of you heard reasonable explanations as to why there are apparently no manuscripts of the Byzantne text type older than the fourth century? (This is the text famly that the KJV is drawn from as I'm understanding).



But that there are extant manuscripts of the other three text types (Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean) that are older and that "church fathers before the fourth century cited every text type except the Byzantine".



I would question as to why manuscripts, regardless of text type, would not age, fall apart, wear out or decompose at the same rate and that Byzantine manuscripts should be extant from before the 4th century.

The Byzantine period started in the 4th century (452-1453), it was the eastern break off of the Roman Empire. The so-called Byzantine text labled by critics is none other than the Traditional text (i. e. textus receptus or the received text). The manuscripts that make up the Traditional text were the oldest manuscripts known, of which I mentioned before in other replies. (Old Latin Vulgate, not Jerome's and the Syriac Pe****ta(o).



Of an interesting note, the oldest manuscript known was just recently found it is called the Magdalene papry, estimated A. D. 65-66, some authorities think that it may be part of the original authograph. The KJV says exactly what it says, found in Matthew 26:22 "every one of them", however, the NIV says "one after the other", the NLT says "one by one", NAS says "each one"; so as one can see there is only one that holds true to the oldest manuscript.



The KJV has been around for almost 400 years. There have been many new versions come and go and some just keep getting remade over and over again like the NAS and the NIV. Revision after revision; which one, does one put their trust in?



Regards,

Lowell

 

[CumminsPuller]

This is excellent gentleman. If only our transmission threads coud be this peaceful. Keep up the good work. I could read on this subject all day long.



Jason

 

[Texas Diesel]

Originally posted by CumminsPuller

This is excellent gentleman. If only our transmission threads coud be this peaceful. Keep up the good work. I could read on this subject all day long.



Jason

Really? Lets shake it up!! Does anyone know which kind of OIL is mentioned in the Bible (there's only one)? And it's not synthetic :-laf

 

[CumminsPuller]

Lowell,



This may be to big of a question but here goes: I am eating up what you write on here along with some others. May I ask where you glean this knowledge from? Could you point me in the direction of possible some books to aquire? Remember I am at the infant stage as far as this history goes.



Jason

 

[lizzyhermit]

Originally posted by Tejas Deezul

Really? Lets shake it up!! Does anyone know which kind of OIL is mentioned in the Bible (there's only one)? And it's not synthetic :-laf

The fatty liquid most familiar to the Hebrews was that obtained from olives. Fully ripened black olives gave the most oil, but those yet green, though beginning to change in color, produced the oil of finest quality. After the fruit was carefully removed from the trees, and the twigs and leaves were cleaned from the olives, they were carried to the oil press.



or at Esther 2:2 "oil of myrrh"



two, not one, and neither synthetic !

 

[lizzyhermit]

Re: Re: text family debate

Originally posted by lpearson

The Byzantine period started in the 4th century (452-1453), it was the eastern break off of the Roman Empire. The so-called Byzantine text labled by critics is none other than the Traditional text (i. e. textus receptus or the received text). The manuscripts that make up the Traditional text were the oldest manuscripts known, of which I mentioned before in other replies. (Old Latin Vulgate, not Jerome's and the Syriac Pe****ta(o).



but what about the "none older than the fourth century" ? I didn't follow your logic...



also I have read that the textus receptus and the majority text although frquently used synonymously are NOT! the majority text as compiled by Hodges/Farstad (1550 Stepahnus) differs from the tectus in over 1,000 places, actually 1838 places and Westcott/Hort agrees with the majority text against the textus. The blurb I'm reading sites Lu 17:36, Acts 8:37 and 1Jo 5:7 as examples.



and thanks for the Magdalene ref. , that's new to me. . goot go read some more...

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by CumminsPuller

Lowell,



This may be to big of a question but here goes: I am eating up what you write on here along with some others. May I ask where you glean this knowledge from? Could you point me in the direction of possible some books to aquire? Remember I am at the infant stage as far as this history goes.



Jason

Jason, check your pm, I sent you an e-mail.

 

[lpearson]

Re: Re: Re: text family debate

Originally posted by lizzyhermit

Originally posted by lpearson

The Byzantine period started in the 4th century (452-1453), it was the eastern break off of the Roman Empire. The so-called Byzantine text labled by critics is none other than the Traditional text (i. e. textus receptus or the received text). The manuscripts that make up the Traditional text were the oldest manuscripts known, of which I mentioned before in other replies. (Old Latin Vulgate, not Jerome's and the Syriac Pe****ta(o).



but what about the "none older than the fourth century" ? I didn't follow your logic...



also I have read that the textus receptus and the majority text although frquently used synonymously are NOT! the majority text as compiled by Hodges/Farstad (1550 Stepahnus) differs from the tectus in over 1,000 places, actually 1838 places and Westcott/Hort agrees with the majority text against the textus. The blurb I'm reading sites Lu 17:36, Acts 8:37 and 1Jo 5:7 as examples

Hi,

I don't know what "revisionist " you are getting your information from, but it's incorrect. I guess I would have to see the entire content in which you are quoting to make a final determination, but for now I can't buy into what you've reported. The Byzantine text was just another lable for the "accepted text" at the time of the Byzantine period. It (the text) definately didn't origniate during that time but was hundreds of years older. Again, it just took on that name because it was there at the time the Roman Empire split. Translations into other languages came during that time from that period but it wasn't a different text; it still was the same received text that came from Antioch.



Your last paragraph is totally false at face value. Did you get your information from the Catholic historian named "Custer"? There have been corrupters of the truth from the very beginning. If you were to read Hort and Westcott's autobiographys and their writtings;-- They themselves would "be in your face" for saying that they agreed with the majority text. That being said the minority text has enough truth in it to have been partially accepted in the Christian world. Therefore, I will offer what I've found from my research.



Vaticanus (part of the minority text) agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek in nearly 8000 places, amounting to about one change per verse.



(Look at all of the new versions as compared with the Textus Receptus KJV and you will notice that this is true. ) It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substututes or modifies nearly 2000 and transposes word order in about another 2000 places. It has nearly 600 readings (made up words) that do no occur in any other manuscript. These affect almost 1000 words.



Here is what the New Testament is comprised of; Papyrus fragments and manuscripts, uncial and minuscule manuscripts and lectionaries. Each of the 5366 manuscripts and 2209 lectionaries extant today are given a name, an abbreviation and /or a number.

Papyri 1-88 (e. g. P66, P46, P75)

Uncials 01-0274 (e. g. Aleph, B,C, D)

Minuscule 1-2795 (e. g. 1-2795)

Lectionaries 1-2209 (e. g. 1 1-2209)



In addition to the above, numerous other language versions of the Greek text were made in the second century and those following. Those include the Old Latin Vulgate (not Jerome's), the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethiopic, and score of others. These provide witnesses to the correct readings of the New Testament. Finally, scores, of second, third and forth century personalities, such as John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Tertullain, and Justin Martyr, just to name a few, have left writings containing citations of scripture verses, witnessing to the original readings of the New Testament. Dean John Burgon has extrapolated over 87,000 of these.



The overwhelming majority of these manuscripts, lectionaries, and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the Second century (P66) (oldest know manuscripts) down throught the Middle Ages (A. D. 1500) attest to the readings of this "Majority Text", as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgon, who found this "Majority Text" in most of the early writers collated , calls it "The Traditional Text" It is also called the Syrian Text, The Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text. This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version, or as it is called in the U. S. the King James Version. Over 809,000,000 copies have been made since 1611, in 300 languages, and demonstrates the continuum of this Majority Text.



All of the New Versions are NOT based on this "Majority Text" but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts ("Minority Text"- under 2% of all known texts) which disagree with the Majority. They were rejected as being corrupt by the early church fathers and Christians alike from the very beginning. Because of their blatant omissions and alterations, they lapsed into a wastebasket in a monastery, where it was -- rediscovered by Constantine von Tischendorf in the mid-eighteen hundreds. Then reworked and reissued by Hort and Westcott in 1881.



The variations among the Majority Text are minor, like the varieties of doves. On the other hand, the remaining handful ( "Minority Text" ) of manuscripts are as diverse as dogs and dragons. This handful, not only disagree with the "Majority", as to what the New Testament says, but disagree among themselves. These include such manuscripts as Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), Bezae (D), Papyrus 75 and a smattering of versions.



In 1881 this 1% minority text type supplanted the "Majority Text" with it's almost 2000 year standing. A "New Greek Text, using the Vatican Manuscript (B), was introduced by Westcott and Hort and has been used as the Greek Text for "ALL" subsequent versions.



Now as for Hort and Westcott, I have some of their writtings. These two depraved heretics are totally reprobate. Westcott was into Mormonism and Roman Catholicism, he had sessions with Wiazrds and belonged to differnt organizations which included the "Hermes" Club (Roman god of magic and occult wisdom, the conductor of souls to Hades, the Lord of Death--cunning and trickery. Satan), along with the Ghostly Guild (both of which they started). Witchcraft, homosexual acts and devil worship were included with these clubs. One of the biggest infulences in their lives was a woman ( I use that term loosely) by the name of Madam Blavatsky (Russian Marxist). She had started the Theosophical Society of which Hort and Wescott belonged. I have part of one of their publications in which she claims that Jesus and Lucifer are the same---BLASPHEMY.



Hort stated " I look to the day when the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected as expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns. '" Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly Father. Christ's bearing our sins---is an almost universal heresy. " he is also quoted as saying this in one of his writtings "My deep hatred of democracy in all its forms. " I have pretty well made up my mind to devote three or four years up here (Russia) to the study of communism. "------ Westcott's dreams are set forth in HIS BOOK, Christian Socialism. These two were also in "secret societies" with Authur Balfour a Prime Minister of England and who was instrumental in the first League of Nations and Cecil Rhodes ( of Rhodes Scholars type fame). The society they were together in is said to be the germination for the C. F. R. (Council of Foreign Relations, a socialist council propelling the nations toward a one world government).



I have so much documented information on Hort and Westcott I could write a book here, but that is not my intent. I just want to expose these two communists-spiritualists for who they really are and how their reworked greek text has damaged and defamed God's Holy Word. Again all new versions came from Hort and Westcotts greek texts.



It might be well for you to read about them, so you won't be fooled into thinking they (those Luciferians) were ---"set for the defence of the gospel" Philipians 1:17 and were --"valiant for the TRUTH upon the earth" Jeremiah 9:3.



May they both rot in Hell today with their god Lucifer for all the damage they have done to the church.



Lowell

 

[lizzyhermit]

very interesting insight concerning Westcott/Hort. Does anyone know of an Iterlinear based on the majority/traditional text? I think it would be interesting and advantageous to read this text in English of today.

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by lizzyhermit

very interesting insight concerning Westcott/Hort. Does anyone know of an Iterlinear based on the majority/traditional text? I think it would be interesting and advantageous to read this text in English of today.

I have an interlinear Bible which has the textus receptus/ Authorized Version KJV.



I don't think anyone has made an interlinear with the majority text/textus receptus in todays English. It just wouldn't fit, I don't think or be profitable.



There are about 200-300 English words in the KJV that have fallen out of use in our dumbed down english. "Ya know what I mean" It's like man, you aint talk'n straight up, less your hip with slang. ---------I'm not trying to be funny, but I do have a point.



The English language was at it's peak when the 1611 Version came out in the Kings English. It was pure then, unlike now.



I read somewhere, but can't find it now, about a place back east that found an 8th grade English test as they were tearing down an old building. It was harder and different than of today, it was given to several college English professors who couldn't pass it.



I look at how my grandparents wrote and spoke and it is amazing how much our language has changed; it's lazy, full of slang, and cursing for the most part. I have dealt with English persons in several business affairs and I marvel at the way they speak, how they phrase their thoughts in comparision to the average American.



This is the way I look at it. If one wants to become a doctor, one learns its language; if one wants to become an electrician, one learns it's language; if one wants to be just about anything that takes study, there usually is certain verbage to learn. I see the KJV as no different; looking up a word here and there shouldn't be any big deal; actually it help in retention as one studies out passages.



The NIV is suppose to be easier to read. It's in modern english that everyone speaks. Well, here is a word found in Song of Solomon 1:16 the NIV, english word is "Verdant"; now I know all of us use this word all the time; maybe 3-4 times a day when we speak to our friends or family. Here is the out dated, harder word that no one today in modern english would even think of using; and that word is the archaic word used by the KJV in the same text; anyway, that word is, ==="green". There are lots more.



Here is an archaic word that the KJV uses in the book of Revelation, and we know that no one knows or uses this word anymore, don't we?---- and that word is "angel". The textus receptus/ majority text/ received text in Rev. 8:13 says "And I beheld, and heard an ANGEL flying through the midst of heaven saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabitants of the earth,--"



The minority text, Westcott/Hort greek text, and all the new versions I looked at, (NIV, NLT, NAS, Rheims New Testament, New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version, and The Message)

all give this "outdated" word; the new modern word "eagle" .



NIV (and all) "As I watched, I heard an EAGLE that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice:"Woe,Woe,Woe to the inhabitants of the earth,---" Any third grader, if he/she has heard of an eagle, knows that they talk all the time and are custom to speaking in a loud voice in english when they fly. I'm archaic I guess, so I need to "get with it".



The New American Standard (NAS) has an interesting take on translating words or not. In Revelation 16:16 "And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon. "



This is funny if it wasn't so sad. The Hebrew word is Armageddon, not Har-Magedon which is the GREEK WORD for Armageddon. They not only didn't translate the word, they made a false statement and said that it was a Hebrew word when it was Greek. Even the rest of the versions I looked at didn't make this stupid mistake. All of them correctly said that Armageddon was the Hebrew word.



The "Textus Receptus" KJV seems to think that we have to obey God's commandments to enter into eternal life,( i. e. right to the tree of life) and to enter into through the gates into the city, (New Jersualem). I guess they don't think like the other New Versions that all you have to do to have eternal life (tree of life) is to "wash your robe".



Rev. 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. " KJV.



Rev. 22:14 "Blessed are those who WASH THEIR ROBES, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go throught the gates into the city. " NIV, NLT, NAS. Hum, I wonder what they have against God's commandments? (Eternal Life = I John 3:23 "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. ") Maybe I missed where God in his commandments said "Wash your robes" so you can have right to the tree of life. I wonder what type of detergent he would want us to use? Tide, All, or Walmart brands? Maybe I got this all wrong, and commandments is an archaic word that the modern man doesn't understand and it's understandable replacement is Wash your robes. Yea, that must be it. --Not



One more and then I'll quit.



The New versions in the Book of II Corinthians have replaced an archaic word, which is the only place in the New Testament in which the apostle Paul warned the reader about corruption of the word of God. They changed the word "corrupt" to "peddle".



There was going on; at that time much anger and dissension about the Word of God. Here is where those from the Alexandrian Cult, philosophers camp, began to distort God's Holy Word---- and several hundred year later,-- revised the Scriptures that they had gotten from Antioch. In the Book of Acts when the Church was just beginning, Stephen, the first person to die for standing for the TRUTH, was being argued with by the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and ALEXANDRIANS, and them of Cilicia and of Asia. ( Highlighted because that's where all of the corruptions of the Word of God came from, which in later years made their way to Westcott/Hort. Anyway, just as today the new versions will not hold up to scrutiny. )



"Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. " Acts 6:9-10.



Now back to II Corinthians warning. (2:17)



NIV = "Unlike so many, we do not PEDDLE the word of God for profit. ON the contrary, in Chirst we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God. "



NLT = "You see, we are not like those hucksters---and there are many of them---who preach just to make money. We preach God's message with sincerity and with Christ's authority. And we know that the God who sent us is watching us. "



NAS = "For we are not like many, PEDDLING the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. "



KJV = "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the word of God (Alexandrians/ others/ Westcott/Hort): but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.



Corruption is here and will be here until Jesus comes back to judge the world for their rejection and sin. ( I'm sorry I just had a long phone call, and lost my train of thought. Not hard for me to do sometimes) Anyway, I think I was about done. --Oh, I remembered what I wanted to close with. I have a friend who has children, who give bible studies out of the KJV. I have been present at several of them... . The interesting thing is, one of them, a little girl, at the age of 9, clearly understands what she is saying and reading out of the KJV.



I guess this would be for those who say I can't read it, it's to hard. ----My son at College got the same response (it must be like a disease or something), he then said to them; "here you are going to an engineering university and learning very difficult things and you are telling me you're not smart enough to understand "Thee's and Thou's", come on give me a break.



Sad fact is, that this is just another one of the excuses people give for not reading their bibles, They want a "Jack and Jill" Bible for the most important part of their lives. I have yet to meet anyone who has said that the KJV is to hard to read; who has read and studied their New Versions. Most are like parrots, they just repeat what someone else told them. (I'm sure there are some who do study their new versions, I just haven't met them. )



Regards,

Lowell

 

[lizzyhermit]

do you 'spose ?

do you suppose all this debate over words was expected (1Tim. 6:4) and just like Mat 24 gave indications to recognize something, that Jesus pointed out the law of Christ (Jo 13:34,35) and Matthew recorded that by "fruits" we would recognize true followers?