bible versions

[gilgal]

What about the spirit, water and blood? Is there any reference in Job or Matthew?

[TheForgiven]

Hello everyone!

Man, I tried staying out of this topic, but I couldn't resist.

I'm firmly believe in the TR manuscripts; not just because they are older, but because some of the so called "missing verses" in the current English translations are supported by writings from a few Early Church Fathers.

I reject the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sanaiticus (spelling) because they are from the same region of Alexandria, and both are dated to nearly the same time-frame, yet when compared together, they do not match. More importantly, Alexandria is believed to be the birth-place of the Gnostics; Greeks who mixed Christianity with Greek mythology and philosophy. Iranaeus is an early father who argued against these false teachers, and even denotes somewhere in his writing how a Gnostic named Marcion purposefully tampered with a few Gospel writings (I believe Mark's writing).

I'll provide my sources as soon as I find them; it's been a long while since I've last dove into this topic. But rest assured that modern day bibles which rely on the Codex manuscripts are to be avoided. Having said that, I do not in any way claim the KJV to be the sole Bible for man to use; I dislike the 1611 King James version, but I love the New King James Version. The NKJV is not perfect, but it's at least dependable to a certain degree, although it too has a few errors.

This past year, I've come to love the Greek Orthodox Study Bible. It's old testament is based from the Greek Septuagint, which just happens to contain a few Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament; something that all English Bibles lack. There are about 6 (just off the top of my head) Old Testament quotes in the New Testament which cannot be found in modern day English Bibles; this includes the NKJV. The book of Hebrews reads, "and let all the Angels of God worship Him (Jesus)". This quote is from the Old Testament and it cannot be found in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (10th century Old Testament passed down to the Church).

There's a huge list of examples, but I won't get into those right now.

You guys need proof, and proof is what I shall provide.

For now, I'd really consider buying the Greek Orthodox Study Bible. Just ignore the footnotes.

Joe

[gilgal]

I need to know what exactly is the Textus Receptus.

Was it written by Scrivener or Erasmus of Rotterdam?
If I'm not mistaken Luther wrote his version from the Latin Vugate right?
But some time later after a comparison with the original Greek available as Greek scholars migrated westward when Constantinople fell to the Turks the scholars felt that the Latin text was corrupt.

Wasn't the Textus Receptus derived from Antioch as opposed to the Latin Vulgate from the Alexandrian manuscripts?

[gilgal]

Hello everyone!

Man, I tried staying out of this topic, but I couldn't resist. :lol:

I'm firmly believe in the TR manuscripts; not just because they are older, but because some of the so called "missing verses" in the current English translations are supported by writings from a few Early Church Fathers.

I reject the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sanaiticus (spelling) because they are from the same region of Alexandria, and both are dated to nearly the same time-frame, yet when compared together, they do not match. More importantly, Alexandria is believed to be the birth-place of the Gnostics; Greeks who mixed Christianity with Greek mythology and philosophy. Iranaeus is an early father who argued against these false teachers, and even denotes somewhere in his writing how a Gnostic named Marcion purposefully tampered with a few Gospel writings (I believe Mark's writing).

I'll provide my sources as soon as I find them; it's been a long while since I've last dove into this topic. But rest assured that modern day bibles which rely on the Codex manuscripts are to be avoided. Having said that, I do not in any way claim the KJV to be the sole Bible for man to use; I dislike the 1611 King James version, but I love the New King James Version. The NKJV is not perfect, but it's at least dependable to a certain degree, although it too has a few errors.

This past year, I've come to love the Greek Orthodox Study Bible. It's old testament is based from the Greek Septuagint, which just happens to contain a few Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament; something that all English Bibles lack. There are about 6 (just off the top of my head) Old Testament quotes in the New Testament which cannot be found in modern day English Bibles; this includes the NKJV. The book of Hebrews reads, "and let all the Angels of God worship Him (Jesus)". This quote is from the Old Testament and it cannot be found in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (10th century Old Testament passed down to the Church).

There's a huge list of examples, but I won't get into those right now.

You guys need proof, and proof is what I shall provide.

For now, I'd really consider buying the Greek Orthodox Study Bible. Just ignore the footnotes.

Joe

Well I want to know the truth.
It seemed in Hebrews 10 that Paul was quoting from another version of the Old Testament of Psalms 40. In this the Septuagint bring the Greek translation of the Old Testament is right.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello everyone!

Man, I tried staying out of this topic, but I couldn't resist.

I'm firmly believe in the TR manuscripts; not just because they are older, but because some of the so called "missing verses" in the current English translations are supported by writings from a few Early Church Fathers.

I reject the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sanaiticus (spelling) because they are from the same region of Alexandria, and both are dated to nearly the same time-frame, yet when compared together, they do not match. More importantly, Alexandria is believed to be the birth-place of the Gnostics; Greeks who mixed Christianity with Greek mythology and philosophy. Iranaeus is an early father who argued against these false teachers, and even denotes somewhere in his writing how a Gnostic named Marcion purposefully tampered with a few Gospel writings (I believe Mark's writing).

I'll provide my sources as soon as I find them; it's been a long while since I've last dove into this topic. But rest assured that modern day bibles which rely on the Codex manuscripts are to be avoided. Having said that, I do not in any way claim the KJV to be the sole Bible for man to use; I dislike the 1611 King James version, but I love the New King James Version. The NKJV is not perfect, but it's at least dependable to a certain degree, although it too has a few errors.

This past year, I've come to love the Greek Orthodox Study Bible. It's old testament is based from the Greek Septuagint, which just happens to contain a few Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament; something that all English Bibles lack. There are about 6 (just off the top of my head) Old Testament quotes in the New Testament which cannot be found in modern day English Bibles; this includes the NKJV. The book of Hebrews reads, "and let all the Angels of God worship Him (Jesus)". This quote is from the Old Testament and it cannot be found in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (10th century Old Testament passed down to the Church).

There's a huge list of examples, but I won't get into those right now.

You guys need proof, and proof is what I shall provide.

For now, I'd really consider buying the Greek Orthodox Study Bible. Just ignore the footnotes.

Joe

Hey there Joe,

Glad you found time from your busy academic schedule to stop by. Are you still acing all your classes?

In my studies I found that the Byzantine text family (to which the TR belongs) often showed patterns that fit the pattern of the Wheel and the Isaiah-Bible Correlation that are missing in the Alexandrian family. For example, consider these two verses. They are are only two verses in the KJV that contain the phrase "that ye may know and believe":

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

If we look at the LXX, we find the highlighted phrase is letter-for-letter identical to what we find in the TR of John 10:38. It appears no where else in the Greek Bible. And why is this significant? John is the 43rd book, so Bible Book 43, Chapter 10 corresponds to Isaiah 43:10. The 2D point representing the verse in Isaiah is a projection of the 3D point representing the verse in John! Here's a picture from my article on Isaiah 43 to help you understand:



This projection is missing in the Alexandrian documents, and the curious thing is that the reason the link is broken is because the Alexandrian text of John 10:38 replaces the word "believe" with the word "know" (gnosis) and that's the very reason you have to reject those texts! Very curious indeed. The Alexandrian text basically says "that ye may know and understand."

Things like this made me partial to that family of texts, of course.

But on the other hand, almost all the arguments I've seen by the KJV Only and TR Only crowd are really really weak, and many are just plain stupid and wrong. So I've never felt inclined in that direction.

And there are many problems with the LXX. Some verses were obviously messed up. But then, others seem better than in the MT. So it's a mixed bag. I don't think either should be considered authoritative. We just have to learn to live with ambiguity I guess. That's what I've been going through for some time. I've got a mountain of evidence supporting the Bible and I have a mountain of evidence as to why I can't believe it. Paradox!

Great chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I need to know what exactly is the Textus Receptus.

Was it written by Scrivener or Erasmus of Rotterdam?
If I'm not mistaken Luther wrote his version from the Latin Vugate right?
But some time later after a comparison with the original Greek available as Greek scholars migrated westward when Constantinople fell to the Turks the scholars felt that the Latin text was corrupt.

Wasn't the Textus Receptus derived from Antioch as opposed to the Latin Vulgate from the Alexandrian manuscripts?

Here's the info on the Textus Receptus from the wiki:

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was back-translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.

Look at that red text. The original TR was missing some Greek that had to be INVENTED by "back-translating" from the Latin Vulgate! Obviously, the TR is not the original or preserved "Word of God." There are no simple answers in this issue. We must look at all the evidence. The folks pushing the TR usually don't know what they are talking about. It may be true that the Byzantine family of texts, to which the TR belongs, are better but the simpleminded "TR Only" idea is obviously wrong.

[TheForgiven]

Richard Amiel McGough;44628]Hey there Joe,

Glad you found time from your busy academic schedule to stop by. Are you still acing all your classes?

Is there any doubt? I still hold a 4.0 GPA, but because I was suffering from a dreaded sickness this entire week, my grades dropped about 3 points. But no worries! Joe is still on top of things. And thanks for the welcome my very good "brainy" friend.

In my studies I found that the Byzantine text family (to which the TR belongs) often showed patterns that fit the pattern of the Wheel and the Isaiah-Bible Correlation that are missing in the Alexandrian family. For example, consider these two verses. They are are only two verses in the KJV that contain the phrase "that ye may know and believe":

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

I too prefer the Bynzantine text family as well. My feeling is that this class of text (although very many) has been used by the "traditional" Churches for a very long time; to include even the Protestants. I know this is only a theory, but I believe that the Alexandrian text survived so long because they were not stored for future use; they were stored as a heretical writings to be hidden....unfortunately they were found in a vase and were unused. That's a hint entirely on its own.

If we look at the LXX, we find the highlighted phrase is letter-for-letter identical to what we find in the TR of John 10:38. It appears no where else in the Greek Bible. And why is this significant? John is the 43rd book, so Bible Book 43, Chapter 10 corresponds to Isaiah 43:10. The 2D point representing the verse in Isaiah is a projection of the 3D point representing the verse in John! Here's a picture from my article on Isaiah 43 to help you understand:



This projection is missing in the Alexandrian documents, and the curious thing is that the reason the link is broken is because the Alexandrian text of John 10:38 replaces the word "believe" with the word "know" (gnosis) and that's the very reason you have to reject those texts! Very curious indeed. The Alexandrian text basically says "that ye may know and understand."

Things like this made me partial to that family of texts, of course.

Brilliant my friend! I may have a 4.0 GPA, but my mind doesn't even come close to developing this type of ingenious work! I find it ironic that the Greek word "Gnosis" is there instead of "believe". I don't remember the source, but an author stated that "Gnosis" was purposefully placed there instead of "believe" because they (Gnostics) believed they had special knowledge that could only be obtained from God the Spirit.

But on the other hand, almost all the arguments I've seen by the KJV Only and TR Only crowd are really really weak, and many are just plain stupid and wrong. So I've never felt inclined in that direction.

I know what you mean. I listened to an audio from a Baptist minister who presented a very good argument for the TR over the Alexandrian-based Bibles (NIV, NASB, ASV, ESV, etc.), and his argument was compelling, but factually weak. To me, support can be found simply from reading a few of the early church father writings. Marcion was a Gnostic who was accused by an ECF of tampering with the Gospels.

And there are many problems with the LXX. Some verses were obviously messed up. But then, others seem better than in the MT. So it's a mixed bag. I don't think either should be considered authoritative. We just have to learn to live with ambiguity I guess. That's what I've been going through for some time. I've got a mountain of evidence supporting the Bible and I have a mountain of evidence as to why I can't believe it. Paradox!

Great chatting,

Richard

I now the LXX isn't perfect, but I've grown tired of jumping from Bible, to Bible. And so I've finally made my decision to stick with the Greek Orthodox Study Bible which uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament, and the TR/MT for the New Testament.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

I need to know what exactly is the Textus Receptus.

Was it written by Scrivener or Erasmus of Rotterdam?
If I'm not mistaken Luther wrote his version from the Latin Vugate right?
But some time later after a comparison with the original Greek available as Greek scholars migrated westward when Constantinople fell to the Turks the scholars felt that the Latin text was corrupt.

Wasn't the Textus Receptus derived from Antioch as opposed to the Latin Vulgate from the Alexandrian manuscripts?

Hello gigal. Richard gave you the best answer, but I'd like to offer mine.

The Textus Recptus is basically the traditional set of manurscripts used by the different churches throughout history. As Richard explained, the Latin Vulgate came from the TR manuscripts. There's another class of textual criticism called the "Majority Text" or "MT". This is basically a mass-collection of manuscripts (thousands of them) which are used to compare questionable verses, and in some cases, comparing translations of a particular word. What makes this work to tedious is that no book has more criticism in the world, than the New Testament. There have been more copies, from copies, from copies, from copies for 2,000 years, which of course has led to the decay seen by bible scholars for centuries. It really wasn't an issue until Wescott and Hort introduced the New Testament based on the Codex manuscripts (Alexandrian). Since that time, the New Testament has caused more confusion in Church history than any other time. Even to this day, visit a Bible store, and you'll find all of these new bibles being sold at rather expensive prices. Yet off to the side is the old King James Bible, or the New King James Bible at moderate to low prices. That's a good thing though; good doesn't mean expensive when it comes to purchasing Bibles.

I have a closet full of Bibles, but with today's Computer age, I rely more on my computer than hard-back book. I also have a Kindle Fire with two Bible versions on, so I could use that in Church instead of carrying a heavy book. Using the Kindle Fire is better because getting to the page is just a "touch" away, instead of flipping through the entire book for chapter/verse.

Good discussion. I'll chat with you later.

Joe

[gilgal]

I'm surprized at you Richard. Because you accept that the bible was at it's purest form in the beginning.

If God made promises and fulfilled them his intention is that if he fulfilled the short-termed promises then he can fulfill the long-term promises as well. But we need to have a true copy in our hands to be able to believe and accept his promises.

But if what we have is not perfect then we accept it was perfect at one point. And if it was why would you quit Christianity?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm surprized at you Richard. Because you accept that the bible was at it's purest form in the beginning.

If God made promises and fulfilled them his intention is that if he fulfilled the short-termed promises then he can fulfill the long-term promises as well. But we need to have a true copy in our hands to be able to believe and accept his promises.

But if what we have is not perfect then we accept it was perfect at one point. And if it was why would you quit Christianity?

I'm not sure what you mean Gilgal. I never said "the bible was at it's purest form in the beginning." The question is not if it was "pure" - the question is "what was actually written in it?". If something was added later, long after the original documents were complete, should we accept it?

Now on the other hand, the pattern of the Bible Wheel did come a long time later since the original documents were not selected and collected into an ordered form for many years. So I recognize that the Bible progressed and developed over time. It was not "complete" until long after the original documents were written. This is how I dealt with 1 John 5:7 when I was a believer. I thought that it didn't matter how it got in there because it fit so well with and was confirmed by the pattern of the Bible Wheel. And I still maintain this view - whatever brought about the design was active over many centuries after the original documents were written. But this argument is pretty weak and doesn't give me a strong conviction that it should be included.

I don't agree with your statement that "we need to have a true copy in our hands to be able to believe and accept his promises." It doesn't matter what copy of the Bible we have because it will have to be interpreted by us and that will lead to much confusion no matter which we use. The "certainty" that folks think they get by having a "true copy" is a false certainty.

Your statement that "if what we have is not perfect then we accept it was perfect at one point" is not logical. My face is not perfect now. That doesn't imply it was perfect in the past.

I quit Christianity because I cannot believe many things the Bible says. Simple as that. I am still greatly impressed with its design and it is a powerfully numinous book with a deep archetypal meaning, but it is not anything like the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" and I've never seen anything that could be called a "true copy." All versions have many flaws. It's something the Christian must learn to live with. And that is a very good thing, because uncertainty is the path to truth.