Original Manuscripts?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Seeker, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. Seeker

    Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Having read some on both sides of this issue, I still wonder about the matter of the original manuscripts.

    Why did God allow all of the original manuscripts either to be destroyed or lost, thus forcing us to deal with the matters of translation and preservation?

    And, as a follow-up, does the answer to that question have an impact on the version debate at hand?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    As far as why God did it - who knows? Perhaps because He knew that they might become an objct of worship? I know I have seen an early second century fragment and I was pretty awed by it.
     
  3. Seeker

    Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your reply. The matter of worship certainly makes sense - especially in light of absuses of relics throughout the centuries. But you neglected the follow-up. Does that answer have an impact on the version debate?
     
  4. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted this on the "originals" thread:
    If the original autographs were around, men could meddle with them and change them. Or men would worship the original autographs like a religious relic.

    God in his wisdom has kept these from us, just as he has kept the ark, the cross Jesus died on, Jesus' robe, etc. from us.

    Despite man's failings like copyist errors and translation errors (even in the KJV!), God preserved his word through many translations and versions, all of which preach one God, one Savior, one Gospel message, one Church, one truth!
    ...................

    Where would the originals be kept? In which country? They would need to be guarded 24 hrs. a day against theft and vandalism. Even then, a guard could be seduced with money to let someone take them or alter them. God really knows what He is doing by keeping these from our meddling hands!
    Would you trust man to have the originals? I wouldn't!
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seeker asked:

    Why did God allow all of the original manuscripts either to be destroyed or lost, thus forcing us to deal with the matters of translation and preservation?

    I would say that God didn't "allow" anything, so much as he didn't prevent the laws of thermodynamics from acting on them in the same way as they act on every other piece of paper given enough time.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I am sure it does, just don't know what impact yet [​IMG] .

    Let me think about it.
     
  7. Seeker

    Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! Quick (and good) replies ... however, I still wonder about the impact this issue has on the version debate. Does the fact that the originals do not exist (or are not known to exist) affect the matter of which version(s) is(are) appropriate for the believer today?
     
  8. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seeker,

    Basically, all translations that hold true to their source material are appropriate for the believer today, contrary to what some King James Only troll would shout in your face.

    There was no having to deal with matters of translation and preservation until the advent of the KJVOnly myth. Until then, preservation was a part of translation. But when the man-made lie began to gain momentum (it is amazing how fast ignorance can spread), THEN all of a sudden we are not preserving God's word, but perverting it.

    What impact does/should that have on the version debate at hand? It should settle it...but I know full well it will not. There is just too much willful ignorance (which some would translate as something else, since if you have never been told you are ignorant, but those on this board have been shown repeatedly) in these here parts for anything short of revocation of posting priveledges to make a dent in the hullabuloo.

    Anyway, that's my two cents (and change).

    In CHrist,
    Trotter
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    When you take the 5500 extant Greek documents (some whole books, others just fragments of a verse) and put them together, you begin to see where words were added or dropped. Different families of documents (copies of copies of copies from the same source document) even show variation.

    There are not TWO "identical" Greek texts. They all have some variation. In the early days of the Reformation, Erasmus gathered a few (7 or so) Greek texts and compiled one master copy. He thought it closest to the original.

    As a result of discovering other texts in Sinai and in the Vatican vaults, others have compiled what THEY think is closest to the original.

    After give and take sparing (did one ADD a word or did the other DELETE the word) there is truly very little variation. Please don't listen to the lies that would make one family of Greek documents sound better than the other.

    (I am NOT a kjvo but prefer modern Greek compilation as closer to the original. But still use the 1550 Stephanus Greek text on the BB)

    Hope this adds a little light.
     
  10. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    As human beings we all have the nature to make anything idols. This happened many times in the OT when Israel made various things idols.

    If we ever find an original manuscript, I'm sure that some group would pretty much bow down and worship it. If the church had the originals I'm sure that the RCC would have them in glass for all to worship kinda like they do some saints remains today.

    I feel that God is His wisdom, preserved His words in a manner to prevent them becoming idols and to prevent one group from having a monopoly on the scriptures. The way that God spread out His word made it impossible for His word to be perverted. When you study the manuscript evidence it is amazing how God work to preserve His word. All this noise from the KJVO Camp about taking out this and that is over blown; most KJVO noise is distorted facts when it comes to the old manuscripts.

    We should be grateful no matter how God saw fit to give us His word. I'm very thankful that He spread out His word and that His word talks to each generation with power and glory.

    The version debate should not be such an issue as it is in America today. If the translation is a faithful translation(unlike the NWT, Book of Mormon, etc...) then we should accept them. The fact that those of us who speak English rely upon a translation in order to know the Holy Scriptures is evidence enough to back up my claims.

    There have been many types of onlyism down through the ages. KJVOism is nothing new when church history is taken into consideration.

    The way God preserved His word does have an impact on any onlyism debate no matter if it's Vulgate Onlyism, KJVOism, NIVOIsm, NASBOism, etc.. simply because any type of onlyism tries to put a monopoly on His Word and cleary God did not want His Word stuck in one language for one generation.
     
  11. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Having read some on both sides of this issue, I still wonder about the matter of the original manuscripts.

    Why did God allow all of the original manuscripts either to be destroyed or lost, thus forcing us to deal with the matters of translation and preservation?
    --------------------------------------------------

    Seeker,

    Thank you for your questions. Here it goes, to the best of my ability.

    God allowed the actual origional manuscripts to be either destroyed, or lost, or faded away, because HE allowed/authorized/required for copies of those origionals to be made and used, and translated, and carried on throughout history. Why? I believe to show his providential care to those who love him and prove his faithfulness. He watched over his word carefully, and being that He indwells the believer with the Holy Spirit of truth, would insure that copying was done accurately. Any errors that slipped in, would not have been due to spelling, printing, etc. They would have been by a person/people who was/were not saved, and trying to change God's word to fit one's own belief. God did allow this to happen, and they were seen and rightly rejected by the churches - even unto this day. It comes down to this. We in our language, have the equivalent of the origionals, but in our own language. This is by the providence and power of God Almighty, concerning his word of truth, and for the benefit of the faithful. If ancient Israel, had and believed they had the very word of God then, even though they were copies, or translations of those copies, why then should we not believe the same? The scriptures are the word of truth, and God does not allow error to remain in his truth. The scriptures reveal the Lord of the Scriptures, and should never be looked at as idolatry, because it is not. The scriptures are from God and reveal God. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who is revealed in the scriptures that we worship - Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes unto the Father but by me". You destroy that testimony, and that revelation as given in God's word of truth, you destroy the full revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is as simple as that. The scriptures themselves declare this important truth, that without them, we would not know, or be able to know our Lord Jesus Christ. The scriptures are also for our growing in our personal relationship with our Saviour and for our spiritual health.

    --------------------------------------------------
    And, as a follow-up, does the answer to that question have an impact on the version debate at hand?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course this has an impact upon the version debate. We see that many today idolize a forgiegn langauge above that of the scriptures in their own language. To believe that our English translation is not the infallible word of God and our final authority, not only puts one in danger of doubting the word of God, but causes their lack of understanding what God has revealed, because of that doubt, and ironically puts them into a postion of idolizing foriegn languages, rather than truly worshiping the Lord revealed in the scriptures in their own language. This also denies the power and providence of God concerning His word of truth, and mocks God of what he has provided wonderfully for us, saying it is not good enouph and in error. This is also something that is picked up on very easily by the unbeliever, who you are trying to witness FAITH to. If they believe one does not believe that God is powerful enouph to provide his word perfectly to us, who is to say that anything about Him is true. This belief destroys the testimony and witness to the unbelieving world. It shows God is weak, and it shows that our Faith is not based upon Faith or the power of God, but by fallible men. My mom (who is not yet saved) always tells me, the Bible was made up and written by only men. Many today, sadly agree with this lie, to which is not a good witness to those who are unsaved and believe this very same thing. The preservation of God's word, and the existence of it, is testimony of Him and his truth, faithfulness and power. Prophecy is God's and God's alone. Only God can foretell the future in great detail, and only He can fulfill it. This is the testimony of Jesus Christ, and it is very important that every single word of it be accurate, in any language, for it is the testimony of Jesus Christ. The word of God is the testimony or witness to us, of Jesus Christ. If we take away from His word, we take away from the testimony that God willed for us about Himself. If we add to that testimony, we are adding to what God willed for us about Himself. God does not warn of these things, for no reason. God provides us his word of truth without error, to help keep us in his safety from the wicked. This is why He has preserved it, and besides, God's word is eternal, as his truth is eternal, and therefore shall never pass away, but the wonderful thing is, is that He has always provided it and continues to provide it for all his faithful.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Michelle,

    From what I see your whole reply is based on these two statements.

    1) I ask again - how can something that is perfect have error, even printing errors? You imply that God could prtect His Word from the translators, but not the printers. Even then, your theory contends that it took God 168 years to "get it right." I beleive that God got it right the first time - in the original writings.

    2) Does God preserve His Word in EVERY language? According to your argument HE must. That means that God is in the constant process of reinspiring His Word since no two langauges can exactly present the same thought.

    God has preserved His Word that He inspired in the originals. He has done so through accurate translations of His Word.

    God inspired the writers of His Word. He did not inspire the translators in London and around England in 1610-11. If He did that then He must be inspiring some missionary in a hut in Papua New Guinea who is translating the Bible into a native tongue.
     
  13. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some of the difficulty comes from a failure to distinguish between preservation of the original *manuscripts* and preservation of the original *readings* that were in those manuscripts.

    Yes, the original manuscripts have long since disappeared. We don't know why God in His wisdom permitted this, we just know that it is a fact.

    However, the original *readings* that were in those original manuscripts have *not* disappeared. The original *readings* have been preserved in the extant Greek and Hebrew copies we have today.
     
  14. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    God has preserved His Word that He inspired in the originals. He has done so through accurate translations of His Word.

    God inspired the writers of His Word. He did not inspire the translators in London and around England in 1610-11. If He did that then He must be inspiring some missionary in a hut in Papua New Guinea who is translating the Bible into a native tongue.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    And you have no way to be able to tell whether God did or didn't. Inspire doesn't mean only God-breathed. Think about that for a while.

    I see and believe what is Evident HE has done. I don't base my faith in this issue on "what if's" and "why not's?" as you all do. This is causing many of you to fail in understanding this important but wonderful truth. Why do you continually stick yourself into the past, to which you know not, to condone those things of the present that you shouldn't, to which you do know?


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  15. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, right on marcia

    So what does it mean than, that is what the greek words translated inspired in the KJV and the underlying texts means, so what addition to scripture are you proposing now?

    I also am fully cognizent of what God has done in this matter. He has amazingly preserved the truth for us down through the ages so that we can be certain that we are studying the very words of God. I have no "what if's" or "why nots", but "thus saith the Lord".

    Oh, and by the way, I know you are slightly confused on this matter, but restating your "if only you understood, than you would understand" philosophy in elisabethan English doesn't give it any more authority. You still stand on the same authority you always have, "Thus saith michelle" an I am sorry, but that just doesn't hold water with me.
     
  16. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I see again michelle has elevated herself above all of us.
    Michelle, why do you consistantly ignore questions and spew your misconceptions about preservation of the Word of God?
    Michelle, why do you say that we are talking of old things which we know not of, when you yourself are in that boat? Were you there? Did God give you a special revelation like Joseph Smith claimed? You're in a cultish mindset, friend.

    AVL1984
     
  17. Seeker

    Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you all for your replies so far. As I've read through this and other threads, I'm trying to understand the different "camps", if you will. One's position on the nature of the KJV seems to be the dividing line. It appears that on the KJV side there are these positions:

    1) KJV is ONLY acceptable English version because it is from the best Greek manuscripts AND uses (mostly) literal translation. This position leaves open the possibility for a future translation from Greek.

    2) KJV is ONLY acceptable English version because God preserved His Word in English via the KJV. There are subdivisions based on how this affects other languages (e.g. Spanish, Russian, etc). I'm not sure here ... would this position say that a translation to another language OR future translation in English would have to come from the KJV?

    3) KJV is ONLY acceptable version because God actually reinspired His Word and where KJV differs from Greek, it corrects it. This would be ... Ruckman???

    And on the other side, there are these positions:

    1) KJV was/is a great translation and its general Greek basis is to be preferred - leaves open future translations from same Greek text. Literal translation is best. I think there are two subdivisions here dealing with either the TR or true Majority text. NKJV would fit the later, wouldn't it?

    2) Byzantine text is inferior and Alexandrian should be basis of translations. Still literal translation is best. NAS would fit here, I think.

    3) Some compilation of all texts - Byz and Alex - would be best. Still literal translation is best. Not sure what fits here.

    4) Text basis not as important as translating into modern language. Probably leans more toward dynamic equivalence. Does NIV fit here?

    5) Should be fresh translations on a frequent basis, literal translation not nearly as important as simply conveying the ideas behind the words. Obviously text basis would not be critical here. Living Bible?

    I'm sure this isn't the best way to understand things, but it's a start toward understanding everyone's position.

    Thanks!
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    -------------------
    1) KJV was/is a great translation and its general Greek basis is to be preferred - leaves open future translations from same Greek text. Literal translation is best. I think there are two subdivisions here dealing with either the TR or true Majority text. NKJV would fit the later, wouldn't it?
    ------------------

    This would descirbe me.

    There was a whole thread on the NKJV/majority text which never really answered the question. I am not sure about all of its sources myself.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    The NKJV follows the TR which includes 1 john 5:7.

    NKJV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.


    the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpont (1995) omits 1 John 5:7.

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...