Provide proof

There can only be opinions as to which text is superior since we don't have the originals for comparison.

Obviously an informed opinion is better than one based upon an opinion which has been adopted via the manipulation of one's emotion.

I choose the "Traditional" text spoken and written about by John Burgon because it IS the text of an unbroken line of Church tradition coming out of Byzantia/Macedonia/Asia Minor where Paul was sent.
It is IMO, the apostolic text.

These traditional type texts far outnumber (thousands) the Alexandrian type texts of which three (Alexandrian) singular texts cause most of the NT variants in the CT.

The traditional texts are in internal agreement with each other to a far greater extent than the Alexandrian.

Although Alexandria produced Athanasius (A champion of orthodoxy) most of the "heresy" of the early Church came out of Alexandria.

These are the primary reasons I prefer the Traditional Text.

However (and again) this is my opinion and even a conviction but it must remain an opinion and my preference because we do not have the originals to provide the requested proof.

Although the Traditional Text based KJV/NKJV are my preferences I use other MV's, especially the NIV because of it's clarity of modern language and in the spirit of the KJV translators I consider it not only to contain the Word of God but would say with them "Nay, IS the Word of God".

HankD

 

I would agree with virtually all of this post and it states almost my exact position and preference. However I rarely use an MV, and have not used an NIV for reference in many years. I also have a little problem with the "Alexandria" reason stated.

My problem here is that the OP requests prove for something the poster is not willing to prove himself.

 

...the eclectic texts are generally considered superior to the TR...

It may not be true among our crowd (and I was not saying that I necessarily endorse the eclectic texts). Evidence that the eclectic texts are now favored is most clearly manifested in the fact that they represent the base text for the great majority of new English translations since 1900 (10:1 or more?).

 

I usually use the critical text
but I don't particularly care what textual tradition others use; the similarities far outweigh the differences.

...and those differences, for the most part, are usually not doctrinally significant.

I am BOTHERED by those that push their OPINION that one textual form is corrupt because it differs from the text they fancy.
IMO, it displays their ignorance and pride.

I think it is wise to compare all the textual sources available when critically studying a portion of Scripture.

Rob

 

Not willing to prove or cannot prove, Roger?

 

Well Deacon, obviously one or both type texts have had something happen to them because in this case things which are different are not the same.

In the case of the Traditional text Wescott and Hort felt that the Byzantine scribes had "conflated" and/or "smoothed" the text.
They felt that the earlier, shorter and/or more difficult variant reading was the better reading.

Burgon had his 7 tests of authenticity regardless of length or difficulty of the reading. After personally examining Alexandrian type texts, he felt that the Alexandrian scribes (for the most part) were careless, sloppy and made many mistakes in spelling, grammar, etc, which in his mind, cast doubt upon their ability to be accurate copyist.

The recent papyrii discoveries are not much help except to have proven that as early as AD120 (p66) both Byzantine and Alexandrian type readings were present and almost equally proportioned in some of these texts.

After graduating from Bible college, I did my own study on this matter and went to the Traditional text view. I still use the CT because I believe there are places where it has validity after all there are several texts which can be called "Traditional", TR (Beza, Stephanus, Elzivir) , Majority, etc... and they also vary to a small degree.

Others have made this journey and are supporters of the CT. To me it is not an essential issue, however Onlyism IS an issue and needs to be corrected.

HankD

 

I’m confused that so many said the OP cannot be proven since the originals are gone. I would think you would still be able to prove something.

When you say Critical Text are you referring to the texts that form the basis for the modern versions?

If so then why not just take the fruit of the Critical Texts (the modern versions) and use them as your basis for proving superiority? I thought most here believed the modern versions, as a whole, to be superior to the AV anyway.

Don’t worry – I am not going to hijack the thread - just curious.


God bless:wavey:

 

Truth is it is impossible to prove either. Fruit is an intangible.

Just because so many here are not KJVO does not mean that we are supporters of the CT.

 

I think the superiority of one over the other is impossible to prove without the originals, as has been stated several times above. And some people seem to have forgotten God allowed the originals to vanish for a REASON. God allows the various 'families' of mss to exist for a REASON. I believe that if we quit trying to second-guess God & accept ALL of what He's provided for us, we'd be better off.

 

Each of us have faith, Jim.

Regarding this issue, your FAITH is in YOUR ABILITY to choose.

Rob

 

Then we all agree that no one can provide proof that either text body is superior?

 

Then what was the purpose in this thread, Jim? More baiting? And the "ho-hum" comment should also apply to you little exercise in futility and time-wasting. But then with your double standard, it's apparently alright if you do these things, but not if someone else does them. The old ho-him double standard you constantly practice is getting old...

 

To clarify my statement above, (and perhaps I misunderstood you, Jim) the faith God honors is not our ability to choose a particular translation and stand by it through thick and thin.

It can be demonstrated that many varing translations were used by the Jews in Christ's time on earth.
We also can observe the strange ways that the apostles quote the OT in the NT Scripture.
God uses varying translations.

Surely God knew that there was going to be variation in the transmission of his word.
There is even variation between the two renditions of the ten commandments
...and both were written by Moses (see Ex. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:7–21).

A God honoring faith is one where we do what God tells us to do...regardless of the version used.

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (James 2:14 ESV)

Rob

 

Since this thread appears to be slowing down I will try to stir up the coals a bit.

Jim – you nailed it.

Mods – this may be off topic a bit but it appears threads are being combined so here we go. Jim – please let me know if I am straying a bit.

Hmmm – since you can’t compare the CT (Minority texts 10-15%) with the originals then why not compare the CT with the Majority Texts (90-95%) since that is what is available to us? Isn’t this the real issue – which set of texts are superior, the ones from Asia Minor or the ones from Egypt?

Ok then, let’s presume we do have the originals. This is what I believe many would say if the CTs were laid side by side with the originals. (I have my opinion and you have yours. I have my sources and you have yours.)

“Where is Acts 8:37 (deity)? - Why is the title “The Lord Jesus Christ” demoted 25 times? Why is “that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” gone from I John 4:3 (incarnation)? – What happened to Joseph in Luke 2:33 (virgin birth)? Where did the blood of Col. 1:14 go (atonement)? What happened to the ending of Mark – it is gone (resurrection)! Why is “because I go to the Father” gone from John 16:16 (ascension)? Mercy, I John 5:7 is gone (trinity)!!! “…but if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more” has been whacked from Rom 11:6 (justification)!!! What happened to “but by every word of God” of Luke 4:4 (inerrancy)? Ooops – “Get thee behind me, Satan” is gone from Luke 4:8 (Satan). The Lord’s prayer is missing and some words are different (prayer). “…the Son of man cometh” is gone from Matt. 25:13 (2nd advent). Sin is watered down in Gal. 5:19 and Eph. 5:5. Hell is being air-conditioned in Psa. 9:17, Isa. 57:9, Mark 9:44, 46. Mercy, what is going on here? Mercy – these are just a few!!! What next?”

Then they’d turn and see Origen grinning quietly while lurking over their shoulders and say, “Hey man – this is your work. Why the changes surrounding the atonement, deity, hell, 2nd coming, virgin birth, etc.? What gives here, bud?”

Origen (rolling his eyes and shrugging his shoulders) – “I just wrote what I believed –what’s the big deal? It’s a free country isn’t it? I have a right to my opinion, don’t I?”

Then they would say, “Well then, why would anyone use these CTs as a basis for a bible?!?!???”

God bless :wavey:

 

Seriously AV, you ought to read Origen before you make such accusations against him!

ORIGEN ON LINE​

Too many castigate Origen and then reverently listen to their pastor preach a message that uses similar hermeneutic techniques.

Rob

 

Hi Rob – Thanks for the link – I will look over – I guess we both have our sources.


Here is just 10 minutes worth of googling “origen beliefs”. Of course I’ve read others besides these google links – there is a lot out there on this interesting man.
Don’t want to hijack the thread so this is all I’ll do on this subject out of respect for the OP.

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/reply_to_eoc_beliefs_page.htm

http://san.beck.org/AB9-RomanTurmoil180-285.html#5

As a result of his On Principles Origen would later be considered unorthodox on four points.
1. Human souls existed previously, and their life in material bodies reflects the results of previous actions.
2. Christ existed previously and was united to the divine nature before incarnating as the son of God related in the Gospels.
3. The resurrection will occur in absolutely ethereal bodies rather than in material ones.
4. All souls, even devils, will finally be restored through the mediation of Christ.
For Origen one could not be truly pious without philosophizing.

http://www.emergent-center.com/images/connect/PDFs/Origen.pdf

http://members.aol.com/porchfour/beliefs/unitaria.htm
A Brief History of the UU Movement.
The roots of Universalism can be seen in the beliefs of a 3rd century scholar-priest named Origen [ 5]. He stressed the humanity of Jesus, argued that there was no hell and believed in a benevolent God who would offer salvation to all people. More than a century after his death, Origin's views were tarnished by charges of heresy

http://www.biblebeliever.org/kjvav/ch2.htm
These are some of Origen’s other beliefs as pertaining to the Scriptures; he denied a literal hell, and that the Holy Spirit, like Jesus Christ, was created and did not eternally exist as God. He did not believe most of the Genesis account. He taught that the stars have souls and are rational beings, that Satan and infact all beings would eventually be saved, including the stars. As well, he also taught such errors as purgatory and transubstantiation. Origen once wrote, "The scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they were written."2

God bless

 

I'll let him defend himself with his own words:

"But we, by the simple fact that we believe, however poorly, in Christ Jesus, and that we boast of being his disciples, nevertheless do not dare to say that we have perceived face to face the meaning that He has passed on to us of what is contained in the divine books; for I am certain that the world itself could not hold that in a manner proportionate to the force and majesty of its meanings. That is why we do not dare to affirm what we say in the way that the Apostles did and we give thanks that, while so many are unaware of their own ignorance and affirm, in all conscience as it seems to them, to be a final truth every passing thought that occurs to them, without rule of order, sometimes even in a stupid or a mythological way, we, in relation to these great realities and to everything that is beyond us, are not ignorant of our ignorance." [bolding added]

"Sometimes I find the true meaning and sometimes my interpretation is rather forced, or perhaps I give the appearance of putting forward a definite opinion. But truly I have analyzed the words, not forgetting that when we speak of God we are judged by God, a maxim that is well stated; nor have I forgotten the adage that even to speak the truth on the subject of God is not without danger. Nothing can be beautiful if we separate it from God, especially the meaning of the Holy Scriptures which have been inspired in order to lead us to Him who is the Father of all things, through our Savior and High Priest, the only-begotten Son. Therefore I beg of you to pray for me that there may be granted me from the very beginning the grace to search well. Those who search have already the promise of finding; and undoubtedly those who fail to approach Him as they should are not considered by God as belonging to that class of men who duly search for the principle of all things."
Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Parmphilus

 

It was likely added in rather than written by Luke.

It isn't. These were pietistic expansions that were likely not written by the original author.

[qutoe] Why is “that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” gone from I John 4:3 (incarnation)?[/quote]Because the evidence indicates that John probably didn't write it.

Nothing. He's there.

Paul didn't write it there. No reason to add it. It is found clearly in 1:21.

No, the ending is there. It is found probaby in v. 8.

Because John didn't write it, most likely.

1 John 5:7 isn't "gone;" it was never there. However the trinity is clear in the eclectic text.

Paul likely didn't write that there.

Luke didn't write it there probably.

Luke probably didn't write it there.

If the Lord's prayer is missing, how are some words different? That is incoherent. Besides, Luke probably didn't write it there.

Matthew probably didn't write it there.

No, it's not. You need to go back and read it again.

No it's not.

Why do you want to add to what the Holy Spirit inspired? That makes no sense, particularly given the warnings about adding to the word of God. It is hard to imagine that someone would want to do that.

Everything you have presented here has long been answered. This is an issue of what the original author wrote, not what we would like to see there. You started with your conclusion and argued backwards. That is simply an incorrect way to approach the topic. It is unfortunate that after all your time here, you still haven't moved past these inane arguments.

Now you are having crazy visions??? You need to go off those meds it seems ...

This is all too typical of the kind of false weak arguments used to support an unbiblical position. It is absolutely laughable that these kinds of thing are taken seriously by people have been taught. For an untaught person, it would make sense that this would be believed.

 

More evidence that there is no proof - only views and opinions.