How many greek/hebrew versions are there?

the problem is the KJVO folks have little real scholarship involved in either their web sites or books, its just hyerbolic misrepresentation of those not into the KJV only, as they would demonize those against them, and jave all other english version as being 'satanic based!"

 

just too many problems in the KJVO position advocating that the Lord ONLY authorized to us for today the KJV!

 

bible written originally in Aramiac/Hebrew/Koine Greek...

main thing to remember is that KJVO folks have NO support biblically/textual criticism wise, best one can be would be prefers the KJV due to suppossed superior Greek text, TR, but cannot say that Greek texts like CT/MT are corrupted/bad, and we have to realise that due to the state of current scholarship, essentially the Greek text TR/MT/CT can each be viewed as being Word of God to us today, and ANy english version correctly translated from any of those Greek texts can be called english word of God to us for today!

 

Your questions are not ignorant at all, save in a positive way because you are asking instead of saying, "I don't know and I don't care." That is true ignorance!

The texts have been "gone through" but there is still a lot of comparison yet to do. And, more texts are always being found.

Here is a good overview of the issue:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Here, you can see the manuscripts, fragments, codexes, miniscules, etc., for yourself:

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=Bibles-Ancient

 

Brad, as I mentioned earlier, you are about where I was not too long ago. I still have a long way to go, to get to where I'd like to be within this topic. That said:

Glfredrick said:

That's a good reference to print out, as you will encounter many of the items covered during your studies. Within it is, IMHO, the heart of the controversy about the KJV and "modern" versions.

Quote:
The Textus Receptus is .....
Most scholars use the text of Nestle & Aland ... (mainly Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus)....
Some scholars use the Majority Text .....

Here's some links that may be useful.
Bible History FLOWCHART http://www.gentles.info/BibleHistory/Index_History.html

Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament
http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html

Geneva Bible (1560/1599) http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html

How was the Old Testament PRESERVED? http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-was-old-testament-preserved.html

Lifeway's On line Bibles, Commentaries, etc. http://bible.lifeway.com/crossmain.asp

The Controversy Behind Modern Bible Versions http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/dr_fuller-versions.htm

The Study Room - Bible References http://www.covenantnews.com/study.htm

Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-heretics.htm

The Precious King James Bible http://www.lovethetruth.com/king_james_bible.htm

Online Bible Study Tools http://www.biblestudytools.com/library/

Bible Gateway http://www.biblegateway.com/

Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary http://www.1828-dictionary.com/

Another King James Bible Believer http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Blue Letter Bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Complete Jewish Bible Bible, CJB
http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/

I've tried to cover several types of links here, especially study tools that may be useful. For the more controversal sites, gleen what you can from them. As always, asking the Holy Spirit to guide you.

Roll up your sleeves and dig in. It's gonna take time. There's no way around that fact. But don't let it get you down. If I can get through this, and more, I'm sure you can, too. There's one more site that I wanted to give you, but can't remember the name of it, right now. It's a very anti-KJV that I ran across early in this study. If I can dig it out of my notes, I'll post it, too, in order to try to give both sides of the issue.

Hope you'll find something within this that is helpful.

 

That is my hope, too. Unfortunately, there has already been too much emphasis on the KJVO issue. Brad's original post mainly asked some basic questions about the ancient languages and number of manuscripts. The books that I listed are general books primarily about the transmission of the Scriptures. I understand that the KJVO issue is unavoidable in this area, but it does not need to be the focal point from the start.

 

Hi, Brad. I think you deserve some direct answers to these questions.

First, I am not really familiar with this particular number "22,000" manuscripts, but I pretty sure they could not all be original language manuscripts; that is, this number must include more than just the Greek and Hebrew documents. It probably represents all handwritten biblical texts in all ancient languages (like the many, many Latin manuscripts). These other early manuscripts are important only in a minority of somewhat technical translational issues.

Ancient manuscripts (speaking of only the Greek and Hebrew) are now mostly in the hands of national museums and university libraries. Because of they are extremely valuable and fragile they cannot be carelessly or frequently handled; few people are really qualified to use them properly.

No, despite computer technology (which is not as helpful as you might think), they have not all been studied thoroughly. Some manuscript ink is very faint, or there may be many blemishes, holes, and tears in the material. The writing styles vary not only from scribe to scribe, but major differences occur from century to century.

The Hebrew manuscripts are very uniform in their text as a whole. The Jews were very careful in preserving their holy writ (using trained scribes). The Greek Christian writings show much more variety in their texts. Due to persecution (and other reasons) the early copyists were not professionals operating under ideal conditions, thus introducing many errors. Many simple manuscript errors (spelling and such) are rather easily detected and are corrected for inclusion in printed editions. The Hebrew text has mostly come down to us in a form called the 'Masoretic Text' (MT).

Greek manuscripts with similar errors and variations (like word order) can be identified into groups (called 'families'). The biggest groups are usually called by the terms Byzantine Family, the Alexandrian Family, and the Western Family (but there are others). Printed Greek editions of the collated Byzantine text go by the names of 'Majority Text' (also MT), and also the Textus Receptus (TR). Printed Greek editions using the collected Alexandrian text are often styled as the 'Critical Text' (CT); although modern editions are eclectic, in that, they also include readings from the MT/TR and Western traditions. Westcott & Hort's Greek edition would be considered a much more pure Alexandrian text than modern UBS or NA editions. W&H are not really very relevant to contemporary translation discussions.

Only a small percentage of the New Testament text is in conflict between the MT/TR and CT. An even smaller amount of the variants can actually be noticed in translation; and yet a smaller amount of those would be really considered significant to the meaning. No variants have a major negative impact on any core orthodox doctrine.

 

I would recommend much caution with using Internet sources. As you have seen, there is A LOT of 'stuff' out there. There are some well established websites with trusted reputations -- http://www.bible-researcher.com/ and http://bible.org/ are just two.

But in the wild, wild unregulated webworld you can get a good dose of whatever any webmaster believes to be "true", which can waste a lot of your valuable time with biased and unsubstantiated opinions of those virtually anonymous webfolks.

Verify and corroborate everything you read in cyberspace with at least two independent credible sources in the 'real' world before accepting it as a probable fact. That is why I listed several books (with different authors and publishers) on basically the same topic.

BTW, much of website content is often NOT original. I have witnessed several websites displaying (copy-paste and linking to) the same misinformation. Therefore, it can be hard to find websites that are genuinely independent sources.

 

Franklinmonroe, you won't get any argument out of me about what you said about the Internet. I, too, have run into far too many "stealing" other's work and posting it as their own.

Agree, too, about verifying and corroborating everything. A non KVJ example are the pro/con sites on Jehovah Witnesses. There are sites that are creditable and others leave a whole lot to be desired. (I'm trying to be polite here.) However, it doesn't take long to learn to recognize sites on this subject (or any other) that are more like bar fights than they are genuine efforts to state a position. One of the quick clues is often the references cited, IF ANY.

As to printed books, I'm slowly building a library, too. Especially with books that I will refer to time and time again. However, many books will be read one time and then collect dust on the bookshelves. Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (1901) that I'm currently reading is probably one of them. Would I recommend that Brad read this book? Yes, from what I've read so far. Would I recommend that he buy this book? No. From what I've read so far, it'll be a one time read.

That's part of the reason why I'm recommending that Brad use the Internet (carefully). Can't speak for anyone, except myself, when I say my funds are limited, for two reasons. For one, we're on a fixed income. The second is to weigh whether x dollars serve the Lord better sitting on my bookshelf or in the collection plate. Please don't misunderstand, that wasn't said to discredit any book that has been suggested here in this thread. In time, some of them could end up in my library, too.

Just saying to use freely available resources (does require more work) before investing in hardcopy. Some books that I thought I wanted, when I began this study, are no longer on my book wish list. And, some I knew I didn't want are now being added. The best example, are more versions of the Bible, itself.

In closing, this thread doesn't have to turn into a KJVO fight, or any other kind of heated discussion, if WE (all of us) simply state what works for us. I'm a layman and what works for me, probably doesn't work for many who are reading this post. That's fine and I have no problem with someone disagreeing, as long as they don't use a 2x4 to make their point.

-- A for whatever it's worth post, as your milage may vary --

 

IMO the essence of the KJVO view is this:

It is humanly impossible for any English translation of the Scripture to bring across the exact nuances of every Greek and Hebrew word.

So, the KJVO "fathers" (Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger) advanced the doctrine of "secondary inspiration".

That is, the KJV translators were moved and guided by the Holy Spirit to produce the AV1611 King James Bible.

In addition there is also the doctrine of "advanced revelation", which says that the KJV translators (in a role similar to the prophets of old) in many cases did not fully understand what they were writing (in this case translating) and has now become evident by their modern fulfillment and usage.

So, to be fully KJVO one has to accept this doctrine that the AD1611 King James Bible translators were both divinely moved and guided by the Holy Spirit in their translation work in a similar fashion as the original human authors (prophets and apostles) of the Scripture.

In fact KJVO teachers say that the English text of the KJV can be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew original language manuscripts.

To be fully forthright many, perhaps most, KJVO are not actually KJVO according to the doctrines of Secondary Inspiration and Advanced Revelation.

HankD

 

So, if it could be demonstrated that they made a mistake, then they would have been subject to the punishment for a false prophet, right?

And, they made mistakes, yet no one died for them...

 

Would versions like the Tynsdake/Geneva have to be also "inspired revelations" as per their own stances regarding God prederving the "perfect text' for us today?

 

To me, since there HAVE been revisions done on the "perfect received text' cannot be truely perfect!

Why 1789/1881/1984 etc IF 1611 was perfect word of God for us today in English?

 

There are several arguments by which the theory can be shown to be fallacious.

I was only reporting the facts from the writings of KJVO leaders.

HankD