Missing Doctrines?

[Dale-c]

I think this is far less likely than an omission by a scribe who doesn't hold to a particular doctrine

Are you referencing Baptism and the paedo baptist KJV translators?

I don't think that really weakens the doctrine because there is still no instance of infant baptism in the Bible.

 

[Deacon]

I have based my opinion on the text that has been used throughout Christendom and that has been quoted by Bible-believing preachers since the first century. To accept a here-to-fore hidden text that is largely based on two mss that suddenly appeared in the 19th century is too much of a stretch for me personally.

In fact there was no actual Greek text comparable to the KJV until the 19th century with Scrivener’s Greek text of 1894.

The translators of the KJV praised the efforts of those early Christians who struggled to preserve the text of the word of God, including Origen, Jerome and Augustine.

Those translators as all others, simply did the best they could with the texts available to them at that time.

No major doctrinal changes then or now.
No changes in the simple good news of the gospel.

Rob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Merchants of Venice is NOT my Final Authority.
And I suspect never will be. I prefer the TNIV (Today's NIV) to MoV.
And somehow I doubt that it makes a lot of sense that one needs an old dictionary to read an old Bible. Even Sister G.A. Riplinger said the Bible
is self defining.

 

[TCGreek]

Merchants of Venice is NOT my Final Authority.
And I suspect never will be. I prefer the TNIV (Today's NIV) to MoV.
And somehow I doubt that it makes a lot of sense that one needs an old dictionary to read an old Bible. Even Sister G.A. Riplinger said the Bible
is self defining.

Ed, to be honest, I do not understand some of the things you write. It seems like you write with a coded language.

But I think I'm getting some of it. :laugh:

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Are you referencing Baptism and the paedo baptist KJV translators?

No, I am not. The KJV translators were translators. They were not constructing a text; they were constructing a translation of a text.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Merchants of Venice is NOT my Final Authority.
And I suspect never will be. I prefer the TNIV (Today's NIV) to MoV.
And somehow I doubt that it makes a lot of sense that one needs an old dictionary to read an old Bible. Even Sister G.A. Riplinger said the Bible
is self defining.

It seems you missed my point Ed. Why don't you sleep on it? Maybe it will become clear in the morning.

BTW: Who is using an old dictionary? Who is this Sister Riplinger you keep talking about?

 

[EdSutton]

Is there any chance we could stay on topic in this thread folks?

Are there doctrines missing in either manuscript choice?

The OP actually asked about versions, not mss.

So far, I actually have found two 'doctrines' that are not present in my NKJV, KJV, ASV, MLB, or my wife's NIV (haven't checked every version we posess), that are present (one, each) in two other 'versions' (can't say anything more, here) that I have.

The first comes from the TEV, a.k.a. the GNB, which has Jesus to "share our sins", as opposed to 'be made sin' (or become sin) for us, in our place.

One probably then oughtta' rewrite the chorus of the well known hymn, "Jesus Paid it All!", to read:

"Jesus paid His part;
I'll pay my part, though.
Sin had made a dirty spot,
but we've washed it white as snow."

I dunno'!

Somehow, that just doesn't seem to have the same ring to it, as the more familiar words.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

The second doctrine one can find in one version, but not another, concerns the identity of "the (living) Word", Jesus Christ. Jo. 1:1 tells us that "the Word was God", in about every version I know. The Nicene Creed of 325 A.D., declared this in these words - that Jesus was "God of God" and "Very God of Very God."

However, the NWT, in order to conform to the doctrinal beliefs, have rendered this as "the word was a god", meaning that Jesus is presented (consistent with Jehovah Witness theology), by this 'version' (Can I say it yet, Dr. Bob? Phillip? C4K? "Please??" Or do I still have to be nice?) as a 'lesser god' than is the Father, or 'Jehovah' God.

At the very best, this resembles a 'tabloid newspaper' version, where you can get "Everything that is 'printed to fit'!".

BTW, there actually is a nice little bit of irony, here. This modern day 'Arianism', that describes Jehovah Witness theology, accusses 'orthodoxy' (Baptists are "orthodox", by definition, in this.) of believing in and teaching that there are three Gods, or a "Trinity" of Gods, instead of "one God" (Deut. 6:4)

Not only is this incorrect ['orthodoxy' believes in and teaches that God is a 'Tri-une' Godhead - one God, manifested (or subsisting) in three persons], but Jehovah Witnesses are actually the ones teaching that there is more than one God, as they believe and teach that Jesus is "a god" but a "lesser god" than is "Jehovah God". They (JWs) are the ones teaching more than one God, which is something God does not even know about. (Isa. 44:6,8; 45:5,21; Hos. 13:4)

These last two posts have been a bit frustrating, for me. :BangHead:

Probably because I am not allowed to say "perv..." or "her...", and in fact, I normally have neither the inclination nor the desire to use either.

But sometimes I do tend to believe that they might be richly deserved!

Ed

 

[Salamander]

Does it effect doctrine to suggest that God leaves men unsure of life, no chance for salvation, or a future at all?

 

[Rippon]

Just reviewing the thread I find no evidence that any doctrines are missing , or weakened in the CT . To insist that such is the case is tantamount to attacking the Word of God .

 

[Askjo]

TCGreek quoted:
because no doctrine is absent or undermined.

C4K quoted:
Are there doctrines missing in either manuscript choice?
Clearly there is no difference in doctrine here - it is a difference in application.
And still, there are no doctrines portrayed in the TR body that are not portrayed in the CT, or vice versa.

Dale-C
Exactly, no difference in doctrine.

Deacon quoted:
No major doctrinal changes then or now.
No changes in the simple good news of the gospel.

Rippon quoted:
I find no evidence that any doctrines are missing , or weakened in the CT

P66 is oldest apographa. This one has "Holy" where the KJV has that word, but most modern versions omitted it.

This P66 has "Holy Spirit." Why did these modern versions NOT derive this important doctrine from it?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

P66 is oldest apographa. This one has "Holy" where the KJV has that word, but most modern versions omitted it.

This P66 has "Holy Spirit." Why did these modern versions NOT derive this important doctrine from it?

What modern version denies the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit?

 

[EdSutton]

P66 is oldest apographa. This one has "Holy" where the KJV has that word, but most modern versions omitted it.

This P66 has "Holy Spirit." Why did these modern versions NOT derive this important doctrine from it?

What modern version denies the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit?

What I want to know is what exactly is an apographa?
Did you mean apocrypha??
Or did you maybe mean autographa??

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

P66 is oldest apographa. This one has "Holy" where the KJV has that word, but most modern versions omitted it.

This P66 has "Holy Spirit." Why did these modern versions NOT derive this important doctrine from it?

Majoring in minors. What about the countless places where the MVs have "Holy Spirit?"

 

[Dale-c]

Majoring in minors. What about the countless places where the MVs have "Holy Spirit?"

If there was a great conspiracy to rid the Bible of these doctrines then these guys were idiots because they did a lousy job of it

 

[Deacon]

P66 is oldest apographa. This one has "Holy" where the KJV has that word, but most modern versions omitted it.

This P66 has "Holy Spirit." Why did these modern versions NOT derive this important doctrine from it?

Askjo brings up John 7:39

He said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been received, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.
Holman CSB

(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
John 7:39 AV 1873

P66 is dated to the middle second century
The original transcriptionist of P66 included the word, “holy” but it was deleted, apparently a scribal erasure.

Bruce Metzger noted: "The tendency to add ἅγιον [holy] was both natural and widespread among Christian scribes, whereas if the word had been present in the original, its deletion would be inexplicable."
[Textual Commentary, p 186]

Askjo's point is important primarily because of it's insigificance.
The word difference in John doesn't change or alter any doctrine.

Rob

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What I want to know is what exactly is an apographa?
Did you mean apocrypha??
Or did you maybe mean autographa??

Ed

I am sure he means apograph.

English is not our brother's first tongue. To be critical of someone typing in their second language for misspelling an uncommon word like apograph is being overly picky.

I may not agree with Bro Askjo on this topic, but I admire his ability to express his thoughts in a language other than his primary language, which, BTW, is ASL if I am not mistaken.

 

[franklinmonroe]

What I want to know is what exactly is an apographa?...

An 'apograph' is a transcript of another document, or simply put, its a copy (not the original).

 

[rsr]

P66 is oldest apographa. This one has "Holy" where the KJV has that word, but most modern versions omitted it.

Deacon has already noted that P66 can be used to bolster either inclusion of omission of the word, depending on whether you believe the original scribe or the corrector was right.

If Askjo believes the uncorrected P66 is trustworthy, I assume he believes it is correct in omitting the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11.)

 

[Deacon]

It’s quite curious that the in John 6:69 the word “holy” is present in the Greek text used by many modern versions but missing in the Greek texts used by the KJV.

We have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God!
HCSB

And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
AV 1873

Rob