Newer Manuscripts Contain More Errors

Here is a basic overview that support the insertions made over time due to errors.

http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/index.htm

There is more to it, but this can give you a good idea.

 

Define 'proof'. Thank you.

In the 1970s I was licensed to teach Logic in the public and private schools of Oklahoma. I even taught in the public schools in Oklahoma for four years (1969-1973). What I taught most was Geometry, which starts out teaching logic. Yes, it is lots of fun teaching 15-year-olds logic. They are way more interested in learning to drive :smilewinkgrin:

Logic is one of the mathematics -- the mathematics are constued to be the mind of God in practice. Although God's logic is different from Man's logic and we can't understand God's logic -- Man's logic is a subset of God's logic. I.E. you could mention Man's Logic as a subset of God's Logic that humans can comprehend.

Rom 11:33-34 (KJV1611 Edition):
O the depth of the riches both of the wisedome and knowledge of God! how vnsearchable are his iudgements, and his wayes past finding out!
34 For who hath knowen the mind of the Lord, or who hath bene his counseller?

1Co 1:19-31 (KJV1611 Edition):
For it is written, I will destroy the wisedome of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the vnderstanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the Scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisedome of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that, in the wisedom of God, the world by wisedome knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishnesse of preaching, to saue them that beleeue.
1Co 1:22 For the Iewes require a signe, and the Greekes seeke after wisedome.
1Co 1:23 But wee preach Christ crucified, vnto the Iewes a stumbling block, and vnto the Greekes, foolishnesse:
1Co 1:24 But vnto them which are called, both Iewes and Greekes, Christ, the power of God, & the wisedome of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishnesse of God is wiser then men: and the weakenesse of God is stronger then men.
1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called.
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise: and God hath chosen the weake things of the world, to confound the things which are mighty:
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are,
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Iesus, who of God is made vnto vs wisedome, and righteousnesse, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

" Define 'proof'. Thank you."

The proof you are asking for is based on a comparison of about 5,600 Greek manuscripts and adding other languages you get over 24,000 ancient copies which, by the way, is unparalleled by any collection of books from antiquity. The New Testament manuscripts we actually posses are closer to the originals, and in better agreement, than any other ancient literature. Homer's Illiad comes in second at 718 copies, 800 years removed from the author.

When you compare and organize by date every manuscript you can see when, and sometimes locate geographically, the scribal errors were introduced, usually by accident.

All Greek manuscripts agree perfectly 62.0% not counting errors of no consequence like a misspelled word. Account for spelling, grammar and use of synonyms and you get between 93-95% agreement. No doctrine is effected by a questionable verse or a variant found in a manuscript. Maybe 1st John 5:7 being the only exception to that.

If you have a 1611 KJV reprint, look up Luke 17:36 and check out the margin note. The KJV in itself was a critical text too.

For those that dont have one it reads " This verse is found wanting in most Greek mss"

 

I examined this link and other source and compared them. I found that they are different because this link did not give more information where other source has lists. On other hand, this link listed one passage, for example, containing some manuscripts where other source listed, but not all because this link has list that almost matches with what other source shows.

 

Interesting. A significant source of proof of the statement you 'want' proved is all about opinions. That statement is an opinion. People's OPINIONS are proof.

BTW, that statement is a common opinion among Bible scholars. Bible scholars believe it except a few thousand pseudo-Bible Scholars which I call 'Bible Deniers'. 'Bible Deniers' are people who deny the Inerrancy of most scriptures (NIV, NASB, and NLT are major modern Bibles which are denied. We who believe the Word of God to be Inerrant mostly accept the above statement. But that is an opinon.

Another method of proof is to start with undefined terms and agreed upon statements and move via the Logic (of man) to other statements.

Would you like for me to prove the above statement by accepting the following statement as axiomatic? (Axiom - a self evident truth). IF not, please suggest an axiomatic truth (it can come straight from the Bible, if you wish).

I especially like to prove the following statement starting with the Axiom of the Mystery of the Faith (1Ti 3:9 )

1 Timothy 3:9 (Geneva Bible, 1587 or 1599 edition?):
Hauing the mysterie of the faith in pure conscience.

(This is a strange Deacon requirement. Most deacons don't know what 'mystery of the faith' means. Being a deacon i do hold the mystery of the faith doctrine in a pure conscience -- and I know what Mystery of the Faith means!

 

If you want to attack my flawless logic by attacking my person consider:

1Ti 3:12 Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, and such as can rule their children well, and their owne housholdes.

1 Timoth 3:12 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
1Ti 3:12 Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, and such as can rule their children well, and their owne housholdes.

I married my Second wife in Jan 2002, my first wife died in Dec 1999 - I have been a deacon since 1979. I did NOT serve as an active Deacon when I had no wife, for I believe the scripture does teach a Deacon must have a wife. (By practice I don't condemn the 97-year-old deacon in my church whose wife died when he was 92 - he still serves as an active deacon, though he has no living wife.

 

Note the Inerrant Scripute teaches:

1 Timothy 3:13 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For they that haue ministred well, get them selues a good degree, and great libertie in the faith, which is in Christ Iesus.


My trailer is just the following verse stated in modern terms:

2 Timothy 3:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,

Remember that 'convince' meaning then as now contains the idea of 'PROVE'.

The Blessed and Holy KJV also includes the idea of PROVE:
2Ti 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in righteousnesse,

the whole scripture = all scripture = all Valid English Language Translations

 

So is it your considered opinion, B4L, that new is better than old? The KJV revisers had to rely on newer manuscripts. The modern versions depend on older manuscripts.

It's rather ironic, isn't it?

Modern discoveries have led to older texts. You and your newfangled TR.

 

How much more ambiguous can you be? And what's the point?

 

If and until we find originals this is all conjecture and opinion. No one knows which mss have more errors because we have nothing to compare them to but each other.

 

Well, I did say that it was only a "basic overview" but if you want more get ready to learn some Greek and translate for yourself in many cases.

You can view high resolution pics and scan here http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts.aspx

Get a copy of the NA27th and it lists variants in great detail.

I am still building my personal library so I only have so much.

 

The evidence and argumentation only becomes "proof" when it is accepted as validation for the proposition. If an individual does not accept an assertion as true then the supporting data is not considered "proof". In other words, you can be shown evidence but it is up to you whether it is "proof".

Here is the statement being questioned in the OP in four parts --

"Older texts are closer in time to the original autographs."
I doubt there is any question to the validity of this part of the statement. Clearly, the further away from us in terms of time, the closer a manuscript would be to the time of the original writings.

"Therefore, as time went on and more and more copies and copies of copies were made, ..."
Again, this is fairly self-evident. As the demand for Christian scripture increased, copies were made and distributed; when those copies became damaged or worn they were replaced by new copies. However, the defective Greek manuscripts were not systematically destroyed (as Jewish scriptures typically were), thus many copies survived into future generations and they simply proliferated over time.

"... the newer texts had more errors ...
All manuscripts of moderate length demonstrate obvious errors of the pen. Logically, more recent copies would predominately include all the previous copyist mistakes; a scribe might be able to make some 'corrections' on the fly in his copy by referring to other available manuscripts (but when there are two or more options, what assumptions were made to establish the correct reading?). However, the new copy would most likely introduce new errors. Some scribes were careful and very strict (would slavishly copy only the text before them) while other scribes were sloppy and more liberal (including some glosses, etc.).

"... and insertions than the older texts."
It is a common trait amongst manuscripts (sacred and secular) to expand through generations of copies. It can be demonstrated in the manuscript evidence that earnest scribes seemed more inclined to add to the text rather than delete from the text. Of course, there is also some evidence that occassionally unscrupulous scribes probably intentionally altered the text in an attempt to support or suppress certain doctrine.

 

I love your humble spirit. We all go too far sometimes. :thumbsup: :applause:

 

Actually, this link does tell where this list comes from (But why should I do your homework for you??), if you actually read the portion which tells this. From randomly checking only two parts (a portion of Luke and a portion of Colossians) I conclude that the list seems fairly accurate, as to the variants.

That fact alone does not convince me that the 'weight' given to the variants in the list, or the 'conclusions' as to how any variants came to be is/are necessarily correct, however. The 'weighting' (as A, B, C, D) seems to give a bit more credence to "D" (Coded Bezae) especially as to the 'original hand' along with the same of "Aleph" a.k.a. Sinaiticus [which is misidentified in the apparatus as "S", where "S" is actually a MSS of only the Epistles, and one of the few, if not the only one, uncial MSS of a known date (949)], than I necessarily like.

IOW, the list seems to be fairly accurate; the conclusions about this list are fully subject to debate.

Ed

 

B4L: // And Ed, opinion is NOT proof. //

Tee Hee - your statement is self-contradictory.
Your statement is your opinion.
Your opinion is that "opinion is NOT proof' so your opinion is not proof and you have contradicted yourself. So you wasted your time writing it and my pixels printing it Oh well, that is not a capital crime nor a misdemeanor-- just an oops.