Newer Manuscripts Contain More Errors

I didn't say they were lost. I said they were tossed aside and unused. If they were superior, why were they unused for 2000 years?

 

"Tossed aside" is an assumption, and a poor one, at that.

I have a few very old books that I seldom use, simply because I do not want to destroy them completely, and use newer, cheaper versions of them. If I were privileged to possess an authentic, genuine, original, 1612 edition of the KJV (Roman type, you know, not the Gothic type of the 1611, which would be much harder to read) or an original, genuine GEN, WBS, DBY, or ASV, to name only a few, I can assure you that it would be carefully kept (probably in the bank lock-box, simply to assure that it would never be in any fire or suffer any other damage) where it would never find its way onto the seat of my old PU truck, for that would be insanity.

I have no such qualms about carrying one of my regular Bibles (or a reproduction of any of the above) in this manner, however, and I do so on a regular basis, and I will replace them as I might need. Perhaps rather than being "tossed aside" (an assumption, at best), they were "set aside" so as not to be destroyed by normal everyday use, wear and tear, and even unintentional or accidental abuse.

Ed

 

Important question, Amy. Of course, no one can say they totally know why God allows some of the things He allows. It seems in large part that God allows natural and manmade processes to run their course without special intervention.

An exaggerated form of this line of questioning might ask: Why didn't God preserve His words on indestructible golden tablets with His personal signature on them, or something? But since God is in control of everything, things as they are must be going as He planned.

Looking back on history, it seems that many early Greek Christians had flawed scriptures. It also seems that many Christians during the middle ages had flawed Latin Bibles. And it seems that early English translations were also flawed. Yet all those Christians of those generations felt that they reliably had God's pure words, and many died defending their versions. We they wrong? Should we arrogantly think that our situation is different? Will Christians 1000 years from now (if Christ hasn't returned) pity us for having "inferior" Bibles?

 

Yes, that was exactly the point. As I have said at least once before on the BB, any imagined scenario as to why some manuscripts survive or were more often copied can be similarly be turned on its' head.

 

I use a combo of NASB, KJV and NIV. My NASB is my main Bible that I typically read from but I will use a combination for in depth study.

 

Uh- no. I made no "assumption". Amy.G had asked a declarative question that was an assumption, to which I replied. I merely offered a "potential possibility" as an alternative scenario, hence the use of the word "perhaps" opening my sentence, and the use of the subjunctive sense. (You likewise used the same word with a similar scenario, in post #42.) I have never said this was necessarily what had happened, nor have I even weighed in on the likelihood. I don't profess to know what 'probably' happened over 2000 years, unlike some, absent some evidence to what did actually happen.

Language Cop will offer lessons on the comprehension of the English language, for any who may be interested.

Out of curiosity, why is it, for one who claims not to know these answers, wants to know the best available version, and not be KJVO, that virtually without exception, every post of yours seems to come down on the side that is consistent with the KJVO position, and in opposition to one who does not hold said position somehow? Out of your almost 250 posts, in 2 years, well over 230 have been in this particular forum, starting with your initial post, of 6/01/2007, which one I shall here quote. (FTR, I have intentionally and specifically read every single one of the posts you have made on the BB.)

Hmmm!

Ed

 

I also want to discover the most accurate Bible translation. That is a big part of why I came to the BB. I originally thought that there might be something to the radical KJV-only position, but I'm am finding more evidence weekly to indicate that the KJV is not a perfect translation either. The manuscript issue is very complex.

So, I doubt I will every be in a position to know absolutely which original language text type is most pure & which translation from that textual tradition is the most accurately rendered into English. It would take a lifetime to research.

I think translations may be like sinners-saved-by-grace: none are perfect, but all are perfected through the Lord's power.

 

I didn't think it was an assumption. I thought it was a fact. Didn't those manuscripts sit for centuries unused and uncopied? Where are all the copies of those texts?
Ed, if I'm not mistaken you have said that you prefer the manuscripts that were used in the translating of the KJV and the NKJV. Why don't you prefer the "older and more relilable" texts?

 

The reason Greek texts fell out of common use was the onset of Latin as the common language which is why the Latin Vulgate was translated anyhow. Jerome was commissioned to fixed the bad translations being made but he ended up re translating the entire Bible.

Simply put , people stopped speaking Greek. The Latin Bible only lasted because of the Roman Catholic Church because they would not allow other translations till the Reformation forced them too.

Luckily the Churches preserved and copied manuscripts of all sorts too.

 

I'm aware of the rule that older manuscripts have fewer errors because of their proximity in time to the originals. Since we don't have the originals the assumption that "in general the papyri from the 2nd and 3rd centuries have more errors than later manuscripts, especially careless omissions" is an unverifiable opinion.

 

Based on the singular readings of the early papyri, omission is far more common than addition. Unless you want to assume that each singular omission in any early papyrus represents the original text against all other later documents, then your assumption that the earliest manuscripts are more accurate in terms of preserving the original "shorter" text is false. Which is it?