The heart of the problem

Very true

Just remember that ALL translation do that, including the KJV as I showed previously.

You claimed that they were "Casting doubt on God’s Word." This was in the context of Satan was doing this.

you said

If I misinterpreted that, my apologies. But it you were putting the modern versions as Satan using them to cast double(of course you not realizing that the KJV did the same thing.)

Scholars are going to disagree over verses and whether or not they should be included. There was discussion and I'm sure disagreement with the KJV translation team. It isn't doubting God's word, it is just understanding that us humans have not copied down God's word perfectly and we want to make sure that the translation has the right words in it. We know that we have the right words here, they will always be preserved. The issue lies over which one is right.

But all in all, none change any doctrine. At least not in the NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV and the other main versions of the Bible.

 

Some translations not in the mainstream such as the Norlie and MLB are also quite orthodox doctrinally also.

 

And a most helpful insertion at that. In my opinion there doesn't even need to be any notation at all when only the TR and MT have a verse in a particular text. The versions which use manuscripts based on early and diverse materials owe no obligation to even mention the wronly added verses.

Just know that no Christian of the first two centuries read the same material that you see in those passages in which modern versions have such notations.

What a nasty thing to say! So you would like to cast aspersions on the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance? Any discovery of ancient biblical manuscripts is anathema to you?! Please get reoriented. "Oddball", come on.

If the KJV revisers had had access to what Bible scholars have had in their possession for the last 160 years -- they would have used those documents in Bible translation work.

 

You are dead right here. I know that we differ on manuscripts, method of translation, and translations themselves, but this is correct. They garnered all the resources available to them in their efforts to provide a modern version for their day and improve on previous English translations. I cannot understand how people who do the same today, even if I don't agree with them, can have their motives challenged without any evidence. Sure, some translations are a waste of time and money making schemes, but those cases are obvious. I may not like the way some approach it, but those who work on the major versions, for the most part, have only good in mind.

 

Thanks for the confirmation Roger.

 

You'll come around. I just know it.

 

Maybe, but you can't say with certainty because it didn't happen.

My question is, why did God allow those particular texts to be unused for nearly 2000 years? Is He not sovereign? If they are better and more accurate, wouldn't God have revealed them much sooner?

 

I'm assuming you are referring to the copy of the translation not having the marginal notes in them and not the translation itself because the kjv had these notes in them.

You might want to check out your facts here. You make it sound as if before the KJV, that the church had already decided on which words were right and there wasn't an issue. This isn't even close to true. Erasmus made his Greek NT in the early 1500's. He made 5 different editions of his Greek NT. A Few others edited the text after that. The KJV was finished in 1611 and their textual choices didn't match any of the TR's completely. It wasn't till after the KJV that the TR was made to match the textual choices of the KJV.

Again, you use the term "doubt" and are forgetting or ignoring the fact that this was an issue even when the KJV came out. There was no 100% agree upon text. Even the KJV translators put "doubts" on certain passages. (As i gave an example of earlier)

Yes, I agree that God preserved his word(says so in the Bible) but He didn't keep the copyist from error(something you agree with). But to say that the church had an agreed upon text before the KJV is just fiction.

 

I am shocked that some one seemily interested in this subject could be so willing ignorant of the historical facts concerning development of the Bible, and then display it in public. What "scholars" do you think were determining the NT variants well before 1600? BTW, it was not Eramus' purpose to collate Greek variants; he and any contemporaries had access to very few of the extant documents (and this was less than 100 years before the KJV).

 

Same reason the KJV didn't come up for the first 1600 years. Same reason Erasmus used manuscripts that hadn't been discovered for the first 1500 years. The Vaticanus was around during Erasmus' time. He attempted to get it, but was unable to.

 

People weren't digging/looking in the right places to find them before the time they were found. Pure and simple.

Yes, God is sovereign, and it was His intention to have them discovered when they were. While it would have been convenient for God to just give us all the various manuscripts at one time that's not the way He worked. Actually, it is well within His power to produce the original copies penned by the authors but He has not seen fit to do so.

The same can be said about biblical scholarship. We know so much more now than was known 400 years ago. The KJV translators used the resources they had at the time, but there are much more available to us today.

 

My question had nothing to do with the KJV. It was about manuscripts. I am not one who believes there was no bible until 1611.

 

God prophesied thru His angel to Daniel that in the general time of "the end" that knowledge & travel would increase. Thus, our knowledge of God's word is increased in our time by the many mss He has made available now. These computers, which He's allowed us to make, now make the extant mss available to more people than ever before.

Thus, the 'discovery' of these mss is part of the end-time increase in knowledge, I believe.

 

Maybe this all reminds us why we must be careful not to divinize God's words and miss truly worshiping Him as Word.

 

I know, I wans't trying to imply that you did. My point was that just because we don't have something for a while doesn't mean it isn't good to use. Erasmus only had a very few(I've heard around 6) manuscripts. That means that the vast majority of the 5600 NT manuscripts we have today were found after the 1500's.

 

Returning to the title of this thread and the OP...
Not meaning to be uncharitable..... but not entirely concerned that it may seem so to certain or rather uncertain parties:

If those posts, which were used to explain or correct the content of the first post.... are taken as personal......

..........Perhaps there is a personal reason (and unaddressed weakness) which causes such defensiveness and posturing:

There is a trespass of motives when one requests instruction.... and then turns to debate or attack those who offer freely. It is unruly, disrespectful behavior..... I don't care how much a person may be still learning (take this as it appears.... as it is seen to be, imo...). Sin lieth at the door!

 

You are absolutely right. Many here are lifting the words and understanding of a group of 17th century Anglicans above the Word of God. That is quite a problem because it is deifying a book rather than the Author.

 

I don't like this statement because it makes an assumption and defines for the reader "the best Greek manuscripts".

"Best" does not necessarily follow every criteria of Wescott and Hort IMO and after no small amount of research the statement often appears to me as coming forth from a W&H knee jerk bias.

For instance one of the criteria is "oldest is best", or "shorter ('non-conflated') readings are best".

However p66 (of the Bodmer papyri collection) is dated as AD96-200 which was at first labeled Alexandrian, has been carefully researched and found to have 50-50 Alexandrian-Byzantine variant readings (by Dr. Schwartz I believe).

Since then it has been removed from the "best" list, classified as "neutral" or "western" and its date keeps moving up.

Once dated as perhaps the oldest and largest (almost the entire Gospel of John) papyrus at AD96 then AD100-120 has now been moved up to AD200 simply because (IMO) of the "conflated" readings in spite of the once very early date assignment.

That is my opinion of course and I do appreciate the history scholarship when it is unbiased. It works both ways, those who favor the Byzantine family of manuscripts would say (and have said) that it is a direct copy of the original (with very little evidence).

Some marginal statements are at least more factual (and IMO more honest/unbiased) using a statement such as "not found in some older Greek manuscripts".

HankD