The NT manuscripts are full of mistakes

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

IndianaRob

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2023
931
261
63
54
Louisville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Without agreeing that God must inspire a translator before his translation can be deemed accurate, how do we gauge whether such inspiration has occurred?
In my opinion the first and foremost gauge is there won’t be any mistakes or contradictions in a God inspired translation. That’s why I was interested in the contradictions in the gospels.

Next would be evidence of divine occurrences related to the text. This would be more or less something within the text that isn’t humanly possible to make happen.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In my opinion the first and foremost gauge is there won’t be any mistakes or contradictions in a God inspired translation. That’s why I was interested in the contradictions in the gospels.
How can you tell whether there are no mistakes -- or even what constitutes a "mistake?" Is a mistake any deviation from the original -- even a corrective one?

Bruce Metzger tells us that "occasionally a scribe deliberately introduced into the copy a change that seems to clarify the sense or eliminate a difficulty. For example the older manuscripts of Mark 1:2-3 attribute to the Prophet Isaiah the evangelist's composite quotation from both Malachi and Isaiah, whereas later manuscripts (followed by the King James translators of 1611) read, 'As it is written in the prophets,' an obvious amelioration of the earlier text."
 

KUWN

Active Member
Sep 13, 2024
634
206
43
69
Southeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure with any translation which has been done over and over by different groups there will be variants. Which translation do you consider the nearest to the original?
I use the NET Bible sometimes in my research. This is the Bible put out by professors of Dallas Theological Seminary.
 

IndianaRob

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2023
931
261
63
54
Louisville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How can you tell whether there are no mistakes -- or even what constitutes a "mistake?" Is a mistake any deviation from the original -- even a corrective one?

Bruce Metzger tells us that "occasionally a scribe deliberately introduced into the copy a change that seems to clarify the sense or eliminate a difficulty. For example the older manuscripts of Mark 1:2-3 attribute to the Prophet Isaiah the evangelist's composite quotation from both Malachi and Isaiah, whereas later manuscripts (followed by the King James translators of 1611) read, 'As it is written in the prophets,' an obvious amelioration of the earlier text."
A mistake would be something that’s not right or true. A simple example would be “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son”. That’s an error because we also are sons of God”. Granted that’s not a biggie but that’s just off the top of my head.
 

Rockerduck

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2022
2,511
2,138
113
70
Marietta, Georgia.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A mistake would be something that’s not right or true. A simple example would be “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son”. That’s an error because we also are sons of God”. Granted that’s not a biggie but that’s just off the top of my head.
We are children of God only because of Jesus, the first fruits, the sacrificial lamb. You had to believe on Jesus so as to not perish, then you became a child of God. "For God so loved the world, He sent His only begotten son, Jesus, so that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life".
 

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
12,276
18,805
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I use the NET Bible sometimes in my research. This is the Bible put out by professors of Dallas Theological Seminary.
So you use the New English Translation. I prefer the New International Version or the New Living Translation.
 

Rockerduck

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2022
2,511
2,138
113
70
Marietta, Georgia.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So you use the New English Translation. I prefer the New International Version or the New Living Translation.
The NLT is a solid translation that should be used by all. Why? Because the original Greek was common language, and Jesus wants us to read in a common language. After all, I've never heard any pastor speak in olde English. I say preach in common language and teach in common language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pearl

KUWN

Active Member
Sep 13, 2024
634
206
43
69
Southeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WIndmill asked:

"More than one commentator has suggested that we have so many n t quotes in the church fathers letters that we could almost reconstruction the n t from them.

How true that is ?"

Very true. The NT has been reconstructed using only church fathers quotes, and they were able to put the NT back together to all but 11 verses. I will admit that I have not done any research into this claim but I do know there are a lot of quotes!

I should probably clarify a point here. Textual Criticism is when you take two Greek manuscripts and compare them. That's an oversimplification but the gist is right. When you try to reconstruct the NT using Church Fathers you have to make some allowances. Church Fathers would often quote a verse from memory and not get it all right. But this counts for their quote reconstructing the NT. With two Greek manuscripts you are looking for an EXACT match, but the Church Fathers are not as neat as that.

I will say that no two Greek manuscripts are alike, even the manuscripts that only contain a few verses. Lastly, I will add that I use the Critical Text for my studies. I don't fault those who use another text though.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A mistake would be something that’s not right or true. A simple example would be “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son”. That’s an error because we also are sons of God”. Granted that’s not a biggie but that’s just off the top of my head.
You mean not right or true in the original, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen
J

Johann

Guest
You mean not right or true in the original, correct?
Actually, we are not ALL sons of God-error on his part.

16 For Hashem so had ahavah (agape) for the Olam Hazeh that Hashem gave the matanah (gift) [Isa 9:5 (6)] of Hashem’s Ben Yechid [Gn 22:12; Prov 30:4; 8:30 so that whosoever has emunah in him may not be ne’evad (lost, perish, be ruined with destruction), but find Chayyei Olam [Daniel 12:2].

Joh 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son—the only begotten—He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;
Joh 3:18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 'And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil;
Joh 3:20 for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected;
Joh 3:21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.'

This here from Utley-

Joh_3:16 "God so loved" This is an aorist active indicative (as is the verb "gave"), which here speaks of a completed act in the past time (God sent Jesus). Joh_3:16-17 deal primarily with the Father's love (cf. 1Jn_4:7-21, esp. Joh_3:9-10). "Loved" is the term agapaô. It was not used much in Classical Greek. The early church took it and filled it with specific meaning. In certain contexts it relates to the Father's or Son's love, however, it is used negatively of human love (cf. Joh_3:19; Joh_12:43; 1Jn_2:15). It is theologically synonymous with hesed in the OT, which meant God's covenant loyalty and love. In Koine Greek of John's day, the terms agapaô and phileô are basically synonymous (compare Joh_3:35 with Joh_5:20).

Interpreters must keep in mind that all words used to describe God carry human (anthropomorphic) baggage. We must use words that describe our world, our feelings, our historical perspective in an attempt to describe an eternal, holy, unique, spiritual Being (God). All human vocabulary is to some extent analogous or metaphorical. What has been revealed is surely true, but not ultimate. Fallen, temporal, finite mankind cannot grasp ultimate reality.

SPECIAL TOPIC: GOD DESCRIBED AS HUMAN (ANTHROPOMORPHISM))

"so" This is literally "in such a manner" (i.e., Joh_7:46; Joh_11:48; Joh_18:22). It expresses method, not emotion! God demonstrated His love (cf. Rom_5:8) by giving (Joh_3:16) and sending (Joh_3:17, both are aorist active indicatives) His Son to die on mankind's behalf (cf. Isaiah 53; Rom_3:25; 2Co_5:21; 1Jn_2:2).

"world" John used this Greek term kosmos in several senses (see note at Joh_1:10 and Special Topic at Joh_14:17).
This verse also refuted the Gnostic dualism between spirit (God) and matter. The Greeks tended to attribute evil to matter. For them matter (i.e., human body) was the prison house of the divine spark in all humans. John does not assume the evil of matter or flesh. God loves the world (planet, cf. Rom_8:18-22) and human beings (flesh, cf. Rom_8:23). This may be another intentional ambiguity (double entendre) so common in John (cf. Joh_1:5; Joh_3:3; Joh_3:8).

"only begotten Son" This means "unique, one of a kind." It should not be understood as "only begotten" in (1) a sexual sense or (2) the sense that there are no other children. There are just no other children like Jesus. See fuller note at Joh_1:14.

"whoever believes in Him" This is a present active participle, which emphasizes initial and continuing belief. See Special Topics at Joh_1:14; Joh_2:23. This affirmation is repeated from Joh_3:15 for emphasis. Thank God for the "whosoever"! This must balance any overemphasis on a special group (racial, intellectual, or theological). It is not that "God's sovereignty" and "human freewill" are mutually exclusive; they are both true! God always initiates the response and sets the agenda (cf. Joh_6:44; Joh_6:65), but He has structured His relationship with humans by means of covenant. They must respond and continue to respond to His offer and conditions!
Utley

J.
 
J

Johann

Guest
The NLT is a solid translation that should be used by all. Why? Because the original Greek was common language, and Jesus wants us to read in a common language. After all, I've never heard any pastor speak in olde English. I say preach in common language and teach in common language.
The Williams Bible is good-for a companion Bible.
J.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
13,936
5,689
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Actually, we are not ALL sons of God-error on his part.
In whose image were we created?

Genesis 1"27 NIV
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Luke 20:22-25 NIV
Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them,
24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s,
and to God what is God’s.”

[
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Actually, we are not ALL sons of God-error on his part.
I agree. This actually follows from John 1:12.

One of my disagreements with the OSAS crowd is over their interpretation of John 1:12. Instead of understanding that receiving Him and believing in His name yields the "power" (ἐξουσίαν) to become sons of God, they treat the verse as though receiving Him and believing in His name made them into "automatic" sons of God, without more. It's a nice thought. And for all I know, it may even be true. But distilling it from John 1:12? Sorry, that's a stretch.
 
J

Johann

Guest
I agree. This actually follows from John 1:12.

I agree. This actually follows from John 1:12.

One of my disagreements with the OSAS crowd is over their interpretation of John 1:12. Instead of understanding that receiving Him and believing in His name yields the "power" (ἐξουσίαν) to become sons of God, they treat the verse as though receiving Him and believing in His name made them into "automatic" sons of God, without more. It's a nice thought. And for all I know, it may even be true. But distilling it from John 1:12? Sorry, that's a stretch.
John 1:12 (NKJV):
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right (ἐξουσίαν) to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”


The Verb "to receive" (ἔλαβον):
The Greek verb ἔλαβον ("received") signifies an active response. The act of "receiving Him" implies an intentional acceptance of Jesus and His message, and it is in the past tense, pointing to a specific action in time.

"To Believe" (πιστεύουσιν):
The present participle πιστεύουσιν ("believe") emphasizes continuous action in the Greek, suggesting that believing in His name is not a one-time act, but an ongoing, living faith.

This counters the idea of a singular, "automatic" event of sonship. The verse does not imply that merely believing once secures one's status as a child of God.


The Term "Power" or "Right" (ἐξουσίαν):
The word ἐξουσίαν is crucial here. It means "authority," "right," or "power." It indicates the potential or privilege to become a child of God, not that the person is automatically made a child of God simply by believing. This word suggests there is more to becoming a son of God than the initial belief—there is a granting of authority, which involves a process of becoming.

"To Become" (γενέσθαι):
The verb γενέσθαι ("to become") is aorist infinitive, which indicates that "becoming" a child of God is something granted but not yet fully realized. It suggests a transition from potential to actuality, implying that one is given the potential, or the right, but it is not necessarily an automatic result of belief alone.

Syntactical Flow:
The verse presents a progression:

First: There is the receiving of Christ.
Second: Those who receive Him are granted the right to become children of God.
Third: This right is given to those who are continually believing in His name.
The structure shows that "receiving" and "believing" are conditions for obtaining the authority to become God's children. However, it does not state that belief alone automatically results in sonship. Instead, it speaks of the right to become something, suggesting an ongoing transformation or process beyond the initial faith.

John 1:12 (NKJV):
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right (ἐξουσίαν) to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”

Key Issues for Exegesis:
The Verb "to receive" (ἔλαβον):
The Greek verb ἔλαβον ("received") signifies an active response. The act of "receiving Him" implies an intentional acceptance of Jesus and His message, and it is in the past tense, pointing to a specific action in time.

"To Believe" (πιστεύουσιν):
The present participle πιστεύουσιν ("believe") emphasizes continuous action in the Greek, suggesting that believing in His name is not a one-time act, but an ongoing, living faith. This counters the idea of a singular, "automatic" event of sonship. The verse does not imply that merely believing once secures one's status as a child of God.

The Term "Power" or "Right" (ἐξουσίαν):
The word ἐξουσίαν is crucial here. It means "authority," "right," or "power." It indicates the potential or privilege to become a child of God, not that the person is automatically made a child of God simply by believing. This word suggests there is more to becoming a son of God than the initial belief—there is a granting of authority, which involves a process of becoming.

"To Become" (γενέσθαι):
The verb γενέσθαι ("to become") is aorist infinitive, which indicates that "becoming" a child of God is something granted but not yet fully realized. It suggests a transition from potential to actuality, implying that one is given the potential, or the right, but it is not necessarily an automatic result of belief alone.

Syntactical Flow:
The verse presents a progression:

First: There is the receiving of Christ.
Second: Those who receive Him are granted the right to become children of God.
Third: This right is given to those who are continually believing in His name.
The structure shows that "receiving" and "believing" are conditions for obtaining the authority to become God's children. However, it does not state that belief alone automatically results in sonship. Instead, it speaks of the right to become something, suggesting an ongoing transformation or process beyond the initial faith.

John 1:12 (NKJV):
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right (ἐξουσίαν) to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”

Key Issues for Exegesis:
The Verb "to receive" (ἔλαβον):
The Greek verb ἔλαβον ("received") signifies an active response. The act of "receiving Him" implies an intentional acceptance of Jesus and His message, and it is in the past tense, pointing to a specific action in time.

"To Believe" (πιστεύουσιν):
The present participle πιστεύουσιν ("believe") emphasizes continuous action in the Greek, suggesting that believing in His name is not a one-time act, but an ongoing, living faith. This counters the idea of a singular, "automatic" event of sonship. The verse does not imply that merely believing once secures one's status as a child of God.

The Term "Power" or "Right" (ἐξουσίαν):
The word ἐξουσίαν is crucial here. It means "authority," "right," or "power." It indicates the potential or privilege to become a child of God, not that the person is automatically made a child of God simply by believing. This word suggests there is more to becoming a son of God than the initial belief—there is a granting of authority, which involves a process of becoming.

"To Become" (γενέσθαι):
The verb γενέσθαι ("to become") is aorist infinitive, which indicates that "becoming" a child of God is something granted but not yet fully realized. It suggests a transition from potential to actuality, implying that one is given the potential, or the right, but it is not necessarily an automatic result of belief alone.

Syntactical Flow:
The verse presents a progression:

First: There is the receiving of Christ.
Second: Those who receive Him are granted the right to become children of God.
Third: This right is given to those who are continually believing in His name.
The structure shows that "receiving" and "believing" are conditions for obtaining the authority to become God's children. However, it does not state that belief alone automatically results in sonship. Instead, it speaks of the right to become something, suggesting an ongoing transformation or process beyond the initial faith.




John 1:12 provides the framework for becoming children of God through receiving Christ and continuing to believe in His name. The grammar and syntax emphasize that sonship is granted as a right or authority, not an automatic outcome of belief. To interpret this as immediate or unconditional transformation into sons of God stretches beyond the text's clear meaning. Instead, this verse calls for ongoing faith and suggests a process of becoming children of God, which may involve more than a single moment of belief.


1726860126357.png

Subtle, but I concur with you @RedFan. Definitely a stretch.
J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
20,294
8,121
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
The next time someone tells you that the Bible is full of mistakes,

The next time someone tells me that the word of God is filled with mistakes, i know that im listening to a minister of the Devil.

See, the first being who ever tried to cast DOUBT on the word of God, was Satan, in the Garden.

He said of God's word.....>>"did God really say that, .. is that what he Meant".....

See that?
That is... "let me show you my interpretation"....or.. "now in the originals what it says is"......

And the Devil's owned, do that today.........every time they try to cast doubt on the Bible.

See, that work, is the Devil's ministry, and they are certainly working hard for their master.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The next time someone tells me that the word of God is filled with mistakes, i know that im listening to a minister of the Devil.
Has anyone actually told you that the word of God is filled with mistakes? Or just that "the Bible" -- that wonderful compilation of writings on your shelf -- is filled with mistakes due to human rather than divine error? (You do recognize the difference, don't you?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ProDeo and Johann
J

Johann

Guest
Has anyone actually told you that the word of God is filled with mistakes? Or just that "the Bible" -- that wonderful compilation of writings on your shelf -- is filled with mistakes due to human rather than divine error? (You do recognize the difference, don't you?)
Be prepared for an onslaught!
J.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: St. SteVen

IndianaRob

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2023
931
261
63
54
Louisville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You mean not right or true in the original, correct?
No I mean right or true period.
Has anyone actually told you that the word of God is filled with mistakes? Or just that "the Bible" -- that wonderful compilation of writings on your shelf -- is filled with mistakes due to human rather than divine error? (You do recognize the difference, don't you?)
Where do you get the idea that God can’t inspire a translator to translate his word correctly?
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No I mean right or true period.

Where do you get the idea that God can’t inspire a translator to translate his word correctly?
Oh, I have no such idea that He can't. But that's a far cry from saying He did. The evidence just isn't there, my friend. Here is what you should think about when considering translations, straight from the foremost textual critic of the last century, Bruce Metzger:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Johann