The NT manuscripts are full of mistakes
- Thread starter KUWN
- Start date
-
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 said:
"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?"
Perhaps someone here would be willing to define "inspire." Since there are mistakes in the Greek manuscripts, including the TR, what exactly do you mean by "inspire." Does that mean "without error"? Just wondering.
Yes it means without error. Inspired would mean holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
I’ve been reading and debating the supposed errors for twenty years.
There are several ways to define "inspire." One of them is surely "without error," although I wouldn't adopt that one myself -- at least not if factual as opposed to theological errors are included.
Over a century ago William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience, noted that "if our theory of revelation-value were to affirm that any book, to possess it, must have been composed automatically or not by the free caprice of the writer, or that it must exhibit no scientific and historic errors and express no local or personal passions, the Bible would probably fare ill at our hands. But if, on the other hand, our theory should allow that a book may well be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crises of their faith, then the verdict would be much more favorable. You see that the existential facts by themselves are insufficient for determining the value; and the best adepts of the higher criticism accordingly never confound the existential with the spiritual problem."
I'm envious. I've been doing the same for fifty years, and I have reached the opposite conclusion from you on the subject of inerrancy.
I've studied lots of English translations, the Latin Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus, as well as quotes of Scripture in the Early Church Fathers.
Hello,
Can I humbly suggest that the "original" NT manuscripts are not full of mistakes but that the translations all present many conceptual context errors in the respective English translations that we use.
Wherever possible I go back and look at how the Greek text was translated to see if the context has been changed between the original NT manuscripts and what is presented as the "best" translation. All of our translations fail us miserably.
Can I humbly suggest that the "original" NT manuscripts are not full of mistakes but that the translations all present many conceptual context errors in the respective English translations that we use.
Wherever possible I go back and look at how the Greek text was translated to see if the context has been changed between the original NT manuscripts and what is presented as the "best" translation. All of our translations fail us miserably.
I never got into that too much. I started out reading an NIV and then went to the KJV.
Are you referring to the LXX and as far as I can tell we have no original manuscripts, but copies of copies.
So to sum this up-
We do not have the original manuscripts (also called autographs) of any biblical texts. The earliest biblical writings were composed thousands of years ago on materials like papyrus and parchment, which have long since deteriorated. What we do have are thousands of copies (manuscripts) that were meticulously handwritten and passed down through the centuries.
Here are some important points to understand:
Old Testament Manuscripts:
The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was preserved through copies made by scribes, particularly the Masoretes (around the 7th-10th centuries AD), whose meticulous copying practices ensured accuracy. The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in the 1940s) are some of the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, dating back to around 200 BC – 100 AD, and they align remarkably well with later Masoretic texts.
New Testament Manuscripts:
We also do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, but we do have thousands of Greek manuscripts, some dating as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are among the oldest complete copies, dating back to the 4th century AD. Over 5,000 Greek manuscripts exist, along with thousands more in Latin and other ancient languages, providing a robust textual tradition.
Textual Variants:
Since the manuscripts were copied by hand, there are textual variants—differences between manuscripts. However, most of these variants are minor, such as spelling differences or word order. Only a small percentage of the variants affect meaning, and even fewer have any theological significance.
Textual Criticism:
Scholars use a process called textual criticism to compare the many surviving manuscripts, aiming to reconstruct the original text as accurately as possible. This has led to modern Bible translations that reflect the original content with high confidence, despite the lack of the autographs.
Correct?
J.
Hi Jay,
Let me ask you a clarifying question for my own good. When you suggest that the NT manuscripts are not full of mistakes, how does that relate to the 400,000 to 500,000 variants among all the Greek manuscripts?
I’m sure you understand the originals are long gone, all that’s left are copies of copies which may or may not be inspired.
Behold
Well-Known Member
You are really too far "left"
The Large Number of Variants:
Scholars estimate that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 textual variants among the 5,800+ existing Greek New Testament manuscripts. This number might seem alarming at first, but it must be viewed in the context of:
The sheer number of manuscripts we have. The NT is the most widely copied and preserved document from antiquity.
Many variants are insignificant, such as differences in spelling, word order, or grammatical nuances that don't affect meaning.
The Nature of Variants:
The vast majority of these textual variants are inconsequential:
Spelling Differences: Some variants involve changes in spelling that don’t affect the meaning of the text.
Word Order: Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning the word order can change without altering the meaning of a sentence. Many variants involve different word orders that don’t affect interpretation.
Synonyms or Minor Phrasing: Other variants involve synonyms or slight variations in phrasing that don’t change the core meaning of the passage.
Only a small percentage of the variants (less than 1%) have any significant effect on meaning, and even fewer affect theological doctrines. Importantly, no core Christian doctrine is based on a questionable text.
The large number of variants is a result of the huge number of manuscripts we have—far more than any other ancient text. If we only had a few manuscripts, there would be fewer variants, but we'd also have much less confidence in the accuracy of the text. The abundance of manuscripts allows scholars to compare them and get very close to the original wording.
Textual Criticism:
The discipline of textual criticism allows scholars to evaluate the variants by comparing manuscripts and understanding which readings are more likely original. This method has been highly successful in reconstructing the NT text with great confidence. While there are some passages where uncertainty remains (e.g., the ending of Mark 16 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11), these are well-known and usually marked in modern Bible translations.
While the number of variants may seem overwhelming, it doesn’t imply that the NT is full of mistakes or unreliable. The overwhelming majority of these differences are trivial, and the massive number of manuscripts actually enhances our ability to accurately reconstruct the original text. Thus, the integrity of the New Testament remains strong despite the existence of textual variants.
Core doctrines still intact, thank you very much and to all those who would want to object.
J.
Behold
Well-Known Member
There are about 30 "extant" K.Grk Manuscripts.. (fully completed NT).
About 4, are not corrupted.
Corruption found in text is man made, same as Religion.
Scripture is God Breathed.
The reason for so many bible versions is to sell them and make money.
That's Job 1.
Job 2, is to create slanted, truth impoverished, "versions" that omit, delete and redefine doctrine, as false doctrine is what creates chaos, cults, and perversion of Truth.
Behold
Well-Known Member
I have found that I need to dig deeper than the KJV, and indeed than any English translation, to see where they found their base. I'll give you an example:
Gen. 2:2a in the Masoretic Text – which was followed by the KJV -- states that God completed His work on the seventh day, while the Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX has Him completing work on the sixth day. Whether these earlier sources substituted “sixth” in order to resolve the obvious problem of God completing his work on the day of rest; or whether their sources originally had “seventh” as in the MT and it was the translator who made the obvious change from “seventh” to “sixth,” we cannot tell. But to blindly accept the Masoretic Text (and thus the KJV) on this verse without considering these other sources just strikes me as silly. The MT and the KJV have nothing to commend their translation in the face of these other more ancient sources.
This type of thing is true with literally hundreds of verses. I urge you to read the Bruce Metzger article that I posted earlier today.
Similar threads
