The NT manuscripts are full of mistakes

[KUWN]

I am so sorry Lizbeth but I haven't kept up with NT Translations, I use the Greek NT (CT). I use the NET Bible for the OT. Below is a link to Dan Wallace's information on various Translations. I use to work for Dan and he is a great resource for information.

Which Translation is Best? - Daniel Wallace | Free Online Bible

This lecture evaluates popular translations of the Bible in terms of their textual basis. The bottom line is that while all translations are interpretations,

www.biblicaltraining.org

 

[Lizbeth]

I am so sorry Lizbeth but I haven't kept up with NT Translations, I use the Greek NT (CT). I use the NET Bible for the OT. Below is a link to Dan Wallace's information on various Translations. I use to work for Dan and he is a great resource for information.

Which Translation is Best? - Daniel Wallace | Free Online Bible

This lecture evaluates popular translations of the Bible in terms of their textual basis. The bottom line is that while all translations are interpretations,

www.biblicaltraining.org

ok, no problem. Thanks.

 

[Jay Ross]

I have to ask you what secondary sources you are using-only Strongs?

I use PC Study Bible, the One Touch Version. It has a number of commentaries and dictionaries.

But basically, I often find that the HS prompts me to dig deeper into the text.

I am told by the "Pastor" where I worship, that he will not accept a translation or changed paraphrasing of the scriptures that is sourced from just one person but is happy to accept translations and paraphrasing that have been generated through a "committee of 'scholars'."

I know that a committee of "learned" people can make just as many mistakes in translating the source texts available as any one person working by himself.

Sadly, he believes that Abraham, before he was called by God, worshipped idols based on one verse from Jousha 24:2 which reads thus: -

And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the River in old times; and they served other gods.​

but I have come to the conclusion that he has a reading comprehension issue as the mention of Abraham and Nahor is included in that verse to positively identify which Terah, Joshua was referring to, and not to the fact that Abraham and Nahor also worshipped idols. The scriptures indicate that Nahor's children may have worshipped idols, but I do not believe that the scriptures actually tells us that he worshipped idols.

I am happiest when people are able to correct my misunderstanding as I can learn from them and grow in my understanding.

Shalom

 

[Johann]

I use PC Study Bible, the One Touch Version. It has a number of commentaries and dictionaries.

But basically, I often find that the HS prompts me to dig deeper into the text.

I am told by the "Pastor" where I worship, that he will not accept a translation or changed paraphrasing of the scriptures that is sourced from just one person but is happy to accept translations and paraphrasing that have been generated through a "committee of 'scholars'."

I know that a committee of "learned" people can make just as many mistakes in translating the source texts available as any one person working by himself.

Sadly, he believes that Abraham, before he was called by God, worshipped idols based on one verse from Jousha 24:2 which reads thus: -

And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the River in old times; and they served other gods.​

but I have come to the conclusion that he has a reading comprehension issue as the mention of Abraham and Nahor is included in that verse to positively identify which Terah, Joshua was referring to, and not to the fact that Abraham and Nahor also worshipped idols. The scriptures indicate that Nahor's children may have worshipped idols, but I do not believe that the scriptures actually tells us that he worshipped idols.

I am happiest when people are able to correct my misunderstanding as I can learn from them and grow in my understanding.

Shalom

I’m just being very cautious-one moment we may be on the same page, and the next everything could fall apart.

Like the verse you've quoted re Avraham-

Jos 24:1 And Yehoshua gathered Kol Shivtei Yisroel to Shechem, and called for the Ziknei Yisroel, and for their Rashim, and for their shofetim, and for their shoterim; and they presented themselves before HaElohim.
Jos 24:2 And Yehoshua said unto Kol HaAm, Thus saith Hashem Elohei Yisroel, Avoteichem dwelt on the other side of the [Euphrates] River long ago, even Terach, Avi Avraham, and Avi Nachor: and they served elohim acherim.
Jos 24:3 But I took Avichem Avraham from the other side of the [Euphrates] River, and led him through Kol Eretz Kena'an, and multiplied his zera, and gave him Yitzchak.
Jos 24:4 And I gave unto Yitzchak Ya'akov and Esav; and I gave unto Esav Mt Seir, to possess it; but Ya'akov and his banim went down into Mitzrayim.
Jos 24:5 I sent Moshe also and Aharon, and I plagued Mitzrayim, according to that which I did among them; and afterward I brought you out.
OJB.

--They served other gods - Possibly the “images,” or teraphim, which we find their ancestor Laban calling “his gods” (see the marginal reference); and of which it would seem that there were, as Joshua spoke, some secret devotees among the people Jos_24:14, Jos_24:25. It is not stated that Abraham himself was an idolater, though his fathers were. Jewish tradition asserts that Abraham while in Ur of the Chaldees was persecuted for his abhorrence of idolatry, and hence, was called away by God from his native land. The reference in the text to the original state of those who were the forefathers of the nation, is made to show that they were no better than others: God chose them not for their excellences but of His own mere motion.

Shalom.
Johann.

 

[Jay Ross]

I’m just being very cautious-one moment we may be on the same page, and the next everything could fall apart.

Yes, I know what you mean. Going by your comments re Abraham, it seems that we agree that he was not an idol worshipper.

Shalom

 

[ChristinaL]

This provides an excellent illustration for those interested:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt ...
...snip...
... and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

People are often times in fearful shock with I inform them that the Greek manuscripts that preserve the New Testament have over 400,000 variants. The above paragraph well illustrates what is at stake with variants. Does anyone have a difficult time understanding the above paragraph? If not, you will find the Greek manuscripts a breath of fresh air compared to the above paragraph. At a quick glance, I count 69 words in the above paragraph with 34 variants or errors in spelling. But what is at stake? What can be disputed?

What is comforting with the 400,000 variants in the manuscripts that support the New Testament is this: what are the odds of finding one more manuscript that will alter the meaning of the existing New Testament. That is, we already have over 5,700 Greek manuscripts, and comparing these to each other, there are over 400,000 variants; what would be the odds of finding a new Greek manuscript (written back in the first century) that will significantly alter the meaning of the Bible. In fact, as we find more and more Greek manuscripts, the number of variants goes up and up, and yet despite all this, the ability to piece together what the original New Testament said becomes EASIER AND EASIER.

Assume the jumbled paragraph above is a copy of an original paragraph, and we wanted to determine what the original paragraph actually said. With just this one copy we can get pretty close. But if we were to find another paragraph written with such atrocities, we would at least have another source to compare it to in determining what the original paragraph actually said. If we were to find 5,000 such poorly written paragraphs, we could with relative certainty reproduce the original document.

The next time someone tells you that the Bible is full of mistakes, you better thank your lucky stars that that is indeed the truth, for without that very fact we would be at a loss in reconstructing the original New Testament. It is this unusual fact that gives evidence to a supernatural preservation of the Bible. How? 400,000 errors and not one cardinal doctrine is at stake!

As a side note, I had the opportunity to "talk" (via email) with one of the world's leading critics of our New Testament, Dr. Bart Ehrman of Duke Divinity School. In his own words, although with much reluctance, he conceded that "we can reproduce over 95 percent of what the New Testament originally said." To which Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary adds, "...and not one major doctrine of the Christian faith is at stake within HIS disputed 5 percent." (What Dr. Wallace means by "HIS disputed 5 percent" is that most conservative scholars content that the original New Testament can be reconstructed to within 99.6 percent. As more manuscripts are dug up, that percent will approach 100 percent and beyond.)

By the way, Dan contends we have about 103% of the New Testament. We now need to remove the dross.

Just some thoughts,

The so called 'variants' in NT scripture are nothing more than spelling variations, maybe an unimportant word or phrase being left out. God allows such "errorS' to exist to show that only God is perfect and flawless, not us. As long as the core doctrine isnt changed in any way. Interesting how Ehrman, a non believer himself, can even see this

 

[KUWN]

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?

NET Bible (it has 10's of thousands of notes to help the reader to understand a word or phrase or manuscript issues)

I should add that the NET Bible is online for free.

www.netbible.org

 

[Pearl]

NET Bible (it has 10's of thousands of notes to help the reader to understand a word or phrase or manuscript issues)

I should add that the NET Bible is online for free.

www.netbible.org

I like to have a bible in my hands when I read in my quiet time but the online stuff is okay for quick reference. With a physical bible you can mark or highlight passages which you can't do with an online version.

 

[KUWN]

With a physical bible you can mark or highlight passages which you can't do with an online version.

Pearl, The NET Bible has a Notes section where you can write long notes to yourself regarding a passage. In fact, you are limited to the margins in a physical book, but with notes, you can add as much info as you want. You just have to join. I think it is free.

I do have a physical copy myself.

 

[Pearl]

Pearl, The NET Bible has a Notes section where you can write long notes to yourself regarding a passage. In fact, you are limited to the margins in a physical book, but with notes, you can add as much info as you want. You just have to join. I think it is free.

I do have a physical copy myself.

Can you highlight a passage , like with a coloured marker so that you can find it when you need to.

 

[KUWN]

Can you highlight a passage , like with a coloured marker so that you can find it when you need to.

I just looked at the site and it says that the Free version does not have NOTES. I don't know how much it costs but it would be well worth it. I am pretty sure you can highlight a verse if you buy the NET Bible. Sorry, it's been quite a while ago when I bought the NET Bible. I use the Free version for online usage.

What is strange is I went to the NET Bible .org site and was able to go to a certain passage and put in a note. You might just have to contact them to get the correct information.

 

[Pearl]

I just looked at the site and it says that the Free version does not have NOTES. I don't know how much it costs but it would be well worth it. I am pretty sure you can highlight a verse if you buy the NET Bible. Sorry, it's been quite a while ago when I bought the NET Bible. I use the Free version for online usage.

What is strange is I went to the NEW Bible .org site and was able to go to a certain passage and put in a note. You might just have to contact them to get the correct information.

I make notes in a journal or notebook where I can find them again - even years later. And I used to mark passages with highlighter pens or underlining which I think is more personal. But we all have our own way of doing things and no one way is better than any other.

 

[Behold]

As a side note, I had the opportunity to "talk" (via email) with one of the world's leading critics of our New Testament, Dr. Bart Ehrman of Duke Divinity School.

Just consider the heart condition and the spirituality, of a Man or Woman, whose only Ministry is to be a "leading Critic" of the word of God., the Bible or of Greek Texts, in general.

A Critic, is someone who has appointed themselves as an Authority whose Authority is ABOVE the Subject matter, according to how THEY perceive themselves.

The Devil, is actually THE Leading Critic of the Greek Texts and the Bible..., but He certainly has his minions all over the Internet, and in Pulpits and of course on faculties of "christian" universities... and what do you know..... on "christian" Forums, as well.

I suspect that Dr Bart of DUKE, has some issues with Salvation, (his own) among other things..

 

[ChristinaL]

Just consider the heart condition and the spirituality, of a Man or Woman, whose only Ministry is to be a "leading Critic" of the word of God., the Bible or of Greek Texts, in general.

A Critic, is someone who has appointed themselves as an Authority whose Authority is ABOVE the Subject matter, according to how THEY perceive themselves.

The Devil, is actually THE Leading Critic of the Greek Texts and the Bible..., but He certainly has his minions all over the Internet, and in Pulpits and of course on faculties of "christian" universities... and what do you know..... on "christian" Forums, as well.

I suspect that Dr Bart of DUKE, has some issues with Salvation, (his own) among other things..

I know for a fact Bart Ehrman is not a believer

 

[Behold]

I know for a fact Bart Ehrman is not a believer

So, that begs the question..
Why would someone on this FORUM, be using this unbelievers assault against God, as that is what it really is all about, under the guise of "textual criticism".........as if this forum needs another St Steven v20.


Why would they be doing that if they are truly a Christian?

Why use the DEVIL's Ministers as your proof text, to try to find fault with the bible, if you are "of God" ?

 

[KUWN]

One day, people should discover than man has manipulated the scriptures to justify their own doctrines. The truth can still be found, but not from man. We have to prayerfully seek the Truth from God. Most of the people I know do not seek it from God. Strangely, for no understood reason, they turn to the early church fathers who even disagreed with each other. Once that is discovered, they turn to commentaries from a theologian suited to their chosen denomination.
The truth has to be diligently sought from the only true source.

The Christian college I attended I found this to not be true. Yes we need to prayerfully seek Truth from God. But I have found that this was the belief of those who didn't get very good grades and to me at least, were rather lazy. To understand the word, you need to train yourself to be able to become independent and able to research claims made by others by yourself.

The manipulation of the scriptures happened on rare occasions and such manipulation was easily spotted in the manuscripts. What we have today is the word of God. You are very skeptical which tells me you are not familiar with the manuscript evidence. Many church fathers taught some strange doctrines, but again they can easily be detected.

 

[Spyder]

The Christian college I attended I found this to not be true. Yes we need to prayerfully seek Truth from God. But I have found that this was the belief of those who didn't get very good grades and to me at least, were rather lazy. To understand the word, you need to train yourself to be able to become independent and able to research claims made by others by yourself.

The manipulation of the scriptures happened on rare occasions and such manipulation was easily spotted in the manuscripts. What we have today is the word of God. You are very skeptical which tells me you are not familiar with the manuscript evidence. Many church fathers taught some strange doctrines, but again they can easily be detected.

While you may assume that I am not familiar, but the truth is that I have researched a great deal regarding manuscript evidence - but my conclusions may not agree with yours. It might surprise you to know that my search, over years, in that regard led me to those who are atheists, agnostics, PhD's, and prominent theologians.

Then, to my great relief, I waited on Yahweh for His answer to my prayer for the "truth."

My research led to questions that God answered in a way that cannot be shaken. Those answers upset my Christian walk which I only thought was solid. Then I found what "solid ground" was like. My bachelor's degree is in Scriptural Studies where I learned hermeneutics. Through hermeneutics and prayer to God for truth, my eyes were opened.

It also made me skeptical of those who claim that our bibles in English are reliable as written. They require more examination that most people are willing to perform.

 

[ProDeo]

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?

Like me you must have been reading the book "Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman", someone who lost his faith. Arriving at the chapter of 400,000 to 500,000 variants I stopped reading the book as it is an exaggeration to the power of 10, pure dishonesty. None of those alleged 400,000 to 500,000 variants changes the message. I keep my own list of real discrepancies and they are minor.

 

[KUWN]

Like me you must have been reading the book "Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman", someone who lost his faith. Arriving at the chapter of 400,000 to 500,000 variants I stopped reading the book as it is an exaggeration to the power of 10, pure dishonesty. None of those alleged 400,000 to 500,000 variants changes the message. I keep my own list of real discrepancies and they are minor.

I have read other Ehrman's books but not the one you mention. There are two Bart Ehrmans. One Bart is when he writes a popular book like the one you mention, and the other Bart is when he writes to the scholarly community. Bart is right, there are 400,000 to 500,000 variants, he is not exaggerating to the power of 10. He is not dishonest, but he does write in a sensationalist way to create doubt about the accuracy of the NT.

Bart has said that their is nothing left to do in Textual Criticism except for a little bit of "mopping up." Bart changed after his divorce, he became angry at God. I think that is why he is two people, one when he writes to the popular crowd, and one when he writes to a scholarly crowd. He is not taken serious with the scholarly crown, only the popular crowd.

I wouldn't read his stuff, because he is very smart and knows how to misrepresent the data.

 

[ProDeo]

The NT hasn't even 400,000 words!