Translations, Versions, & Opinions - Page 3 - Christian Forum - Bible Forum - Christian Religion Bible Study Forum

Burgon'sGhost · #51 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 01:34 AM

For those wondering about the 100+ years before the oldest copies (Peshitto, etc.) I refer you to the early church "fathers/historians" ... ie. Clement, Justin, et.al. who via 86,000 quotes can reproduce the NT to within 15-20 verses as I articulated before. Since Clement lived from 30-100AD, and 150-100 years = 50 AD, this places his writings in full consistency with my proposed timeline. COnsider also the writings of Ignatius (c. 50-110) as he quotes scripture also. How one can say these numbers subtract back to before our Lord's death (< 33AD) or birth (~0AD) is beyond me!

v/r

BG

Don Gelles · #52 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgon'sGhost

Don,

I would not venture that far. At some point in time the churches(congregations) accepted a body of work (i.e. the first compiled NT "received text") from all the letters that were to be read according to the Holy Spirit via Paul. That body of work is in my view, the traditional text, i.e. that used by the first century church and beyond. That text also was manifested in multiple languages being copied directly from the originals(or first copies ~100-150AD) ... most tend to view the TR as a derivative from late MSS. If so, then I would disagree that the TR is not the RT necessarily, but one would need to compare it with the ancient Bibles and other writings(in Greek, Latin, and other languages ... see previous post). However it should be noted that late MSS do not necessitate a bad archetype or derived text. Unfortunately, many confuse the "received text" with that of the Catholic Church .. i.e. that which they "ordained/received supposedly from the first Pope". Also, even Scrivener and Burgon longed for the day when the scribal errors in the TR would be corrected ... i.e. what was to take place in 1881 by the Revision Committee. This would bring the TR to the level of the most accurate text to the TT in their time. Thus in that light, any text bearing such qualities, would be a copy of the true traditional text and for the TR ... if the shoe fits ... so be it.

v/r

BG

Interesting Ghost and some food for thought. So, based on what you are saying the Dean Burgon Society advocate KJV only because they hold the TR to be a good copy?

Don Gelles · #53 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgon'sGhost

Oh my dear Abdullah. Who has bewitched you with false precepts and incorrect chronology. Let's take a brief look at the dates of these "oldest" Uncials. Even according to these questionable scholars you supposedly quote, no one in history has ever dated Codex B earlier than 300AD. Codex Aleph and A follow from about 350-400AD. Now if we do some not so complicated math, we will see that assuming the best case for the WH theorists of 300AD for the corrupt B, then 150 years before would transport back to 150AD. This places us in the time frame of the Peshitto, Old Latin Vulgate, et.al. (150-175AD) which are the oldest copies of the NT we have today. I could also dare to be so forward to list the (Italic Bible 157AD, Waldensian Bible 120-200AD, Gallic Bible AD177) and even the Gothic Bible (300-320AD) all which predate the infamous Codex "Celebrated Uncial" B. The Peshitto agrees with the traditional text, only deviating in a few instances owing to the usual scribal errors .. easily
rectified by comparing with a body of texts .. not just one like W&H did with B. Our Lord said "Go ye into all the World" .. and they did in every language under the sun. Amen. To rely solely on one or two Greek manuscripts to generate any text of the NT is haphazard to say the least. To ignore the total body of evidence, including Bibles derived straight from the Aramaic which Jesus spoke is ridiculous.

With that said, who are "Most scholars" that would disagree. Cite them or forever be silent in the matter. Even the late Nestle and Aland have sided with me against this fallacy of the "Old Uncials" being the most ancient and reliable. As to your comment about the lack of variations in Codices Aleph and B, having read from the only human in existence to every collate all five "old/great" Uncials (none other then Dean Burgon), and having read from two of the five myself, ... well do not listen to us, listen to other collators/authors describing these two "great" codices ...

Philip Mauro writes in True or False: “In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words, has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words...Codex Vaticanus differs from the Received Text in the following particulars: It omits at least 2,877 words; it adds 536 words; it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies 1,132; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergences. But the Sinaitic Ms. is even worse, for its total divergences in the particulars stated above amount to nearly nine thousand.”

But we are not done with the testimony...

Herman C. Hoskier writes in Codex B and its Allies: “In the Gospels alone, B and Aleph differ over 3,000 times without considering minor errors such as spelling.”

If these are our best ... I would hate to peer at our worst!

Now for discussion of your last paragraph. To answer the question .. No. It matches the traditional text received by the early church. Now to defend the TR some what, why is it always assumed that texts derived from late MSS are corrupt relative to the original autographs? Does lateness necessitate inaccuracy? That is like saying the truest sermons are only spoken in the oldest cathedrals! Of course we have just learned that your "oldest" argument is devoid of fact or rational reasoning when compared to archaeological evidence.

As for Burgon's qualifications and intentions, you had better stick to debating me as his ghost is much more patient with those questioning the accuracy of the Word. Burgon did not believe in KJV only. He believed in a traditional text which was plenary, error-free and finalized before 100AD. He further believed it had been transmitted faithfully and without error down through the centuries via multiple branches, including but not limited to, other languages besides Greek and Latin. The TR was the closest to the TT by far compared to any other Greek text of that day. Do not be so bold as to place words in the mouth of one much greater than any scholar in modern time, i.e. I would read someone's works entirely and 3 times over before making such accusations.

An still today, Burgon's questions to B. Ellicott remain unanswered.

BG

I'm curious Ghost, have you read Lightfoot's book "How We Got The Bible" as well as FF Bruce's The "New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?" Both take a vastly different approach from what you say above and present the scholarship to back it up. It seems we have a "My scholar can beat up your scholar" debate going on in the Textual Criticism community.

I will concede, as I begin to study what you have presented, that I can see the logic in the textual evidence you present as holding some merit in regards to the "early dates" of some of the texts you site. You seem to be making the same argument that I did for the Nestle-Aland Greek Text because of it's use of "vast manuscripts and early date fragments" in it's translation.

Curious In Austin,
Donald

BVidlar · #54 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 08:42 PM

Your thoughts remind me of what the prophet Isaiah said:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Is. 55:9-11). ESV.

Steven Rasberry · #55 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 08:47 PM

To add a bit more, hummm, to this. Please keep in mind that some in the church were given the ability to speak in a different language. From the start, the ability to communicate God's Word in various languages was a priority for the church and was the will of God. As those that had the ability died out it makes sense to see that they needed to translate it into other languages, not only Greek, so it could be possibly, even likely that there were many texts that could be older than the Greek texts we have, that are not even in Greek.

BVidlar · #56 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVidlar

Your thoughts remind me of what the prophet Isaiah said:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Is. 55:9-11). ESV.

Opps, never mind, I was responding to Don’s post on page 2. Carry on gentlemen…I am a bit behind here.

Burgon'sGhost · #57 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Gelles

Interesting Ghost and some food for thought. So, based on what you are saying the Dean Burgon Society advocate KJV only because they hold the TR to be a good copy?

Don,

I would venture to say, my opinion so as not to speak for the dead, that Dean Burgon would not be a member of the Dean Burgon Society. Dr. Waite and the like have gone to the ridiculous by asserting that the TR document (i can only assume Erasmus' version) is actually inspired "literally", i.e. the Holy Spirit miraculously guided then KJV scholars. Such is wild conjecture to say the least. In my view they have taken a document, better than most but needing some revisions, and elevated it to the point that no one else could go to the ancient copies, reproduce the NT from them, without committing sacrilege because such an action/version was not "authorized".

v/r

BG

Don Gelles · #58 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgon'sGhost

Don,

I would venture to say, my opinion so as not to speak for the dead, that Dean Burgon would not be a member of the Dean Burgon Society. Dr. Waite and the like have gone to the ridiculous by asserting that the TR document (i can only assume Erasmus' version) is actually inspired "literally", i.e. the Holy Spirit miraculously guided then KJV scholars. Such is wild conjecture to say the least. In my view they have taken a document, better than most but needing some revisions, and elevated it to the point that no one else could go to the ancient copies, reproduce the NT from them, without committing sacrilege because such an action/version was not "authorized".

v/r

BG

Well.... if you are willing to differ with the D.B.S then you just gained some huge points in my book. You just might work your way up from a Ghost to a Spirit!

Based on your name (choosing a good screen name is important. Hint- just use your real name) you lead people to believe that you are part of the D.B.S and advocating their stance that the KJV fell from heaven. If you visit their site you will find them saying that they "SPEAK FOR HIM". I had you pegged as a KJV only guy that had come here to correct all of us misguided NASB and ASV folks and bring us back to the "IKJV" (Inspired King James Version).

Hmmmmmmmm perhaps the force is strong with this one after all......... Steven, do you sense anything with the force?

Don Gelles · #59 (**permalink**) 10-07-08, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVidlar

Your thoughts remind me of what the prophet Isaiah said:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Is. 55:9-11). ESV.

Agreed my friend!

Steven Rasberry · #60 (**permalink**) 10-08-08, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Gelles

Well.... if you are willing to differ with the D.B.S then you just gained some huge points in my book. You just might work your way up from a Ghost to a Spirit!

Based on your name (choosing a good screen name is important. Hint- just use your real name) you lead people to believe that you are part of the D.B.S and advocating their stance that the KJV fell from heaven. If you visit their site you will find them saying that they "SPEAK FOR HIM". I had you pegged as a KJV only guy that had come here to correct all of us misguided NASB and ASV folks and bring us back to the "IKJV" (Inspired King James Version).

Hmmmmmmmm perhaps the force is strong with this one after all......... Steven, do you sense anything with the force?

yes....yes...I have been reading carefully...

yoda voice....."yes, from this one..know more I would like"

Steven Rasberry · #61 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

Who is "we"? There are only a handful of Christians that use the TR as a base of their religion.

On top of that, the TR is not Patristic based. The six (mind you: only six)textual base that Erasmus used, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4, 7, and 817, are very late Byzantine. Not only do they not contain the entire NT, but date from the 12th and 13th centuries CE. That's nearly 1,000 years after the oldest texts we have. Such as p52, p75, p90, p98, or p104. That is why the TR is recent.

As for it's inaccuracy? Well, it's common knowledge that Erasmus, fueled by money and production pressure in competition against the Hexapla, spit out the TR in just a year. Unedited, and riddled with errors. It is also common knowledge that the portions of the NT which he did not have access to, he back-translated into Greek, from Latin translations.

On top of that, the year 1,000 is quite aways away from the year 100. Anyone familiar with 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4, 7, and 817 know just how drastically they differ with the most ancient MSS. As of course, not only counting their usage, location, and comparison to ALL texts as a whole, one must also realise that the older the MSS, the closer it is to the autograph...

Hope this helps...

I am not talking about what men translated but the numerous copies in the Greek that are available for men to refer to, to write the Word into the English language.

Steven Rasberry · #62 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

The original language of the NT is Greek. The original language of the OT is Hebrew. All other languages are translations of such. To draw off of these translations with authority is illogical. Say, you want a copy of Shakespeare. Would you want to obtain a Japanese version? Or the original English? Which would you think logic would dictate to be more accurate?

As for the monkey? You should really see a doctor about that one....

So if the Greek texts got burned up in a fire, we would not be able to obey the Word in the English bible, the one we learn from ourselves?

Think about what you just said. You just said you cannot trust your own bible my friend.

Of course we must adhere to the original language if possible but the Word can be translated just as trust worthy into another language just as much as the apostles preached in the language of those in their presence in Acts 2.

Steven Rasberry · #63 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

Well.... I wouldn't say just agree with anything in it and forsake all reason.

Nor would I say that every word in there is directly inspired by God. I mean, sometimes I read the newspaper, or watch a movie, and I see things that are "inspired of God" in there. But there are still imperfections in anything that man sets out to do. The Bible is one of them. Anyone who begins a little Greek, Hebrew, or Textual Criticism work, can instantly see that the Bible is far from perfect.

Does this mean that the Bible is garbage? Of course not. Does this mean people cannot trust the Bible? Or course not. I know great people who are not perfect. That does not mean I should disregard them completely.

There are indeed differences in the text. Many, people argue are insignificant. Perhaps. But you can't go by numbers alone. Even a small percent can change a lot. I once did a study on the usage of the word "Jesus" in the Bible. The word "Jesus" accounted for .001% So, if you changed the word "Jesus" to "Muhammad", it would only make the Bible .001% in error. But tell me, wouldn't that change the Bible a great deal?

Abdullah, This is just about one of the most sad posts I have ever read.

You know so much to understand so little about the Word of God.

To even suggest the Word of God is on par with a newspaper is blasphemy. That excuse is not going to fly very far before God in the last day.

Steven Rasberry · #64 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

My Bible? My Bible's not in English. My Bible is actually in Greek and Hebrew. Novum Testamentum Graeca, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (et Quinta)[ie: Torah, Nevi'im, w'CH'tuvim], Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. It is printed copies of the source of Christian Scripture. With apparati critici comparing 10's of thousands of different MSS and papyri fragments.

I disagree that the Bible can be translated directly. Anyone who knows at least two languages knows that it is impossible to full translate a word or concept into another language. This is especially so with Semitic dialects. On top of that, I have read probably every English translation ever put out, and translations in a half a dozen other languages. They are all different. And many, at least I can tell in English translations, are altered to suit church/customer's needs. Maybe not a lot. But there are alterations. Ones that I certainly do not agree with.

Indeed, there are a few texts we have, which we no longer have the Greek to. Such as much contained in the Nag Hammadi library. All that remains is Coptic translations of the Greek. However, we do have to make due with what we have. If we had lost all the Greek, and only had translations left, that would be sad. Much would be lost. The Bible would change further....

To me, the Bible....rather, I should say Jesus' message was Love. You can say that in any language, without even opening your mouth. As for the text? That's another story....

The bible I use is from the same, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. So you think God gave us a unknowable gospel and doctrine of righteousness?

Are you saying that anyone can believe anything they want then and do whatever they want and still call themselves a Christian since the Word is not really the Word but just some words about a so called God?

Is God even really God then? Is God just a symbolic concept to teach some ideal and not really the Omnipotent divine ruler of the universe?

Don Gelles · #65 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 11:23 PM

Side Note: for those of you "playing along at home" don't panic. You can find the date of a fragment by simply typing in "dating the fragments". There are lots of lists for you to choose from. A sample list in found below. Or, if you know the name of the fragment: (example p45) then simply type that it in and you will get more info than you want.

So don't panic, you too can "date the fragments".

110/117-125/138 A.D.

p52 (=John Rylands papyrus)

John 18:31-33, reverse 18:37-38 -4 verses

100-150 A.D.

p104

Matthew 21:34-37,43,45(?) -5.5 verses

100-150 A.D.

p46 (=Chester Beatty II)

70% of Paul and Hebrews -1,680 verses

c.125 A.D.

p87 - handwriting like p46.

Phm 13-15,24 (part),25b with gaps -4 verses

2nd century

Magdalen papyri

Mt 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33 -10 verses

100/125-150/175 A.D.

p66(=Bodmer II) p14/15,p75

92% of the Gospel of John -808.5 verses

125-150 A.D.

p64, p67 (same manuscript)

(p67) Mt 3:9,15; 5:20-22,25-28 -19 verses

(p64) Mt 26:7-8,10,14-15,22-23,31-33

Early to mid 2nd century

p4 - handwriting like p64, p67

Luke 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1,6-7, etc. -95 verses

c.170 A.D.

Uncial 0212

Diatessaron pieces: Mt 27; Mk15; Lk23; Jn19

c.175 A.D.

p90

John 18:36-19:7 -12 verses

177 A.D.
- 97% (855/878) of the Gospel of John, 70% of Paul and Hebrews (persecution of Aurelius)

2nd century

p98

Revelation 1:13-2:1 -9 verses

Mid to Late 2nd century

p77 and p103

Mt 23:30-39; Mt 13:55-57; 14:3-5 -16 verses

150-200 A.D.

p32

Titus 1:1-15; 2:3-8 -21 verses

c.200 A.D.

p1

Matthew 1:1-9,12,14-20; 2:14? -16.5 verses

ca.200 A.D.

p23 Urbana

James 1:10-12, 15-18 -7 verses

Late 2nd / early 3rd century

p38

Acts 18:27-19:6, 12-16 -13 verses

Late 2nd / early 3rd century

Uncial 0189

Acts 5:3-21 -18 verses

200-225 A.D.

p29

Acts 26:7-8, 20 -3 verses

200-225 A.D.

p45 (= Chester Beatty I)

Verses: Mt 71 (7%), Mk 147 (22%), Lk 242 (21%), Jn 84 (10%), Ac 289 (29%) -833 verses

Early 3rd century

p5

John 1:23-31,33-40; 16:14-30, etc. -47 verses

Early 3rd century

p30

1 Thess 4:12-13,16-17 etc., 2 Thess. -25 verses

200-250 A.D

p39

John 8:14-22 -9 verses

225-250 A.D.

p13

Heb 2:14-5:5;10:8-22,29-11:13,etc.-110 verses

3rd century

p9

1 John 4:11-12, 14-17 -9 verses

3rd century

p20

James 2:19-3:2; (part of 3:3); 3:4-9 -16 verses

3rd century

p40

Rom 1:24-27;1:31-2:3;3:21-4:8, etc. -36 verses

c.250 A.D.

p22

John 15:25-16:2; 16:21-32 -17 verses

250-6/251 A.D. Severe Persecution by the Emperor Decius across the entire Roman Empire

3rd century

p27

Rom 8:12-22,24-27; 8:33-9:3; 9:5-9 -30 verses

3rd century

p28

John 6:8-12, 17-22 -11 verses

3rd century

p35

Matthew 25:12-15,20-23 -8 verses

3rd century

Papyrus Antinoopolis 2.54

Mt 6:10-12 (part of the Lord’s prayer)-3 verses

Mid 3rd century

p37

Matthew 26:19-52 -34 verses

Mid 3rd century

p49 + p65

Ephesians 4:16-29; 4:31-5:13 - 29 verses

Mid 3rd Century

p80

Jn 3:34 -1 verse

Mid 3rd century

p91

Acts 2:30-37; 2:46-3:2 -12 verses

3rd century

p69

Luke 22:40, 45-48, 58-61. -9 verses

3rd century

p70, p101

Mt 2:13-16; 2:22-3:1; 11:26-27, etc. -19 verses

3rd century

p95

Jn 5:26-29,36-38 -7 verses

250-300 A.D.

p47 (=Chester Beatty III)

31% of Revelation 9:10-11:3, etc. -125 verses

Mid/Late 3rd century

p18

Rev 1:4-7 4 verses

c.260 A.D.

p53

Mt 26:29-40; Acts 9:33-38,4010:1 -23 verses

285-300 A.D.

p12

Hebrews 1:1 -1 verse

Late 3rd century

p15

1 Corinthians 7:18-8:4 -27 verses

Late 3rd century

p16

Philippians 3:10-17; 4:2-8 -15 verses

Late 3rd century

p17

Hebrews 2:12-19 -8 verses

Persecution During Diocletian’s Reign (284-305 A.D.)

284-305 A.D.

p50 (P. Yale 1543)

Acts 8:26-32; 10:26-31 -13 verses

c.300 A.D.

p72

1Pet1:1-5:14;2Pet1:1-3:18;Jde1-25 -191 verses

ca.300 A.D.

p24

Rev 5:5-8; 6:5-8 -8 verses

ca.300 A.D.

p78

Jude 4-5,7-8 -4 verses

ca.300 A.D.

p92

Eph 1:11-13,19-21; 2 Th 1:4-5,11-12-10 verses

ca.300 A.D.

p102

Mt 4:11-12,22-25 -6 verses

ca.300 A.D.

Uncial 0162

Jn 2:11-22 -12 verses

ca.300 A.D.

Uncial 0171

Mt 10:17-23,25-32; Lk 22:44-50,52-56,61,63-64

-30 verses

ca.300 A.D.

Uncial 0220

Rom 4:23-5:3; 5:8-13 -12 verses

ca.300 A.D.

Uncial 0232

2 Jn 1-9 -9 verses

Steven Rasberry · #66 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

Well, the answer to these questions is up to the individual. There are no factual answers to them. Except perhaps to what a "Christian" is. I would think that a Christian is one that followed what Christ taught. But so few "Christians" seem to....

But according to you, why even trust Jesus even existed. Was He just a symbolic character like in a fictional novel?

Please go into more detail to the questions I asked before and in this post. It will help me understand you more.

Don Gelles · #67 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

Say, you want a copy of Shakespeare. Would you want to obtain a Japanese version? Or the original English? Which would you think logic would dictate to be more accurate?

Well it would depend.

Since all of the original works of Shakespeare have been lost and all we have are copies of his work, if the Japanese copy is removed from the original by 100 years and the English version is removed from the original by 500 years, I would lean toward the Japanese translation in my quest to get as close to the original as I can. Yet, if it could be proved that the J-Version was made from a corrupted source, then I would evaluate the E-version and it's validity even though it is removed from the original by 400 more years than the J-Version.

This is what is at the heart of TC.

Don Gelles · #68 (**permalink**) 10-09-08, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

My Bible? My Bible's not in English. My Bible is actually in Greek... Novum Testamentum Graeca,....

Original Post Edited to focus on the Greek Translation (DLG)

I as well enjoy the Nestle-Aland Greek Translation mentioned above.