Missing Texts?

B.J. · #1 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 10:42 AM

Recently, I have been discussing certain text in the NT that are missing from the earliest manuscripts we have, namely the Johannine Comma (1John5:7-8) and the Adulterous women (John 8:2-11). Does anyone have any insight as how this effects our position on inerrancy, infalliability, etc.,

larryjf · #2 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 11:34 AM

It doesn't affect the position of inerrancy or infallibility.

Inerrancy should only be ascribed to the originals, which don't exist, so it's really a doctrine based less on manuscripts and more on the character of God. Since God can't inspire errant Scriptures we teach that the originals are inerrant. It is God's character, and not manuscript evidence that leads us to this doctrine.

Infallibility, from the Latin: in (not) + fallere (deceive). So the idea of infallibility does not really speak to inerrancy, but rather to the idea that Scripture speaks truth and not falsehood. There is also the idea that Scripture will not fail, but will accomplish its purpose. In either case it does not have to be error-free to be infallible.

The doctrine that i think it does affect is that of preservation.
If the Scripture has been preserved in every generation, and we know that for a time in history the western church used Latin as opposed to Greek, and the Alexandrian area was conquered by the Muslims stopping them from producing Greek Bible manuscripts...we see that for a time in history it was really only the Byzantine area that was faithfully producing Greek NT texts.

Blueridge Believer · #3 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 11:45 AM

The Characteristics of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

The Vaticanus Manuscript (B)
The word “Vatican” in Latin means “Hill of Divination.” (Deu 18:10 KJV) There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, The Vaticanus manuscript was found in the Vatican library in 1481. It was rejected by the King James Translators because it was very corrupt and unreliable. The following portions of Scripture are missing from the Vaticanus: Genesis 1:1-46; 28; Psalms 106-138; Matthew 16:2-3; Mark 16:9-20; The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus); Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation. These were intentional omissions because the manuscript was found in excellent condition with no pieces missing. In the Gospels it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. These omissions were intentional since there was room left on pages to write these in. The Vaticanus manuscript was written on expensive Vellum and was in good condition when found which means that the missing areas were not due to missing sections but intentional omission.

The Sinaiticus Manuscript (a) Aleph
The major characteristic of this manuscript is that it is a literary mess. There are mistakes, erasures, sentences written on top of other sentences plus many words are omitted. It contains nearly all the New Testament, the Apocryphal Books plus two other false books, “The Shepherd of Hermes” and “The Epistle of Barnabas.” Every page contains corrections and revisions by at least ten different people. Corrections on the manuscript were made as late as the sixth or seventh century A.D. With so many revisions and corrections done to this manuscript, it made it totally worthless. It was found in a garbage can in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844 by Constantine Tischendorf. The manuscript was so bad, the monks were going to burn the manuscript just for heat. It too omits Mark 16:9-20.

“On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” --- Dean Burgon

Summary
These two manuscripts are the foundational manuscripts of all the modern versions. When we see the characteristics of the two manuscripts as being inferior and loaded with false books plus many scribal errors and writings, we can see plainly why the modern versions lack integrity and why they are missing so much. The sad part is that the modern scholars claim these two manuscripts are the “Oldest and Best.” This is such an outright lie that the publishers should be sued for false advertising. Just because something is old does not make it the best. Would you like to have an operation according to 1905 medical knowledge? After all, oldest is best! Would you like to drive across country in winter in a 1905 car? After all, oldest is best! That theory is nothing but a lie and should not and must not be believed. Just taking a look at these two fourth century manuscripts, we see how corrupted they are and how they completely violate the Scriptures.

AV1611 · #4 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.J.

Recently, I have been discussing certain text in the NT that are missing from the earliest manuscripts we have, namely the Johannine Comma (1John5:7-8) and the Adulterous women (John 8:2-11). Does anyone have any insight as how this effects our position on inerrancy, infalliability, etc.,

You may wish to parouse this: Online Articles

Blueridge Believer · #5 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 02:32 PM

I thank thee for that link dear brother!

B.J. · #6 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 07:43 PM

Does anyone know of Pastors that refuse to teach from these texts? Are these texts authoratative if the doctrine of preservation is undermined by these text?

jaybird0827 · #7 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I thank thee for that link dear brother!

I just started reading this article about Dr. Kurt Aland (included in said link) in a back issue of the The Magazine of Trinitarian Bible Society quarterly. It is very telling.

caoclan · #8 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 09:36 PM

OK, what I am gathering from this site (Trinitarian Bible Society) is that the AV (or KJV) is the only translation that is truly faithful to the original manuscripts? Are there no "modern" (or more readable) translations that are correct, or acceptable? I want to be faithful in handling God's word, but (much less important than correct translation) I would like a more readable version than the AV. Any thoughts?

Coram Deo · #9 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 09:44 PM

I have heard that Spurgeon would quote them but append in his sermons that they are questionable text.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.J.

Does anyone know of Pastors that refuse to teach from these texts? Are these texts authoratative if the doctrine of preservation is undermined by these text?

larryjf · #10 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caoclan

OK, what I am gathering from this site (Trinitarian Bible Society) is that the AV (or KJV) is the only translation that is truly faithful to the original manuscripts? Are there no "modern" (or more readable) translations that are correct, or acceptable? I want to be faithful in handling God's word, but (much less important than correct translation) I would like a more readable version than the AV. Any thoughts?

The only widely available new translation that would be close to the KJV would be the NKJV (New King James Version).

Keep in mind that there are others who disagree that these are based off of the best manuscripts.

I would recommend doing some research as to how each camp (pro-KJV, pro-modern version, etc) defends their position. Here are some resources to get you started...

Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

Bible.org: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

Demar

AV1611 · #11 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caoclan

OK, what I am gathering from this site (Trinitarian Bible Society) is that the AV (or KJV) is the only translation that is truly faithful to the original manuscripts? Are there no "modern" (or more readable) translations that are correct, or acceptable? I want to be faithful in handling God's word, but (much less important than correct translation) I would like a more readable version than the AV. Any thoughts?

The question is textual. Are any "modern" versions based solely upon the Received Text? As I understand it, the answer is no. Obviously the ideal would be to read the original languages

Grymir · #12 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 03:39 PM

Caoclan, I read your bio, and I would say whatever translation you were using to help guide your journey, use that. I'm in a PCUSA church. (read my bio for more details). I'm not a KJV only person, but I am a KJV is the best person. I use it when I teach my class. I've had no problems with people understanding it. And I teach theology to people in various levels in life. From Pastors to housewives. When I read it aloud, it also speaks with God's authority through me.

You won't find a more accurate version than the KJV, but by using another version along side of it, it can open the meaning of passages if the Kings English is obscure. But if you start using the King Jimmy, it gets easier, and the depth of knowledge that comes through more than makes up for the effort.

I hope this helps as it's just my 2 cents. (I speaketh not ex-cathedra)

caoclan · #13 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:55 PM

Thank you. I've had a lot of new info in the past 9 months or so, and I just want to change or reform wherever necessary.