Belief in Preservation

[larryjf]

Does the way the NASB and ESV translators translate certain passages indicate that they really do not believe in preservation?

2 Chr 31:16 (NASB)
without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from thirty years old and upward--everyone who entered the house of the LORD for his daily obligations--for their work in their duties according to their divisions;

It is my understanding that all ancient manuscripts contain "3 years old" and not the 30 that we see in the NASB. Does this imply that the translators feel a need to correct the Scriptures because they are not preserved?

1 Sam 13:1 (ESV)
Saul was... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and twoyears over Israel.

Here they show that there is missing text in the Scriptures. Clearly you cannot show that there is missing text and still believe the text has been preserved, right? Besides, this would sound very strange if read in public.

[Edited on 4-12-2006 by larryjf]

 

[larryjf]

It seems that the editors of the USB critical Greek text also have a different idea on preservation.

The UBS critical Greek text at Acts 16:12 uses "prwthS" - which is found in no manuscript. The reading should be "prwth" without the "S." The "S" makes the noun genitive, which changes the meaning.

Does everyone feel the need to correct God's word and put stuff in there that's not really in the manuscripts? I assume the Neslte text has the same issue. Is there another critical text that would be different at this passage?