re: Bibles After 1960 Withheld Best Weapon Against Satan

quote:

---

(1) Most of the down voters did not even read it.

(2) Of those who did read it, many are simply incapable of accepting that someone they do not like might know something more about the subject than they do. I typed it, so it is wrong in their minds.

It is what it is.

---

Sir, You have already fumbled the bag in one thread as an attorney on a Criminal Procedure question. You were in another religious thread claiming Jesus did not claim to be Deity.

You need to stop holding yourself out as an expert and people will quit down voting your foolishness.

You aren't even wrong a large percentage of the time, but when you are, you are so obnoxious about it that it kills any credibility you have.

quote:

---

Yet, there's also that side of me that wonders why it was that man elected to deliberately leave the Dead Sea Scrolls out of the Holy Bible. The scrolls were written in the same time period as the rest of the Bible, by people who were compelled to write them... So why were they omitted?

---

What in the world is going on here? Lol

It's why I use the old KJV.
The old English is not too hard to understand, but people make it that way.

Too much was changed and too much was removed.

quote:

---

I am curious. Why? Did Catholics not change their bible?

---

The Roman Vulgate Bible was based on the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the old Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

The Protestant bibles like KJV used not the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate as the source for the Old Testament but rather something called the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is a Hebrew text written many hundreds of years - maybe close to 1000 years after the Septuagint. We can see how the MT has been corrupted, added to, edited, had whole lines deleted, etc. when compared to the Septuagint and the even older Dead Sea scrolls.

Most reputable English translations nowadays used the Septuagint as their basis, with the fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls to get even more accuracy to the originals. Problem with the DDS was that at the time there was no definitive Bible. There were many slightly different variations scrolls present. Several versions of genesis, several versions of Psalms, Deuteronomy, etc.

I don’t see how Protestants can defend using the MT as the basis for their Old Testament, while saying the Catholic translations using the Septuagint modified by DSS is wrong. The Protestant Bible is missing whole books and some lines of text with some text being totally altered compared to the originals preserved in tbe Catholic versions.

Even the Catholic versions aren’t all inclusive as it is missing a very critical Book of Enoch which is actually preserved in Ethiopian Orthodox as their canon. For Protestants to talk negatively about the Catholic bible’s “added” books make them look like fools.

ETA: why did the Masorites delete books, alter some lines, and delete others? If you look at the edits, many were concerned with covering up the polytheistic past of the Jews. For just a couple examples off the top of my head- looks at Deut 32:8 and Psalm 92 in the ESV vs the KJV.

Deut 32:8… KJV “children of Israel” versus ESV “sons of God”. More accurately “sons of El (Elyon)” which is preserved in the Septuagint and DSS. “Children of Israel” makes no sense in context. Sons of El Elyon makes perfect sense in context, but describes how YHWH inherited Israel from his father El Elyon, and shows polytheism, which is bad.

It’s not a translation issue. It’s a source text issue. Early reliable source texts did not have both prayer and fasting. But many, slightly later texts, do.

The scholarly consensus seems to be that the true original text had only prayer, but some later added “and fasting” because prayer and fasting go together so naturally.

LINK

quote:

---

Myth 3. The KJV is based on the textus receptus or the Received Text which is the most accurate original manuscripts.

As noted above, the textus receptus is a family of manuscripts known as the Byzantine Family and were nothing more than a collection of copies of the original. It is a succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale and eventually the King James Version.

The Byzantine manuscripts are far from the most accurate. Scholars generally agree that the Alexandrian manuscripts are much more accurate and reliable.

---

That entire graphic is hogwash, too

LINK

You post your guess, which is incorrect, and then clutch pearls when you are downvoted. Who cares if you didn’t know this bit of historical and textual knowledge? Nobody.

Just don’t act like you know more than others when you make a guess that turns out to be wrong, and others point it out. That’s you making the issue about yourself.

quote:

---

You post your guess

---

It is a message board, not a doctoral defense

lighten up

quote:

---

clutch pearls when you are downvoted.

---

Because I made a comment on it.

quote:

---

Just don’t act like you know more than others

---

quote:

---

The Byzantine manuscripts are far from the most accurate. Scholars generally agree that the Alexandrian manuscripts are much more accurate and reliable.

---

The two main text-types are the Byzantine and the Alexandrian. Which of these is the true Word of God? Most modern Bible versions have come from the Alexandrian text, while virtually all Protestant Reformation Bibles, including the KJV, have come from the Byzantine text. The Alexandrian text boasts the (supposedly) oldest known manuscripts, but very few manuscripts (1-5%) are of this type. The Alexandrian text practically disappeared after 400 A.D., only to be rediscovered in the mid 1800's. Over ninety-five percent of all known manuscripts are of the Byzantine text-type, and 99% of all manuscripts after 400 A.D., and new research has shown that the Byzantine text is as old as the Alexandrian. Supporters of the Alexandrian text insist that the Byzantine was a result of a revision of the Alexandrian. However, Byzantine advocates insist that the Alexandrian was produced by a revision of the Byzantine and was eventually rejected as heretical. (The Alexandrian text originated in Egypt, the source of the first church age heresies.)

So which is the true Word of God, the Byzantine, or the Alexandrian? Textual criticism is the science of the determining the correct reading of disputed readings. John W. Burgon, who served as the Dean of Chichester in the mid 1800's, established seven Biblical principles of textual criticism: continuity, antiquity, variety, number, weight, context, and internal considerations1. No one of these principles can alone verify a particular reading. The reading which shows the strongest evidence from the most of these is considered the true reading. Careful analysis of these shows the superiority of the Byzantine text over the Alexandrian.

The Byzantine text originated around Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26), and the base of operations for Paul's missionary trips (Acts 15:35). The Byzantine text has spread worldwide due to the efforts of missionaries. Byzantine manuscripts “belong to so many divers countries,-Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syrian, Alexandria, and other parts of Africa, not to say Sicily, Southern Italy, Gaul, England and Ireland…”11 Thus, the Byzantine text shows geographic (and language) variety, while few Alexandrian manuscripts have been forced outside of Egypt. LINK