NetChaplain
Active member
Could you please be more specific of what you are discussing?
List of Totally and Partially Omitted Passages in the Modern Translations
- Thread starter NetChaplain
- Start date
I wrote this from post 12:
And yet the NASB, even better than the KJV, teaches the Deity of Christ.
You then cited John 3:13.
To which I replied:
I supplied several examples.
You gave only one in your response here.
Not even close.
See post 10.
Diserner
Well-known member
Actually, it could also be an editorial comment by the author acknowledging that Jesus has ascended and is currently, at the time of writing, now in heaven.
NetChaplain
Active member
I answered you in post #14. I wouldn't know what else I can say abut that one.
NetChaplain
Active member
Interesting thought, but this was the Lord Himself speaking this while He was on earth (Jn 3:13).
"The Son of Man which is in heaven;" at the same time he was then on earth . . . For such is omnipresence, or to be in heaven and earth at the same time.' -John Gill
"This is a very remarkable expression. Jesus, the Son of Man, was then bodily on earth conversing with Nicodemus; yet He declares that He is “at the same time” in heaven." -Albert Barnes
You answered someone else in post 14.
Diserner
Well-known member
Actually, there was no quotations marks in the original languages.
Scholars are even unsure if verse 16 and on are not John himself writing or a continuation of Christ's speech.
NetChaplain
Active member
Sorry, mistake, so please be more specific with what you want to discuss. Thanks!
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
1. Codex Alexandrinus is one of the oldest witnesses to Byzantine text form underlying the TR and KJV traditions. You should reconsider your claim of "corruption".
2. God preserved Abraham in Eqypt. He did not abandon Abraham in Eqypt nor allow him to be "corrupted". Guilt by associates doesn't work in your description.
3. Augustine championed the work of the Greek OT. It was used extensively throughout the early church. The canonical councils of the early church held varying books as part of their canon. There is "no corruption" to be found in such arguments. Men defined the canon. Men get things wrong. Neither your choice of canons nor mine are binding upon any Christian. Authority exists with God alone.
Last edited:
NetChaplain
Active member
Hi, and appreciate your input! But, the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus were never used (execpt the Vaticanus by the Vatican). The scribes always refused to copy them because they were too different from most of the extant manuscripts. That's why we now have modern translations that differ too much from the traditional Bibles. These three manuscript sources were consigned to disuse for 1500 years, until they recently discovered them (1800's).
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I disagree. There are other reasons for some of the issues you "see" below.
I don't believe this is an accurate statement of fact. Jerome's work in the Vulgate began a chain of events that lead to Greek OT being abandoned in most subsequent works after the 4th and 5th century. The Vulgate "ruled the world" when it came to Bible editions for over a 1000 years. In fact, the Vulgate was used extensively by many English Christian well into the 19th century. There were actually "Vulgate Onlyists" that existed. Much like those who see the primacy in the King James editions today.
There are differences in all English Bibles that have ever been produced. All of them. Latin greatly influenced the KJV.
Did you know that "mansion" in John 14 is from a Latin source?
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with many modern translations as a whole. Which is why I take it "verse by verse". I believe that is the best method to use. Do you disagree? Why should anyone claim a winner among them when there is good in all of them and mistakes in all of them. This requires that we do a "verse by verse" analysis and deal with the details.
NetChaplain
Active member
Jerome had access to the Vaticanus. He "translated the Bible into Latin between A.D. 383 and 404. He originally translated it all from Greek" (https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/y...e Bible,Testament against the Hebrew original).
Jerome, for the RC church, attempted to hide the Word by translating the Greek into the Latin Vulgate (Greek was the common language, not Latin). Rome, at the order of the Pope withheld Greek literature flowing to the Western areas for 1000 years, which brought on the "dark ages" (450-1450 AD). When Greek literature was restored to the west, Erasmus and others were able to produce their texts.
Thanks for your sincere input!
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Your reference is from a user source. I'm not certain of the value. There is no link to an external witness or reference in the claim. Can you provide an reputable source for this statement. Jerome actively sought Hebrew manuscripts to produce the Vulgate. He could not find Hebrew manuscripts for every canonical book. He was forced to use the Greek OT for various manuscripts due to the limited availability of Hebrew manuscripts. He used Greek sources not associated exclusively with Vaticanus.
I'm glad you agree with my explanation above. This provided an alternative explanation for what "you see". There is really no denying the influence of Latin on the KJV. There are superior readings in the Greek witness associated with the Greek OT. I readily accept the superior readings in the Gospels witness associated with Codex Alexandrinus.
I believe you shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water"... here.
NetChaplain
Active member
That's ok if we disagree! God bless!!
This is excellent advice.
And it ought to be applied in all areas of Bible study.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Very big tell that the OP has not even addressed anything in this comment.
NetChaplain
Active member
If you're referring to this (But again, what is the source of the list you pasted. You came up with that list yourself?), the sources I listed are common knowledge with anyone who know Textual Criticism.
There are primarily only two groups of manuscripts: the Majority Text, which contains the majority of all existing manuscripts; the Minority Text, which has only a few but older manuscripts; but they were partly produced by Gnostics, who do not believe Christ was deity.
All translations derive from one of these two sources. The Minority Text manuscripts were rejected by the early scribes and were never used (Alexadrinus codex; Sinaticus codex and the Vaticanus codex, which was used by the Vatican). The Minority Text does not contain the entire Word of God because they have many totally and partially omitted passages. They also contain added words which change the original thoughts of the Traditional Bibles.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
No. Again dodging the comment. Big tell that the OP won't address the fact the KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha but he considers the KJV as perfect. And did not address the fact that KJV did not correctly translate the Textus Receptus in the example.
NetChaplain
Active member
Guess I can't figure out what you are discussing. "All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha, though separately to denote them as not equal to Scripture. -Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibli... James Bibles published,name, "The Apocrypha".
Erasmus (who wrote the Received Text) translated from Latin to the common language of that time--Greek. It was Tyndale that took Erasmus' Latin translation and translated it into English. Most speak English and the Vatican was outrage enough to burn him at the steak! The Pope's never want people to know God's Word.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Feigning ignorance once again. Is that your modus operandus when called out saying something wrong? noted.
