NetChaplain
Active member
I appears we can't communicate with one another. Wish you well and God bless!
List of Totally and Partially Omitted Passages in the Modern Translations
- Thread starter NetChaplain
- Start date
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
No it appears you will not engage and admit you were wrong when presented with evidence in black and white. it has been noted.
NetChaplain
Active member
I will admit I'm wrong in trying to guess what you want to discuss! I truly don't know, you haven't been direct enough about it for me to understand what you're referring to.
Diserner
Well-known member
Interesting attempt to defend the necessity of repetitions and duplications, which also shows you seem to know most of them are.
I could see this in some limited cases only.
NetChaplain
Active member
Hi and thanks for your replies! Not sure what you mean by "limited cases."
Diserner
Well-known member
These cases are not poetic or didactic.
If duplication were good for it's own sake, why don't we duplicate every single verse.
NetChaplain
Active member
Sorry, but don't understand, but could you be more plain and direct in what you are discussing.
Diserner
Well-known member
I don't see the logic in something being duplicated means it's inspired.
Why wouldn't God have inspired every single scribal error in existence?!
NetChaplain
Active member
Because many of them were corrupt copiers!
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Aha, finally a true statement from you. The scribes copying the Greek New Testament were extremely sloppy and messy until the official Codices were produced after Constantine.
The Aramaic scribes were quite different. They were from Jewish scribal tradition and were careful copiers to the nth degree. The faithful reproduction is found in the Aramaic not the Greek.
NetChaplain
Active member
Like what you said, but I believe the most dependable is the Hebrew and the Greek. I think most scribes did their jobs ok, and when they came to the manuscripts from the Critical Text they rejected them because they were excessively indifferent from most manuscript copies (Majority Text). The Critical Text, also known as the Alexandrian Text, or Minority Text types primarily only contained a few manuscripts that were never used until being recently discovered, and is why these modern translations weren't produced until recently: Vaticanus Codex; Sinaiticus Codex; Alexandrinus Codex.
All recent modern translations (except NKJV and others like it) are derived mostly from the first two codices, because the third is too mutilated, esp. in the Gospels. It's purported that the RC church at the order of the Pope used the Vaticanus codex; which could explain why their bible is so different from the Protestant Bible; they also included noncanonized books like the Apocrypha.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
You've been discredited in your opinions many times. Just stop.
NetChaplain
Active member
The shame is in the truth unknown (ignorance), but God will inform believers in all we need at the time, until maturity in Christ is achieved - Eph 4:15 (unless death is encountered)! It's always just a matter of time. He is always "working" in all who are His (Phl 2:13); though I believe most are going to be mostly immature when the Lord Jesus returns (it's about to wrap up). Fortunately what level of maturity in Christ doesn't effect one's salvation, just their reward (which will be the level of authority one will be at in eternity).
NetChaplain
Active member
Really good and accurate!
Wow!
J.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
The inconvenient fact against your opinion is that the original KJV as published DID include the Apocrypha.
atpollard
Well-known member
Nope, I checked a dozen translations and all of them had translated Matthew 17:21 with a footnote informing me that unlike the late manuscript copies used by the KJV, most older manuscripts do not include verse 21 in the text. So it was not “omitted” at all, I read it in the Bibles … they just noted that it was not written by Matthew.
