Proof of What Modern Bible Translators Have Done to Corrupt Newer Bible Translations
- Thread starter DavP
- Start date
Since Clement educated Origen, I would place Clement on Alexandria's wretched side.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
There are superior readings in the Byzantine tradition and there are superior readings in the Alexandrian text. God preserved Abraham in Egypt. Alexandria was actually part of the Byzantine Empire (though a couple of hundreds years later). I generally believe the Byzantine text is superior in the Gospels and the Alexandrian tradition is superior in the remainder of the NT. Though there are exceptions. I go line by line. I generally believe Codex Alexandrinus is the best extant witness there is to a complete collection of manuscripts. Even then, I'm open to some degree to other editions. It is complex topic. There are a "handful" of superior MT readings to be found. I've spent a long time studying the issue. I usually give TR preferred believers a hard time but I can tell you're open to the information. When it comes to "Preservation", I believe I can challenge you on a few things...
Though I do generally agree with the belief that God has purposed all the extant witnesses so that we can learn what is wrong and what is right from the evidence. Those that seek....... find. It is important that we seek. As such, this requires an opposing view.
Last edited:
Can you send me some of your best examples where the Alexandrian text is superior to the Majority text Epistles? Thanks!There are superior readings in the Byzantine tradition and there are superior readings in the Alexandrian text. God preserved Abraham in Egypt. Alexandria was actually part of the Byzantine Empire (though a couple of hundreds years later). I generally believe the Byzantine text is superior in the Gospels and the Alexandrian tradition is superior in the remainder of the NT. Though there are exceptions. I go line by line. I generally believe Codex Alexandrinus is the best extant witness there is to a complete collection of manuscripts. Even then, I'm open to some degree to other editions. It is complex topic. There are a "handful" of superior MT readings to be found. I've spent a long time studying the issue. I usually give TR preferred believers a hard time but I can tell you're open to the information. When it comes to "Preservation", I believe I can challenge you on a few things...
Though I do generally agree with the belief that God has purposed all the extant witnesses so that we can learn what is wrong and what is right from the evidence. Those that seek....... find. It is important that we seek. As such, this requires an opposing view.
e v e
Well-known member
adam disobeyed, and in fact, did not have faith and left Eden, and what he passed were his own ways... obvious when his descendents did not listen to God through the prophets and neither do the scholars who translate that further disobedience, finding it all incredulous, for example, ezekiel... further, the bible is mistranslated and fills in his death...except, it Never happened. the Isaiah chapter is about adam, not lucifer. Adam is not a man in the way people on this forum are.
Adam received Eden nature, the nature made by God..but squandered it... the first adam is to die soon for having grievously hurt God and us.
He has the birthright, that is the problem, and he uses it for the benefit of the demon nations, with whom he created this current earth.
adam has imprisoned eve. Eve will be freed by God and be protected and not left alone again, the way adam did to her.
You wouldn't think that anymore if you were to understand hieroglyphs and how they gloat over what they did to eden and to us.
yes.
Apparently not worth it to him to love her though.
She is a living being and when she with His souls returns to paradise, the 144k sons will care for her, as their mother, and care for eden, which they will restore with Christ, and then they will Rule with Christ.
What do you mean by this. My mysticism is having read the original hieroglyphs and other ancient texts and knowing that these are enemies to God who then gloated about their crimes against eden in their texts.
Perhaps it would be worth for others to investigate the link of prophets with other ancient texts, before dismissing things.
Adam is extremely smart...and has created a corrupt kjv and septuagint to try to avoid God's judgment. And is in an eden original nature, which far surpasses the current perishable body.
The name in the other reality is very important and presents an attribute. Eve in this case represents ruach, life.
Not sure how you relate these two.
No. As I said, he is very powerful...but soon he will die and will meet his judgment from God.
That is interesting of a smoke curtain created to give the wrong impression of how power works.
What does it even mean to you that the sons will be restored, and once restored, Will rule with Christ?
God is not so insecure as to deny his own sons power... that is how we got here into this mess.
Last edited:
Frank Russell
Well-known member
Most would agree, his copy of the secret gospel of Mark implied some scandalous things.
e v e
Well-known member
I meant by that that adam indeed has power but has betrayed God
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Before I take this approach and I understand you're desire to get to the meat of the conversation. Let me ask how you establish the TR. The TR is a collection that was refined within the same text type. The TR was never carried forward throughout history as an absolutely collection but rather was edited from among choices between competing/variant manuscripts well removed from the originals.
Also, to clarify and add to my comments earlier, I do believe much of the difference between pedigrees such as Byzantine and Alexandrian.... are overstated. Often, there is not a clear delineation between between manuscript sources.
It is my general position that the Gospels had a much wider distribution regionally in the known world of the time than any of the epistles. As such, there would naturally be represented in multiple languages and text types earlier than the epistles. Which is why we see the Gospels very early in the Byzantine text type but not as early in the Epistles which had more limited reach. Which would lessen the possibility of change in the Gospels.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I see no reason to blindly trust any "early church father". Some of their claims are so self serving.
I heard of the frantic attempt by Erasmus to compile Greek NT scriptures for Western Europeans. He issued several revisions after that which brought up his TR version close to the standards of the Majority Text at that time. I trust the Majority (Byzantine) Text and I'm ok with the TR sources. I have yet to read of a text critical study that will convince me to adopt the Alexandrian text. It's funny that the Alexandrian text is called critical text when I have yet to see it critically textually analyzed. I'm hoping your information would be helpful. Thanks for taking the time!
Frank Russell
Well-known member
Without the secret gospel of Mark, we would not have the gospel of John that was published later on.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I honestly do not try to getting into "Majority text" and "Critical Text" distinctions. ( though I do to some degree because it is common for most people to deal with the issue from such a perspective). They are nothing more than man made classifications that are not 100 percent accurate. As mentioned, Alexandria was part of the Byzantine Empire. There really are no absolutes such as the Alexandrian sources and Byzantine sources. There are regional deviations from either distincts. Such distinctions blur the lines between editions. They too closely resemble one another to see major differences. The Byzantine text type is the result of many sources. Though, I do believe there are significant difference at times. As a collection, both are nothing more than edited sources that some man made choices none of have to accept. I do believe it is true that the more copies made of a sources doesn't necessarily establish the validity of a copy as being authoritative. Erasmus collected and edited variant sources into an "edition" that we reference as the "Textus Receptus".
There is no single manuscript/collection that has not been edited. They have all been edited. All of them. They are more than copies. Men made choices. Choices we do not have to make ourselves. I started with this position close to 30 years ago. I still believe this is true because I've not seen anything to contrary. I place my "staff into the ground" at Codex Alexandrinus because I believe it is the closest edited collection true to the sources. Though there are definitely issues with Alexandrius. I start here because, at the very least, it is a perfect example of a blended text type collection. As such, we must realize that the editing process (Again. Not copying. Editing) began almost immediately following the canonical consideration of any collection. (which took place regionally. Not at the vast level of the "Byzantine Empire). This is true because as collections were being "standardized".... some peoples refused to believe the collections over simple mistakes made many years earlier in a edited text itself. This is true throughout history of the Scriptures. It is true even in the earliest manuscripts. There are times I make choices between variants solely based upon theology. I don't mind saying that I do. I do so because there is no evidence to the contrary. I believe the manuscript to be true to a good consistent theology (the ultimate goal of any writing). As I have learned over the years, my choices have changed. Though not significantly.
If you can accept what I'm saying above to be true, I can not in any good conscience claim that God, Himself, has orchestrated an absolute perfect text that has survived to our time. I believe if God did, then there would be a perfect example. There isn't one. Thusly, I see no greater than a "loosely" established boundary wherein we must study the manuscript evidence to truly know the Scriptures. I believe you have done this yourself in prioritizing the Greek OT in your theology. I did the same.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I'm curious. Can you elaborate? I do not personally believe that "Mark" was as influential as most believe and John is certainly unique because John did more than just give a historical narrative of Jesus Christ. John is a love letter from the disciple "whom Jesus loved".....
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
God drove Adam from Eden.
Can you show me the source you're using that details that Adam willingly left Eden?
Agreed that there is no one perfect edition of the NT, whether Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Erasmian (TR). I personally am sticking with the Byzantine version or the Erasmian version until convinced otherwise.
On a much wider view of what is to be authoritative in my Christian walk, I believe in everything bequeathed to us from the Apostles. As such, the NT is one of those items as there are several more. That's why it's not a do or die situation with the NT to me as to how perfectly it's been preserved throughout time. We have other pillars of the faith that when they all line up then you know that you're on the right path. Such examples are the ancient Christian worship services (liturgies), the Biblical tradition of Councils to resolve key doctrinal issues, the creeds derived from Biblical sources, the Christological insights derived from Biblical and Liturgical sources, etc.... In fact, the Church was established two decades before the ink of Paul's first Epistle was dry, let alone copied and circulated.
Frank Russell
Well-known member
Mark was also known as "John" Mark. The Gospel of John is written to an audience not aware of the events and is thus very specific in it's narrative. Sayings such as "secret things are now known" also is a hint. Another hint is the story of the woman who should be told of in all Gospels according to Jesus, is curiously missing from the gospel of John, but not the other three. Other such things pique curiosity throughout.
The faith engaged with mystery cults by having their own secret teachings in the beginning. Once the Gospel of John began to be quoted in the early second century, there was no more talk of a secret gospel of Mark.
The teachings that were difficult to understand were made part of the official canon, and none of the teachings were secret.
Though there was an initial source of the teachings in the Gospel of John, the original work is no longer available. What is in the canon is a deuteronmical work written by disciples of the apostles.
This is why I tend to say, the first three gospels are the foundation. The gospel of John won't make sense until the foundation is established.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Well said! Information is information. As long as it is accurate, then we can trust it. This is why I believe "inspiration" is often used as a means to an evil end.
If you asked Paul if he believed that he was recording the "Scriptures" in his epistles. He would have denied it....
Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
I still extensively use the "TR" tradition. It is what I learned. It is what I memorized early in Christian life. I do believe the Geneva Bible NT is the best NT edition to be found. There are some very bad "word choices" made in the KJV.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Luke made it clear that many had taken the task to set forth an orderly account of the life of Jesus. Many. Much more than 3 or 4. In my view, Mark is late. Long after Barnabus and Paul split over the failures of John Mark. Matthew was probably early and later written in Hebrew. Which might be the source of the extant Greek edition that survived. There are issues with Matthew. Luke is exacting. More so than them all relative to historical account of deeds of Christ. I disagree with your assessment of John but you have put thought into the subject. John is Divine. I believe it was the message of the Gospel the Jews needed after they had just witnessed the events of the life of Christ play out right in front of them.
Frank Russell
Well-known member
The gospel of Matthew is the only one of the first three that gives the pharisee concession on marriage. So one must determine if the bill of divorce was given because people were hardened and no divorce because "from the beginning it was not so" or divorce is okay in the case of cheating. This is a main issue today also, since churches are very soft on divorce, (because many members are divorced) but severe against homosexuality "because from the beginning it was not so" .. at one point people will need to stop being hypocrites and pick which root ethos to move forward with.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Luke is the only one that details the lineage of Christ through Mary. Which matches the prophecy given to Eve of how "her seed" would crush the serpent.
I've long abandoned the idea that any of the "3" are based upon the other. There is a reason why they are similar and why they are different. Anyone detailing an accurate historical narrative of Christ would say the same things. However, Luke examined a much broader set of witnesses compared to the linear approach of Matthew and Mark.
