ISVfan

You are correct most Christians believe the original autographs' were inspired or God breathed as 1 Timothy 3:16 says.

No some spelling and words have been changed but the KJV has not been updated to represent the latest textual discoveries. The NKJV however does put the latest discoveries of textual critiscism into the footnotes.

You are correct it give just about every variation whatsoever. And is what most Christians consider to be the "preserved" Word of God.

Ahab

Well, here is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
I don't see where they say the translations are inerrant or even the original texts, for that matter. The originals are said to be 'immediately inspired by God.' And in all controversies of religion the Church is, in the final analysis, to appeal to them and not the translated versions.

Do you have some quotes from the period of the Reformation in which it is stated that the KJV is the inerrant word of God?

Steven Avery

Then when Timothy read the inspired SCRIPTURES as a child, did he read from the "original autographs" ? (its 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Timothy 3:16 is the beautiful Deity of Messiah verse.)

2 Timothy 3:15-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.

I've never heard a modernversionist claim that their W-H or NA or modern version text was the preserved Word of God (outside of folks who had never really examined any of the issues we are discussing). They always say its "as good as it gets" and we are trying to do better.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

ISVfan

Yes but he read the original languages of the OT and that would be Hebrew. I believe the original autographs were inspired and preserved in the original languages. But not in any version or translation.

Ok I believe we have the innerant Word of God in the original languages today but not in any translation.

Steven Avery

Hi ISVFan, can you point to the inerrant text in which they are actually preserved ? In the original languages is fine.

Can you point to the inerrant text in which they are preserved ? In the original languages ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

ISVfan

The UBS text for instance or the NA 27th Edition for the NT.
Any Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT.

Apikorus

But there are several hundred differences -- admittedly mostly minor -- between e.g. the Leningrad codex (ca. 1008 CE) and the Bomberg - ben Hayyim Second Rabbinic Bible (~500 years later). So the notion that the MT is precisely well-defined is patently false. See also E. Tov ("Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible") or the late 19th century work by C. D. Ginsburg. ("Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Text..."). It is better to speak of a "MT family" rather than a MT per se. (Though most printed Hebrew Bibles today are Bomberg.)

By the way we have evidence from Midrash Rabbah that there were variations in early torah scrolls. And of course only about 60% of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls were of the proto-masoretic text family (if indeed Cross's theory of local text types is valid), and among them no two texts of the same biblical book were in complete agreement.

Regarding NT text criticism, Bart Ehrman has a rather nice popular text just out, entitled "Misquoting Jesus".

RUmike

If God gave us our reason, then God is certainly not upset at us for using it to ascertain whether or not the Bible is true or his inspired word. In my book, he would actually be very pleased at us doing so. And whatever conclusion we come to, so long as we are honest with ourselves, he will not and cannot punish us for it.

John A. Broussard

How strange.

I've heard others, with yet different versions of the bible, say essentially the same thing.

Who shall I believe, and why?

ISVfan

True! Finally an informed athiest! Very well stated actually there is around 20,000 differences but as you stated above only about 50-100 can be noticed in translation and generally only include differant ordering of words and such there is around 20 places where this text actually differs enough to be noticed in translation. I am definetly a Leningrad fan. But both are acceptable.

Again correct Textual critiscism has placed the Masoretic tradition in their own "family" but you will rarely see this mentioned since it is the only text most textual critics will use. Outside of the ancient translations i.e.~LXX,Vulgate and Syriac.

Correct. Many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were of the Vorlage text which is the textual tradition that the LXX was translated from. I would disagree several of the Exodus scrolls were extremely close again maybe just a misspelled word or something like that. The Vorlage text really doesn't disagree that much with the MT texts but there are a couple places again none of which have anything to do with major passages.

Here I'm afraid the picnic must end. I have not read the book so I will not judge it. But that said the title seems to already go against the grain of textual critiscism. I would recomend getting Bruce Metzgers book "The Text of the New Testament or Metzgers book "The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions" these are both excellent books on the actual process of NT textual critiscism.