Only Hebrew Old Testament Preserved by God?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The Bible is truth.

The variations in the text do not impact my faith.

Either God preserved the text of the NT, or he did not. Or he did it in ways we do not understand.

Who determines which textual variants are important and necessary and which ones are not ??

It's quite simple. There are basically two lines of thought, and the two can never converge. One is that the text was preserved by God, and that other is that it was not. And the texts handled by those who believe he did not were changed, interpolated and the like. The others handled by the believers in divine preservation were not touched in that manner whatsoever. These men gathered MSS in faith for God to work his will out with what was available. Done in faith.

You should hear what believers in the lack of preservation also believed!

If anyone stops to consider all of this, it will affect their faith. I did, and realized only one concept leaves one's Faith intact. For it not to, one just can't think of it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The Bible is truth.

The variations in the text do not impact my faith.

Either God preserved the text of the NT, or he did not. Or he did it in ways we do not understand.

Who determines which textual variants are important and necessary and which ones are not ??

I think you drank too much of that Flint, Michigan water.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You should hear what believers in the lack of preservation also believed!

Lots of them believed 666 was referring to Nero...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Lots of them believed 666 was referring to Nero...

Some things are no-brainers. Lol

[Scott Pitta]

If some of the manuscripts were identical in their wording, a case could be made about divine preservation.

But none of them are identical. No two manuscripts read the same. How does this variation impact my faith in God ?? Not at all.

Why does God allow variation in his preservation plan ??

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

If some of the manuscripts were identical in their wording, a case could be made about divine preservation.

But none of them are identical. No two manuscripts read the same. How does this variation impact my faith in God ?? Not at all.

Why does God allow variation in his preservation plan ??

Again, how did they decide what books to use in the New Testament? How did the New Testament make it from the early church to the Latin Vulgate?
Scott, you might be a dabler at best at Textual Criticism, but you are incorrect concerning the manuscripts, and how we got where we are today. Because over and over again I ask you for proof, and you refuse to give us any. Just like when you were asked to prove Trump’s guilt for impeachment. You left the forum, instead of proving your accusation. Who was Harry Morse? No one will ever know. Because if you recorded that old joker’s history like you prove your comments here, it will be a history based on what you feel to be correct. Also, if the New Testament is a botch job, then your faith is based on lack of evidence. Not everyone you meet will be raised in the UPC. Therefore, they will want evidence. Not just some meager brush off on how you are satisfied with the lack of evidence.

[coksiw]

Assuming that this information is true and accurate: http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html


If we assume that the survival of manuscripts and their readings indicates the work of preservation of the word of God, the Majority Text (MT) is the best text.
Coincidentally (?), the Textus Receptus (TR) differs with the Critical Text (CT) over 3000 readings; however, it differs with the MT only on a little over 1000 readings. So the MT is much closer to the TR than to the CT. Therefore, the TR would be better than CT.

To add points to the TR, here is a quote from the above link:

And so the Majority Text has a little less than a third as many differences from the Received text as do any of the critical texts. It does not stand halfway between the Received Text and the critical texts; it is definitely closer to the Received Text -- and yet it differs from the Received Text in about a thousand places, most of them being trivial. For those who wish to examine the differences, they are all translated and listed in the collation of majority text readings on this site. The Majority Text readings are indicated by the sign "HF" (Hodges-Farstad) in the collation.

MT can not be defended much intellectually but by the believe in faith that God preserved his word and it was indicated to us by the means of which manuscripts/readings survived and are more prevalent.


I want to add that the TR has served us well for many centuries in multiple Western countries, and it was the text used in several revivals through history. So if it was good for them, could it be good for us too?
However, I have to add that outside the US, the CT is the based of many conservative literal translations out there. I want to bring as an example the Chinese Union Version which is, as far as I know, based on the RSV. It is the most popular version in China and has served well also many Oneness Pentecostals in there, and God keeps pouring out his power and bringing people to the truth of the Gospel through it.
That being said, we know translators that use the CT have the choice of going conservative and read more like the traditional TR, or go more wild and make a lot of liberal choices of what reading to use for their translation. I know of a least one place in the CUV where they chose the TR reading over the CT reading recommended by the CT and used by most modern English translation today.

[Scott Pitta]

I have yet to see anyone group copyists into two groups. Nor have I seen any data about specific manuscripts done by specific copyists.

Rhetoric about the transmission of the text of the NT needs to be based in reality.

All manuscripts of the NT have variant readings. Not just one group. All of them.

Nor have I seen any documents detailing what copyists believed. Did some of them leave diaries behind ?? Essays on how to copy a manuscript ?

No group of manuscripts are identical in their readings. No two Greek NT manuscripts are identical.

Wrap your theories around the diversity of readings.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Assuming that this information is true and accurate: http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

If we assume that the survival of manuscripts and their readings indicates the work of preservation of the word of God, the Majority Text (MT) is the best text.
Coincidentally (?), the Textus Receptus (TR) differs with the Critical Text (CT) over 3000 readings; however, it differs with the MT only on a little over 1000 readings. So the MT is much closer to the TR than to the CT. Therefore, the TR would be better than CT.

To add points to the TR, here is a quote from the above link:

MT can not be defended much intellectually but by the believe in faith that God preserved his word and it was indicated to us by the means of which manuscripts/readings survived and are more prevalent.

I want to add that the TR has served us well for many centuries in multiple Western countries, and it was the text used in several revivals through history. So if it was good for them, could it be good for us too?
However, I have to add that outside the US, the CT is the based of many conservative literal translations out there. I want to bring as an example the Chinese Union Version which is, as far as I know, based on the RSV. It is the most popular version in China and has served well also many Oneness Pentecostals in there, and God keeps pouring out his power and bringing people to the truth of the Gospel through it.
That being said, we know translators that use the CT have the choice of going conservative and read more like the traditional TR, or go more wild and make a lot of liberal choices of what reading to use for their translation. I know of a least one place in the CUV where they chose the TR reading over the CT reading recommended by the CT and used by most modern English translation today.

Notice the 1000 differences were noted as trivial.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I have yet to see anyone group copyists into two groups. Nor have I seen any data about specific manuscripts done by specific copyists.

Rhetoric about the transmission of the text of the NT needs to be based in reality.

All manuscripts of the NT have variant readings. Not just one group. All of them.

Nor have I seen any documents detailing what copyists believed. Did some of them leave diaries behind ?? Essays on how to copy a manuscript ?

No group of manuscripts are identical in their readings. No two Greek NT manuscripts are identical.

Wrap your theories around the diversity of readings.

Trivial differences or not. That's the question. Differences sound huge alone when not clarified as to what degree there are differences.