Only Hebrew Old Testament Preserved by God?

[mfblume]

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 ??

How variant? It's easy to hear people say that there's variations and suddenly make a call on the overall issue. But what are the details of those variations? How variant are they? If it's only minor trivial things, then it doesn't matter if "you" was changed to a "Ye" or changed to "thou", for example.

[Scott Pitta]

Either the text was divinely preserved or it was not. Sorta preserved is....interesting.

Who determines which variant readings are important and which ones are not ? Are only theologically important variant readings worth counting ?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Either the text was divinely preserved or it was not. Sorta preserved is....interesting.

Who determines which variant readings are important and which ones are not ? Are only theologically important variant readings worth counting ?

What impeachable offenses has Trump committed? Giving pregnant women bad water to drink so they'll miscarry? Democrats support Planned unParenthood which actually chops up unborn babies and sells their body parts, so who determines which of those is a valid complaint?

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

You all do notice that Scott never gives the number or name of the manuscripts he refers to? Also, he makes comments like “I’ve never seen” Is Scott, an expert on the New Testament manuscripts? No, he was in a Pentecostal Bible school, learned how to read a Lexicon and dictionary. He doesn’t know how the New Testament made it from the First Century church to the Latin Vulgate. Not one word from this guy concerning the LXX, which the New Testament in every manuscript repeats verbatim. No problem there Scott. Also when a scholar says trivial he means spellings of words. Manuscripts with misspelled words were a problem. If you are in the school of Bart Erhman you will only bring up the really botched manuscripts which not only have misspelled words but whole changes to the verse where words are left out. Scott is use to talking to people who just take his Anti-New Testament rhetoric at face value. They would never press him, because he likes to warn people that he attended a Pentecostal Bible School. Therefore intimidation of the unknown curbs heavy questions. Scott burns the New Testament and then proclaims that having a totally banged up New Testament isn’t a problem for him, and therefore shouldn’t be a problem for anyone else.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Notice the 1000 differences were noted as trivial.

Would you regard the following as trivial? (I happened to come across it last night.)

The NKJV, based on the TR, reads this way for Acts 9.5-6: 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” 6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

Versions, NIV for example, based on the NU read: 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The words in bold above (and below) are absent from the NU and Majority Text.

I came across a couple in Revelation 1 recently that seem significant:

NKJV: 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

NIV, and others: 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

NKJV: 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

NIV, and others: 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Not one word from this guy concerning the LXX, which the New Testament in every manuscript repeats verbatim.

I believe I have seen you mention the value of the LXX several times on this forum. Since, as you note, the NT quotes from the LXX, do you think it is the authoritative OT we should use? I guess I am inclined to think so because, well, the NT writers (usually?) quote it. (I'm not sure the exact break down of how the NT quotes the OT and whether there are examples where the NT quotes of the OT agree with Hebrew against the LXX.)

[Scott Pitta]

I did not study the LXX in college. I did not study the Hebrew text of the OT in college.

Being a one trick pony, I studied Koine Greek and focused on the Greek literature of the NT and early church fathers.

Find someone else to be the LXX or Hebrew scholar.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Would you regard the following as trivial? (I happened to come across it last night.)

The NKJV, based on the TR, reads this way for Acts 9.5-6: 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” 6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

Versions, NIV for example, based on the NU read: 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The words in bold above (and below) are absent from the NU and Majority Text.

I came across a couple in Revelation 1 recently that seem significant:

NKJV: 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

NIV, and others: 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

NKJV: 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

NIV, and others: 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”

Brother the trivial translatable differences he was referring to is from my posts: the different between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text. The NIV is based on the Critical Text, not the Majority Text. The CT does have significant differences with the MT and the TR, even doctrinal, like John 1:18.

Here is the list of the translatable differences between the MT and the TR: http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I believe I have seen you mention the value of the LXX several times on this forum. Since, as you note, the NT quotes from the LXX, do you think it is the authoritative OT we should use? I guess I am inclined to think so because, well, the NT writers (usually?) quote it. (I'm not sure the exact break down of how the NT quotes the OT and whether there are examples where the NT quotes of the OT agree with Hebrew against the LXX.)

Regarding how Paul used the LXX: In I Corinthians 2, for example, Paul quoted directly from the LXX in verse 16 (Isaiah 40:13) but used another translation or paraphrase, perhaps his own, in verse 9 (Isaiah 64:4). His letters contain about one hundred OT quotations. About half are from the LXX, four are direct translations of the standard Hebrew text where it clearly differs from the LXX, and the rest are similar but not identical to the LXX. (See Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 96.)

In summary: translations are not inspired, but very useful and for practical purposes the Word of God for us; however, at times, you will still need to go to the original language as Paul did.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I believe I have seen you mention the value of the LXX several times on this forum. Since, as you note, the NT quotes from the LXX, do you think it is the authoritative OT we should use? I guess I am inclined to think so because, well, the NT writers (usually?) quote it. (I'm not sure the exact break down of how the NT quotes the OT and whether there are examples where the NT quotes of the OT agree with Hebrew against the LXX.)

I use to leave the LXX to history and accept the Sinaticus for what it was. But since Esaias enlightened me to the Alexandrus Codex. I began to look closer at the Hebrew, Greek, and the earliest translations in Latin of the OT. What I found is that the Sinaticus which is what we have today isn’t what Jesus and Paul used. As well as the Masoretic text from 600 AD. The problem is this, if they weren’t quoting the LXX and that is what we have recorded in our NTs, then the problem is immense. But a careful investigation into the history of the Greek Judean world shows that the LXX was the Bible of the Diaspora.