No, what is being discussed, and the purpose of this thread was to discuss Veiths presentation of the HISTORY of the Bible manuscripts.

Whether a certain difference can be explained as insignificant, rather than look at the history of the development of the Bible, to me seems to be a cop out refusing to look at reality.

My post was showing how Bibles from one line of manuscripts all interpreted a verse as "father and mother", while the Bibles following the received text all had "Joseph" not "father" When you go back to the Greek , the received text says JOSEPH.

But that was seized upon to derail the subject, and focus on excusing the change.

Perhaps this is paralleled in the "Son of God" versus "Son of Man" titles which apply to Jesus. The Bible writers used both terms to help identify Him as both human and divine. But the NIV and other modern versions are translated from corrupted manuscripts that remove God's side of the equation, leaving only man's. (They appear to leave His own claims uncontested, but remove other testimonies/witnesses to the fact that He was God's Son--except for allowing the words of those crazy, demon-possessed men.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Dedication, why did you reply to GC instead of replying to me, since you consider I derailed the subject?

What is the history?

At the time of the Reformation, almost all of the available Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were Byzantine in character. The early printed Greek Testaments and Protestant translations (including the KJV) naturally followed this text, which was widely accepted down to the nineteenth century.

During the nineteenth century, manuscripts came to light that were considerably older than the Byzantine manuscripts (notably Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Then, mostly in the twentieth century, even older papyrus texts were discovered in Egypt (where they had been preserved by the dry climate). These older manuscripts generally agreed with each other against the Byzantine tradition, and their type of text became known as Alexandrian (since they were of Egyptian origin).

Basically, this is the history. There are arguments pro and con both lines of manuscripts. But how can one line be classified as "the genuine one" and the other as "the false one"?

It is clear that both families of manuscripts have additions and omissions, and both have mistakes. Or do you consider that 1 John 5:7, for instance, is a genuine passage?

Rosangela,

Regarding the manuscripts from Egypt, and how we can know to avoid them based on the Bible's own message to us, please read what I posted two years ago HERE.

Regarding whether or not the claims that the minority manuscripts were older are valid, that goes into a rather involved study of Westcott and Hort and their entire agenda to promote their doctored manuscripts.

You should know that the Catholic church has indeed openly spoken of editing those manuscripts, and making changes in them for the express purpose of putting them forward to be accepted by the public. They say so themselves. The Catholics have never been inclined to keep it a secret that they have changed God's times and laws. See more on that HERE.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC,
The apostolic church ordinarily followed the Septuagint, an Egyptian Bible.
And it's very strange, to say the least, that the Catholics would shoot their own foot by promoting Bible manuscripts which demolish their own doctrines, like the virgin birth (by implying, as you said, that Jesus had a human father, not a divine Father) and the Trinity (by omitting 1 John 5:7).

Rosangela,

The Septuagint was not always followed by the apostolic church. There are places where it was expressly rejected by the Bible authors who chose to retranslate from the Hebrew in different wording from that which was to be found in the Septuagint. Where it was close enough to the correct meaning, they used it. Otherwise, they didn't.

Regarding Catholic inconsistencies--anyone who denies God's truth will end up contradicting himself or herself in one or more ways. It is my understanding that the early Catholic church also founded the Muslim religion--which presents some interesting contrasts.

As far as why they would imply Jesus had a human father as opposed to a divine Father, my first thought would be that the Catholics don't really worship God the Father. To them, the highest being they can pray to is Mary. After all, Mary was Jesus' mother, and as a saint of the highest order, is considered to be alive in Heaven as we speak. As Jesus' mother, she can tell Him what to do--and being a human, mother and saint, they imagine her to have more compassion and listen to their prayers. So they don't pray to the Father. They pray to Mary. Why should they emphasize God the Father as being Jesus' Father when they want to emphasize the mother-figure instead?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe Green was the one who seized the opportunity for derailment.

But why did you say:
"Just agreed with Green that history shows that the Waldenses had the unadulterated Bible."

"So yes, the Waldenses carefully preserved the "unadulterated" scriptures -- as did many further east who possessed the Received text of scripture."

This is incorrect. As I have shown. It is dishonest to maintain your position.

Ellen White: "The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated,"



By the way, do you really think the NIV intend people to think God marveled at what was said about Jesus?

Lu 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
(KJV!)

Like! Like!

For, "Why should they emphasize God the Father as being Jesus' Father when they want to emphasize the mother-figure instead?" Maybe by fabricating whole manuscripts from scratch to support their intentions, that's why they so cleverly and deceitfully changed the NIV to read:
Luke 2:27 When the parents brought in the child Jesus
Luke 2:41 Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem
Luke 2:43 After the festival was over, while his parents
Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished.

Not.

Seems to me that Green has promoted the idea that no matter how intentional they are to deceive, they make many mistakes in failing to change the Bible, and in fact, make a whole lot mistakes in failing to change. And that perhaps God indeed stands behind the promise of preserving the Bible for the salvation of all. All that read it need not worry about a few mistakes here and there, since if they were to actually read the Bible, they would fully understand what it says, specifically here that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. But there are some among the sheep, (Green, Dedication, Rick), who come along to tell people they should not read the Bible in the English or language they can understand, but should only read it in an English that they struggle with understanding, to discourage them from reading the Bible. Kind of like how the Vatican did, huh?

Luke 1:35 (NIV) The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

kland,

You have the privilege of knowing English. It is a privilege. It is an enlightened language, the modern lengua franca of the world, including the religious world. I hope you appreciate your privilege.

I've had the dubious privilege of trying to encourage non-native speakers of English--people who spoke only very broken English--to read the Bible in their own native language. You know what I heard them say? "I understand the KJV better than my own Bible." It's sad, really. It's sad that we don't have better translations.

It bothers me that Jesus is given orange juice on the cross. It bothers me that the translation of "cast your bread upon the waters" yields an understanding of how your business will prosper via certain business practices. Many other mistranslations bother me. But you know what bothers me most? It is that the people who do not know English are hugely disadvantaged here--and there's very little hope of reaching them with the Bible that is available in their language.

If I passed out local-language Bibles here to everyone I met, it would almost do more harm than good. People would try to read it, would not understand it, and would develop a disinterest in the Bible from that point forward. Witnessing here is only done in a personal, one-on-one relationship. The Bible is nearly useless. I'm sure God cries too.

And, how can we make it better? Ninety plus percent of the board members of the local Bible Society are Roman Catholic, and they have no special interest in translating the Bible accurately, nor in dispersing it to people for them to know and understand it. I spoke with the chairman of the Bible society once for an hour in his office. I left disappointed with the stance he had taken, and quite without permission to use the Bible translation to reach people for God.

Where are the Adventist minutemen? Where are the youth of the church, skilled at language learning, who are willing to devote a lifetime to a project like Bible translation? We need young people who are willing to give their whole lives in service to God, not just a year or two.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I should have been making a comparison of the KJV:
Lu 2:27 and when the parents brought in the child Jesus,
Lu 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem
Lu 2:48 behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.