kland,

As I already stated in this thread, Jesus was called both "Son of Man" and "Son of God." The NIV has no problem with the former, but erases the facts of the latter from third-party testimony save that of the crazy demoniacs. Why?

The KJV has both sides of the story. Certainly the verses you quote are the one side. You didn't quote the other side. Why?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

First the topic was derailed by Kland and others, not just you. I just pressed the "reply" on the last post entered at the time, which happened to be Greens.


Just curious, did anyone even bother to read the first posts -- and watch the Video on the history of the Bible manuscripts?

Daryl posted numerous quotes from the video but these were basically all ignored.

Why?

True there are three supposedly "older manuscripts"
the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and the Alexandrian

So you have three that kind of agree with each other but are different than the thousand or so received manuscripts that basically agree with each other.

It's also rather interesting that the Latin Vulgate (the standard Catholic Bible throughout the Middle Ages), seems to agree with those three "older" ones.



Go back and see what is said about their origin, as well as the origin of the thousand or more received texts.

I think it can be quite clearly documented that the received text is the more authentic.

I appears people haven't really taken the time to read or hear the history.

Paul wrote that the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day. (See 2 Thes. 2:7)
"Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I cease not to warn every one night and day with tears," (Acts 20:30,31)

Yet, while the apostles were living, it was held in check. But after they passed off the scene it is amazing how fast the church started sliding.

One of the dangers threatening truth was Gnosticism. Gnosticism in it's fullness was resisted by the church, but many of its concepts were still accepted. Before Constantine there were groups who "revised" the biblical manuscripts to match gnostic ideas.
By the time of Constantine there were three "families" of scripture that were receiving recognition in different areas.

The first one was the scriptures carried far and wide by apostles and missionaries all over Europe and Asia. They still comprise 99% of all Greek manuscripts.

The other two "families" were small.
One came from Alexandra where Tatian, then Clement and Origen, led out in new teachings "clothed in pagan ideas". Origen's six column Bible was called the "Hexapla. Origen corrupted the scriptures. He himself said, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written" And Schaff says, "His predilection for Plato (the pagan philosopher) led him into many grand and fascinating errors." (Church History Vol. II, p. 791)

The other "small family" was Eusebius' version (260-340) Eusebius was an admirer of Origen and a student of his philosophy. Eusebius edited Origins Hexapla bringing it closer to the original scriptures but still intermingling the two. It might be called the adaptation of the Word of God to Gnosticism.

When Constantine became Emperor, he sought to unit his empire with Christianity, thus He wanted a "standardized" Bible.
He chose the Eusebius edition of the Hexapla and had 50 copies produced.
Many believe the Sinaitic MS and the Vatican MS were part of this project.
The following quotation shows the Sinaitic MS was based on the Hexapal.

"It (Sinaitic MS) seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the correctors adds this note at the end of Esdras, 'This Codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus (died in 309) which exemplar contained at the end, the subscription in his own hand: 'taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen" (Catholic Encyclopedia Vol IV p. 86)

Jerome followed this same line when translating the Catholic Bible (the Latin Vulgate).
The Latin Vulgate was the authoritative Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and still is.

Now the question --
Is the Bible of the Catholic Church the most accurate? Did they preserve the "unadulterated truth"?
Or is the Bible of the Reformers which is based on thousand or more manuscripts from all over (which basically agree) the most accurate?


Both contain truths, but which is the most accurate?




.

So, if the majority of manuscripts (95% or more?) all agree, and just a few are different, which is more likely the most accurate and correct?

If I'm watching a piano tuner tune my piano, and the piano tuner has 10 different tuning instruments, all the same model, to tell him what note he's playing, and 9 of the 10 all say he's playing a "C", but one says "C+" (C sharp)...which note will the piano tuner believe he is playing?

Those who say they'd believe the fluke reading of the one over all of the other nine are rather...well...let's just say they must have an agenda.

While the answer seems so blatantly obvious to this question, some still try to find "proof" that the aberrant manuscripts don't have the right doctrine and/or aren't the most accurate. It all boils down to the fact that people will choose to believe what they want to believe, even if this means believing it against all odds or facts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Much of the Christian world believe in an eternally burning hell (state of the dead), and reject the 7th-day Sabbath. A small group, let's call them "SdA" people, believe otherwise. What are the odds that the "SdA" people are right? I guess the answer is blatantly obvious... To bring this to the battle of the Bibles, these unique interpretations can be found in all mainline Bibles today. Who do you believe?

APL,

Your attempt to turn the Bible manuscripts into mere "opinions" or "interpretations" or "beliefs" is noted. But you should be ashamed of yourself.

The Bible tells us it is not any man's opinion merely--but is inspired by God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You make a point of the majority of manuscripts and the minority. A big deal is made of leaving verses such as 1 John 5:7. Does this devastate all doctrine? Not at all! What I said if you read it, is that the SDA doctrines can be supported in the current day translations. Should we be ashamed of that green????

That is what we have been doing in Europe since the beginning of our history.

The main problems I have experienced is when we have American visitors claiming their KJ Version is superior. That creates confusion and people start loosing confidence in the Word of God.

In the process of copying the Bible manuscripts there were unintentional mistakes as well as intentional alterations, yet the Word of God was preserved. The truth of the matter is, both the Alexandrian text and the majority text are close enough to the originals and to one another that God can work through either text to bring people to salvation. There is at worst a 5% difference between the Alexandrian text and the majority text.
The Alexandrian text is smaller and there are some differences in words, but no Christian doctrine is omitted from the Alexandrian text.
Ellen White quoted Bible versions based on the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Rosangela,

Please find for me the doctrine of fasting to cast out demons in the Alexandrian text.

It's not there. It was intentionally removed. There are other doctrines that are removed as well, but many are very subtle. Satan is subtle...when it serves his purpose. If we are to avoid his purpose, we must be wise.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.