/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>578342

>since it implies the divinity of Christ better than the KJV

The ESV says he "has come" instead of "is come" so not exactly.

As for not implying divinity of Christ, I take more of an issue with the ESV

>removing Matthew 18:11

>implying that Joseph is His father in Luke 2:33

>not pronouncing that he is the Christ in John 4:42

>removing "because I go to the Father" in John 16:16

>not calling Him Christ in 1 Corinthians 16:22

>removing Him from Galatians 4:7

>removing Him from Ephesians 3:14

>not calling Him God in 1 Timothy 3:16

>not calling Him Christ in 1 John 4:3

among other things.

>>578342

I looked everywhere for a translation of the earliest manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:20. This is what I found.

>And we know that the Son of God came, He gave to us a discernment, that we should know the truth, and we are in the truth, in His Son Jesus the Christ…

https://archive.org/stream/copticversionofn07hornuoft#page/164/mode/2up

I think "has come" is more grammatically correct in the context of the verse.

>>578597

You mean ((earliest manuscripts)) here? I checked and it also cuts out part of 1 John 4:3 and cuts off the last clause of 1 John 5:13, which is the verse where John explains why he has written these things. I checked, and (((it))) doesn't include "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

These manuscripts may be early, but they are still altered from the originals. This is why I stick to using the good, original version of the Bible. And only the translations which have been based on the originals such as the KJV.

>>578600

Are you a KJVonlyist?

Just for reference, David Bentley Hart's translation says:

>And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know the one who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus the Anointed. This one is the true God and Life in the Age.

>>578629

> This one is the true God and Life in the Age.

This is the key verse. The esv says "he is the true god" he being Jesus, the subject of previous verses.

The KJV says "this is the true god" thus changing the personal "he" of previous verses

>>578607

>I only use the original bible

>KJV is a translation of the original bible

<KJV is translated from 12th century manuscripts

<KJV source manuscripts don't match each other or any other extant Greek text

Lunacy.

>>578634

>matching well

>matching poorly

>matching not at all

there's a difference

>>578634

<KJV is translated from 12th century manuscripts

They're 12th century copies of the originals. What's the problem here? Do you think we lost the word of God at some point? If so, maybe I can send you a crate of 2017 gender-neutral NIV with authentic jewish culture references, because it's anyone's game what scripture is anymore at that point. Maybe for all we know the real New Testament is still buried in Israel or under a pyramid somewhere and we haven't found the real thing yet? Because what if a year from now they find an even OLDER carbon-dated manuscript and it turns out Jesus said some different things there? Since it's older that would make it less corrupt after all.

Then I guess the "scholars" would probably have to get rid of Matthew 24:35 as well. They already stopped believing it anyway in 1881 starting with Westcott and Hort. We can trust these great men of God. Who tell us that Isaiah 59:21 and 1 Peter 1:23-25 only maybe kinda true, but not really.

>>578667

>They're 12th century copies of the originals. What's the problem here?

The problem here is that you have no way to confirm they are copies of the originals. The extant evidence points to the TR differing in many ways from what we can demonstrate was most likely the text the biblical authors wrote.

>Do you think we lost the word of God at some point?

Nope. I think its possible marginal notes made their way into the text accidentally over generations. In that case, it is perfectly possible for the whole of the word of God to be there, but it would be alongside uninspired words and comments that were not penned by the biblical authors.

>it's anyone's game what scripture is anymore at that point.

Hardly

>Maybe for all we know the real New Testament is still buried in Israel or under a pyramid somewhere and we haven't found the real thing yet?

Nonsense. Your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of textual criticism, it's aims, and its methodology. Not that i'm a professional, anyway.

>Because what if a year from now they find an even OLDER carbon-dated manuscript and it turns out Jesus said some different things there?

Simple. We adjust what needs to be adjusted—if anything at all–based on the evidence. If it's only one manuscript saying something wildly different than all the others, it would be a statistical outlier and worthy of exclusion.

>Since it's older that would make it less corrupt after all.

Do your arms ever get tired from punching strawmen?

>>578669

>The problem here is that you have no way to confirm they are copies of the originals.

Yes I do. The word of God itself gives you the way to confirm what it is, because the word of God says that it will never pass away or be corrupted. That is how you can confirm with assurance what is the word of God and what is a corruption. Because you know that the one word of God has always been available and that it never changes, thus anything that hasn't always been here cannot be an original. God made it be that way, so that the scriptures about this would be fulfilled. Psalm 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 5:18, Mark 13:31, Luke 16:17, 1 Peter 1:23-25. See Jeremiah 36 for an example of this in the OT.

>was most likely the text the biblical authors wrote.

So you don't believe it can be known for certain. Fine, but that simply means you don't believe the above scripture and have doubts about it.

>In that case, it is perfectly possible for the whole of the word of God to be there, but it would be alongside uninspired words and comments that were not penned by the biblical authors.

No, the critical text of Codex Sinaiticus/Vaticanus also adds or replaces scripture in places. For instance, 1 Peter 2:2 adds "grow up into salvation" where the received NT just says "grow thereby." It changes Luke 2:33 to imply that Joseph is Christ's father. And Mark 1:2 is changed to say "as it is written in Isaiah" instead of "as it is written in the prophets." Which is factually incorrect btw, because the first part of the quotation is exclusively from Malachi 3:1 and the second part from Isaiah. So these cannot both be correct by any stretch of the imagination. It is unavoidable you must accept or reject as unreliable the received word of God.

We have not always had the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, only since the mid to late 19th century.

>Nonsense. Your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of textual criticism, it's aims, and its methodology.

I can tell you one thing, if they found a sufficiently "convincing" artifact that was never known before, the scholars would tell everyone in the world that they need to throw away all currently existing Bibles and to make new ones, all based on what they find in the future.

>based on the evidence.

Ah okay, evidence. I like that. But do they define evidence the wrong way? Like if some jewish cult wrote a corrupt bible with gnostic teachings would they consider that evidence? And do they consider the claims scripture makes of itself as evidence? So you see it comes down to what you consider evidence, which for some is more about appearance than substance.

>If it's only one manuscript saying something wildly different than all the others, it would be a statistical outlier and worthy of exclusion.

Actually they have often argued that outliers are "more likely to be real" based on the fact they think some alleged revisions are more likely to have been made than others based on "currently accepted theology." The argument goes that if something is unusual "then there is no reason why a later scribe would add it" so it must be genuine.

>Do your arms ever get tired from punching strawmen?

Who is the first person in this thread to mention the age of a manuscript as equivalent to its reliability? It wasn't me. And it's openly how the argument for these manuscripts operate. Oldest = best strictly speaking, according to this school of thought, because there is "less time for corruptions to set in." Which is the assumption that there is no God to prevent corruption of his word.

>>578674

>anything that hasn't always been here cannot be an original

So the comma johanneum isn't original

>>578675

When did they start excluding 1 John 5:7? Probably around the time of Westcott and Hort again. Basically every Bible before them had 1 John 5:7 along with most other scripture that it takes out. So basically you would like us to believe that we haven't always had the uncorrupted New Testament again. And this is just great for those who have any number of reasons for doubting scripture in their life. Well maybe it doesn't REALLY say that, after all.

>>578676

If I were living in Greece before the 1200s and I turned my Bible to 1 John 5:7 I wouldn't see what you see in the KJV.

>>578676

By "anything that hasn't always been here", did you mean "anything that isn't my arbitrarily predetermined text"?

>>578678

Not unless you had a corrupt version buddy. One that Constantius II got his hands on perhaps.

The only way you could prove this statement of yours would be to produce every Bible that existed at that time. Otherwise, you're making a probability guess that will always have some uncertainty, being dependent on what has survived from that time period.

We could also extrapolate this argument of yours with little difficulty to say that only 1st century manuscripts can be trusted reliably to be from the 1st century. Because, in case such a thing were ever in fact found, you can be certain it would be the new foundation for all modern bible translations, even if… changes were necessary. Just by virtue of its age, it becomes the new bible to the scholars, and the old critical text will then no longer the "most reliable" anymore. Even if there were heretical cults around making corruptions even in the apostles' day, that wouldn't bother them one bit, because it doesn't now. Your bible could be overturned any day, so why believe in it? And that's where Christianity is at now.

>>578682

Well, we know for a fact that the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not known by anyone until about 150 years ago, so anything using them is disqualified from being received.

The question now is, what does that leave besides the KJV (with its sources) and a few older reformation translations based on those? No one was using a text stripped of 1 John 5:7 or any of the other verses back then, that is a fact. The justification for all of these changes (many thousands of changes) is the critical text started in 1881 by Westcott and Hort. Which nobody used until then. So regardless of what you believe IS the received word of God, the received word cannot be those, or any of those translations. The question is what's left. It just so happens we have other sources and a translation here that doesn't use the critical text. This really isn't hard.

>>578693

>Well, we know for a fact that the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not known by anyone until about 150 years ago

Erasmus attempted to gain access to Vaticanus for use in his printed text but failed to do so

>so anything using them is disqualified from being received.

Anon, try to understand that it isn't a question of manuscripts but lines of transmission. We've had these lines of transmission for a long time, so what we're trying to do isn't to dig up a really really old manuscript that shows the long lost original (any manuscript, however old, that massively strays from all lines of transmission, such as Codex Bezae, is worthless in textual criticism) but to see which of these lines of transmission contains the original text.

>No one was using a text stripped of 1 John 5:7 or any of the other verses back then

Hey, you're right. You're right because you mean nobody in the medieval west, which wasn't using the original texts at all. The plain, simple reality is that the comma did not exist in any Greek New Testament until the high middle ages (at the absolute earliest). If the comma johanneum is part of the original text of 1 John, then we have no idea what the New Testament originally said and we have no reason to believe it is the word of God.

>>578709

>Erasmus attempted to gain access to Vaticanus for use in his printed text but failed to do so

That doesn't really change anything.

>We've had these lines of transmission

See video if you care.

>The plain, simple reality is that the comma did not exist in any Greek New Testament until the high middle ages (at the absolute earliest)

Based on what? Surviving evidence? Because I base everything on the ability of God to preserve his word like he said. That certainly cannot be overthrown. It must be here now for the scripture to be fulfilled. Not waiting to be found and eventually be published with updates by secular scholars gradually, who have a vested interest in making you believe their version of events. And who implicitly assume that we have no idea without [oldest current manuscript], where this item is always subject to change on new discoveries and everything before it is then assumed to be "more corrupted" based on historiological analysis and on the concept that the word of God was "developed" by theologians over time. It's just another interesting religion to them. None of this is built on the fact that the scriptures must be fulfilled.

>>578725

>Because I base everything on the ability of God to preserve his word like he said.

ya but you don't know how he is preserving the text, i.e the discovery of more accurate manuscripts could actually be part of his plan. While you cling to the stuff that is less accurate.

Your time horizon is unknown, also if you are so into preservation via transmission you should become Apostolic, not part of a brand new sect totally divorced from transmitted christianity

>>578738

>if you are so into preservation via transmission you should become Apostolic, not part of a brand new sect totally divorced from transmitted christianity

I'll assume that includes me, and say 'no'. Cathodoxy isn't transmitted Christianity. Sola scriptura and semper reformanda are the proper guardians of apostolic tradition, not its enemies, because they keep it from being mixed with traditions of men. The 'Apostolic' churches are like textual corruptions with this analogy.

Also, the Roman Catholics were using the same arguments as KJVOnlyists against the Textus Receptus in favor of the Latin Vulgate during the Reformation.

>>578738

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

>but you don't know how

You don't perhaps

>become Apostolic,

I already observe the doctrine of Christ which is from the apostles, Ephesians 2:20, and nowhere in the word of God is apostolic "succession" given. And I do not accept for one second that the apostles were replaced for perishing as Judas Iscariot was in Acts 1. That's exactly what Matt. 16:18 prevents. His church still has authority.

>not part of a brand new sect

I agree exactly. All truth shall be based on the word of God, the final authority.

>>578741

>Also, the Roman Catholics were using the same arguments

No they weren't, and you should really know this. It was all argument from their authority, nothing more.

The LXX and Vulgate are translations themselves, not even originals in the original language, therefore precluded from being received. Unless you think Isaiah prophesied in Greek, which I have yet to encounter. The situation is not the same at all.

>>578742

>No they weren't, and you should really know this. It was all argument from their authority, nothing more.

Perhaps you shouldn't make pronouncements on things you are ignorant of? Erasmus added the comma johanneum in a later edition because people were accusing him of being an Arian for restoring the text (none of his manuscripts had the comma, and so neither did his first two editions).

>>578743

Keep telling yourself that bedtime story. It doesn't change the fact the RCC used translations as source text and not the original language as the source. Isaiah 59:21 prevents that scenario. So therefore this actually isn't a comparable situation, unlike what you previously said.

>>578743

>>578745

I will admit it's a comfy story though.

>>578745

But it is, anon. As the Reformation got under way, the reformers defended the TR by saying that only what the apostles actually wrote was inspired. They didn't have a traditional text to arbitrarily choose, they actually had to do the work. This is why they so often performed casual textual criticism.

Dunno if it will add anything new to the discussion, but I'll post it anyway.

>>578742

> It was all argument from their authority, nothing more.

Wrong.

In their preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament, the first reason given for use of the Latin Vulgate was that “it is most ancient” (p. xvii). In their preface to the 1610 Douay Old Testament, it is asserted that “the old Vulgate Latin Edition hath been preferred, and used for most authentic above a thousand and three hundred years” (p. viii). Gregory Martin, one of the Roman Catholic translators of the Rheims New Testament, asked Protestants: “Will you be tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church above a thousand years?” (Fulke, Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 77-78). Again Martin wrote: “In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole church?” (Ibid., p. 84). In his 1688 book, Thomas Ward asserted: “That the Vulgate of the Latin is the most true and authentic copy has been the judgment of God’s Church for above those 1300 years” (Errata, p. vi). Thomas A. Nelson claimed that “the Latin Vulgate Bible was used universally in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite) for over 1500 years” (Which Bible, p. 97).

Another claim of Roman Catholics was that the Latin Vulgate was equal to or even superior to God’s Word in the original languages. The preface of the Rheims N. T. pointed out: “It [the Latin Vulgate] is truer than the vulgar Greek text itself. It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree” (p. xvii). That Rheims preface asserted that “we see that by all means the old vulgar Latin translation is approved good, and better than the Greek text itself, and that there is no cause why it should give place to any other text, copies, or readings” (p. xx). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that “the Vatican librarian, Agostino Stevco, furnished extensive arguments in 1529 for the superiority of the Vulgate to both Hebrew and Greek texts” (Vol. I, p. 164). William Whitaker (1547-1595) maintained that “the papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 138). Thus, Roman Catholics set aside the superior or greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages to assert and maintain the authority of their preferred translation–the Latin Vulgate.

Roman Catholics claimed the Holy Spirit’s endorsement of the Latin Vulgate. Eugene Rice wrote: “It was a further common view of apologists for the Vulgate that a special providence of the Holy Spirit had acted directly on the translator to guarantee his trustworthiness” (Saint Jerome, p. 181). Rice cited that Melanchthon noted that to accept the judgment of the Council of Trent’s 1546 decree on the Vulgate “we would have to agree that the Vulgate has been revealed to us by the Holy Spirit” (p. 186).

Roman Catholics even claimed that other translations are so corrupt that they are Satan’s bibles. Martin condemned “books which were so translated by Tyndale and the like, as being no indeed God’s book, word, or scripture, but the devil’s word” (Fulke, Defence, p. 228). Sir Thomas More contended that Tyndale’s N. T. was a “cunning counterfeit,” perverted in the interests of heresy; “that it was not worthy to be called Christ’s testament, but either Tyndale’s own testament or the testament of his master Antichrist” (Bruce, History of the Bible, p. 40).

Do you notice a similarity?

Don't you see how when you and anderson argue that the KJV is the best because it's been used by English speakers for so long it's the same as the old Catholic argument? You make the same Catholic argument that the Latin is better than the originals when you say the KJV is all you need and don't bother looking at the original Greek and Hebrew?

What about how you KJVOnlyists argue the translators of the KJV were inspired by God to make their translation perfect, just as the Catholics did with Jerome?

You call modern translations diabolical or corrupt, just like the Catholics did centuries ago.

You're a kryptoCatholic parrot, dude.