Virtually all modern translations are based on three Greek manuscripts

[ResidentAlien]

Is anyone but me a little concerned that virtually all "modern" translations of the New Testament are based on only three Greek manuscripts? They are: Codex Alexandrius, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.

Many, many readers of the New Testament today are most likely using a version based on these manuscripts. These three manuscripts are older, but how reliable are they really? It just concerns me that so many translations would base their text on only three manuscripts.

This is not a KJVO thread. I'm not a KJV onlyist; I lean more toward the Majority Text, which includes the Textus Receptus but also many other Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine family.

 

[ResidentAlien]

This is a great video on this subject. It's almost three hours so it may take a little time to watch it all, but it's worth it.

I was on the fence but this video has changed my mind about the critical text. It starts at the very beginning and tracks the evolution of the critical text up to the present day.

 

[JohnDB]

Nope....
If you are basing your opinion on a single source then you have made a major flaw in judgment. (Nothing new since you apparently only start threads bashing someone)

Syriac texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Egyptian, and Ethiopian, and of course the Masoretic texts are all used as well.

*sigh* There is nothing here....just sensationalism and finger wagging for nothing.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Nope....
If you are basing your opinion on a single source then you have made a major flaw in judgment. (Nothing new since you apparently only start threads bashing someone)

Syriac texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Egyptian, and Ethiopian, and of course the Masoretic texts are all used as well.

*sigh* There is nothing here....just sensationalism and finger wagging for nothing.

I always know I'm on to something when someone leads with "nothing to see here."

 

[JohnDB]

I always know I'm on to something when someone leads with "nothing to see here."

It's half truths and deliberate lies. WHY are you listening to this nonsense?

 

[ResidentAlien]

It's half truths and deliberate lies. WHY are you listening to this nonsense?

Instead of saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," you should watch the video and maybe then you'd be in a position to refute it intelligently.

 

[JohnDB]

Instead of saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," you should watch the video and maybe then you'd be in a position to refute it intelligently.

Because of your statements and that I have extensively researched how current Bibles are formed and translated long before this guy started his video to gain money from clicks. (Which is what he is after)

United Bible Society does the New Testament and (I'm not sure of the new name as it changes regularly) Biblical Hebraica Stuttengartsia (BHS) for the Old Testament.

A case can be made about the Masoretic texts having too much influence for the Old Testament but there isn't any evidence except for the DSS which actually reinforces that source. Except for that passage about Bene Elohim in Deuteronomy that nobody likes....because it removes the sensationalism that abounds about it. People like their Sci Fi.

 

[ResidentAlien]

NASB—Greek Text: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece was followed.

NLT—The translators of the New Testament used two standard editions of the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993) and Novum Testamentum Graece edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty-seventh edition, 1993).

I guarantee every Bible you check, with the exception of the KJV or NKJV and those based on the Majority Text, will say the same thing. The Novum Testamentum Graece is based on Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, for which they relied primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Notice above it says Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition (it's now in its 28th edition). Why so many editions? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus haven't changed. They just keep changing the Novum Testamentum Graece based on their own theories, not on sound principles of translation.

When the NASB says "Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text," it's talking about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The "latest available manuscripts" are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. In other words, they basically used the Novum Testamentum Graece but when there was a question they went directly to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to determine the reading.

 

[studentoftheword]

Here is the thing Folks in my view anyway-------Satan is the god of this world and brings confusion and unbelief to us all ----that is His job ------The Bibles we have today is all we have to fall on and either believe or not believe ----

Noah ---was told by God to build an ark as there was going to be a flood ---Noah saw no rain for years ---yet he did what God's Word told him to do ------He Believed and Trusted the Word of God ----

Abraham was told to leave his home and go to a another land ---Abraham didn't say to God ----Oh --show me the land first where I am going and then I will go ------He believed God's Word ----He didn't question it ==he obeyed it as he Believed and Trusted God's word -----

We today have God's Book called the Bible -----that is all we have to go by ------the way the books were translated from the original writings we have no control over -----God knows that -----All we have is the Bible we know as God's Word -----if the Bible was translated from different Hebrew and Greek variations then God knows that ----we have no control over any of that -----

All we have is what we have today as far as God's word is concerned ------we can listen to all kinds of different people telling us all kinds of different ways -and times and -language etc that the Bible was formed from ------but the truth is the Bibles of today are all we have to either Believe and Trust or Disbelieve and Distrust ------

Confusion does not come from God Folks ----it comers from Satan ----we choose who we want to listen to and what side we want to be on ------Many Religions today have taken the Bible and created their own Bibles using their own language by changing the words and using their own thinking which again doesn't come from God -----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Video -----So i hear that some of these men took words out ---shortened the sentences -----which they believes added more truth than the original manuscript ---so here you have people making the scripture their own -----adding and taking away words ------bad Idea I say -----So I powered through the video and all I got was that they all though different about which language was better or worse ----and they picked the language they thought was better ----then at the end the man who founded SIL resigned from SIL as there was a riff that developed about the inerrancy of scripture -----Confusion ----Doubt -----Unbelief -----shown here ---all not from God---

and ARE THESE MEN SAVED who are trying to decipher the text ------as without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit these men cannot correctly divide the Word of God -----

And that is the way it is today ------many riffs --over Scripture -----different views on different Bibles ---different Religions all claiming to be the right one -----Jesus said Follow my WAY ------one God --one way ---

ALL we have is the Word of God --- the Bible -- that is it -----it says ----that the Words were God inspired ---God breathed ----and that God's word is Truth -----we can't see God to ask ---Jesus is the Word ---we either Believe that and Trust it or we don't -----arguing and bickering about the kind of Hebrew or Greek language used in the original Scripture is pointless and fruitless in my view

 

[ResidentAlien]

Erasmus rejected the 4th century dating of Codex Vaticanus and said it was more likely created in the 15th century. A modern expert tends to agree. There's no historical evidence for Vaticanus before the 15th century. This is one of the manuscripts modern textual critics point to as the most reliable because of its age!

This video is about 5 minutes.

 

[Live4Him3]

Erasmus rejected the 4th century dating of Codex Vaticanus and said it was more likely created in the 15th century. A modern expert tends to agree. There's no historical evidence for Vaticanus before the 15th century. This is one of the manuscripts modern textual critics point to as the most reliable because of its age!

This video is about 5 minutes.

What a duped world, most of the church included, we're living in when people are entrusting the keeping/preserving of God's word to the Vatican.

For crying out loud, the "popes" burned people at the stake for giving the common people the Bible in their own language, and now we're to trust them?

I'll pass.

You're wasting your time here.

You're correct in your conclusions, but most people are willfully blind to the truth.

P.S.

The Vatican/the Papacy is the literal kingdom of antichrist.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You're wasting your time here.

Lol, you may be right. I posted this thread partly out of curiosity to see what would happen. The crickets tell me most people don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

I'm hopeful that maybe a few people will watch the video at least and think about what they see and hear.

 

[Live4Him3]

Lol, you may be right. I posted this thread partly out of curiosity to see what would happen. The crickets tell me most people don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

I'm hopeful that maybe a few people will watch the video at least and think about what they see and hear.

I watched that video when it first came out.

In fact, I emailed Christian Pinto about it BEFORE it came out, and I still have those emails somewhere.

I definitely agree that those manuscripts are corrupt, BUT I vehemently disagree with Pinto on who "Babylon" is, and that was the topic of our brief email interactions. He believes that Rome is "Babylon" in the book of Revelation, but, in reality, Jerusalem is "Babylon" in the book of Revelation.

Anyhow, the fruit of the KJV and some of the Bibles which came before it was the Protestant Reformation.

The fruit of these new versions is worldwide apostasy and a bowing of the knee to Papal Rome.

 

[Dino246]

Notice above it says Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition (it's now in its 28th edition). Why so many editions? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus haven't changed. They just keep changing the Novum Testamentum Graece based on their own theories, not on sound principles of translation.

A little information is a dangerous thing.

Instead of getting your information from one source, do your homework properly. There are nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts. The NTG is updated based on new discoveries, not ‘theories’ of the scholars who produce it.

 

[ResidentAlien]

A little information is a dangerous thing.

Instead of getting your information from one source, do your homework properly. There are nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts. The NTG is updated based on new discoveries, not ‘theories’ of the scholars who produce it.

You're right, homework is a good thing. What sources would you suggest to confirm your information?

 

[JohnDB]

A little information is a dangerous thing.

Instead of getting your information from one source, do your homework properly. There are nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts. The NTG is updated based on new discoveries, not ‘theories’ of the scholars who produce it.

NTG?
Is that a new name for themselves? They once were called the United Bible Society (UBS) or is this the group that collects the New Testament scriptures collaborations as well as the Old Testament collaborations?

 

[Vindicator]

Is anyone but me a little concerned that virtually all "modern" translations of the New Testament are based on only three Greek manuscripts? They are: Codex Alexandrius, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.

Many, many readers of the New Testament today are most likely using a version based on these manuscripts. These three manuscripts are older, but how reliable are they really? It just concerns me that so many translations would base their text on only three manuscripts.

This is not a KJVO thread. I'm not a KJV onlyist; I lean more toward the Majority Text, which includes the Textus Receptus but also many other Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine family.

I believe I saw you posting about this elsewhere, and it's an interesting topic. The thing is, as I was saying, the greatest likelihood is that the longer readings were added so as to clarify the church's positions and defend against heresies that were developing. There is little disagreement theologically between the longer and shorter readings, except for a couple of places where it appears pretty obvious that the longer reading is wrong, and was an overcompensation to defend against them, but in general I see little wrong with adding to the text in later generations to reinforce the original doctrines of the early church. It just needs to be understood for what it is.

I can go into more detail later, but I may try and watch your video first just to see what it's saying.

God bless, and thanks for posting.
Vindicator

 

[studentoftheword]

Adding and subtracting from God's word has Grave consequences according to God'=====one should be very careful about their adding or subtracting when it comes to scripture ---


https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Adding-To-The-Bible

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Verse Concepts
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6
Verse Concepts
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Deuteronomy 12:32
Verse Concepts
“Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Adding-To-The-Bible

 

[Jesusfollower]

Is anyone but me a little concerned that virtually all "modern" translations of the New Testament are based on only three Greek manuscripts? They are: Codex Alexandrius, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.

Many, many readers of the New Testament today are most likely using a version based on these manuscripts. These three manuscripts are older, but how reliable are they really? It just concerns me that so many translations would base their text on only three manuscripts.

This is not a KJVO thread. I'm not a KJV onlyist; I lean more toward the Majority Text, which includes the Textus Receptus but also many other Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine family.

About 40 years ago I wanted to know about the accuracy of scriptures, I was then interested in religion(s) i have read a lot of books ( hundreds ) at a university religious library in Montreal, having a full collection or rare and old books on Christianity. My conclusion then was that the bible ( louis second version in french and the KJV in english ) are the most accurate translations from the original texts, all the experts were certain of this. Now for the original greek texts, the experts conclusions were that, remarkably there were no major variations from the old greek texts amd some other that i have forgotten the names since it was so long ago. I am a perfectionist and I wanted then the most accurate vesion for study. i read also the new king james a bit easier for a french speaking person.

I think it is important to stick with a version that mirrors as closely as possible the original texts, some version have interpretations and unfortunately change the meaning....

Blessings,

JF

 

[Dino246]

NTG?
Is that a new name for themselves? They once were called the United Bible Society (UBS) or is this the group that collects the New Testament scriptures collaborations as well as the Old Testament collaborations?

I didn’t feel like typing Novum Testamentum Grecae on my phone.