It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman
my faith is in the God of the Bible who is Jesus Christ, the fulness of the godhead bodily.
He is all powerful and ever able to preserve his words to every generation forever.
unlike you puny little men gods who you look up to to tell you what is the word of God and what is not.
Did you not see what these men gods did to the first chapter of Genesis. How do you think these men gods fair on the rest of it?
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut
all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
and despite you twisting it ways what it says literally were it says it about the LORD preserving his word pure as if it were tried as silver to every generation forever.
You either believe it or not.
if youdon't then that is to your hurt not mine. I know whom I have believed and it is not a God who cannot preserve his word to every generation like your gods are, men that is.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut
There is no need to interpret it into a new English translation for people to understand it. Now that may entail that readers need to learn something in order to understand it but actually there is no need to. What I mean by that is they might need to understand the "eth's and est's", and the differences between the words you, ye, thee and thou (all of the newer English versions use only the word "you" in place of the you, ye, thee and thou), but usually it is clear by the context what those endings and words mean.
Are you honestly telling me that you do not understand the AKJV English?
Please understand there are no "Original Texts" to verify your claim that Adonai and JHWH, YHWH is Greek
and there was no Greek Old Testament before Jerome made one around 400AD.
Having said that, there was a Greek Translation of the Five Books of the Law that was commissioned by Alexander the Great. Everyone always goes to the fall back claim of the "Original Text", but there are none available since after Moses, since the Apostles including Paul. In short only copies of copies and none of them (copies) were complete texts.
No preservation is needed by man when God's word says that he, the LORD, will preserve it, that is if it needed to be preserved any further in English but it doesn't, that is because it is in a very simple English to begin with.
The NIV is not preserving he Bible, it is changing it, all the while saying they are not changing it. If you will look at the chart of biblical line you will see the NIV and the other versions since 1881 are only using 45 documents in making their version. Most of their versions are word for word translations from Wescott and Horts Greek NT, and from the OT of The Jesuit Rheims English Bible of 1582 and that was from Jerome's Greek OT. The AKJV used over 5,000 texts now that is a vast difference just in itself.
When they Transliterated into English they Used a complete word, JHVH was transliterated to the English LORD largely because of the Jewish tradition of not wanting to use the name of the LORD in vain so they said the Hebrew equivalent of lord, as it was found in piece of the Hebrew Bible. Also words like Lucifer was transliterated from the Latin word for Lucifer instead of translating it was the NIV and the new versions since 1881.
The NIV is not preserving he Bible, it is changing it, all the while saying they are not changing it.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn
There are two groups of MSS used in translations of almost all English bibles.
*Accurate copies [Textus Receptus] which are about 95% + of all of the 5,309 MSS available today.
*Corrupted copies [Alexandrian MSS] which are less than 5% of all of the 5,309 MSS available today.
What we have today are at best only copies of copies of the original autographs. As time went on the very language in which these were written, Greek, became a dead one as far as Roman Catholic-dominated Western Europe was concerned. However, with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks A.D. 1453, many Greek scholars and their manuscripts were scattered abroad, resulting in a revival of Greek in the Western citadels of learning.
Some fifty years after this, or early in the sixteenth century, Ximenes, archbishop of Toledo, Spain, a man of unusual ability and integrity, invited leading scholars of his country to his university at Alcalá to produce a multiple-language Bible—for the educated, not for the common people. The result was the Polyglot, named Complutensian after the Latin equivalent of Alcalá. It was a Bible of six large volumes, beautifully bound, containing the Hebrew Scriptures in four languages and the Christian Greek Scriptures in two. For the Christian Greek Scriptures these scholars had but few manuscripts at their disposal, and those of late origin, even though they were supposed to have access to the Vatican library. This Bible was completed in 1514 but was not approved by the pope until 1520 and was first released to the public in 1522.
THE “RECEIVED TEXT”
One who learned of the completion of this Bible and of its awaiting the approval of the pope was Froben, a printer in Basel, Switzerland. Seeing an opportunity for making profits, he at once sent word to Erasmus, who was the leading European scholar of the day and whose works he published in Latin, begging him to rush through a Greek “New Testament.” This Erasmus obligingly did in six months. In fact, Erasmus was in such haste he rushed the manuscript containing the Gospels to the printer without first editing it, making such changes as he felt necessary on the proof sheets. Because of this great haste the work also contained many typographical errors, Erasmus himself admitting in its preface that it was “rushed through rather than edited.” The first edition appeared in 1516, and corrected and slightly improved editions appeared in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.
These editions, we are told, proved to be a brilliant success, a literary sensation. They were low in cost, and the first two editions totaled 3,300 copies, as compared with 600 copies of the large and costly six-volume Polyglot Bible. In the preface of his editions Erasmus also stated: “I vehemently dissent from those who would not have private persons read the Holy Scriptures, nor have them translated into the vulgar tongues.” He may have “vehemently dissented,” but still Erasmus left it up to others to incur the displeasure of his church by translating the Bible as well as his own works into the vulgar tongue.
Luther used Erasmus’ 1519 edition for his German translation, and Tyndale the 1522 edition for his English translation. The editions of Erasmus also were the basis for further Greek editions by others, such as the four published by one Stephanus (Stephens). According to most historians, the third of these, published by Stephanus, in 1550, became the Received Text of Britain and the basis of the King James Version. However, others hold, and with apparently stronger evidence, that one of Beza’s editions, that of 1589, became the English Received Text.
The editions of Theodore Beza were the next to appear and were obviously based on an Erasmian text. They did not even vary as much as might be expected from those of Erasmus, seeing that Beza was a Protestant Bible scholar and possessor of two important Greek Scripture manuscripts of the sixth century, the D and D2, the first of which contains the Gospels and Acts and the second the Pauline letters. Next followed the Dutch Elzevir editions, which were practically the same as those of the Erasmian-influenced Beza text. In the second of the seven of these, published in 1633, appeared the statement (in Latin): “You therefore now have the text accepted by everybody.” This edition became the Textus Receptus or the Received Text on the Continent. It appears that this victory was in no small way due to the beauty and convenient size of the Elzevir editions.
Except for like practical consideration the editions of Erasmus had little to recommend them, for he had access to but five (some say eight) Greek manuscripts of comparatively late origin, and none of these were of the complete Christian Scriptures. Rather, these consisted of one or more sections into which the Greek Scriptures were generally divided: (1) the Gospels; (2) Acts and the general letters (James through Jude); (3) the letters of Paul; (4) Revelation. In fact, of the some 4,000 Greek Scripture manuscripts only about fifty are complete.
Thus Erasmus had only one copy of Revelation. It being incomplete, he simply retranslated the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. He even repeatedly brought his Greek text in line with the Latin Vulgate, this accounting for the fact that there are some twenty readings in his Greek text not found in any Greek manuscript. And after leaving out 1 John 5:7 from his first two editions he inserted this spurious text upon dubious authority, apparently as a matter of policy, being pressured to do so by Stunica, the editor of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible.
DETHRONING THE RECEIVED TEXT
For some two hundred years Greek Bible scholars were in bondage to the Erasmian-oriented Received Text. As they became acquainted with older and more accurate manuscripts and noticed the flaws in the Received Text, rather than to change that text they would publish their findings in introductions, margins and footnotes of their editions. As late as 1734, J. A. Bengle of Tübingen, Germany, apologized for again printing the Received Text, doing so only “because he could not publish a text of his own. Neither the publisher nor the public would have stood for it,” he complained.
The first one to incorporate his findings in the text itself was the scholar Griesbach. ... Still Griesbach did not fully break away from the Received Text. The first one fully to get out from under its influence was Lachmann, professor of ancient classical languages at Berlin University. ... As one authority expressed it: Lachmann “was the first to found a text wholly on ancient evidence; and . . . did much toward breaking down the superstitious reverence for the textus receptus.”
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Most all modern bibles since 1881AD are from the Alexandrain group of manuscripts or better known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus group of corrupted copies. This group is the MSS that was the basis of Westcott and Hort rendition of the NT which in turn forced Westcott and Hort to use the Textus Receptus to complete their rendition of their bible.
Following Lachmann came Constantine Tischendorf, best known for his discovery of the famed Sinaitic Manuscript, the only Greek uncial (large type) manuscript containing the complete Christian Greek Scriptures. Tischendorf did more than any other scholar to edit and make available the evidence contained in leading as well as lesser uncial manuscripts. During the time Tischendorf was making his valuable contributions to the science of textual criticism in Germany, one Tregelles in England made other valuable contributions. Among other things, he was able to demonstrate his theory of “Comparative Criticism,” that the age of a text may not necessarily be that of its manuscript, since it may be a faithful copy of an earlier text. His text was used by J. B. Rotherham for the Christian Greek Scriptures of his version. The fact that Tischendorf and Tregelles were stout champions of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures doubtless had much to do with the fruitfulness of their labors.
THE WESTCOTT AND HORT TEXT
The same was also true of their immediate successors, the two English scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. Hort, upon whose text the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures is based. They began their work in 1853 and completed it in 1881, working for twenty-eight years independently of each other, yet regularly comparing notes. As one scholar expressed it, they “gathered up in themselves all that was most valuable in the work of their predecessors.” They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve the difficulties that conflicting texts presented, and when two readings had equal weight they indicated that in their text. They stressed that “knowledge of documents should precede final judgment upon readings” and that “all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history.” They followed Griesbach in dividing manuscripts into families, stressing the importance of manuscript genealogy. They also gave due weight to internal evidence, “intrinsic probability” and “transcriptional probability,” that is, what the original writer most likely wrote and wherein a copyist may most likely have made a mistake.
They leaned heavily on the “neutral” family of texts, which included the famed fourth-century vellum Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. They considered it quite conclusive when these two manuscripts agreed, especially when supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts. However, they were not blindly bound to the Vatican manuscript as some have claimed, for by weighing all the factors they time and again concluded that certain minor interpolations had crept into the neutral text that were not found in the group more given to interpolations and paraphrasing, such as the Western family of manuscripts. Thus Goodspeed shows that Westcott and Hort departed from the Vatican manuscript seven hundred times in the Gospels alone.
The text of Westcott and Hort was acclaimed by critics world-wide and, although produced eighty years ago, is still the standard. Well has it been termed “epoch-making in the literal sense of the word,” and “the most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New Testament text which has yet been made,” excelling all others “in regard to method and extraordinary accuracy.” Of it Goodspeed, in his preface to An American Translation, states: “I have closely followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every scholar knows its superiority to the late and faulty texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the AV were made.”
In view of the foregoing it can clearly be seen why the New World Bible Translation Committee chose to use the Westcott and Hort text rather than any Received Text of two to three centuries before. There remains but the question, Why is it that omissions rather than additions appear to distinguish the later text from the earlier one?
Because, contrary to what might generally be expected, copyists were prone to add, to elaborate and to paraphrase, rather than to leave out things. Thus we find that the most dependable text is at once the most severe, the most condensed. Of the various places in which the Received Text differs from the Vatican manuscript, 2,877 are instances of additions. Of course, if one is first acquainted with the Received Text, these would appear as omissions.
...Then in 1516 ... Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures... Later,... Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott and 15 late manuscripts. The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611.
Quite noteworthy in more recent times is the master Greek text prepared by J. J. Griesbach,... He viewed extant manuscripts as comprising three families, or recensions, the Byzantine, the Western, and the Alexandrian, giving preference to readings in the latter. Editions of his master Greek text were issued between 1774 and 1806, ...
A Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures that attained wide acceptance is that produced in 1881 by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,” which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0nautI hate to tell you but any the Shakespeare or Beowulf books you have are copies,
however there is an original to check those books to. but there is not original to check the Bible to there are only conflicting copies and pieces of those at that. see above a Seede gave an accurate evidence of the books being used.
Today's Hebrew is not the same as Palestinian Hebrew circa 4-99 BC or Ancient Hebrew used by Moses. in 1918 they brought back Hebrew language but it is not the same it is more based on German Yiddish. So you can post all the Hebrew Letters you want it is not the same.
So No ORIGINAL Koine Greek, No Palestinian Hebrew, no Babylonian Chaldean, no Ancient Hebrew languages were known since 300BC.
So the only way the Bible was preserved for us in our Generation is by the power of God. The only one that has the sign of God hand on it is AKJV Bible. Take it or leave it bat that is it, no other English version is needed by God to get ALL his words to us today. All other bibles were made to make men Money.