KVJ Vs NIV, which is right? A study of the manuscripts

[Time2BCounted]

Forgive the length of this opening post. What i intend here is an in depth study of the manuscripts which were used to translate eventually, the kjv, and then the differant texts which were used to translate eventually the niv.

5210 manuscripts back the kjv, whereas only 45 back the niv, and these 45 are called the 'alexandrian' manuscripts, and for good reason which we will go into.

This first post is a general picture, in further posts we will study the origen of these manuscripts and the heretics who tried to remove the diety from Christ, resulting in the opposing 45 texts.

The traditional texts (5200) were passed down and translated into the Syriac, old latin syriac, the papyri manuscripts, the latin texts, including Waldensians. They were used to translate then into the Greek NT by Erassmus, and then used by Martin luter as well in his translation. Tyndale's bible, Coverdales bible, Matthews bible and the Great English Bivle were translated from them. Then the Stephens Greek NT was drawn from these traditional manuscripts and a decade later the Geneva Bible.... Finally bringing us to the KJV...

...all based upon the traditional 5210 manuscripts....

The remaining 45 are the Alexandrian texts...

These Alexandrian texts seem to be by far the inferior texts based on being the vast minority of less than one percent. Also they exclude many times, major christian themes which are included in the majority texts. Many times we hear an arguement to the effect that the 45 are "the most accurate", and i submit this is very misleading. First of all, it seems accuracy would side with the majority if we have 5210 in agreement and only 45 in disagreement.

Let me give what i believe is a good example of how those holding to the alexandran texts tend to exaggerate the facts...


Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.



The newer versions of the bible, niv among them, are based on the alexandrian texts, whereas the kjv has the rich history already mentioned. This passage from Mark 16 is found in the king james, but not in the niv... the explanation we get is 'the niv was taken from the most accurate texts'. The truth is that this portion of Mark IS FOUND in 618 manuscripts and ONLY 2 manuscripts omit this passage... these 2 are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So 618 to 2, in my estimation does not speak for the accuracy of the newer version.


The newer versions of scripture leave out MANY important statements, such as the statement of saving faith made by Phillip to the ethiopian Eunich. Note the differance between these 2 passages...


Acts 8 (King James)

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.



Acts 8 (NIV)

35 Then Philip began with that same part of Scripture. He told him the good news about Jesus.
36-37As they traveled along the road, they came to some water. The official said, "Look! Here is water! Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38 He gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the official went down into the water. Philip baptized him.


The entire message of salvation is left out of the minority texts, so the majority is forsaken in order to omit what may be the most important verse in the passage.

In like manner ther miracle disappears because the minority text is translated "young woman" to describe Mary, rather than "Virgin" as we see in the king james.



When we have a majority of 5210 texts all in support of one another, and forsake them for 45 texts that trunkate huge portions of scripture, also leaving out important messages, it seems to me rather inaccurate to call the minority the 'most accurate'.

Since the NIV has 16000 fewer words than the KJV, and over 30,000 changes are made between the old testament manuscripts alone, It would be impossible to list them all in a post or even a thread.

Here is an interesting tidbit... The NIV and other newer translations based on the westcott hort greek translation, which is based only on 45 manusscripts, had to by copywrite law use a certain percentage of the textus receptus... or the received text of the KJV... the NIV basicly ONLY parts in points of important doctrine.

Here are just a few examples of this...



Daniel 3:25 KJV= the Son of God, NIV= A son of the Gods

HUGE differance between 'THE SON of God' and 'A son of GODS'

Acts 3:13, 26 KJV= his Son Jesus, NIV= his servant Jesus

Philippians 2:6 KJV= thought it not robbery to be equal with God, NIV = did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

This passage in the KJV says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what is said in the NIV



Acts 8:37 KJV= If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, NIV= omitted with a footnote

The entire gospel message is removed from Acts chapter 8


John 6:69 KJV= thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, NIV= you are the Holy One of God

Matthew 20:20 KJV= worshipping Him, NIV= kneeling down


John 4:42 KJV = this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world, NIV= this man really is the savior of the world


I John 4:3 KJV= that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, NIV= omitted

Acts 2:30 KJV= according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ, NIV= omitted

Ephesians 5:30 KJV= of his flesh and of his bones, NIV= omitted


Matthew 1:25 KJV= her firstborn son, NIV= birth to a son


Luke 2:33 KJV= Joseph and his mother, NIV =The child’s father and mother

the distinction here is TOO great to ignore... here the KJV doesnt claim Joseph is the father of Christ... indeed it is consistant with the teaching that God is His Father... the NIV however calls a fleshly man the father of Christ and this is opposite of scriptural teaching

Luke 2:43 KJV= Joseph and his mother, NIV= his parents



Colossians 1:14 KJV= through his blood, NIV= omitted

I Corinthians 11:24 KJV= broken for you, NIV= for you

I Cor. 5:7; I Peter 4:1 KJV= for us, NIV= omitted

Ephesians 1:14 KJV= purchased possession, NIV= God's posession

Luke 9:31 KJV= his decease, NIV= his departure

Acts 1:3 KJV= infallible proofs, NIV= convincing proofs

Ephesians 5:30 KJV= of his flesh and of his bones, NIV= omitted

Luke 13:32 KJV= the third day I shall be perfected, NIV= the third day I will reach my goal

John 16:16 KJV= because I go to the Father, NIV= omitted

John 3:13 KJV= which is in heaven, NIV= parenthetical disclaimer

Romans 1:20 KJV= Godhead, NIV= divine nature
Acts 17:29 KJV= Godhead, NIV= divine being

Colossians 2:9 KJV= Godhead, NIV= diety

Romans 11:6 KJV= but if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.. NIV= omitted

Hebrews 3:18 KJV= believed not, NIV=disobedient

Matthew 6:22 KJV= thine eye be single, NIV= your eyes are good

Luke 4:4 KJV= but by every word of God, NIV= omitted

Luke 4:8 KJV= Get thee behind me, Satan, NIV= omitted

Proverbs 21:21 KJV= Righteousness, NIV= prosperity

Mark 10:21 KJV= take up the cross, NIV= omitted

Matthew 20:16 KJV= for many be called, but few chosen, NIV= omitted

Romans 8:1 KJV= who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit., NIV= omitted

Matthew 5:44 KJV= bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, NIV= omitted

II Timothy 2:15 KJV= study, NIV= do your best


Revelation 22:14 KJV= do his commandments, NIV= wash their robes


Luke 11:2 KJV= Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth..
NIV= Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come


Luke 11:4 KJV= And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
NIV= Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.


Matthew 6:13b KJV= For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.,
NIV= omitted


Mark 13:33 KJV= watch and pray, NIV= be on guard, be alert

Luke 21:36 KJV= pray always, NIV= pray

James 5:16 KJV= effectual fervent prayer, NIV= prayer

Mark 9:29 KJV= prayer and fasting, NIV= prayer

Matthew 25:13 KJV= the Son of man cometh, NIV= omitted

Mark 10:24 KJV= them that trust in riches, NIV omitted

Mark 11:26 KJV= But if ye do not forgive, neither will your father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses., NIV= omitted

Revelation 2:15 KJV= which thing I hate, NIV= omitted


II Timothy 3:3 KJV= trucebreakers false accusers... despisers of those who are good
NIV= unforgiving slanderous not lovers of the good


Matthew 23:14 KJV= ye devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers, NIV= omitted


Mark 6:11 KJV= the day of judgment, NIV= omitted

Luke 17:36 KJV= Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left., NIV= omitted

Revelation 22:19 KJV=God shall take away his part out of the book of life
NIV= God will take away from him his share in the tree of life.

Mark 9:44, 46 KJV= Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
NIV= omitted

Matthew 18:11 KJV= For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost., NIV= omitted

Mark 15:28 KJV= And he was numbered with the transgressors, NIV= omitted

I John 5:13 KJV= that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God, NIV= omitted



So much for the beginning of this study. Next we will look into the 45 alexandrian texts and see where and how they came into being.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Forgive the length of this opening post. What i intend here is an in depth study of the manuscripts which were used to translate eventually, the kjv, and then the differant texts which were used to translate eventually the niv.

5210 manuscripts back the kjv, whereas only 45 back the niv, and these 45 are called the 'alexandrian' manuscripts, and for good reason which we will go into.

This first post is a general picture, in further posts we will study the origen of these manuscripts and the heretics who tried to remove the diety from Christ, resulting in the opposing 45 texts.

The traditional texts (5200) were passed down and translated into the Syriac, old latin syriac, the papyri manuscripts, the latin texts, including Waldensians. They were used to translate then into the Greek NT by Erassmus, and then used by Martin luter as well in his translation. Tyndale's bible, Coverdales bible, Matthews bible and the Great English Bivle were translated from them. Then the Stephens Greek NT was drawn from these traditional manuscripts and a decade later the Geneva Bible.... Finally bringing us to the KJV...

...all based upon the traditional 5210 manuscripts....

The remaining 45 are the Alexandrian texts...

These Alexandrian texts seem to be by far the inferior texts based on being the vast minority of less than one percent. Also they exclude many times, major christian themes which are included in the majority texts. Many times we hear an arguement to the effect that the 45 are "the most accurate", and i submit this is very misleading. First of all, it seems accuracy would side with the majority if we have 5210 in agreement and only 45 in disagreement.

Let me give what i believe is a good example of how those holding to the alexandran texts tend to exaggerate the facts...


Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.



The newer versions of the bible, niv among them, are based on the alexandrian texts, whereas the kjv has the rich history already mentioned. This passage from Mark 16 is found in the king james, but not in the niv... the explanation we get is 'the niv was taken from the most accurate texts'. The truth is that this portion of Mark IS FOUND in 618 manuscripts and ONLY 2 manuscripts omit this passage... these 2 are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So 618 to 2, in my estimation does not speak for the accuracy of the newer version.


The newer versions of scripture leave out MANY important statements, such as the statement of saving faith made by Phillip to the ethiopian Eunich. Note the differance between these 2 passages...


Acts 8 (King James)

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.



Acts 8 (NIV)

35 Then Philip began with that same part of Scripture. He told him the good news about Jesus.
36-37As they traveled along the road, they came to some water. The official said, "Look! Here is water! Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38 He gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the official went down into the water. Philip baptized him.


The entire message of salvation is left out of the minority texts, so the majority is forsaken in order to omit what may be the most important verse in the passage.

In like manner ther miracle disappears because the minority text is translated "young woman" to describe Mary, rather than "Virgin" as we see in the king james.



When we have a majority of 5210 texts all in support of one another, and forsake them for 45 texts that trunkate huge portions of scripture, also leaving out important messages, it seems to me rather inaccurate to call the minority the 'most accurate'.

Since the NIV has 16000 fewer words than the KJV, and over 30,000 changes are made between the old testament manuscripts alone, It would be impossible to list them all in a post or even a thread.

Here is an interesting tidbit... The NIV and other newer translations based on the westcott hort greek translation, which is based only on 45 manusscripts, had to by copywrite law use a certain percentage of the textus receptus... or the received text of the KJV... the NIV basicly ONLY parts in points of important doctrine.

Here are just a few examples of this...



Daniel 3:25 KJV= the Son of God, NIV= A son of the Gods

HUGE differance between 'THE SON of God' and 'A son of GODS'

Acts 3:13, 26 KJV= his Son Jesus, NIV= his servant Jesus

Philippians 2:6 KJV= thought it not robbery to be equal with God, NIV = did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

This passage in the KJV says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what is said in the NIV



Acts 8:37 KJV= If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, NIV= omitted with a footnote

The entire gospel message is removed from Acts chapter 8


John 6:69 KJV= thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, NIV= you are the Holy One of God

Matthew 20:20 KJV= worshipping Him, NIV= kneeling down


John 4:42 KJV = this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world, NIV= this man really is the savior of the world


I John 4:3 KJV= that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, NIV= omitted

Acts 2:30 KJV= according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ, NIV= omitted

Ephesians 5:30 KJV= of his flesh and of his bones, NIV= omitted


Matthew 1:25 KJV= her firstborn son, NIV= birth to a son


Luke 2:33 KJV= Joseph and his mother, NIV =The child’s father and mother

the distinction here is TOO great to ignore... here the KJV doesnt claim Joseph is the father of Christ... indeed it is consistant with the teaching that God is His Father... the NIV however calls a fleshly man the father of Christ and this is opposite of scriptural teaching

Luke 2:43 KJV= Joseph and his mother, NIV= his parents



Colossians 1:14 KJV= through his blood, NIV= omitted

I Corinthians 11:24 KJV= broken for you, NIV= for you

I Cor. 5:7; I Peter 4:1 KJV= for us, NIV= omitted

Ephesians 1:14 KJV= purchased possession, NIV= God's posession

Luke 9:31 KJV= his decease, NIV= his departure

Acts 1:3 KJV= infallible proofs, NIV= convincing proofs

Ephesians 5:30 KJV= of his flesh and of his bones, NIV= omitted

Luke 13:32 KJV= the third day I shall be perfected, NIV= the third day I will reach my goal

John 16:16 KJV= because I go to the Father, NIV= omitted

John 3:13 KJV= which is in heaven, NIV= parenthetical disclaimer

Romans 1:20 KJV= Godhead, NIV= divine nature
Acts 17:29 KJV= Godhead, NIV= divine being

Colossians 2:9 KJV= Godhead, NIV= diety

Romans 11:6 KJV= but if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.. NIV= omitted

Hebrews 3:18 KJV= believed not, NIV=disobedient

Matthew 6:22 KJV= thine eye be single, NIV= your eyes are good

Luke 4:4 KJV= but by every word of God, NIV= omitted

Luke 4:8 KJV= Get thee behind me, Satan, NIV= omitted

Proverbs 21:21 KJV= Righteousness, NIV= prosperity

Mark 10:21 KJV= take up the cross, NIV= omitted

Matthew 20:16 KJV= for many be called, but few chosen, NIV= omitted

Romans 8:1 KJV= who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit., NIV= omitted

Matthew 5:44 KJV= bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, NIV= omitted

II Timothy 2:15 KJV= study, NIV= do your best


Revelation 22:14 KJV= do his commandments, NIV= wash their robes


Luke 11:2 KJV= Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth..
NIV= Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come


Luke 11:4 KJV= And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
NIV= Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.


Matthew 6:13b KJV= For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.,
NIV= omitted


Mark 13:33 KJV= watch and pray, NIV= be on guard, be alert

Luke 21:36 KJV= pray always, NIV= pray

James 5:16 KJV= effectual fervent prayer, NIV= prayer

Mark 9:29 KJV= prayer and fasting, NIV= prayer

Matthew 25:13 KJV= the Son of man cometh, NIV= omitted

Mark 10:24 KJV= them that trust in riches, NIV omitted

Mark 11:26 KJV= But if ye do not forgive, neither will your father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses., NIV= omitted

Revelation 2:15 KJV= which thing I hate, NIV= omitted


II Timothy 3:3 KJV= trucebreakers false accusers... despisers of those who are good
NIV= unforgiving slanderous not lovers of the good


Matthew 23:14 KJV= ye devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers, NIV= omitted


Mark 6:11 KJV= the day of judgment, NIV= omitted

Luke 17:36 KJV= Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left., NIV= omitted

Revelation 22:19 KJV=God shall take away his part out of the book of life
NIV= God will take away from him his share in the tree of life.

Mark 9:44, 46 KJV= Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
NIV= omitted

Matthew 18:11 KJV= For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost., NIV= omitted

Mark 15:28 KJV= And he was numbered with the transgressors, NIV= omitted

I John 5:13 KJV= that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God, NIV= omitted



So much for the beginning of this study. Next we will look into the 45 alexandrian texts and see where and how they came into being.
Ok first questions:

Why so many versions? Out of 5000+ manuscripts why then have only 45 of them been said to be accurate?

if we are all on the same side then why the contraversy?\
and lastly, how do you compare originals to translations?

[Time2BCounted]

double post sorry

[Time2BCounted]

Ok first questions:

Why so many versions? Out of 5000+ manuscripts why then have only 45 of them been said to be accurate?

if we are all on the same side then why the contraversy?\
and lastly, how do you compare originals to translations?
I think you are misunderstanding something here

there are a total of 5255 manuscripts

5210 make up the textus receptus and they agree with one another. This is the background of the kjv

45 make up what we call the alexandrian texts, and they dont even agree with one another. These were what was used to make every other modern translation aside from the kjv, including the niv.

You are going to be surprised what you find about these 45

An interesting note.

There are well over 600 manuscripts that contain the book of 1 john. ALL OF THEM BUT 2 contain the johanan comma, and these 2 were influenced by Origen of Alexandria, who was pronounced to be a heretic because his teachings departed from the truth.

WELL OVER 600 contain it, only 2 do not

[Joykins]

Why is this in the Conservative Christians subforum? Posting it here means that only Conservative Christians can freely post. Sanctuary and Bliss, if you want everyone to freely contribute you should start a thread in one of the Theology forums.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

I think you are misunderstanding something here

there are a total of 5255 manuscripts

5210 make up the textus receptus and they agree with one another. This is the background of the kjv

45 make up what we call the alexandrian texts, and they dont even agree with one another. These were what was used to make every other modern translation aside from the kjv, including the niv.

You are going to be surprised what you find about these 45

An interesting note.

There are well over 600 manuscripts that contain the book of 1 john. ALL OF THEM BUT 2 contain the johanan comma, and these 2 were influenced by Origen of Alexandria, who was pronounced to be a heretic because his teachings departed from the truth.

WELL OVER 600 contain it, only 2 do not
Where could they be found, the 600+?

and its not a misunderstanding, I am trying to figure out that with all this information and all these manuscripts why then are christians so divided?

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Why is this in the Conservative Christians subforum? Posting it here means that only Conservative Christians can freely post. Sanctuary and Bliss, if you want everyone to freely contribute you should start a thread in one of the Theology forums.
Time started it.

We could restart it in theology. I dont mind. I think evryone should be able to.

But I have posted in lil subforums before tbh. As long as everyone can remain civil, dont see the peoblem of people posting here. :)

[Joykins]

Do I have permission to debate freely? Or can this at least be moved to the CC debate subforum?

[GreenMunchkin]

Why is this in the Conservative Christians subforum? Posting it here means that only Conservative Christians can freely post. Sanctuary and Bliss, if you want everyone to freely contribute you should start a thread in one of the Theology forums.What? This is his home forum. Why shouldn't he start a thread like this in here? :scratch:

[Joykins]

What? This is his home forum. Why shouldn't he start a thread like this in here? :scratch:

It is a split off from a support forum thread that linked *everyone* here to debate. I have no problem with it being here but if *everyone* is supposed to debate we need another thread.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

What? This is his home forum. Why shouldn't he start a thread like this in here? :scratch:
Because I invited everyone in an earlier thread and Time started it with me and people questioning like me. :) and I wanted everyone to join. thats why she is wondering.

[GreenMunchkin]

It is a split off from a support forum thread that linked *everyone* here to debate. I have no problem with it being here but if *everyone* is supposed to debate we need another thread.Ahhh! Shoot, I don't have tools anymore. Um, yeah, it should be moved to the Debate Sub-forum if everyone wants to get involved :)

I'll pm Hentenza. Two secs :hug:

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Ahhh! Shoot, I don't have tools anymore. Um, yeah, it should be moved to the Debate Sub-forum if everyone wants to get involved :)

I'll pm Hentenza. Two secs :hug:
Ok cool. as long as everyone can, i mean should be fair enough eh.

[chaoschristian]

Checking in and waiting for the move.

[Time2BCounted]

I agree no problem posting here, everyone can ask questions. If anyone wants to debate it we can start another thread in the debate subforum here and you may debate all you like.

This though we will keep strictly as a study

It is said by many that the 45 alexandrian texts are the oldest and most reliable. In the opening post it is demonstrated that it is very quesitonable to call the 2 out of 600 the most accurate. Now lets show that oldest is also an error

The old syriac dates back to 400 AD, and the Pashitta dates to the middle of the 2nd century, and they BOTH strongly support the king james. These are contemperary with the 45 alexandrian, so the alexandrian are not the oldest either. As a matter of fact it is the 'Western" texts that are shown to be older than the alexandrian and these back the textus receptus, not the alexandrian.

The western texts were older and already being quoted by 2nd century church Fathers...

Here is a link to verify this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_text-type

So what we have is this...

The western texts agree with the textus receptus and predates the Alexandrian texts. So we have early texts containing the johanan comma, then we have the 45 discenting alexandrian texts, and then the textus receptus which takes us back to the theology of the western texts.




here are some good sources to study the pashitta

http://www.pe****ta.netfirms.com/ (http://www.pe****ta.netfirms.com/)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy)

http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml (http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml)

http://www.standardversion.org/ (http://www.standardversion.org/)



So any claim that siniaticus and vaticanus are 'older' and 'more reliable' melts away when we look at the facts...


Before i go on to new info though, let me reiterate a few things here..

1) Manuscripts are found in the same eras, displaying both the alexandran and the textus receptus renderings

2) origen and clement of Alexandra are responsible for the gnostic and universallist teachings in alexandria, now considered heretical

3) they influenced the entire alexandrian church and spread their influence in the mid second century on to the 3rd

4) Westcott and Hort, the men who translated the 45 manuscripts into the westcott hort version of the greek new testament used to back the NIV, did not believe in the infallibility of scripture and they chose the gnostic version of scripture

5) the gnostics of that era were anathematized

6) as were their teachings and writings... some of their writings are also manuscripts, for instance origen...

(To referance # 6 go here... http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html) and see this...

Here we have a study comparison on the alexandrian texts to show that Origen's text is included as comparison, which would make his the oldest of the alexandrian texts. Origen was a universalist denying the diety of Jesus interestingly.
Quote:
Great care must be taken to understand Greeven's apparatus, which is strongly dependent not only on the order of the witnesses, but on the typographic form in which they are presented (e.g. Or does not mean the same thing as Or, even though both refer to Origen).

...Group Witnesses
H P46 BSCA 1739 424c 1908 33 PY 104 326 1175 81 1852(R) HIM(1 2CHb) 048 062(G) 081(2 C) 082(E) 088(1C) 0142 P10·13·15·16·40 |
Ca1 D(E)G(F) 917 1836 1898 181 88 915 1912 |
Ca2 623 5 1827 1838 467 1873 927 489 2143 |
Ca3 920 1835 1845 919 226 547 241 1 460 337 177 1738 321 319 69 462 794 330 999 1319 2127 256 263 38 1311 436 1837 255 642 218 |
Cb1 206 429 1831 1758 242 1891 522 2 635 941 1099 |
Cb2 440 216 323 2298 1872 1149 491 823 35 336 43 |
Cc1 1518 1611 1108 2138 1245 2005 |
Cc2 257 383 913 378 1610 506 203 221 639 1867 876 385 2147 |
K KL |


Let us take Romans 2:14 as an example. Merk's text (without accents) reads:
(14)otan gar eqnh ta mh nomon econta fusei ta tou nomou poiwsin, outoi nomon mh econtes eautois eisin nomos
In the apparatus we have
14 gar] de G| ar Wr| -- i.e. for gar, the reading of Merk's text, the Greek side of G (but not the Latin), the Armenian, and part of Origen read de. All other witnesses support Merk's text. poiwsin B SA-1908 104-1852 Ds 467 1319-38 436 43 Cl Wr ] poih rel -- i.e. poiwsin is supported by B, S (=), the witnesses from A to 1908 (=A, 1739, 6, possibly 424**, and 1908), the witnesses from 104 to 1852 (=104, 326, 1175, 81, 1852), by D and all other witnesses to the end of its group (=D G 917 1836 1898 181 88 915 1912, with perhaps one or two omitted), by 467, by the witnesses from 1319 to 38 (=1319 2127 256 263 38), by 436, by 43, by Clement, and by Origen. The alternative reading poih is supported by all other witnesses -- i.e. by the uncited witnesses in the H group (in this case, P Y), by the entire Ca2 group except 467, by the uncited witnesses of Ca3 (=920, 1835, etc.), by all witnesses of the Cb groups except 43, and by all remaining witnesses from 1518 on down to L at the end.



So my question would be... HOW are these called 'more reliable texts'?



Also... i really do think it is an important question

...did Catholic priests rewrite what we now know aas textus receptus, misleading us in 5210 manuscripts... or did clement and origen influence and help write the 45 opposing texts?

Again i have to opt for the latter personally

[GreenMunchkin]

Have pmed Hen :)

Is so nice to see everyone here! :hug:

[chaoschristian]

A carpenter measures a length of board incorrectly and makes 600 cuts based on that measurement.

Another carpenter measures a length of board accurately and makes two cuts based on that measurement.

Who is the better carpenter?

[Time2BCounted]

A carpenter measures a length of board incorrectly and makes 600 cuts based on that measurement.

Another carpenter measures a length of board accurately and makes two cuts based on that measurement.

Who is the better carpenter?
Its like witnesses
If you have 600 docs who say you have a broken leg, and 2 that look at the break and pretend it isnt there and tell you it isnt, who was the most reliable?

One can believe the 2 if they like, but without crutches they will fall on their face

[FallingWaters]

I spent much time on this last year.

The most significant thing I learned is that all translated versions of the Bible can be trusted in that no important doctrine of Christianity is compromised.

I am not a fan of the Textus Receptus.
I prefer the Critical Texts myself.
The latest one I am aware of is UBS4.
The ESV - English Standard Version - is a literal translation based on UBS4 and I prefer it the best for study.

However, I'm also very fond of my NKJV which I have been notating and highlighting in for over 20 years. I like the way it tells me in the footnotes about any variances in other Texts.

Many Baptist teachers use the NASB and I consider it also to be trustworthy.

However, I don't understand folks who try to claim the the KJV English translation was somehow supernaturally made perfect by God and it is the only translation we can trust.
I don't begrudge people who want to use it, but they claim something that is not true.
I am aware of at least one man-made mistake in the KJV (in the age of one of the characters) therefore, God did not write the KJV.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Good to see you here Chaos. was hopin youd be here :)

I am gonna state one thing time. I am going to debate you, not nessasarily because I disagree but because questions and probing is good. and lots of otheres will debate me as well.

ok on to your actual post:

I see what you are saying my friend, in both the post and your response to CC, but I think the analogy is a bit extreme. does more always mean better?

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

I will look this up but would like to hear from you as well Falling, can you tell me a bit more about critical texts?

[Time2BCounted]

I have very specific reasons for rejecting the Alexandrian texts. I also have very good sources for my study...

I have a question for you however... you seem to be somewhat knowledgable in church history as many here are.

So why would the church or anyone in it, decide to take the word of pronounced heretics that the holy scriptures were in need of revision??


Clement and Origen are the authors of the changes...

Clement of Alexandria was the teacher of Origen. It is their very doctrines that universalists today rest much of their doctrine on, from clements declarations on the 'logos', to Origens declarations that ALL spirits, including the demonic and satan himself, will be reconciled to the Lord in the end. This is decidedly Universalist Unitarian teaching.

These men are the ones who depart us from the manuscripts backing the textus receptus, giving us the 45 discenting texts which now make up the NIV


Origen is even sharply rebuked and criticized for CHANGING the holy and acceptable texts.


Here are a few of the anathemas charged against origen alone...


from...

Title: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils
Author: Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)


IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.


Evagrius, the historian, distinctly says that Origen was condemned with special anathemas at this Council, but his evidence is likewise (and, as it seems to me, too peremptorily) set aside.
Philip Schaff NPNF (V2-14)


It would seem that this cannot possibly refer to anything else than a condemnation of Origen by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, and so strongly is Vincenzi, Origen’s defender, impressed with this that he declares the passage to have been tampered with.


“The fifteen anathemas against Origen, on which his condemnation at the council was based, contained the following points.…Since the ‘Three Chapters’ were condemned at the same time, Origen and Theodore were both got rid of.…Origen’s doctrines of the consummation, and of spirits and matter might no longer be maintained. The judgment was restored to its place, and got back even its literal meaning.”317
316 Ibid., p. 245, note 2.
317


I.
IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.



IF anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called
demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema,.



IF anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema.



IF anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (νοῶν) shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.




If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for the seraphim a seraph: in short, like all the superior powers, let him be anathema.








So... the question comes down to this

We have 2 choices

1) the received text, brought into existance through 5210 manuscripts is correct. Origen, Clement and others denounced as heretics doctored the 45 changing the texts.

2) or gnostic universalists, clement and origen gave us the correct texts, and Catholic Byzantine priests redoctored 5210 manuscripts...



It has been implied that the school of Alexandria, and in particular Clement and especially Origen, had no influence on what we now know as the 'alexandrian texts'.


The reality is however, the Influence of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, his student, on the church and in the manuscripts, are astounding...


from http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Origen (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Origen) we have the following...


Quote:
He is the father of the church's science; he is the founder of a theology which was brought to perfection in the 4th and 5th centuries, and which still retained the stamp of his genius when in the 6th century it disowned its author. It was Origen who created the dogmatic of the church and laid the foundations of the scientific criticism of the Old and New Testaments. He could not have been what he was unless two generations before him had laboured at the problem of finding an intellectual expression and a philosophic basis for Christianity (Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Pantaenus, Clement)

...This school, of which the origin (though assigned to Athenagoras) is unknown, was the first and for a long time the only institution where Christians were instructed simultaneously in the Greek sciences and the doctrines of the holy Scriptures. Alexandria had been, since the days of the Ptolemies, a centre for the interchange of ideas between East and West - between Egypt, Syria, Greece and Italy; and, as it had furnished Judaism with an Hellenic philosophy, so it also brought about the alliance of Christianity with Greek philosophy.

2. Origen's textual studies on the Old Testament were undertaken partly in order to improve the manuscript tradition,





from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm) we have the following...


Quote:
Origen and Origenism
I. LIFE AND WORK OF ORIGEN
A. BIOGRAPHY
Origen, most modest of writers, hardly ever alludes to himself in his own works; but Eusebius has devoted to him almost the entire sixth book of "Ecclesiastical History". Eusebius was thoroughly acquainted with the life of his hero; he had collected a hundred of his letters; in collaboration with the martyr Pamphilus he had composed the "Apology for Origen"; he dwelt at Caesarea where Origen's library was preserved, and where his memory still lingered; if at times he may be thought somewhat partial, he is undoubtedly well informed.

...Born in 185, Origen was barely seventeen when a bloody persecution of the Church of Alexandrian broke out. His father Leonides, who admired his precocious genius was charmed with his virtuous life, had given him an excellent literary education. This he successfully accomplished by becoming a teacher, selling his manuscripts, and by the generous aid of a certain rich lady, who admired his talents.

...Frequenting the philosophic schools, especially that of Ammonius Saccas, he devoted himself to a study of the philosophers, particularly Plato and the Stoics. In this he was but following the example of his predecessors Pantenus and Clement, and of Heracles, who was to succeed him.

...The course of his work at Alexandria was interrupted by five journeys. About 213, under Pope Zephyrinus and the emperor Caracalla, he desired "to see the very ancient Church of Rome", but he did not remain there long (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI xiv).

...If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118).

...Very few authors were as fertile as Origen. St. Epiphanius estimates at six thousand the number of his writings, counting separately, without doubt, the different books of a single work, his homilies, letters, and his smallest treatises (Haeres., LXIV, lxiii).

...During his lifetime Origen by his writings, teaching, and intercourse exercised very great influence. St. Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who regarded himself as his disciple, made him remain with him for a long period to profit by his learning (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI, xxvi; Palladius, "Hist. Laus.", 147). St. Alexander of Jerusalem his fellow pupil at the catechetical school was his intimate faithful friend (Eusebius, VI, xiv), as was Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, who ordained him (Photius, cod. 118). Beryllus of Bostra, whom he had won back from heresy, was deeply attached to him (Eusebius, VI, xxxiii; St. Jerome, "De viris ill.", lx). St. Anatolus of Laodicea sang his praises in his "Carmen Paschale" (P. G., X, 210). The learned Julius Africanus consulted him, Origen's reply being extant (P. G., XI, 41-85). St. Hippolytus highly appreciated his talents (St. Jerome, "De viris ill.", lxi). St. Dionysius, his pupil and successor in the catechetical school, when Patriarch of Alexandria, dedicated to him his treatise "On the Persecution" (Eusebius, VI, xlvi), and on learning of his death wrote a letter filled with his praises (Photius, cod. 232). St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, who had been his pupil for five years at Caesarea, before leaving addressed to him his celebrated "Farewell Address" (P. G., X, 1049-1104), an enthusiastic panegyric. There is no proof that Heracles, his disciple, colleague, and successor in the catechetical school, before being raised to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, wavered in his sworn friendship. Origen's name was so highly esteemed that when there was a question of putting an end to a schism or rooting out a heresy, appeal was made to it.

After his death his reputation continued to spread. St. Pamphilus, martyred in 307, composes with Eusebius an "Apology for Origen" in six books the first alone of which has been preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus (P. G., XVII, 541-616). Origen had at that time many other apologists whose names are unknown to us (Photius, cod. 117 and 118). The directors of the catechetical school continued to walk in his footsteps. Theognostus, in his "Hypotyposes", followed him even too closely, according to Photius (cod. 106), though his action was approved by St. Athanasius. Pierius was called by St. Jerome "Origenes junior" (De viris ill., lxxvi). Didymus the Blind composed a work to explain and justify the teaching of the "De principiis" (St. Jerome, "Adv. Rufin.", I, vi). St. Athanasius does not hesitate to cite him with praise (Epist. IV ad Serapion., 9 and 10) and points out that he must be interpreted generously (De decretis Nic., 27).

Nor was the admiration for the great Alexandrian less outside of Egypt. St. Gregory of Nazianzus gave significant expression to his opinion (Suidas, "Lexicon", ed. Bernhardy, II, 1274: Origenes he panton hemon achone). In collaboration with St. Basil, he had published, under the title "Philocalia", a volume of selections from the master. In his "Panegyric on St. Gregory Thaumaturgus", St. Gregory of Nyssa called Origen the prince of Christian learning in the third century (P. G., XLVI, 905). At Caesarea in Palestine the admiration of the learned for Origen became a passion.






From http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/e...tm/ii.viii.htm (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc08/htm/ii.viii.htm) we have the following...


Quote:
Since his father's teaching enabled him also to give elementary instruction, he revived, in 203, the catechetical school at Alexandria (see ALEXANDRIA, SCHOOL OF), whose last teacher, Clement, was apparently driven out by the persecution.

...At the request of Ambrose, he now began a huge commentary on the Bible, beginning with John, and continuing with Genesis, Ps. i.-xxv., and Lamentations, besides brief exegeses of selected texts (forming the ten books of his Stromateis), two books on the resurrection, and the work "On First Principles."

...According to Epiphanius (Haer., lxiv. 63) Origen wrote about 6,000 works (i.e., rolls or chapters). A list was given by Eusebius in his lost life of Pamphilus (Hist. eccl., VI., xxxii. 3; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 277), which was apparently known to Jerome (Epist. ad Paulam, NPNF, vi. 46). These fall into four classes: text criticism; exegesis; systematic, practical, and apologetic theology; and letters; besides certain spurious works.

...of the commentary on John, only books i., ii., x., xiii., xx., xxviii., xxxii., and a fragment of xix. have been preserved. The commentary on Romans is extant only in the abbreviated version of Rufinus, and the eight books preserved of the commentary on Matthew likewise seem to be either a brief reworking or a rough outline. Codex Vaticanus, 1215, gives the division of the twenty-five books of the commentary on Ezekiel, and part of the arrangement of the commentary on Isaiah (beginnings of books VI., VIII., XVI.; book X. extends from Isa. viii. 1 to ix. 7; XI. from ix. 8, to x. 11; XII., from x. 12 to x. 23; XIII. from x. 24 to xi. 9; XIV. from xi. 10 to xii. 6; XV. from xiii. 1 to xiii. 16; XXI. from xix. 1 to xix. 17; XXII. from xix. 18 to xx. 6; XXIII. from xxi. 1 to xxi. 17; XXIV. from xxii. 1 to xxii. 25; XXV. from xxiii. 1 to xxiii. 18; XXVI. from xxiv. 1 to xxv. 12; XXVII. from xxvi. 1 to xxvi. 15; XXVIII. from xxvi. 16 to xxvii. 11a; XXIX. from xxvii. 11b to xxviii. 29; and XXX. treats of xxix. 1 sqq.). The Codex Athous Laura, 184, in like manner, gives the division of the fifteen books of the commentary on Romans (except XI. and XII.) and of the five books on Galatians, as well as the extent of the commentaries on Philippians and Corinthians (Romans: I. from i. 1 to i. 7; II. from i. 8 to i. 25; III. from i. 26 to ii. 11; IV. from ii. 12 to iii. 15; V. from iii. 16 to iii. 31; VI. from iv. 1 to v. 7; VII. from v. 8 to v. 16; VIII. from v. 17 to vi. 15; IX. from vi. 16 to viii. 8; X. from viii. 9 to viii. 39; XIII. from xi. 13 to xii. 15; XIV. from xii. 16 to xiv. 10; XV. from xiv. 11 to the end; Galatians: I. from i. 1 to ii. 2; II. from ii. 3 to iii. 4; III. from iii. 5 to iv. 5; IV. from iv. 6 to v. 5; and V. from v. 6 to vi. 18; the commentary on Philippians extended to iv. 1; and on Ephesians to iv. 13).


It is impossible to see that Origen had no influence on the early church and especially the alexandrian manuscripts, unless you discount all the evidence here.


Quote:
Origen's textual studies on the Old Testament were undertaken partly in order to improve the manuscript tradition,
also from http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html) we have the following, showing Origens work compared to other ancient manuscripts...


Quote:
Great care must be taken to understand Greeven's apparatus, which is strongly dependent not only on the order of the witnesses, but on the typographic form in which they are presented (e.g. Or does not mean the same thing as Or, even though both refer to Origen).


Let us take Romans 2:14 as an example. Merk's text (without accents) reads:
(14)otan gar eqnh ta mh nomon econta fusei ta tou nomou poiwsin, outoi nomon mh econtes eautois eisin nomos
In the apparatus we have
14 gar] de G| ar Wr| -- i.e. for gar, the reading of Merk's text, the Greek side of G (but not the Latin), the Armenian, and part of Origen read de. All other witnesses support Merk's text.



poiwsin B SA-1908 104-1852 Ds 467 1319-38 436 43 Cl Wr ] poih rel -- i.e. poiwsin is supported by B, S (=), the witnesses from A to 1908 (=A, 1739, 6, possibly 424**, and 1908), the witnesses from 104 to 1852 (=104, 326, 1175, 81, 1852), by D and all other witnesses to the end of its group (=D G 917 1836 1898 181 88 915 1912, with perhaps one or two omitted), by 467, by the witnesses from 1319 to 38 (=1319 2127 256 263 38), by 436, by 43, by Clement, and by Origen. The alternative reading poih is supported by all other witnesses -- i.e. by the uncited witnesses in the H group (in this case, P Y), by the entire Ca2 group except 467, by the uncited witnesses of Ca3 (=920, 1835, etc.), by all witnesses of the Cb groups except 43, and by all remaining witnesses from 1518 on down to L at the end.

outoi] oi toioutoi G d t vg Wr| -- i.e. for outoi G (and its Latin side g), the old latins d t, the vulgate, and part of Origen read oi toioutoi. Again, all other witnesses support Merk's text.

This translates as peri, the reading of Tischendorf's text (read also by the uncited editions, i.e. Lachmann and Tischendorf7) is supported by the uncials * A D E(=Dabs) F G K L P and about fifty other witnesses plus the Harklean Syriac (syrp) and the cited text of Origen. The variant uper is supported by the Textus Receptus () and the editions of Griesbach and Scholz; by c, B, 17 (=33), 67** (=424c), by many other Greek witnesses, and by the cited text of Ignatius.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Ok. from this Part:


So... the question comes down to this

We have 2 choices

1) the received text, brought into existance through 5210 manuscripts is correct. Origen, Clement and others denounced as heretics doctored the 45 changing the texts.

2) or gnostic universalists, clement and origen gave us the correct texts, and Catholic Byzantine priests redoctored 5210 manuscripts...


What if it is the secondary? I mean The catholic church (please no one take offense here) has been known/rumored to have its conspiracies and corrupt actions. I mean take the tunnels under the Vatican..which in itself is a different story. BUT what I am saying is What if? I mean is it possible that manuscripts have been doctored to fulfill the trandslators intentions?

[Joykins]

I agree no problem posting here, everyone can ask questions. If anyone wants to debate it we can start another thread in the debate subforum here and you may debate all you like.

This though we will keep strictly as a study

It is said by many that the 45 alexandrian texts are the oldest and most reliable. In the opening post it is demonstrated that it is very quesitonable to call the 2 out of 600 the most accurate.

Is fertility a dependent variable on accuracy? That is, can we assume just because a variant manuscript has the most copies, that it is the most accurate? Or just that, for whatever reason, it became widely disseminated early on?


Also... i really do think it is an important question

...did Catholic priests rewrite what we now know aas textus receptus, misleading us in 5210 manuscripts... or did clement and origen influence and help write the 45 opposing texts?

Again i have to opt for the latter personally

Is it a true either / or? Could both, or neither, also be possible?

[Time2BCounted]

There is much more coming. At the same time remember that to call 2 texts most reliable when well over 600 oppose them isnt neccessarily the brightest of ideas.

But we arent going by numbers alone

What i am showing in all the documentaiton i am presenting thus far is this

It is claimed that the alexandrian texts are the oldest. This is shown to be blatantly untrue as some texts from textus receptus that are contemperary with them and the western texts in fact are older.

It is claimed they are most reliable but they are outnumbered 5210 to 45

So we had orthodox doctrine taught before the alexandrian texts, contemperary with the alexandrian texts, and after the alexandrian texts. This shows the alexandrian texts to be the oddball texts.

The alexandrian texts of course are named because the majority of them originated and were found in and around alexandria egypt

In alexandria Egypt there was a school of theology which didnt just embrace 'christian' beliefs, but also taught them, mixing them with greek philosophy. The teacher of this school about the time the alexandrian texts appeared, was Origen. Origen was later counted as a heretic for many reasons, including his doctrine of Christ, the logos. He denounced the trinity and claimed that everyone, including satan would be saved in the end, departing from all orthodoxy at the time.

Not so ironicly these alexandrian texts mostly effect the doctrines of the diety of Christ.

For instance where the majority by far use the word "Godhead" implying more than one God united as one, Origen's alexandrian text replaces it with the singular word 'diety'

Another example is the johanan comman which states there are 3 who bear record in heaven and these 3 are one. This is omitted in only 2 texts, with well over 600 including them, some of them contemperary with the alexandrian texts, Not to mention the fact that the quote from Cyprian of 1 Jn, refers to the johanan comma and predates the alexandrian texts.

Then another amazing factor is westcott hort, who used the rejected texts to do their greek version used in all modern translations except the kjv... They didnt at all believe in the infallability of scripture. So what we have basicly is a greek version written by people that didnt believe the bible, basing it on 45 texts that disagree with the 5210 and which tends to deny the diety of Christ... How can we call this reliable?

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

So why would the church or anyone in it, decide to take the word of pronounced heretics that the holy scriptures were in need of revision??

Forgot to answer this:

They were heretics according to those they opposed, that doesnt make their theories impossible.

[Time2BCounted]

Good question SB

The answer is easy though. Many of these texts are pre constantine, so it wouldnt even be possible, and some predate even the alexandrian texts, showing it was there originally and removed by origen and his followers who were some of the first universalists.

[Time2BCounted]

They were pronounced heretics because their teachings departed from what was already written and taught from day one of the church.

[GreenMunchkin]

Sorry, just to interrupt quickly, but none of our mods are online and am tool-less for a week, so I reckon treat this thread like it were in the Debate Sub-forum and it'll be moved when someone can move it :)

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Then another amazing factor is westcott hort, who used the rejected texts to do their greek version used in all modern translations except the kjv... They didnt at all believe in the infallability of scripture. So what we have basicly is a greek version written by people that didnt believe the bible, basing it on 45 texts that disagree with the 5210 and which tends to deny the diety of Christ... How can we call this reliable?

well,wed definity need someone with their mindset to actually answer that. I look at religion like a ball or a sphere, they all interconnect somehow, but its its still circular. I dont think there is a absolute right or wrong.

You state its not numbers alone that makes your beliefs reliable with this manuscripts. what else can you tell me?

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

When was day one?

[Time2BCounted]

Then another amazing factor is westcott hort, who used the rejected texts to do their greek version used in all modern translations except the kjv... They didnt at all believe in the infallability of scripture. So what we have basicly is a greek version written by people that didnt believe the bible, basing it on 45 texts that disagree with the 5210 and which tends to deny the diety of Christ... How can we call this reliable?

well,wed definity need someone with their mindset to actually answer that. I look at religion like a ball or a sphere, they all interconnect somehow, but its its still circular. I dont think there is a absolute right or wrong.

You state its not numbers alone that makes your beliefs reliable with this manuscripts. what else can you tell me?

Well lets look to something else first if you dont mind SB.

You say you dont believe in an absolute right or wrong. This means that rape and child molestation for instance, are not always wrong. Could you tell me when its right then to rape someone or to molest a child?

[Time2BCounted]

When was day one?
We can at least say day one is when Thomas called Jesus God and worshipped Him... it actually goes back before this.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Well lets look to something else first if you dont mind SB.

You say you dont believe in an absolute right or wrong. This means that rape and child molestation for instance, are not always wrong. Could you tell me when its right then to rape someone or to molest a child?
OK,

well I dont look at moral right and wrongs like rape and molestation the same as i do religion. Course it could be argued that its all perception of each person, but i am not gonna look at it the same way. rape and molestation are wrong, like killing stealing etc etc.

when it comes to the CONCEPTS as in origins, manuscripts, why it works, how it works and what makes it true, with religion I dont believe in absolute right or wrong. do you see what i mean Time?

[Joykins]

Its like witnesses
If you have 600 docs who say you have a broken leg, and 2 that look at the break and pretend it isnt there and tell you it isnt, who was the most reliable?

One can believe the 2 if they like, but without crutches they will fall on their face

Think of it like genetics, then. Assume 1 clone lines.

At some point, one clone acquires a mutation (mutation X) and passes it onto his clone-children who pass it on to their clone-children etc. on down the line. The other clones and their offspring do not acquire this mutation. Over the course of time this may happen with different mutations to various groups of clones.

200-600 generation later, technology makes it possible to identify the genetic code of the clones. Variation is noted among the different DNA samples and a particular sequence (sequence Y) is present on a large majority of the clone-descendants of this clone line and not present on a small minority. Is it possible--given the technology--to determine which is the mutation?

Possibilities from the current time observer:--

Assuming the generation rate is constant:

Sequence Y reflects a recent mutation
or
clones without Sequence Y reflect an older mutation

Assuming the generation rate is not constant, it is also a possibility that clones with Sequence Y may be an older mutation but of a line with a low reproduction rate.

Bringing it back into the world of textual criticism, we know that older manuscripts are always being discovered. Some of these "lines" may only have a few descendants at all before becoming extinct and only some fragments of their textual DNA are even available.

Still it is impossible to re-create the original genome given the available data.

[Time2BCounted]

Think of it like genetics, then. Assume 1 clone lines.

At some point, one clone acquires a mutation (mutation X) and passes it onto his clone-children who pass it on to their clone-children etc. on down the line. The other clones and their offspring do not acquire this mutation. Over the course of time this may happen with different mutations to various groups of clones.

200-600 generation later, technology makes it possible to identify the genetic code of the clones. Variation is noted among the different DNA samples and a particular sequence (sequence Y) is present on a large majority of the clone-descendants of this clone line and not present on a small minority. Is it possible--given the technology--to determine which is the mutation?

Possibilities from the current time observer:--

Assuming the generation rate is constant:

Sequence Y reflects a recent mutation
or
clones without Sequence Y reflect an older mutation

Assuming the generation rate is not constant, it is also a possibility that clones with Sequence Y may be an older mutation but of a line with a low reproduction rate.

Bringing it back into the world of textual criticism, we know that older manuscripts are always being discovered. Some of these "lines" may only have a few descendants at all before becoming extinct and only some fragments of their textual DNA are even available.

Still it is impossible to re-create the original genome given the available data.
Nevertheless, we have the western texts predating the alexandrian. the alexandrian depart from orthodoxy under Origen, who was pronounced a heretic because he left orthodoxy, and then after the 45 alexandrian, we have a return to orthodoxy. So the alexandrian texts werent an 'evolving' but intentionally changed in order to better defend his (Origen and followers) universalist teaching

Truth is truth and doesnt evolve. It is never right to molest a child and this is uncompromisingly always true. It is universally true.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

Nevertheless, we have the western texts predating the alexandrian. the alexandrian depart from orthodoxy under Origen, who was pronounced a heretic because he left orthodoxy, and then after the 45 alexandrian, we have a return to orthodoxy. So the alexandrian texts werent an 'evolving' but intentionally changed in order to better defend his (Origen and followers) universalist teaching

Truth is truth and doesnt evolve. It is never right to molest a child and this is uncompromisingly always true. It is universally true.
but do we know that these scripts are universally true? if so than why the contraversy?

[Joykins]

We can at least say day one is when Thomas called Jesus God and worshipped Him... it actually goes back before this.

This is from the gospel of John. The gospel of John is the latest gospel and contains the strongest deity claims of any of the gospels. The gospel of John is notable for not being consistent with the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) of which Mark is the earliest.

We see the first century of the church developing these documents (varying by their leading Evangelist/ gospel writer) struggling with the question of who Jesus was and what it all meant. The communities of the synoptics as the earliest, had more clues than conclusions, and their consistency point to even earlier common sources. The Gospel of Thomas has many similarities to the synoptics also even though it is noncanonical and had been lost for centuries. These questions about who Jesus was and what it all meant were not completely resolved until the canonization of the current scriptures and the early ecumenical councils.

We see the church moving from a variety of viewpoints toward a concensus during this period. Things became more streamlined once the church became official because then the church had the authority to stamp out dissent. The Nicene council at least in part reflected the desire of the governing authorities to have a consistent theology.

Discuss.

[Time2BCounted]

but do we know that these scripts are universally true? if so than why the contraversy?
We can examine this, and will. This is a huge subject and we need to look in all the corners to see all we can, but lets come to agreement first that there is universal truth.. Do you agree with this?

[Time2BCounted]

This is from the gospel of John. The gospel of John is the latest gospel and contains the strongest deity claims of any of the gospels. The gospel of John is notable for not being consistent with the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) of which Mark is the earliest.

We see the first century of the church developing these documents (varying by their leading Evangelist/ gospel writer) struggling with the question of who Jesus was and what it all meant. The communities of the synoptics as the earliest, had more clues than conclusions, and their consistency point to even earlier common sources. The Gospel of Thomas has many similarities to the synoptics also even though it is noncanonical and had been lost for centuries. These questions about who Jesus was and what it all meant were not completely resolved until the canonization of the current scriptures and the early ecumenical councils.

We see the church moving from a variety of viewpoints toward a concensus during this period. Things became more streamlined once the church became official because then the church had the authority to stamp out dissent. The Nicene council at least in part reflected the desire of the governing authorities to have a consistent theology.

Discuss.
Dont you think the consistant theology began with genesis? What is inconsistant from Genesis to Malachi?

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

hmm how about we call a truce so we can move foward. i promise to keep an open mind. I seek truth. hows that? because honestly thats the best answer i can give.

[Joykins]

Truth is truth and doesnt evolve. It is never right to molest a child and this is uncompromisingly always true. It is universally true.

Is it ever wrong to enslave anyone?

[Time2BCounted]

hmm how about we call a truce so we can move foward. i promise to keep an open mind. I seek truth. hows that? because honestly thats the best answer i can give.
This is good with me, but if you dont mind, i would like to know where you stand on absolute right and wrong. This will become an important question to ponder. Would you agree with me that child molestation and rape is never a good thing?

[Time2BCounted]

Is it ever wrong to enslave anyone?
Seeing how we tend to enslave ourselves, in this case no.

[Sanctuaryandbliss]

This is good with me, but if you dont mind, i would like to know where you stand on absolute right and wrong. This will become an important question to ponder. Would you agree with me that child molestation and rape is never a good thing?
no rape isnt good. but i dont see reliogion and rape the same way.

[Joykins]

Nevertheless, we have the western texts predating the alexandrian.

Some.

the alexandrian depart from orthodoxy under Origen, who was pronounced a heretic because he left orthodoxy, and then after the 45 alexandrian, we have a return to orthodoxy. So the alexandrian texts werent an 'evolving' but intentionally changed in order to better defend his (Origen and followers) universalist teaching

I always thought the most interesting thing about Origen was his self-castration.

Anyway, both Arius and Athanasius came from Alexandria too. All this shows is that Alexandria had a tradition of theological scholarship--and debate.

[Joykins]

Seeing how we tend to enslave ourselves, in this case no.

So you are saying it is good for us to enslave ourselves? :scratch:

[kiwimac]

The whole KJV versus other translations is just rubbish.
If this is the conversation you were going to get into WRT the Comma Johanneum. Count me out.

I have debated the whole KJV-only thing until I am blue in the face, frankly given the mis-information presented by KJV-onlyists this can only end in argument.

Rev. Dr. Ray McIntyre, DD. PhD

[GreenMunchkin]

wo0t! Let's swap credentials! :P

[kiwimac]

??

[Time2BCounted]

The whole KJV versus other translations is just rubbish.
If this is the conversation you were going to get into WRT the Comma Johanneum. Count me out.

I have debated the whole KJV-only thing until I am blue in the face, frankly given the mis-information presented by KJV-onlyists this can only end in argument.

Rev. Dr. Ray McIntyre, DD. PhD
Who said i was kjv only? I said it was more reliable. I use about 12-13 translations in study including the hebrew and greek ;)

Now lets look at the johanan comma

let me direct you to...

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson10.htm (http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson10.htm)

which shows that the johanan comma existed in early latin manuscripts, despite claims to the contrary, and also shows that it was quoted prior to the alexandrian texts...


Quote:
(Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 101.) "This statement, however, is in question. Others have shown that Erasmus did not add the verse aversly, but was in fact searching for a Greek text which supported what was already in the Old Latin texts.(Donald L. Brake indicates this in his thesis present to Dallas Theological Seminary and reprinted in the book Counterfeit Or Genuine, edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller [Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publication, 1978], 205. This is futher varified by both Dr. Fuller and by Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended, 209.)

The first Greek manuscript found which contained the verse was minuscule 61 which dates to the late fifteenth century. However, three other Greek minuscules contain the verse, 88 (twelfth century), 629 (fourteenth century), and 635 (eleventh century). It is, nonetheless, supported by the Old Latin manuscripts which read, "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt."(verses 7-8). This Latin wording (which matches the English of the KJV) is important because of the like wording made by Cyprian (250 AD). Cyprian writes "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.'" (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). Thus we see that the reading is found not only in the Old Latin manuscripts, but was also cited by Cyprian sometime before 250 AD. All of which disproves the popular myth that the reading is without textual support until sometime in the fifthteenth or sixteenth century. "

Given the timing here, This also strengthens the case that it was in fact REMOVED by origen and his followers in their revisions of scripture. we see it mentioned about the same time the alexandrian texts arose... and then no more for a few hundred years until origen was pronounced a heretic


i DO though thank God for every word of God that has been of a help to man.

On the flip side, my concerns with the renderings of newer versions concern doctrine mainly, as well as my concerns over the timing of the descrepencies, being common with the rise of the influence of origen.


I certainly agree that in MOST places the word of God remains uneffected and so does doctrine, whether KJV or NIV... but in the cases of unitarian doctrine i believe the kjv to be superior, leaving no loopholes for the unitarian to deny the diety of Christ

[Athene]

Nevertheless, we have the western texts predating the alexandrian. the alexandrian depart from orthodoxy under Origen, who was pronounced a heretic because he left orthodoxy, and then after the 45 alexandrian, we have a return to orthodoxy. So the alexandrian texts werent an 'evolving' but intentionally changed in order to better defend his (Origen and followers) universalist teaching

Truth is truth and doesnt evolve. It is never right to molest a child and this is uncompromisingly always true. It is universally true.

Are you aware that Alexandrian type, Western type etc merely refers to the textual character of a manuscript. Origin did not author the Alexandrian type texts but he would have used them in his writings because they were the predominant texts around.

Oh and also the reason why there are so few Alexandrian type texts is because they are the oldest surviving manuscripts, the Byantium type texts used in the TR are more numerous because they were written at a later date. :)

[Joykins]

wo0t! Let's swap credentials! :P


Well...well....I read a few books about this, I really have a degree in English literature with an emphasis on 18th Century. ^_^

Oh, and a Classics minor.

[Time2BCounted]

Are you aware that Alexandrian type, Western type etc merely refers to the textual character of a manuscript. Origin did not author the Alexandrian type texts but he would have used them in his writings because they were the predominant texts around.

Oh and also the reason why there are so few Alexandrian type texts is because they are the oldest surviving manuscripts, the Byantium type texts used in the TR are more numerous because they were written at a later date. :)
Athane, how do you get this when the alexandrian texts are contemperary with origen and his followers? They were extant nowhere else basicly but in alexandria beginning at the time of Origen, who was the first renouned universalist, denying the diety of Christ and claiming all including satan would be saved. They do not predate origen, they began there

[Joykins]

I remember Origen, vaguely...something about hypostases. Lots of hypostases. The brain cells holding this stuff must have been the first thing I fried in the post-graduation celebrating.

[Simon_Templar]

one thing I would point out is regarding the philipians 2 reference..

The KJV says "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"..

That is simply an archaic english usage. It doesn't actually have a difference of meaning from

"Thought equality with God something to be grasped".

The greek even in the KJV text is based on the same root as is used for the "rapture" in Thessalonians.

It means "to seize by force". In the old english that was rendered as robbery. The sentance construction is a bit archaic which leads to the confusion.

Its not saying he didn't think it was wrong to be equal with God.. its saying, he thought that his equality with God (which was his by right) was not something to be grasped at and held on to by force.

[kiwimac]

Who said i was kjv only? I said it was more reliable. I use about 12-13 translations in study including the hebrew and greek ;)

Now lets look at the johanan comma

let me direct you to...

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson10.htm (http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson10.htm)

which shows that the johanan comma existed in early latin manuscripts, despite claims to the contrary, and also shows that it was quoted prior to the alexandrian texts...


Quote:
(Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 101.) "This statement, however, is in question. Others have shown that Erasmus did not add the verse aversly, but was in fact searching for a Greek text which supported what was already in the Old Latin texts.(Donald L. Brake indicates this in his thesis present to Dallas Theological Seminary and reprinted in the book Counterfeit Or Genuine, edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller [Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publication, 1978], 205. This is futher varified by both Dr. Fuller and by Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended, 209.)

The first Greek manuscript found which contained the verse was minuscule 61 which dates to the late fifteenth century. However, three other Greek minuscules contain the verse, 88 (twelfth century), 629 (fourteenth century), and 635 (eleventh century). It is, nonetheless, supported by the Old Latin manuscripts which read, "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt."(verses 7-8). This Latin wording (which matches the English of the KJV) is important because of the like wording made by Cyprian (250 AD). Cyprian writes "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.'" (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). Thus we see that the reading is found not only in the Old Latin manuscripts, but was also cited by Cyprian sometime before 250 AD. All of which disproves the popular myth that the reading is without textual support until sometime in the fifthteenth or sixteenth century. "

Given the timing here, This also strengthens the case that it was in fact REMOVED by origen and his followers in their revisions of scripture. we see it mentioned about the same time the alexandrian texts arose... and then no more for a few hundred years until origen was pronounced a heretic


i DO though thank God for every word of God that has been of a help to man.

On the flip side, my concerns with the renderings of newer versions concern doctrine mainly, as well as my concerns over the timing of the descrepencies, being common with the rise of the influence of origen.


I certainly agree that in MOST places the word of God remains uneffected and so does doctrine, whether KJV or NIV... but in the cases of unitarian doctrine i believe the kjv to be superior, leaving no loopholes for the unitarian to deny the diety of Christ


Let me quote again:

As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not change the words.

<snip> . . .The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.

Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely.

Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses.

All the historical data point in one of two directions:

(1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or

(2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

Source (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1185)

[Time2BCounted]

I remember Origen, vaguely...something about hypostases. Lots of hypostases. The brain cells holding this stuff must have been the first thing I fried in the post-graduation celebrating.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

Origen was educated by his father, Leonides, in elementary and scriptural studies (including texts which would later become Biblical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)). However, in 202, Origen's father was killed in the outbreak of the persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians) during the reign of Septimius Severus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus). Origen wished to follow in martyrdom, but was prevented only by his mother hiding his clothes. The death of Leonides left the family of nine impoverished when their property was confiscated. Origen, however, was taken under the protection of a woman of wealth and standing; but as her household already included a heretic named Paul, the strictly orthodox Origen seems to have remained with her only a short time.
Since his father's teaching enabled him also to give elementary instruction, he revived, in 203, the Catechetical School of Alexandria, whose last teacher, Clement of Alexandria, was apparently driven out by the persecution. But the persecution still raged, and the young teacher unceasingly visited the prisoners, attended the courts, and comforted the condemned, himself preserved from harm as if by a miracle. His fame and the number of his pupils increased rapidly, so that Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrius_of_Alexandria), made him restrict himself to instruction in Christian doctrine alone.



So we see from this and from the very writings of and about origen, that he taught philosophy of the greeks along with his own brand of philosophy in ADDITION to christian doctrine. He was actually MADE to stick to teching christian doctrine, and it is at this point we see the alexandrina texts flourishing ONLY in the area of alexandria Egypt. Elsewhere doctrine remained constant and orthodox.

If you study his anathemas, youll see how his doctrine departed from orthodoxy, and all the major changes included in the alexandrian texts allow for universalist doctrine, whereas texts both before and after disagree with the alexandrian and agree with one another. Again5210 texts agree, and 45 from the center of philosophy at the time disagree.

Again to illustrate how Origen and followers changed the text to deny the diety of Christ, they changed "Godhead" which previously existed and points to a plurality of God, to 'diety' denoting a singular. Again universalist doctrine

[Time2BCounted]

Let me quote again:



Source (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1185)
theres several, heres one

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html

[Joykins]

I'm gonna hafta dig up that paper on Origen again, amn't I? Maybe you'll get really lucky and I'll type it in.

[Time2BCounted]

I'm gonna hafta dig up that paper on Origen again, amn't I? Maybe you'll get really lucky and I'll type it in.
Origen is a fascinating study in conjunction with the alexandrian manuscripts. It becomes rather obvious that he and his followers in the area of alexandria, actually changed the texts to fit their doctrine.

Godhead is just one example, the removal of 1 jn 5:8 is another, and there are literally hundreds more effecting the doctrines of the diety of Jesus

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Forgive the length of this opening post. What i intend here is an in depth study of the manuscripts which were used to translate eventually, the kjv, and then the differant texts which were used to translate eventually the niv.

Are you kidding?

This is like asking which is better, a Geo Metro or a Hummer.

The NIV doesn't claim to be a word-for-word translation. It makes for a good bible for those that want to read it to get the main idea. It's easy reading and is very useful to most people.

The KJV is useful for those that want a word-for-word translation into old English that proves to be often tedious. It was useful in the past when the words of Old English had the same definitions and connotations as the words of the people. But 500 years later, many of them have changed.

The KJV is pretty worthless except as part of a paper on the Reformation.

[kiwimac]

Martin Shue is not a terribly good source.

Shue: If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?

Hello! 1John 5:8! If this does not seem plausible read the following:

Augustine’s Homily; Contra Maximinum, Lib. II. C. 22. 3.

Augustine quoting the same phrase “tres unum sunt” applies them to vs. 8 and not vs.7.

It is plainly a defense of the Trinity from 1 John 5:8. The editor placed this note in this edition which makes a good point. . . <snip>

Source (http://p078.ezboard.com/fbibleversiondiscussionboardkjvonly.showMessage?topicID=2481.topic&index=8)

[Athene]

Athane, how do you get this when the alexandrian texts are contemperary with origen and his followers? They were extant nowhere else basicly but in alexandria beginning at the time of Origen, who was the first renouned universalist, denying the diety of Christ and claiming all including satan would be saved. They do not predate origen, they began there

Tainted by association? If you are going to use the argument that the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts should be discarded because Origen used them then it should follow that the Byzantine text-type manuscripts should also be discarded because the church in Byzantine was a hot-bed of Arianism when that style of text began to emerge, i.e Byzantine text-type is contemporary with Arianism.

Also, most but not all Alexandrian text-types originate from Egypt.

[Time2BCounted]

Tainted by association? If you are going to use the argument that the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts should be discarded because Origen used them then it should follow that the Byzantine text-type manuscripts should also be discarded because the church in Byzantine was a hot-bed of Arianism when that style of text began to emerge, i.e Byzantine text-type is contemporary with Arianism.

Also, most but not all Alexandrian text-types originate from Egypt.
He didnt just 'use' them. They originated with him and i posted part of a comparitive study of the alexandrian texts showing origen's among them. MOST all of the alexandrian texts were found in alexandria. The sianaticus and vaticanus were found in trash cans

[Athene]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

Origen was educated by his father, Leonides, in elementary and scriptural studies (including texts which would later become Biblical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)). However, in 202, Origen's father was killed in the outbreak of the persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians) during the reign of Septimius Severus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus). Origen wished to follow in martyrdom, but was prevented only by his mother hiding his clothes. The death of Leonides left the family of nine impoverished when their property was confiscated. Origen, however, was taken under the protection of a woman of wealth and standing; but as her household already included a heretic named Paul, the strictly orthodox Origen seems to have remained with her only a short time.
Since his father's teaching enabled him also to give elementary instruction, he revived, in 203, the Catechetical School of Alexandria, whose last teacher, Clement of Alexandria, was apparently driven out by the persecution. But the persecution still raged, and the young teacher unceasingly visited the prisoners, attended the courts, and comforted the condemned, himself preserved from harm as if by a miracle. His fame and the number of his pupils increased rapidly, so that Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrius_of_Alexandria), made him restrict himself to instruction in Christian doctrine alone.



So we see from this and from the very writings of and about origen, that he taught philosophy of the greeks along with his own brand of philosophy in ADDITION to christian doctrine. He was actually MADE to stick to teching christian doctrine, and it is at this point we see the alexandrina texts flourishing ONLY in the area of alexandria Egypt. Elsewhere doctrine remained constant and orthodox.

If you study his anathemas, youll see how his doctrine departed from orthodoxy, and all the major changes included in the alexandrian texts allow for universalist doctrine, whereas texts both before and after disagree with the alexandrian and agree with one another. Again5210 texts agree, and 45 from the center of philosophy at the time disagree.

Again to illustrate how Origen and followers changed the text to deny the diety of Christ, they changed "Godhead" which previously existed and points to a plurality of God, to 'diety' denoting a singular. Again universalist doctrine

The debate over Origens orthodoxy rages on and is made very difficult by the fact that few of Origens 400 writings have survived to this day. BTW the wiki article doesn't actually say Origen was made to restrict his teaching to Christian doctrine because he was teaching 'his own brand of philosophy' but rather because he was popular.

I don't understand why you would say that everywhere other then Alexandria during the mid third century orthodox doctrine remained constant . . . the First council of Nicea wasn't until 325 AD, before that there were no standards for doctrinal orthodoxy.

[Joykins]

Origen is a fascinating study in conjunction with the alexandrian manuscripts. It becomes rather obvious that he and his followers in the area of alexandria, actually changed the texts to fit their doctrine.

Godhead is just one example, the removal of 1 jn 5:8 is another, and there are literally hundreds more effecting the doctrines of the diety of Jesus

I'm pretty sure my research was on his philosophy/theology as regards the Trinity, in conjunction with similar movements in Alexandria. I'll look it up tonight. It'll be a blast from the past ^_^

[Joykins]

The Arius/Athanasius debate, was, IIRC, Empire-wide.

[Time2BCounted]

The debate over Origens orthodoxy rages on and is made very difficult by the fact that few of Origens 400 writings have survived to this day. BTW the wiki article doesn't actually say Origen was made to restrict his teaching to Christian doctrine because he was teaching 'his own brand of philosophy' but rather because he was popular.

I don't understand why you would say that everywhere other then Alexandria during the mid third century orthodox doctrine remained constant . . . the First council of Nicea wasn't until 325 AD, before that there were no standards for doctrinal orthodoxy.
Are you implying that matthew mark luke John and paul didnt agree on orthodoxy? Their meetings in jerusalem far preceded the nicene council.

Also you are incorrect in saying the article doesnt state origen was MADE to concentrate on christian doctrine

Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrius_of_Alexandria), made him restrict himself to instruction in Christian doctrine alone.

Origens doctrine departed from the apostolic doctrine and the church later pronounced him a heretic

[Hentenza]

Moving to Debate Subforum!

[Athene]

He didnt just 'use' them. They originated with him and i posted part of a comparitive study of the alexandrian texts showing origen's among them. MOST all of the alexandrian texts were found in alexandria. The sianaticus and vaticanus were found in trash cans

No, once again, what you incorrectly call the Alexandrian texts should more accurately be called the Alexandrian text-type and merely refers to the style of writing present at the time.

It's interesting that you try and belittle the Codex Sianaticus and the Codex Vatanicus which are the oldest near complete Greek New Testament manuscripts.

[Time2BCounted]

No, once again, what you incorrectly call the Alexandrian texts should more accurately be called the Alexandrian text-type and merely refers to the style of writing present at the time.

It's interesting that you try and belittle the Codex Sianaticus and the Codex Vatanicus which are the oldest near complete Greek New Testament manuscripts.
How do you say they are near complete when so much lacks from them? I dont think you actually know very much about these texts Athame.

The sinaiticus and the vaticanus were indeed found in rubbish, would you like to dispute this?

And the style is exactly what i am referring to. lol PHD's refer to the alexandrian texts and the textus receptus and the western texts, so why would you begrudge a hillbilly of using the same terms?

Where were the majority of the alexandrian texts discovered?

[Time2BCounted]

The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are the 2 versions which trunkate Mark 16 as well as the many other changes we see made from the KJV to the NIV

Here are statements made about this...

"The earliest known manuscripts contain this shorter version"

Actually this is misleading, though in fact a basic truth. The Vaticanus as a matter of fact also has a blank collumn at the end of Mark 16:8, leaving room for the extra verses to be placed...

Clement and Origen used these texts and many of the early church Fathers considered them heretical in doctrine, and gnostic in belief.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus came about in the 300's BUT... Eusebius preferred the longer version. Jerome also included the later passage of Mark 16. This puts the acceptance of the longer version squarly in the timeline of the discenting shorter version of the so called 'older manuscripts'.

Harclean Syriac version of 515 includes the longer version of mark

Unical 099 contains ONLY mark 16:6-20

Byzantine codices, almost all the latin manuscripts including the Vulgate (also from the 4th century), The Syriac Pe****ta, and then nearly every manuscript from 800 on.

Tatian's Diatessaron, (2nd century) evidently recognized the longer version of Mark

So it is indeed misleading to believe the 'oldest manuscripts' exclude the latter half of mark 16.


So in truth we have evidence of both versions existing at the time... and the shorter versions were held to by those many considered heretics and gnostics.

This leaves us with quite a delimma... do we believe the more doctrinally liberal Alexandrians, or the received text which obviously was much more widespread and acceptable?


The point being, to say the 'oldest' manuscripts contain the shorter version is only partially true... there are manuscripts from the same century which include the longer version.

To say the most reliable contain the shorter version is problematic because the score is 5210 to 45 in favor of textus receptus



Therefore i believe we would err to toss them aside or disregard them. Indeed the subtle meanings of of many passages are changed.


Westcott and Hort do leave behind a lot of correspondance, and according to their own sons, exposing these letters, they did not hold to the infallibility of the scriptures... and were themselves seemingly gnostic... so i can see their fascination on the translations held forth by gnostic tradition... and its departure from manuscripts used for textus receptus

[Athene]

Are you implying that matthew mark luke John and paul didnt agree on orthodoxy? Their meetings in jerusalem far preceded the nicene council.

You think that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul had meetings in Jerusalem? Interesting, why?

[Time2BCounted]

You think that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul had meetings in Jerusalem? Interesting, why?

I would be surprised that Christian leaders wouldnt know this, no offence, it is not hidden secret.

In acts chapter 12 we see paul in jerusalem with the apostles


Here we see quite a bit of detail concerning a meeting concerning doctrine between the apostles form Galatians

Galatians 2


1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

[Athene]

The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are the 2 versions which trunkate Mark 16 as well as the many other changes we see made from the KJV to the NIV

They don't include Mark that is true.




Here are statements made about this...

"The earliest known manuscripts contain this shorter version"

Actually this is misleading, though in fact a basic truth. The Vaticanus as a matter of fact also has a blank collumn at the end of Mark 16:8, leaving room for the extra verses to be placed...True about the Vaticanus.

Clement and Origen used these texts and many of the early church Fathers considered them heretical in doctrine, and gnostic in belief.Interesting, I googled Vaticanus and Heretical, the only results I got were from KJV only sites, one particularly amusing one decried both Westcott and Holt as 'demonic heretics'. I had the same luck Vaticanus gnosticism, KJV only sites.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus came about in the 300's BUT... Eusebius preferred the longer version. Jerome also included the later passage of Mark 16. This puts the acceptance of the longer version squarly in the timeline of the discenting shorter version of the so called 'older manuscripts'.Eusebius did no such thing, from his very own pen or quill or whatever he wrote with on the subject of the ending of Mark 16.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question.


Two things to note here, the longer ending is not present in most of the copies of Mark available at the time, and the longer ending may be superfluous.

It's also important to point out that Eusebius did not include the longer ending of Mark in his edition of the New Testament.

Jerome on the other hand included the longer ending in his editions but he had this to say about it.

Of which question the solution is twofold. For either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which is extant in rare gospels, almost all of the Greek books not having this chapter at the end, especially since it looks like it narrates things diverse from and contrary to certain evangelists....

Again we have a person from the early Church saying the majority of texts do not contain the longer ending.



Harclean Syriac version of 515 includes the longer version of mark

Unical 099 contains ONLY mark 16:6-20

Byzantine codices, almost all the latin manuscripts including the Vulgate (also from the 4th century), The Syriac Pe****ta, and then nearly every manuscript from 800 on.

Tatian's Diatessaron, (2nd century) evidently recognized the longer version of Mark

So it is indeed misleading to believe the 'oldest manuscripts' exclude the latter half of mark 16.It's misleading to mention these other manuscripts which contain the longer ending without also noting that many of them contain either post scripts calling attention to the fact that older Greek copies do not contain the longer ending, and also the presence of certain marks used by copyists to indicate an addition which is considered spurious.



So in truth we have evidence of both versions existing at the time... and the shorter versions were held to by those many considered heretics and gnostics. I would say based on the evidence the opposite is true.

This leaves us with quite a delimma... do we believe the more doctrinally liberal Alexandrians, or the received text which obviously was much more widespread and acceptable?This question is flawed on so many levels, we're not talking about two different schools of thought who existed at the same time, but instead two different styles of writing at different types. As I've said before the Alexandrian text-type refers to the style of certain manuscripts, the Byzantine text-type refers to a style of writing which was much later on.

There is no evidence at all to prove the Alexandrians doctored manuscripts, you mention Origen a lot but Origen is not known to ever have compiled a New Testament - well he couldn't have, there was no New Testament when he was alive.


The point being, to say the 'oldest' manuscripts contain the shorter version is only partially true... there are manuscripts from the same century which include the longer version.Yes but they were not as numerous as the shorter version.


To say the most reliable contain the shorter version is problematic because the score is 5210 to 45 in favor of textus receptusSo you are saying we should ignore the fact that the oldest existing NT manuscripts don't have the longer ending, and that there is written testimony from two early theologians stating that most manuscripts (in their time) did not contain the longer version, indeed the longer version may be superfluous and (what did Jerome say) diverse and contrary to the evangelists?



Therefore i believe we would err to toss them aside or disregard them. Indeed the subtle meanings of of many passages are changed.I believe we should not become fooled into believing any Biblical translator is infallible and inerrant, there is no perfect translation of the Bible, we have to make do as best we can with what we've got. Just as well we have the Holy Spirit to guide us who is perfect. :)


Westcott and Hort do leave behind a lot of correspondance, and according to their own sons, exposing these letters, they did not hold to the infallibility of the scriptures... and were themselves seemingly gnostic... so i can see their fascination on the translations held forth by gnostic tradition... and its departure from manuscripts used for textus receptus[/quote]

I'm not sure why you're bringing Westcott and Hort into this, their text which has long since fallen out of favour as the standard critical text wasn't even used as the base for the NIV.

[Joykins]

Luke wasn't an apostle.

Although as always I give into temptation to joke...

Maybe he was thinking of John, Paul, George, and Ringo?

[Time2BCounted]

They don't include Mark that is true. or 1st and 2nd timothy or titus or jude or 1st and 2nd peter or revelation


True about the Vaticanus.
Interesting, I googled Vaticanus and Heretical, the only results I got were from KJV only sites, one particularly amusing one decried both Westcott and Holt as 'demonic heretics'. I had the same luck Vaticanus gnosticism, KJV only sites.

Here are a few pretty revealing facts concerning Westcott and hort.

Arthur Hort, son of Fenton John Anthony Hort, wrote "The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort". Did the esteemed team of westcott and hort have an underlying hidden agenda for abandoning the great majority of accepted texts at critical points, to replace it with minority texts that were considered by most scholars to be flawed? These quotes From Arthur Hort's book can be very eye opening...


"In June (F.J.A. Hort) joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles . . . He was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence . . . Two other societies. . . were started . . . in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit . . . the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild.' The obj