Textual/version stance

[Annie]

Nice try on the twist. I understand that to use the logic that you are using you have to use this kind of tactic, but please lets stick to the topic at hand. Do not tell someone they must give documentation for you to discuss it and then say that you did not give documentation for your claims. Your complete sentence is below.

Clear double standard. I'm not sure anyone can take you seriously when you make those kind of statements. You did not hold yourself to the same standard. You made the original claim about Erasmus without documentation (you admitted) and then demand documentation when someones says that your statement was false.

I'm sorry...I do realize the double standard now. It took me a bit to figure out what you were saying. (I noted with sorrow the judgment of my motives, and assure you that I was not "trying to twist" anything.) Of course I will provide documentation (see below).
Here are two links I found about Erasmus and the TR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

http://www.bibletexts.com/KJV-tr.htm#3

The first places I found this information were in these books: One Bible Only? by Bauder and Beacham and Text of the New Testament by Metzger.

My original mention of Erasmus was not intended to be part of the discussion about the KJV discrepancy; it was in response to someone who thought that "going from book to book" to find God's Word was not right. My intention was not to start a discussion about manuscripts...but just to point out that people (Erasmus, for example) have had to "go from book to book" for two or three thousand years...Why should we expect it to be any different today?

That said, I really do not think a discussion of manuscripts is profitable for what we're examining, unless someone can prove the existence of the "absolutely perfect stream of manuscripts." Whenever I've asked for proof, I get this answer: "God promised to preserve His Word, so we know that there had to be a perfect stream." I also believe that God has preserved His Word, but I've never thought He had to do it through a "perfect stream." (I'm open to change that opinion, if persuaded by Scripture.) So, the discussion usually dead ends there, since no one can point me to the "perfect stream." I don't want this to degenerate into a discussion about people's opinions about different manuscripts (which are usually just "this expert" vs. "this expert," since none of us are language experts and have not personally examined the evidence like the DSS, etc.), and waste a lot of time when I'm pretty sure the discussion will end up where it always has.

What we have been discussing is the discrepancy between Samuel and Chronicles in the KJV. It seems we're at an impasse there as well. Here is a summary of two different viewpoints that have been expressed:

1. "Seven" is not an error. The discrepancy can be reconciled by assuming that the first famine continued through another year, and that, by the time that Gad approached David, the total years of famine (with the added punishment) would equal seven.

2. "Seven" is a scribal error that should be rendered "three" to agree with the passage in Chronicles. I Sam. 21:14 indicates that the first three-year famine ended after David scoured Saul's house. The end of the first famine is separated from the other incident by a war of undisclosed duration and nine months of census.

Does anyone have any other viewpoints about this discrepancy? If not, then we should probably stop talking about it.

[Guest Guest]

I'm sorry...I do realize the double standard now. It took me a bit to figure out what you were saying. Of course I will provide documentation (see below).
Here are two links I found about Erasmus and the TR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

http://www.bibletexts.com/KJV-tr.htm#3

The problem with that is it is speaking of his first edition. He was rushed in getting it into print and while he was writing it he didn't have a large number of manuscripts immediately available. However, that is somewhat misleading because earlier he had read many different manuscripts and in his later editions he had access to even more. He later admitted that the first edition had some mistakes and significantly, not a single bible was translated from it. The KJV came largely through his third edition, and luthers german bible came in part, but not exclusively, from the second edition. While working on every edition but the first, he had immediate access to many manuscripts.

That said, I really do not think a discussion of manuscripts is profitable for what we're examining, unless someone can prove the existence of the "absolutely perfect stream of manuscripts." Whenever I've asked for proof, I get this answer: "God promised to preserve His Word, so we know that there had to be a perfect stream." I also believe that God has preserved His Word, but I don't think He had to do it through a "perfect stream." So, the discussion usually dead ends there, since no one can point me to the "perfect stream." I don't want this to degenerate into a discussion about people's opinions about different manuscripts (which are usually just "this expert" vs. "this expert"), and waste a lot of time when I'm pretty sure the discussion will end up where it always has.

Where, in your opinion, is Gods preserved word today?

[Guest Guest]

What we have been discussing is the discrepancy between Samuel and Chronicles in the KJV. It seems we're at an impasse there as well. Here is a summary of two different viewpoints that have been expressed:

1. "Seven" is not an error. The discrepancy can be reconciled by assuming that the first famine continued through another year, and that, by the time that Gad approached David, the total years of famine (with the added punishment) would equal seven.

2. "Seven" is a scribal error that should be rendered "three" to agree with the passage in Chronicles. I Sam. 21:14 indicates that the first three-year famine ended after David scoured Saul's house. The end of the first famine is separated from the other incident by a war of undisclosed duration and nine months of census.

Does anyone have any other viewpoints about this discrepancy? If not, then we should probably stop talking about it.

Since you are of the opinion that it is a "scribal error". When, in your opinion, was this "error" introduced? Just aprox. date, + or - a hundred years or so would be fine. Note that the Syriac OT Peshitta, translated from the hebrew, likely some time in the second century, has the reading of "seven" in 2 samuel as well. So obviously, if it was a "scribal error" it must have happend a while before then...

[Annie]

Where, in your opinion, is Gods preserved word today?

How much time do you have, Seth?

Let's think about this for a second. Here's a summary of what we have available to us today in the twenty-first century:

Over 5,000 manuscripts containing all or parts of the Greek NT, some of which are close in time to the originals (first and fourth centuries). Compare this to the preservation rate of other historical documents: 10 manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic Wars (oldest one dates from 900 years after Caesar), 8 manuscripts of Thucydides's Peloponnesian War, 8 manuscripts of Herodotus's History, and 2 manuscripts of Tacitus's Histories and Annals. (I believe this is common knowledge, but I can provide documentation if necessary.) IOW, we have in our hands an unparalleled gold mine of ancient documents, God's words, handed down through the ages. These manuscripts are accessible enough for us to compare and contrast them, examining differences and coming to conclusions, guided by wisdom and the Holy Spirit, who is the Illuminator of God's Word. If that's not preservation, I don't know what is!

Among all of the Greek texts we have, there are 400,000 variant readings, which include spelling differences, different word orders, etc. Of all of these 400,000 differences, only 1 to 2 percent substantially affect the meaning of the text (John Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis, p. 66). Out of the 1 to 2 percent that affect the text's meaning, none of them affects the overall doctrinal content of the Scripture or touches on any moral commandment or article of faith that is not clear elsewhere in Scripture (Beacham and Bauder, One Bible Only? p. 124). Pret-ty A-ma-zing!

In our Bibles, we have multiple references to every important Christian doctrine and manner of life. God didn't limit Himself to just one statement about salvation, or about moral behavior, or about prayer. This repetition protects us from copies and translations that have minor errors in them. Our faith doesn't have to be shaken over minor contradictions in a certain text.

[Annie]

Since you are of the opinion that it is a "scribal error". When, in your opinion, was this "error" introduced? Just aprox. date, + or - a hundred years or so would be fine. Note that the Syriac OT Peshitta, translated from the hebrew, likely some time in the second century, has the reading of "seven" in 2 samuel as well. So obviously, if it was a "scribal error" it must have happend a while before then...

Seth, I have no idea when it was introduced. All I know is that it is there. Why is it important to know when it was introduced? (Could you provide documentation for your Syriac OT Peshitta claim?)

[Guest Guest]

Seth, I have no idea when it was introduced. All I know is that it is there. Why is it important to know when it was introduced?

Because I want to know if you think Christ and the apostles had corrupted scriptures...

(Could you provide documentation for your Syriac OT Peshitta claim?)

You can find a english translation of the Syriac Peshitta here. Look up the verse, it is near the bottom of the page.



http://www.lamsabible.com/LamsaOT/10_2samuel.htm

[Annie]

As I said, I do not know when the error was introduced. It would be impossible for anyone to know.




Cool! Thanks.

[Guest Guest]

As I said, I do not know when the error was introduced.

So are you willing to entertain the idea that Christ had scripture corrupted by "scribal errors".

[Annie]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I think that a scribal error could have occurred in any copy of any manuscript before the time of Christ? Could you elaborate on what your question means?

EDIT: Could it be that you are leading me to make an assertion that you believe would contradict verses like Matthew 5:18 ("Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"), Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; and Luke 16:17?

[Guest Guest]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I think that a scribal error could have occurred in any copy of any manuscript before the time of Christ? Could you elaborate what you mean?

No, I am asking if you think that the OT texts in common use then had been "corrupted" at an earlier date by scribal errors. Requiring a "fix" of those "errors" hundreds of years later. Apparently you are of the opinion that there is a "scribal error" in the majority texts reading of "seven" in 2 samuel 24, in spite of the fact that "error" is provable to be at least 1800 years old and still present in the majority of available scriptures. I wonder where you draw the line... The vast majority of scriptures containing the same "error" for at least 1800+ years doesn't sound like preservation to me. What good is it for God to give us the light of scripture and then allow it to be placed under the basket of "scribal errors" for hundreds and hundreds of years?

If you claim that the majority of texts can agree on an "error" that would be at least 1800 years old, what is to keep someone else from claiming that the resurrection of Christ is an "error". After all, we don't have much earlier proofs for that than what we have for the second samuel reading. On a strictly logical basis, you might as well claim that the nostic gospels(from the same area as the alexandrian texts btw) are the real truth and the rest of the NT is corrupted. It could follow the same line of reasoning...

[Annie]

If you claim that the majority of texts can agree on an "error" that would be at least 1800 years old' date=' what is to keep someone else from claiming that the resurrection of Christ is an "error". After all, we don't have much earlier proofs for that than what we have for the second samuel reading. [/quote']

Seth, you may not have taken time to read the following paragraph that I posted earlier. I'll recopy it here:

In our Bibles, we have multiple references to every important Christian doctrine and manner of life. God didn't limit Himself to just one statement about salvation, or about moral behavior, or about prayer (and I can add the resurrection here, too, since it is repeated--and verified by eyewitnesses--in several different books, not just one or two gospels). This repetition protects us from copies and translations that have minor errors in them. Our faith doesn't have to be shaken over minor contraditions in a certain text. A scribal error like the one in Samuel is not the same as a major error like excluding the resurrection, which is a cornerstone of Christian doctrine and is referred to throughout the New Testament, not just in two historical accounts (like the error we're talking about).

[Guest Guest]

Seth, you may not have taken time to read the following paragraph that I posted earlier. I'll recopy it here:

In our Bibles, we have multiple references to every important Christian doctrine and manner of life. God didn't limit Himself to just one statement about salvation, or about moral behavior, or about prayer (and I can add the resurrection here, too, since it is repeated in several different books, not just one or two gospels). This repetition protects us from copies and translations that have minor errors in them. Our faith doesn't have to be shaken over minor contraditions in a certain text.

Hmmm... so can I take it that you are saying God preserves the "most important" ideas of scripture rather than: "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"?

I'm not following you here. How does my line of reasoning open the door for acceptance of the gnostic gospels? All I have said is that I do not know when the minor scribal error in Sam. occurred. I'm not sure how you're connecting that statement with the gnostic gospels.

You are saying(assuming I am not misunderstanding you), that Gods word can be basically lost and "re-discovered" at a later date. That is a teaching of the writers of the gnostic gospels, the book of mormon, and many other such things. Lost, hidden, or "special" knowledge. I am not saying that you believe those books, I am just pointing out that they are based in many ways on the same root idea.

[Guest Guest]

Hmmm... so can I take it that you are saying God preserves the "most important" ideas of scripture rather than: "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"?

Good post, Seth. :smile

[Guest Guest]

Good post, Seth. :smile

Actually, excellent post, IMO...Seth. :thumb

[Annie]

Hmmm... so can I take it that you are saying God preserves the "most important" ideas of scripture rather than: "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"?

Seth, do you believe that the KJV Scripture preserves "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"? (Warning: This is a loaded question. )

You are saying(assuming I am not misunderstanding you), that Gods word can be basically lost and "re-discovered" at a later date. That is a teaching of the writers of the gnostic gospels, the book of mormon, and many other such things. Lost, hidden, or "special" knowledge. I am not saying that you believe those books, I am just pointing out that they are based in many ways on the same root idea.

I think we both know for a fact that God's Word has indeed been lost and rediscovered at a later date at least a few times throughout history. Scripture records this fact (II Kings 2:8). There have been other times when God's Word was not available to His people, such as during times of captivity. Scripture itself records that God's words have not been available to all of His people at all times.