Oldest and more "reliable" Manuscripts?

[JJJ4given]

Suppose you had a library full of Bibles. Suppose you used some MVs as reference Bibles once in a while(not to say that you or I do). Suppose, since you are probably like me and don't think those MVs are completely God's Word, suppose you didn't read them much or use them much. And also, let's suppose you are like any Bible reader and you go through a Bible once every year to 5 years. So that would mean you would have a whole bunch of tattered copies of the KJV, the one you prefered, and only one copy of each MV that was in great shape.

Now if I went through your library 1000 years later and found those MVs in perfect condition but your KJV was simply scraps by that time, would I be correct in thinking that the MVs were the most reliable? Even when they disagree with each other?

This scenario is what has taken place in our modern day. The only difference is between the Majority Text and the Minority Texts. The Majority text are the 90% of all manuscripts which are very tattered but agree with each other. While the Minority Texts are a few manuscripts in excellent shape that disagree with each other and the Majority Text.

Just as you would find it an outrageous notion for people 1000 years from now to think that the MVs are God's preserved word, so would the people from 300-1000 A.D. think of today's scholars as grossly in error had our ancestors lived to see what man is doing.

[IM4given]

My Grandmother's Catholic Bible is still stuck together by the gold-leafing - she never opened it in all the years that she had it! It is a shame too!

If you haven't had a chance to go see this traveling exhibit, please make plans to do so! It is a fascinating exhibit!

http://www.inkandblood.com/exhibit/exhi ... ifacts.php

[Psalms18_28]

Ever seen the movie "Indiana Jones: the last crusade"? at the ending of the movie, Indiana was in a room filled with shiny golden cups. To save his father, he had to figure out which cup is the holy grail (remember, this is just a movie) . The two evil people chose the prettiest and shiniest cup and they died. But Indiana looked for a cup that look like it was used alot. It was stained, dull, and had alot of scratches on it. And it was small and didn't look so pretty...like it is a very humble cup if you know what I mean. Well it turned out it was the right cup after all. Moral of the story? Don't go for manuscripts that look too well preserved. It is have no value to it if no one had ever used it.

BTW, if you going to keep a MV... be sure to write a note in it why you don't use this bible.

[kevinmiller]

Ever seen the movie "Indiana Jones: the last crusade"? at the ending of the movie, Indiana was in a room filled with shiny golden cups. To save his father, he had to figure out which cup is the holy grail (remember, this is just a movie) . The two evil people chose the prettiest and shiniest cup and they died.

Yeah, I remember that. The bad guy's skin like melted off of him turning him into skeleton before completely disintegrating. Cool stuff. :cooldude:

[Will]

Yeah, I remember that. The bad guy's skin like melted off of him turning him into skeleton before completely disintegrating. Cool stuff. :cooldude:

I thought that was Raider's of the Lost Ark?

[kevinmiller]

No, it was definitely the Last Crusade. Though I think people pretty much got disintegrated in every movie. lol

[Madeline]

It was Raiders of the Lost Ark!

Major Arnold Toht played by Ronald Lacey, he melted.

[tube]nleXLNEegQI[/tube]

[IM4given]

The Art Collector drank from the wrong cup and he grew older and older until he dried up and blew away. He did not melt, but the effects were still just as gruesome. The right cup was supposed to make him young, or so he thought, and they were using the phrase "he who drinks from this cup shall have everlasting life." The wrong cup had the opposite effect.

As a general rule I dislike most modern movies, but I enjoy Steven Speilberg flicks. The snake scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark gave me nightmares! :zzzz :

[chev1958]

Actually, the grail in "The Last Crusade" was a wooden cup. The reasoning given by Indiana Jones for a wooden cup was that Jesus was a carpenter, so he would've made his cup out of wood.

Mitch

(awaiting Indiana Jones 4!)

[Bakershalfdozen]

Me too! :thumb


My, my we do get so quickly around here. :lol:

[Jerry]

Hopefully the new one won't have the same New Age junk that was in the third one.

[John the Baptist]

Suppose you had a library full of Bibles. Suppose you used some MVs as reference Bibles once in a while(not to say that you or I do). Suppose, since you are probably like me and don't think those MVs are completely God's Word, suppose you didn't read them much or use them much. And also, let's suppose you are like any Bible reader and you go through a Bible once every year to 5 years. So that would mean you would have a whole bunch of tattered copies of the KJV, the one you prefered, and only one copy of each MV that was in great shape.

Now if I went through your library 1000 years later and found those MVs in perfect condition but your KJV was simply scraps by that time, would I be correct in thinking that the MVs were the most reliable? Even when they disagree with each other?

This scenario is what has taken place in our modern day. The only difference is between the Majority Text and the Minority Texts. The Majority text are the 90% of all manuscripts which are very tattered but agree with each other. While the Minority Texts are a few manuscripts in excellent shape that disagree with each other and the Majority Text.

Just as you would find it an outrageous notion for people 1000 years from now to think that the MVs are God's preserved word, so would the people from 300-1000 A.D. think of today's scholars as grossly in error had our ancestors lived to see what man is doing.

The Majority, the Textus Receptus agree because most of the scribal changes from the original comes from these text. The majority text differs from the Textus Receptus in about 2,000 places.

God Bless
John

[Will]

The Majority, the Textus Receptus agree because most of the scribal changes from the original comes from these text. The majority text differs from the Textus Receptus in about 2,000 places.

God Bless
John

No textual critic would use "differs." They're variants, and many of those so-called variants are nothing more than spelling issues or the like. Not anything close to being major.

[John the Baptist]

No textual critic would use "differs." They're variants, and many of those so-called variants are nothing more than spelling issues or the like. Not anything close to being major.

I know what they are. They are still variations and additions to the original text.

[Will]

I know what they are. They are still variations and additions to the original text.

Or merely scribal errors.