/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>259742

As long as you dont have the riginal book in its original language you never have a "uncorrupted" bible text.

Every translation is a interpretation.

the KJV was the best at the time it was written, but now we have many other older manuscripts that show us where the kjv manuscripts are inaccurate.

For example we know that John 4;6 (or 6:4) was inserted. Also that commemts that the owner(s) of the books had where sometimes copied to.

We have so many manuscripts that we can reconstruct the original manuscripts by eliminating words or passages that did not appear in earlier manuscripts.

But no one bible translation uses all these corrections because there is still disputes and unclarity on many levels.

Like my bible translation for example still prints down most of the sentences that are thought to be added later, but adds a comment in the footnotes that its not found in certain early manuscripts.

There are also doctrinal issues why some translations dont correct passages.

like matthew 28:19

>„Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,“

‭‭many churches us this verse when doing a baptism and would appose a correction of this verse.

Here a source:

>{Mt. 28:19.1} The KJV and late Greek manuscripts add the phrase “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Eusebius, in his Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine chapter XVI, quoted this passage from Matthew (and did so another 18 times in his fourth century writings), “Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to keep all things which I have commanded you.” The Ancient Hebrew Matthew provides a reading very close to the early manuscript Eusebius quoted, which reads, “Go and teach them to carry out all the things that I have commanded you – forever.” Those who had actually heard the instructions from Jesus never baptized in the phrase (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

>>259772

Just found a nice article about it

http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html

It qoutes the sources like this one

>Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83. The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

>>259742

Languages change all the time, you're not going to be able to rely on any particular translation to preserve orthodoxy. You need an actual magisterium.

Thanks for the answers so far, guys. Though I was wondering about the opinion of inerrantist Protestants on this board who accept modern translations like the NIV and ESV.

Right now I'm reading a book called Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and the entire text is based on the assumption that the Bible is the very inerrant words of the Almighty. The Westminster Confession seems to take a similar stance. Personally I never thought that such God's language can be perfectly reflected by human language (to think that the Bible is as perfect as God is would be to make the Bible God and therefore be bibliolatry, which many of my fellow protties are unfortunately guilty of), but I think one could operate on the assumption that you can get close.

>>259772

>As long as you dont have the original book in its original language you never have a "uncorrupted" bible text. Every translation is a interpretation.

A King James-onlyist would disagree on the basis of these following passages:

Psalm 12:6-7

>The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Mark 13:31

>Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

They say that if God wasn't able to keep this promise and keep for us a pure translation of the Bible, God is a liar, impotent, or both.

Proverbs 30:5-6

>Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

This and passages like Revelation 22:18-19 they'll use to condemn modern translations that delete thousands of words that were in the Textus Receptus.

>>259796

> King James-onlyist would disagree on the basis of these following passages:

I was talking about the NT.

The OT is pretty much unchanged.

But this is different with the NT.

God did preserve the NT to some extend, we just have to discover/publish them.

Alone in the last 20 years we found many thousands of manuscripts, many of them just laying in a archive untouched.

The Gospel and the NT can be reconstructed.

>"uncorrupted" bible text

did you not see my example? Adding the trinity where it is not, by this changing the holy act of baptism in christ name into a baptism of trinity is corruption.

But yet we are able to correct this corruption that occurred in rome during the 2-3rd century.

God did preserve his Word, we have his message, but he never promised that we will have the originals in our hands.

>A King James-onlyist

I hate those fools.

the bible was written not in English, it is in hebrew and greek.

If you want a error free bible you can not translate a bible. Ancient languages are very vague and full symbols. A word can have multiple meanings giving a statement many flavors of meaning.

You are just scratching the surface of the bible if you are reading it in a translation. And translators sure do make errors.

For example Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law…

this is a error.

the greek verb here is ek

ek does not mean of but outside of

Greek is a very mathematical language; ek can be described as; when you draw a circle and everything that is outside of this circle is ek

Stongs concordance even discribes its correct, yet the translators ignore the meaning

>1) out of, away from

the reason why it is translated as of is because of the theological mindset the translators had in their head when interpreting this verse for translation.