Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[Josiah]

The ones I read aren’t denominational, and they also summarize the major alternatives on each passage. They express a view, but I don’t always accept it. I don’t know what else you can do. Translations are also based on a view of the passage. They just don’t explain it. They also don’t give the historical context you need to understand how the intended readers would understand it.

There is no such thing as human objectivity.... EVERYONE is "biased" to some degree.... the major difference is some are aware of and admit their bias and some deny it. One offering "commentary" is offering THEIR OPINION, their "take," their "spin." THEIRS. And if they have no "biased" then they can have no "opinion" - one who has no biased can do nothing else than repeat the words of the text (in the original Hebrew and Greek, even offering a translation involves some bias).


To the issue: True theologians and Bible teachers never use a translation - ANY translation. They learned biblical Hebrew and koine Greek (required to enter seminary and required for any degree in Bible) and thus use those. I've never seen my Lutheran pastor with a translation, ANY translation. IF some "teacher" is basing his theology (likely some NEW thing only HE suddenly knows!) on a TRANSLATION, he is revealing his lack of knowledge and disqualification. I've never known of any teacher (well, at least a non-cultist) base some theology on a translation.

 

[hedrick]

Of course using the original Greek doesn't solve the problem when the question is what the original Greek is. So instead of the question of whether to use the KJV or the NIV we have the question of whether to use the "received text" or a modern Greek edition. This is actually true of many of the texts used in attacks on the NIV and other modern versions.

 

[hedrick]

There is no such thing as human objectivity.... EVERYONE is "biased" to some degree.... the major difference is some are aware of and admit their bias and some deny it. One offering "commentary" is offering THEIR OPINION, their "take," their "spin."

Sure, but without a commentary you may not be aware that there's even a disagreement. You've been speaking of pastors. They're more likely than I am to be aware, but even in seminary you can't study every verse in the Bible. For me, what a commentary does is point out where there are issues, give historical background, and give the major arguments. Sure they aren't completely objective, but I'm still a lot better with them than without.

I also use multiple commentaries when I'm looking at something seriously.

Commentaries also usually cover textual issues. So looking at this passage in a commentary I'd see that there's a question of the Greek text, and get at least some idea of what the argument is.

 

[kiwimac]

And here is a good overview on the "these are the oldest thus best" idea:

"The oldest representatives of the "purely" Alexandrian group of texts are the two "great" uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B, respectively). Both of these manuscripts date to the 4th century, with Vaticanus proffered as from the latter quarter of the century, and Sinaiticus being from around the middle of the century. Several scholars have even suggested that these uncials are two of the original 50 copies of the New Testament text which were made by Eusebius for official Church use at the behest of Emperor Constantine.5 Thus, the oldest pure Alexandrian manuscripts date to around 350 AD and after, nearly three centuries after the penning of the original autographs. The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.6 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."7 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large, "Origen's treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not effectively alter that text. "This brings us to the second significant point - his date.

From the early third century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."8 Thus, even by the 3rd century, and definitely by the fourth, the Scriptures were more thoroughly distributed and Christians were better able to compare texts and reject heretical manuscripts. Once the faithfulness in transmission for the texts had solidified, the issue then becomes one of competing textual lines, between which Christians of that age had to choose. This is where the age of the Alexandrian exemplars actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity.

What needs to be understood about the ancient manuscripts is that there were basically two types of media for texts - vellum and papyrus. Neither of these media are especially durable. Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals) was more rugged and expensive, and was used in the copies of the Scriptures held for "official" use by the churches, and by more wealthy individuals. Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are vellum manuscripts, and as such, were probably intended for use in Christian assemblies or liturgy. However, vellum scrolls will wear out over time through use and need to be replaced (just as a well-used Bible today will tend to do). Back in the day, they did not have rebinding services like we have for Bibles to give added years to the life of a scroll, so the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript....

The obvious point to all this, then, is: "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used... " http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/GnosticCorruptions.pdf

What a load of hooey

 

[kiwimac]

If you look they are all based on W & H with minor variations, but its still the same deletions and changes from the Alexandrian manuscripts. "The Critical Text was the one chiefly used for the English Revised Version and the later American Standard Version. Today, the updated and revised Critical Text is the Greek manuscript basis for the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and virtually every other modern English translation of the Bible."..https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-text.html

Rot and nonsense, why? Because you did not finish the quote from the site. Here it is:

"...
Though the Critical Text was not without its faults, it has been accepted, on the whole, as being the most accurate in duplicating the original text of the New Testament. Modern biblical scholars have adjusted and adapted Westcott and Hort’s theories of translation, which can be summarized by nine critical rules of biblical interpretation, including the following:

• The reading is less likely to be original if it shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties.

• Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number of supporting witnesses.

• The preferred reading best explains the existence of other readings.

• The preferred reading makes the best sense; that is, it best conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context.

With the discovery of new manuscript evidence, the Critical Text has been revised many times. Currently, the Nestle-Aland text (now in its twenty-eighth edition) is the critical text in common use, along with the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (UBS).

In summary, the Critical Text is an effort to discover the wording of the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament by comparing/contrasting all of the existing manuscripts and using logic and reason to determine the most likely original readings. While no human effort will ever produce an absolutely perfect copy of the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the Critical Text is very likely extremely close to what the New Testament authors wrote.

 

[hobie]

There is no such thing as human objectivity.... EVERYONE is "biased" to some degree.... the major difference is some are aware of and admit their bias and some deny it. One offering "commentary" is offering THEIR OPINION, their "take," their "spin." THEIRS. And if they have no "biased" then they can have no "opinion" - one who has no biased can do nothing else than repeat the words of the text (in the original Hebrew and Greek, even offering a translation involves some bias).


To the issue: True theologians and Bible teachers never use a translation - ANY translation. They learned biblical Hebrew and koine Greek (required to enter seminary and required for any degree in Bible) and thus use those. I've never seen my Lutheran pastor with a translation, ANY translation. IF some "teacher" is basing his theology (likely some NEW thing only HE suddenly knows!) on a TRANSLATION, he is revealing his lack of knowledge and disqualification. I've never known of any teacher (well, at least a non-cultist) base some theology on a translation.

That's why a word for word translation is the best process, and you can then bring God fearing men to oversee it and make sure its correct, and work out any issues.

 

[hobie]

Rot and nonsense, why? Because you did not finish the quote from the site. Here it is:

My point was they are all being made out of the changed if not corrupted Alexandrian text. Its very evident, here is more...."Today, the modern translations are based largely on the witness of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts (which come out of the Vatican stable) and a handful of uncials in juxtaposition to the cloud of manuscripts testifying to the opposite. The Vaticanus manuscript was the prime witness to counter the Reformation Bible and the Sinaiticus adds its voice to form the bulwark of the modern translations. Isn’t it fascinating that the foreword of the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses states so clearly what its source of inspiration was? Also remember the furore this translation created when it first appeared because of its numerous alterations, deletions and perversions. The foreword of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures states on page 9:

The Greek text that we have used as the basis of our New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk. Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading. We give some definiteness to the background for the renderings of our text by showing in our footnotes the most ancient manuscripts and versions on which we call for support. (As quoted in Burnside – The New International Version or the King James Version.)

The basis for modern Bible translations is the Nestle-Aland text which is based on the same handful of manuscripts described above. In fact Nestle makes it clear in stating explicitly that “the Vatican manuscript is to be preferred above every other manuscript” (Ruckman p. 25). Furthermore, their text, by their own admission, is based on ecumenical considerations and is a dynamic (ever changing) text as the ecumenical climate dictates. In 1968 the UBS (United Bible Societies) and the Vatican reached agreement that only this text may be used as a basis for the new translations, in churches and in Bible studies (Rudolf Ebertshäuser, Der Überlieferte Text des Neuen Testaments und die heutigen Bibelübersetzungen, p.19.) With such an agreement it is obvious that this text is the preferred Roman Catholic text and as such signals their victory over the Reformation and it’s Bible...."Bible Versions, Does It Really Matter Which? | Bible translations

 

[kiwimac]

My point was they are all being made out of the changed if not corrupted Alexandrian text. Its very evident, here is more...."Today, the modern translations are based largely on the witness of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts (which come out of the Vatican stable) and a handful of uncials in juxtaposition to the cloud of manuscripts testifying to the opposite. The Vaticanus manuscript was the prime witness to counter the Reformation Bible and the Sinaiticus adds its voice to form the bulwark of the modern translations. Isn’t it fascinating that the foreword of the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses states so clearly what its source of inspiration was? Also remember the furore this translation created when it first appeared because of its numerous alterations, deletions and perversions. The foreword of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures states on page 9:

The Greek text that we have used as the basis of our New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk. Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading. We give some definiteness to the background for the renderings of our text by showing in our footnotes the most ancient manuscripts and versions on which we call for support. (As quoted in Burnside – The New International Version or the King James Version.)

The basis for modern Bible translations is the Nestle-Aland text which is based on the same handful of manuscripts described above. In fact Nestle makes it clear in stating explicitly that “the Vatican manuscript is to be preferred above every other manuscript” (Ruckman p. 25). Furthermore, their text, by their own admission, is based on ecumenical considerations and is a dynamic (ever changing) text as the ecumenical climate dictates. In 1968 the UBS (United Bible Societies) and the Vatican reached agreement that only this text may be used as a basis for the new translations, in churches and in Bible studies (Rudolf Ebertshäuser, Der Überlieferte Text des Neuen Testaments und die heutigen Bibelübersetzungen, p.19.) With such an agreement it is obvious that this text is the preferred Roman Catholic text and as such signals their victory over the Reformation and it’s Bible...."Bible Versions, Does It Really Matter Which? | Bible translations

What a load of hooey.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk