All I know is that I can read and understand the NIV a lot better.
What makes it a corrupt translation based on the Alexandrian manuscript?
Are the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Are the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt?
Post #11[Replying to post 10 by nothead]
You're really missing the question though in any clear way... The NIV for instance states it is based on "the oldest and most reliable manuscripts"... Now one point at a time... is it true that the Western manuscripts PREdate the alexandrian?
You're really missing the question though in any clear way... The NIV for instance states it is based on "the oldest and most reliable manuscripts"... Now one point at a time... is it true that the Western manuscripts PREdate the alexandrian?
Re: Are the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt?
Post #12[Replying to post 11 by Wolfbitn]
Wouldn't really matter. I guess the Sinaictucis and the Alexandrian not the same date.
Sinaiticus was older, he not the best date if'n you want a young guy date. (Hopefully you a girl).
I think what I said was that unless you have the originals, and you DON'T the the actual manuscript dates are not authoritative by the virtue of which one is older or not.
The theory is the closer one to the original is better and more accurate.
This is not true, since corruptions can happen anywhere along the chain from original to next-to-original and the next-to-next-to original and so on.
Geddit? There are different ways to figure out where corruptions are, but actually the BEST way is to know that the original authors were all orthodox Jew. With very few exceptions, and NO exceptions regarding either the deity of Jesus, or any so-called 'trinity' which NONE of them even considered.
Wouldn't really matter. I guess the Sinaictucis and the Alexandrian not the same date.
Sinaiticus was older, he not the best date if'n you want a young guy date. (Hopefully you a girl).
I think what I said was that unless you have the originals, and you DON'T the the actual manuscript dates are not authoritative by the virtue of which one is older or not.
The theory is the closer one to the original is better and more accurate.
This is not true, since corruptions can happen anywhere along the chain from original to next-to-original and the next-to-next-to original and so on.
Geddit? There are different ways to figure out where corruptions are, but actually the BEST way is to know that the original authors were all orthodox Jew. With very few exceptions, and NO exceptions regarding either the deity of Jesus, or any so-called 'trinity' which NONE of them even considered.
Post #13
Hi, postroad.
The reason you find the NIV easier to read and understand is probably because it is a more modern translation. That has nothing to do with which text was used for the translation. The KJV was translated hundreds of years ago and the English language has changed significantly over the years.
The LXX is a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was originally written in Hebrew. The LXX itself is an excellent translation, but this does mean that there is another step in the translation process. Most modern translators use the Hebrew texts of the OT found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The LXX is such a good translation that, outside of scholarly work, this doesnt matter much.
For the NIV, like most modern translation, the translators worked from the three major sets of texts (Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western). They did treat the Alexandrian texts as the most reliable. I am not a scholar and could not tell you the reasons, but for at least the last 70 years scholars have almost universally declared that the Alexandrian texts are the most reliable.
Ultimately, it doesnt matter much. With a two notable exceptions (the end of Mark 16 and the beginning of John 8), there are hardly any significant differences between the texts. The NIV has footnotes for the major differences, but there arent many.
The overwhelming number of differences are things like one text says, Jesus said to them and another text says, He said to them Or it is things like, Jesus went with the disciples verses, Jesus and the disciples went These changes dont affect the plot line, must less any important Christian beliefs.
So dont sweat this much. The NIV is a good translation. You might try the New Living Translation. It was translated only a few years ago by some of todays leading experts and seems to be a really good translation. The KJV is also fine, but changes in the English language since its translation can make it more difficult to read.
The reason you find the NIV easier to read and understand is probably because it is a more modern translation. That has nothing to do with which text was used for the translation. The KJV was translated hundreds of years ago and the English language has changed significantly over the years.
The LXX is a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was originally written in Hebrew. The LXX itself is an excellent translation, but this does mean that there is another step in the translation process. Most modern translators use the Hebrew texts of the OT found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The LXX is such a good translation that, outside of scholarly work, this doesnt matter much.
For the NIV, like most modern translation, the translators worked from the three major sets of texts (Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western). They did treat the Alexandrian texts as the most reliable. I am not a scholar and could not tell you the reasons, but for at least the last 70 years scholars have almost universally declared that the Alexandrian texts are the most reliable.
Ultimately, it doesnt matter much. With a two notable exceptions (the end of Mark 16 and the beginning of John 8), there are hardly any significant differences between the texts. The NIV has footnotes for the major differences, but there arent many.
The overwhelming number of differences are things like one text says, Jesus said to them and another text says, He said to them Or it is things like, Jesus went with the disciples verses, Jesus and the disciples went These changes dont affect the plot line, must less any important Christian beliefs.
So dont sweat this much. The NIV is a good translation. You might try the New Living Translation. It was translated only a few years ago by some of todays leading experts and seems to be a really good translation. The KJV is also fine, but changes in the English language since its translation can make it more difficult to read.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
Post #14
[Replying to post 13 by bjs]
Thanks for your reply. One of the most interesting differences between the NIV and KJV is the capitalisation of Spirit is much more prevalent in the NIV.
I found this out when a KJV user presented some text from the OT as proof for the divinity of the Holy Ghost.
I pointed out that the "authorised" inspired interpreters had not personally believed that these texts referred to the Holy Spirit.
He wanted to know how I was so sure of this. I simply pointed to the "spirit" in his text.
Thanks for your reply. One of the most interesting differences between the NIV and KJV is the capitalisation of Spirit is much more prevalent in the NIV.
I found this out when a KJV user presented some text from the OT as proof for the divinity of the Holy Ghost.
I pointed out that the "authorised" inspired interpreters had not personally believed that these texts referred to the Holy Spirit.
He wanted to know how I was so sure of this. I simply pointed to the "spirit" in his text.
Post #15
[Replying to post 14 by postroad]
Spirit or spirit?
Wow, Post you don't know the Hebrew OR Koine ain't got but one case?
This means that NEITHER translation is ought but a theological consideration, upper or lower. If the Holy Spirit, then upper. If some lesser spirit than lower.
Context may be indicative, but theology decides in many cases.
So if you KNOW this, then the plain text is NEITHER as written. As MEANT it is one or the other. Now you got two authors, yes? Maybe three.
The author whom inspires the writing. The AUTHOR behind him who does the inspiring.
And maybe the author who writes it down.
So if you knew THIS then it is possible that the text scribe MAY NOT EVEN KNOW
which it is, spirit or Spirit.
These are exegetical considerations. But in my view all applicable.
Spirit or spirit?
Wow, Post you don't know the Hebrew OR Koine ain't got but one case?
This means that NEITHER translation is ought but a theological consideration, upper or lower. If the Holy Spirit, then upper. If some lesser spirit than lower.
Context may be indicative, but theology decides in many cases.
So if you KNOW this, then the plain text is NEITHER as written. As MEANT it is one or the other. Now you got two authors, yes? Maybe three.
The author whom inspires the writing. The AUTHOR behind him who does the inspiring.
And maybe the author who writes it down.
So if you knew THIS then it is possible that the text scribe MAY NOT EVEN KNOW
which it is, spirit or Spirit.
These are exegetical considerations. But in my view all applicable.
Post #16
Of course I know the ancient languages did not have upper or lower casenothead wrote: [Replying to post 14 by postroad]
Spirit or spirit?
Wow, Post you don't know the Hebrew OR Koine ain't got but one case?
This means that NEITHER translation is ought but a theological consideration, upper or lower. If the Holy Spirit, then upper. If some lesser spirit than lower.
Context may be indicative, but theology decides in many cases.
So if you KNOW this, then the plain text is NEITHER as written. As MEANT it is one or the other. Now you got two authors, yes? Maybe three.
The author whom inspires the writing. The AUTHOR behind him who does the inspiring.
And maybe the author who writes it down.
So if you knew THIS then it is possible that the text scribe MAY NOT EVEN KNOW
which it is, spirit or Spirit.
These are exegetical considerations. But in my view all applicable.
I was just pointing out that the text being presented to me as proof that the Spirit was going to indwell the believers had been rendered "spirit" in the KJV text.
Ezekiel 36:27
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Ezekiel 37:14
and shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.
So basically the "divinely" inspired (and the believer held that view) interpreters that produced the KJV had made their point regarding that text. If in fact thought that these texts meant the "Holy Ghost" they simply had capitalise the S as they did here.
Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
So what does this all mean? It means that the crew who created the KJV were uncomfortable with the concept that the Holy Ghost would personally ensure complete obedience to the Torah.
So they hid this interpretation by using an "s"
So basically the KJV is as corrupted by prejudice as any translation, maybe more so?
Post #17
[Replying to post 16 by postroad]
Also believers who were not and are not spirit-filled cannot know the intricacies regarding said spirit.
They are gonna get alot of MISTER Holy Spirit wrongo. Like calling him MISTER, for instance, another HE among two HE's in the Trinity.
Trinitarian pentecostals are bad. Oneness pentecostals not as bad. Unitarian pentecostals the same as the first and second gen.
The KJV as with any other translations have translational problems AS WELL as passed down corruptions...it is still better to try to understand the Koine and the Hebrew mind-set behind the Koine...meaning that classical Koine considerations may not be as heavily weighted.So basically the KJV is as corrupted by prejudice as any translation, maybe more so?
Also believers who were not and are not spirit-filled cannot know the intricacies regarding said spirit.
They are gonna get alot of MISTER Holy Spirit wrongo. Like calling him MISTER, for instance, another HE among two HE's in the Trinity.
Trinitarian pentecostals are bad. Oneness pentecostals not as bad. Unitarian pentecostals the same as the first and second gen.
Re: Are the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt?
Post #18I'm always curious about this. Isn't this an admission that:Wolfbitn wrote: [Replying to post 8 by nothead]
We're good dude, just puffing back lol.
Ok though isnt it true the Western ARE older? And that the alexandrian were developed in the alexandria egypt contemporaneously with the lifetime of Origen?
1. There was pious fraud, even accepted today, in the Christian Church early on
2. That the actual manuscripts, while similar, are not original and possibly as corrupted as Origens?
It seems as thought eh Christian has to answer in the same way as why we must trust the Gospel writers and Canon: because of Faith.
That seems like an awful lot of Faith in a lot of people before one even gets to the words of Jesus...
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
Post #19
But there are spirit/Spirit filled believers giving conflicting testimony on the nature of the Spirit.nothead wrote: [Replying to post 16 by postroad]
The KJV as with any other translations have translational problems AS WELL as passed down corruptions...it is still better to try to understand the Koine and the Hebrew mind-set behind the Koine...meaning that classical Koine considerations may not be as heavily weighted.So basically the KJV is as corrupted by prejudice as any translation, maybe more so?
Also believers who were not and are not spirit-filled cannot know the intricacies regarding said spirit.
They are gonna get alot of MISTER Holy Spirit wrongo. Like calling him MISTER, for instance, another HE among two HE's in the Trinity.
Trinitarian pentecostals are bad. Oneness pentecostals not as bad. Unitarian pentecostals the same as the first and second gen.
Sometimes they even change their positions over time.
What can an agnostic make of it?
Is it blasphemy to give false testimony concerning the Spirit while claiming to be speaking for God through the Spirit?
After all those in the OT who spoke under the authority of the Spirit were prophets.
The punishment for claiming to be a prophet and in fact being a false prophet was death.
Deuteronomy 18:20
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.
Re: Are the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt?
Post #20Wolfbitn wrote:postroad wrote:The accusation is that the NIV is inferior because it based on an interpretation of the Alexandrian manuscripts which while being older than some other texts is considered by some to be a corrupted version of the original texts.greentwiga wrote:I don't really understand the connection and the question.postroad wrote: All I know is that I can read and understand the NIV a lot better.
What makes it a corrupt translation based on the Alexandrian manuscript?
The KJV is based on the LXX.
Don't quote me on this because I am no scholar and may have mixed things up.
I am here to get myself edumacated on the subject.
Hi post, its great to meet you.
You're asking a great question honestly, but unfortunately the truth is very ugly. You got all that right as far as some of the claims that are made.
The newer translations are all either based on the alexandrian or translations of the alexandrian. They ALL without fail claim to come from "the oldest and most reliable manuscripts", but this couldnt be further from the truth.
There are 3 types of early manuscript... the youngest are the Byzantine and they come up through the middle ages.
The middle group is the Alexandrian. This is of course because most all of the fragments and such come from Alexandria Egypt and the immediate surrounding area. This group is EXTREMELY flawed and differs greatly from the Byzantine AND the earliest group, called the "Western manuscripts".
The WESTERN manuscripts are in fact the oldest. What we find too is that the western and the byzantine are extremely close to identical. The alexandrian, being sandwiched in time in the middle, suddenly sprung up right around the time of the death of Origen, the great pagan teacher at the school of alexandria. He is responsible for over 6000 documents that we have access to still. He is quoted in one document as saying that he "learned Hebrew in order to 'improve' the manuscripts".
The evidence is very clear that the church is being very misled for some strange reason. Origen was a pagan teacher who taught regarding ancient myth, roman and greek mythology, developing his own belief system. When Christianity sprung up, he added it to his theology. He is the father of "universalist" theology, which postulates we arent responsible for our sin and that everyone including satan himself will one day be saved. Monstrous salvation. His beliefs show through in his version of the manuscripts to a large degree by the MANY omissions such as the johnanine comma and the last half of the last chapter of Mark, several entire books etc. To a large degree also the differences in translation of key words. The teaching that Jesus was not the Son of God springs from the alexandrain.
The king James truly is a superior translation.
Then we have the NEW TESTAMENT atrocities of the NIV, the westcott hort
abomination.
What do you think of the Lamsa translation from the Aramaic that came out in the late 60s, early 70s?
