Are the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt?

[postroad]

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?

[greentwiga]

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?

I don't really understand the connection and the question.

[postroad]

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?

I don't really understand the connection and the question.

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.


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.

[Wolfbitn]

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?

I don't really understand the connection and the question.

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.


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.

[greentwiga]

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?

There are many who are stuck on the KJV. I find that they will argue against all the newer translations to justify the KJV. They don't look at some of the flawed methods used to arrive at the KJV.

The NIV is indeed much easier to read. Remember, the easier to read versions have to include more interpretive translation work than the more rigorous but less easy versions like the NASB. All translation including the KJV use some interpretive translation.

The only way to be sure is to read the Greek. Since the basic points of Christianity come through the same, You are fine. Only when people argue about the nit-picking points (such as I like to do) do you need to research carefully.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 4 by Wolfbitn]

Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence concerning the INSERTION of Johannine Comma?

Why do you ignore the greatest historian of that age, Eusebius who mentions a SHORT version of Mt 28:19-20 without the trin formulation?

!18 TIMES??

Em maybe you entrenched into the status quo? No trin scholar of any merit today believes the Comma to be valid. I generalize because I am biased OPPOSITE YOU.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to nothead]

Before you ask ME anything with disrespect, DEMANDING i talk to you when I dont even know you, Introduce yourself, and then in some civil manner, shoot down the facts I presented... then ask whatever you want.

.Everything I said there is ABSOLUTELY true, so shoot down anything you can and THEN we can talk about the comma

Something like this... Hello Nothead, its good to meet you... now regarding the fact you are actually questioning documented FACT, Is it NOT true that the WESTERN manuscripts ARE the earliest and isnt it also true that the alexandrian are contemporary with the later lifetime of Origen?

[nothead]

[Replying to post 7 by Wolfbitn]


Well, hello then WOOF. Ima nothead. Nice to meet you.

So get on with it. Don't be offended, be right. Now the Living GOD is on your side.

[Wolfbitn]

[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?

[nothead]

[Replying to post 9 by Wolfbitn]



Older, younger, it's like saying the younger brother don't deserve no respect...'cept I got it backwards howbeit. No wait a minute. The OLDER manuscript supposed to be the BETTER one. I had it right the first time. And dinna know it.

...since who knows where the ORIGINALS gone to...however the three or four times Eusebius mentions the long form of Mt 28:19-20...were AFTER the Council of Nicea, meaning he did not consider the actual earlier text to be inherently unchangeable, as inspiration then in a limited sense was considered to be flexible in view of Christianity becoming a new religion coming TO TERMS with itself...

See, they changed CERTAIN things according to their newfound theologies, which gravitated inextricably toward the deity of Jesus and an odd trinity of God...