Translation of the Bible

[Free Range]

I have been having a discussion with another about the interpretation of the Bible. Mostly about the meaning of words and how the meanings of words change over the years and it is impossible to know what was meant by some of the words written in the time of Christ as translated today. His stance was one of not giving any validity to what is written in the Bible because he has no faith in those that have done the translation.
This discussion started because I made mention that homosexuality is a sin, and that it is clear in the Bible that God does not condone homosexuality. He went on to try to explain it away as mentioned, by saying the Bible we read today has no relevance because it has been translated and we cannot be sure of the original intent.

[Quadrafletch]

Free Range
I read classical and Koine greek (the original language of the New Testament). We currently have manuscripts dating back to A.D. 200 and earlier for most portions of the New Testament. We also understand the language very well; Greek is not exactly an unknown language. We have many modern translators who do a very good job of translating the Greek into English. It is not like we are reading this through a series of 10 translations. The good modern translations (such as the New International Version) translate directly from the original Greek into modern English. By the way, ALL of them let us understand that the teachings about homsexuality are what the original authors really meant and taught. When you read a good translation you can pretty well trust it. The good translations were done by highly competent people. The only way to get closer, is to learn Greek yourself.

[Free Range]

Thanks, for the information

[Cato]

Excellent info there Quad. Thanks.

As I understand it there are a huge number of manuscripts of the New Testament around today. There are also many books out there that will give you a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of what we have translated. Josh McDowell has some stuff. Also, the little book "Letters from a Skeptic" has a good section in it.

The Bible is quiet clear that homosexuality is a sin. However, so is any kind of immorality. As a society becomes blatanly immoral, homosexuality seems to be part of the downward progression. As Christians we need to take a stand against all forms of immorality.

[Quadrafletch]

Thank you Cato. Yes there is a large number of New Testament manuscripts; over 5000 manuscripts or fragments thereof, and no two of them are exactly alike. However, most of the differences are in different ways to spell the same word, slight punctuation differences, etc. In other words, insignificant. These manuscripts have been divided into 4 families, with each family showing basic similarities.

The United Bible Society publishes a very fine New Testament in Greek that uses the text that is currently thought to be best, with all of the significant variants with their manuscript sources. In other words, you can hold in your hand the 5000 manuscripts or variants thereof and study and decide for yourself. It is a beautiful work.

It should be understood, that none of the basic Christian doctrines is disputed in any of the Greek texts. Jesus was born, lived and resurrected in them all; and Paul's basic teachings are the same in them all. Talk about a strong evidence for the truthfulness of basic Christian doctrine. 5000 manuscripts and they all say basically the same thing!

In my own personal library, I have copies of almost all of the significant early manuscripts; so it is not as if I am just taking someone else's word for it.

Live well and happy, as well as have a quiet bow and good release.

[Cato]

Quad,

That is so cool, that you have all that at your fingertips. How did you wind up with access to all that? And how did you learn Greek well enought to make sense of it?

I am envious.

Cato

[Quadrafletch]

Cato

I worked near a university that had a great classics program, so i took classes in Latin and Greek for about 10 years. I did not get a degree - I just wanted to learn the languages. Every time I read the New Testament in a translation, I would find things that I did not understand, and I would think, "I wonder what it says in the original"? I wanted to find out badly enough that I put in the effort to learn the languages.

This, of course, led me to the problem of multiple manuscripts, so I studied and collected copies of the best manuscripts. Now I do not need to rely on what someone else thinks, I can read the original authors for myself. The books each carry the spirit and power of the author, which is missed in a translation. You get the message in a translation, but not the spirit and power of the author.

You must understand. Nobody questions the existence of the basic message of Plato, Herodotus or any of the other classical authors; but each of these is supported by a mere handful of manuscripts; whereas the existence and story of the Savior, as well as the other New Testament authors are supported by over 5000 manuscripts. No other historical figure or history is supported by anywhere near the evidence as is found for the New Testament. In addition, we have manuscript evidence for the New Testament dating clear back to 100 A.D., just a few years after it happened. All of the other classical evidence is many hundreds of years removed from the time it happened. One might be able to question the original writers, but one cannot question the authenticity of the documents or their transmission. To be able to read these writings as they came from the authors has been a source of great satisfaction to me. Thank you for asking.

[webrehm]

Quadrafletch:

Which texts do you believe are the most accurate, the majority or critical texts?

It it true that the critical texts are mostly or completely represented by the vaticanus and the siniaticus?


Dennis

[Quadrafletch]

Webrehm

Looks like we have someone else knows some about New Testament manuscripts. Good for you! This is a very good and very debated question, since the King James Version represents the majority text.

The majority texts are all of late date, and when I find a reading that i definitely feel is wrong, it seems always to be from the majority text or the western text.

The Alexandrian family of manuscripts are not only represented by the codexes vaticanus and sinaiticaus, but also by the much more recent and much older paprylogical material. The two codexes mentioned date from about A.D. 400, but the Chester Beatty Biblical Papryi dates from about A.D. 200, and is virtually a complete New Testament (I have a complete photographic copy of it). Other papryi, such as the Bodmer Papri, are significantly older than this, and virtually all support this one family of manuscripts.

If you go by the earliest manuscripts, the Alexandrian family of manuscripts wins be a large margin.

[Cato]

I hope you guys will hang around out here. This forum is a great place to share your faith with guys who just haven't taken the time to consider spiritual things, or have been alienated by hypocrisy and so on. I'm sure your knowledge and resources would be valuable.

Cato

[Esquire]

Fascinating stuff. This is an area that seems to generate much discussion in my neck of the woods. It has become increasingly popular to disparage the authority and accuracy of God's Word with vague references to translation discrepencies, and typos and the like.

I look forward to improving my knowledge in this area.

Thanks.

[Free Range]

Here’s another question for you, this guy I have been discussing this with brought up, why do we Christians seem to ignore some “laws” and make a big deal out of others. His example had to do with not wearing a couple different types of cloth at the same time. Something by the way I hadn’t ever heard of, and of course he brought up eating unclean animals like pork.

[Quadrafletch]

Free Range

Your friend is confusing Christianity with Judaism, the Law of the Gospel with the Law of Moses. If he were a Jew, and accepted only the Old Testament as scripture, he would still not be able to eat pork. The Law of Moses, however, was designed to teach about Christ, and when he was resurrected, he fulfilled the Law of Moses, and this Law was replaced by His Law. Remember the sheet full of foods, unclean by the Law of Moses, that was lowered to Peter and he was commanded to eat. He said that he had never eaten unclean food, whereupon God told him "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10: 9-18). This not only indicated that the message was now to go to the Gentiles, but that the requirements of the Law had changed. As a result, the First council of Jerusalem declared that the Law of Moses was no longer binding, and and now allowed people to be members of the church without circumcision, and only abstaining from eating blood; any other food was now acceptable. This is one reason why we so differentiate between the Old and the New Testaments. There is still a wealth of truth and wisdom in the Old Testament, but some of the commandments (those which fall under the law of Moses) no longer apply to us.

We do not have the right to pick and choose which commandments we will follow, but God most certainly does. He gave one set of commandments to Adam, changed them when He talked to Noah, changed them again when He talked to Moses, and changed them again when He talked to Peter. All of this is recorded, so it is no secret to those who wish to seek truth. If we truly trust God, then we follow his counsel and find assurance in His love.

[Free Range]

Quadrafletch, thank you. I’m trying to find my way back to the church, I grew up going to church and still remember a lot about what I was taught, but have become complacent and have not gone to church on a regular basis in a long time. Here lately I have been thinking more about my faith and my life and feel something pulling me back where I belong. I appreciate you help and knowledge in answering my questions.
So as a Christian should I read the New Testament first before I read the Old?

[Garry]

Quadrafletch,

What law is Jesus refering to in Matthew 5:17?

Thanks,
Garry

[Cato]

Free Range,

I have sent you a private message, so please check your messages.

I would suggest the New Testament. Many folks begin with the book of John. However, at the beginning of my personal journey back to God, I began with Matthew and just read through the entire New Testament. I took one chapter a day as a habit.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain much identical content, given from a different writer's perspective. So if you start with Matthew, and then hit Mark and feel you are reading the same things over, in a sense you are. If you like, you can take Matthew, and then go to John, and continue through the rest. However, the books of Mark and Luke are certainly worthwhile, and you will want to read them as well somewhere down the line.

Much of Acts has to do with a historical account of how the Church evolved after the death and resurection of Christ. The balance of the books have great teachings (well all of them do actually) that should be applied to our lives.

Christianity is about opening your heart, sincerely, and asking God to come in. He has given us His Word as our main resource for learning about Him, and growing in Him. Jump in there friend, and enjoy.

Cato

[Free Range]

Thanks Cato, I read your PM and replied.

[Quadrafletch]

Garry

Whenever the "Law" is referred to in the New Testament, it is referring to the Law of Moses. Jesus did not do away with the Law, but since the purpose of the Law of Moses was to teach and prepare people for the Christ, he was the fulfillment of the Law. This is why it is called the "New" Testament as opposed to the "Old" Testament.

Free Range,

Cato's suggestions are excellent. In my mind, the first thing to do is to get a personal feeling about Christ. I would start with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Reading His story 4 times will give you time to feel and to let His Spirit confirm His reality and His love. Developing a personal relationship in this way is the beginning of everything. Good luck to you in your search for eternal truth.

Adjusting our life so that the values of eternity are reflected within our own values brings peace and happiness. I told my wife that on my tombstone, I want written, "My life was a quest for truth, for beauty and for love. I found all three." There is no question but that I am a truly fortunate person. These are the only things that create happiness and that last forever. We are now living in the middle of forever.

[Garry]

Quadrafletch,

Whenever the "Law" is referred to in the New Testament, it is referring to the Law of Moses.

If this is true then how do we explain Matthew 5:18 since heaven and earth have not yet passed away?

Thanks again,
Garry

[Quadrafletch]

Garry

It says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the L, therefore it passed away.aw "till all be fulfilled". As explained above, Christ was the fulfillment of the Law, and when He was resurrected, the Law indeed passed away. This is one of Paul;s basic messages, running throughout all of his epistles.

The art of asking good questions like this is a gift in and of itself.

[Garry]

Quadrafletch,

Reference Matthew 5:18

My KJV says: "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fullfilled."

So my next question is what is a jot and what is a title?

If one jot or one title shall not pass away from the law, doesn't this imply that the law is still in place until heaven and earth pass away?

If you are correct that whenever the "Law" is referred to in the New Testament, it is referring to the Law of Moses doesn't this imply that the law of Moses is still in place until heaven and earth pass away?

No one has ever accused me of being the smartest kid on the block so please bear with me, I am only trying to understand.

Thanks again,
Garry

[Cato]

Quad,

The questions about the Law and it's applicability to us are some that I think many dedicated Christians are confused about, and others just have genuine disagreements. By the way, I do not profess to understand all of it myself.

But that not withstanding, the Message of the New Testament is clear. God revelaed Himself to us, in the form of Jesu the Christ. God loved His creation so much that He would make the ultimate sacrifice to offer us the opportunity to be resored; to eternal life, and to fellowship with Him even now. You can't get a better deal than that now, can you?

Cato

[Cato]

Gary,

I will be curious to read Quad's response. But I will interject that while some may disagree about the applicability of the Law to us today (ie are the Ten Commandments applicable), Paul made it clear that we are no longer under the burden of measuring up to the law. It may be a standard by which we are to measure our life, but it is not a standard by which God will determine our eternal state.

The law was given to show us our complete inability to measure up to God's perfection, and show us our desperate need for a Savior. No man has ever been saved by keeping the law. Through Christ, we enter into a New Covenant in which the Law of God is written on our hearts, and our savation comes through receiving Christ and trusting Him.

Romans 8: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.

Cato

[Garry]

Cato,

I agree.

I was taught the law Jesus referred to in Matthew 5:12 was God's law that says the wages of sin is death - Romans 6:23.

Romans 3:10 - As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one.
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 5:8 - But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 8: 1-3 that you quoted.

[Quadrafletch]

Garry

The"jot" is really a "yod", the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. A "tittle" is a small mark that is part of several Hebrew letters. This passage is being very literal, and is referring to the written Law of Moses. If the Law had not been fulfilled by Jesus, then no part would have been done away while the earth or heaven existed, not even one letter of the alphabet or one part of a letter of the alphabet. Since it was fulfilled, the Law of Moses, as written in the Old Testament is now done away with. It is not referring to an ethereal law, but to a tangible written form as it was found in the Old Testament.

Cato

You're very right, you can't get a better deal than that, and thus the "good news". The story of how that came to be, and the implications of that message are the essence of the New Testament. By the way, the 10 commandments, though given to Moses, were not part of the Mosaic Law. He gave them the 10 commandments, and then gave them the Mosaic law, thus, they still apply. There are many things in the Old Testament that are not part of the Mosaic law.

[Quadrafletch]

Garry

One more thought. The passage referenced is at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. Later in that sermon the Savior says "The Law says- - - - - , But I say - - - - -. Using this format he gives many examples, showing that he is clearly referencing the Law of Moses.

[Garry]

Quadrafletch,

I agree that Jesus is talking about the law of Moses but he says he did not come to destroy the law (of Moses). I still can't get it through my thick head why he would say till heaven and earth pass if he meant the law of Moses would pass when he dies for the sins of man.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.

[Garry]

Quadrafletch,

Could Jesus have meant that the law of Moses (the wages of sin is death) would not pass until heaven and earth passes because that is the law that God will use to judge non-believers who did not accept his Son but for believers who have accepted Jesus and thier Lord and Savior we will not be under this law but under the law of grace?

[Quadrafletch]

Garry

The reason he said it that way was to tell them that no man had the right to change the Law, that unless it was fulfilled through Him, it would last until the heavens and the earth passed away. You must understand that the purpose of the Law of Moses was to teach and prepare people for the coming of the Christ.

In the KJV, Paul likened the law to a schoolmaster who would bring us to Christ. (Galatians 3:24-27) The word, "schoolmaster", is not a very good word. The Greek word is "paidagogos", and means literally, one who leads children. In ancient times, the well-off families used a trusted slave to escort the children to school. He made sure they got there safely and didn't get into trouble on the way. In the same way, the law of Moses was to lead the Jewish people to Christ, who is the true teacher. Once we are in the presence of the teacher, we no longer need the paidagogos, he has done his job.

Once Jesus was resurrected, he gave those who trusted him the Holy Spirit (day of pentecost), so that everyone could now have access to him through the whisperings of that divine being. Since we now have direct access to God, the role of the Law of Moses (the paidagogos) is fulfilled and is not necessary any longer.

Garry, I hope that this helps clarify things a little bit. I am trying to be as brief as possible, but it is so important for us to understand that through the Holy Spirit, every child of God can communicate with Him and find answers to their prayers. I truly hope that in your quest for truth, you will feel both His Spirit and His love. May He be with you always.

[Garry]

Quadrafletch,

Did Jesus fulfill the law or the prophecies that were written about him before his birth?

If Jesus fulfilled the law, what exact law did he fulfill?

Thanks,
Garry

[Quadrafletch]

Garry

I'm sorry, I thought I had already answered this question. Yes, it is true that he fulfilled the prophecies about him, it is also true that he fulfilled the Law of Moses, as was described earlier.

[Garry]

Quadrafletch,

One more question and then I am going to give this a rest.

How do you define the law of Moses and can you provide me with a scripture reference.

Thanks,
Garry

[Quadrafletch]

Garry

The Law of Moses was a very complex system of behavior and ordinances. It is basically what the conservative Jews of today live, except that they add their tradition to the law. It contains material to remind them that they cannot be like the rest of the world, as well as a lot of symbolism to teach about Christ. Paul said that the Jews missed out on understanding the true nature of the Old Testament because they left Christ out of the equation.

The relevant books are Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (the word "deuteronomy" in Greek means 2nd law. The books of Genesis and Deuteronomy were called such because of their names in the Greek Septuagint).

Good luck with your quest!

[Garry]

Law of Moses (http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR127.htm)

[Garry]

Law of Moses - 2nd Link (http://www.learnthebible.org/Law%20of%20Moses.htm)

[K31Scout]

He gave them the 10 commandments, and then gave them the Mosaic law, thus, they still apply. There are many things in the Old Testament that are not part of the Mosaic law.

Interesting discussion! If the 10 commandments still apply and are not part of the Mosaic Law shouldn't Christians be observing the Saturday Sabbath? I know Paul in most of his letters seems to be saying we we don't need to worry about that or what we eat etc. In Acts the apostles got together to discuss how to minister to the gentiles and it was decided that the Jewish Laws were not to be followed by the gentiles. Are Christians today free from the Sabbath commandment? I worship on Sunday (and everyday) but my neighbor who is a Seventh Day Adventist who basically believes Sunday worship is the "mark". I've had a few gentle discussions over the fence and believe he is very wrong.

[Free Range]

I believe that at this point in history, with our calendar being what it is, how can anyone say what “day” of the week is the Sabbath anyhow? To argue over which day is correct is pointless. Just as arguing over Dec 25th being Jesus’ birthday, seems kind of silly to me.

[Cato]

I've wondered about this some myself. I've read some stuff by Ronald Dart, a minister from the Church of God in which he asserts that the early church did not change to worship on Sunday, and that there is no real Biblical basis for it. He goes into detail referencing a few verses others have cited, and then takes issue with them.

The common explaination is that the Church began to celebrate "the Lords day" on Sunday as at least the theoretical day of the resurection. Even that may have some holes in it according to Dart.

The bigger problem in the chuch of the USA is not giving the Lord any day in total. We give him lip service for a couple of hours, and then go back to a self indulgent lifestyle.

I cannot really answer this question, but will be curious to read what others have to say.

Generally, the Ten Commandments are applicable to us today, as they represented God's perfect desire for His people, and should convict us of how much we need a Savior. Every day should be the Lord's day. And at least sometime during each week, we should have time set aside for renewal and worship.

Cato

[webrehm]

I am not an expert but will put in my two cents.
If one believes he should keep the saboth(saturday), what should he do and not do in order to keep the saboth? Isn't one not supposed to travel but a very short distance on the saboth?

Obviously I do not believe in keeping the Mosaic laws. If a christian believes he must keep the saboth, then he must also keep every other law of which there are a total of 613 I am told.

the early church imposed no requirements for gentiles to keep the Mosaic law. That is very clear by scripture. Those that do try to keep some small or large piece of the law have fallen into legalism and are missing out on much because of it. As Paul said, " I conside it(all his previous study and keeping of the Law) as rubbish(literally CRAP) compared to knowing Jesus."

[webrehm]

Quadrafletch:

My information is that Alexandria had much heresy in the early years. Thus the texts from that region, although the earliest are often viewed as purposely changed in small areas to fit the local doctrines. Also, the alexandrian(critical) texts are far far fewer than the majority texts.

It is also my understanding that the common footnote about the last part of Mark 16 being left out of the earliest manuscripts is referring to the vaticanus and siniaticus. However the vaticanus is in no way a complete biblical manuscript because massive other parts of the bible are also ommited from it. Hence that footnote seems rather silly and illogical. Indeed that portion of Mark contains one of two(I think) references to the acsension of Jesus. The vaticanus does not contain the book of Revelation but no footnote says that some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain that book.

However the majority of biblical texts are not alexandrian, but come from the area of Antioch. Antioch was known for its quality of christianity. In assessing the quality of any information one must highly consider the source in making a decision on its validity. Given what I have read about the early christianity in Alexandria compared to Antioch, I can only choose to favor manuscripts from Antioch over Alexandria whenver any small differences occur.
Thus the arguments for majortiy texts being the best makes much more practical sense to me.

When I brought this whole subject up to a friend who does read NT Greek, he said that his Greek Teacher at Denver Seminary had become in favor of the majority texts over the critical texts, even though his teachers had favored the Critical texts.

The authors of the King James specifically chose to NOT use the critical(
Alexandrian) texts for reasons that are recorded and based upon their expertise is assessing the validity and accuracy of historical documents. Having read some of their reasons for not using the critical texts I must side with the King James.
The background matierial I have for the translators of the King James also appears to show them to be men who were clearly mainstream protestant in their beliefs. Whereas the backgfound information that I have concerning some of the men who were responsible for the Greek text used to produce the NIV, shows them to be quite marginal and sometimes un christian in their beliefs. In particular I am referring to Wescott and Hort.

Well I am no expert but I have put some time into this issue and my common sense supports what I have read, if accurate.
By the way, my favorite translation is called the Modern King James. It is truly a King James with the last bastions of Elizabethan English taken out with a few changes here and there based upon footnotes that have been in the newer KJV for many years.

You can get a FREE Electronic Bible and concordance for your computer by going to www.e-sword.com. You can download many translations of the bible to use in that program including the Modern King James. It works great, try it.


Dennis

[Quadrafletch]

K31Scout

What day of the week the sabbath is held on is determined by what we are celebrating. When the 10 commandments were given, the celebration was for the creation of the earth, which was completed on the seventh day. After Christ was resurrected, Christians changed the celebration to the first day to commemorate the resurrection. The book of acts clearly has them meeting on the first day of the seek (Acts 20:7). As for travel etc., that was either part of the Mosiac law or of Jewish tradition, not of the Ten Commandments.

Webrehm

You bring up some good points re. textual tradition. Some things to think about concerning the KJV: The Greek text from which the KJV was translated was originally put together by Erasmus and later revised by Stephanus and called the Textus Receptus. They used the large mass of Byzantine texts (now often called the Majority Text because of the large number of them), not because they considered them the best considered choice, but because it was all they had. While the presence of the Codex Vaticanus was known, it was in the Vatican, and the Catholic Church would not let anyone have access to it. Most of the available manuscripts were in the codex (book) form, which means that the front and back of the books sustained the most damage. This is why the Book of Revelations is missing in the Codex Vaticanus. When Erasmus was searching for Greek manuscripts so that he could create a Greek text from which a translation could be made, he had to scrounge around, finding all of the manuscripts then available, in order to come up with a complete text. Even then, he was not able to find the last several verses in the Book of Revelation, so he translated those verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek and attached them to his text (his Greek translation, incidently, is found in no Greek manuscript). The other major manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) and all of the paprylogical material were not found until after the KJV was translated, so those scholars did not have access to them.

As far as the holiness of the KJV scholars, you must remember that this translation was not a protestant translation, but one done by the Church of England as a reaction to the fine Geneva Bible done by the protestants. 90% of the KJV is really Tyndale's work, whom the Church of England burned at the stake - and then used his translation as their own. The KJV was a political, not a religious move.

You must understand, I use the KJV as my basic Bible. I love William Tyndale - he is one of my personal heroes. I greatly admire his courage and appreciate his great work. The majesty of the KJV owes much to his expertise. The KJV is still the most literal of the available translations, even to the inserting of italicised words where words not in the Greek text had to be inserted for clarity. That is one reason why it is sometimes difficult to read, you are reading English in a Greek sentence structure. It is still my personally preferred translation.

The arument over the Alexandrian Text and the Majority Text will go on forever. Personally, whenever I find a reading that I absolutely feel is wrong, it is in the Majority Text. The Westcott and Hort text is no longer the most up to date text, because of all of the paprylogical material that has become available. New Greek texts by Nestle and Aland are much better, and when I read my NT in Greek, I read theirs.

Remember, the basic story and the basic doctrine are the same in all of the texts and in all of the translations. Whatever you prefer to read, just read it and listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in your life.

God bless.

[webrehm]

I doubt the reason for the exclusion of Revelation in the vaticanus is due to wear and tear because it is at the end of the book(codex). Doesn't that reason sound suspect to you. Just enough wear and tear to get through the exact number of pages for 1 book at the end. My info also says that there are major portions of Psalms missing as well as much more that is not at the beginning or end. If exactly all of revelations is gone, then why not exactly all of Genesis. I don't think the vaticanus was ever meant to be a complete bible or perhaps the catholics just took out parts they didn't like or it was an unfinished work. My information says that it was actually found in a trash pile in the monastery. Since most(perhaps all) modern bibles that have not been translated from the majority texts include the footnote "some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain this verse" regarding the last part of Mark 16, should they not also have that same footnote for every other verse(thousands) that are not in the vaticanus. Why just those few verses have the aforementioned footnote?

Personally I have found the NIV lacking in places. After having one for a while and finding passages that "seemed" wrong and then getting my friend to verify the Greek, I just decided to quit reading the NIV and stay with the KJV, that is until the Modern KJV came out. However I do want to say for all those others who are reading this, the NIV and other translations based off the minority of texts(critical) do maintain EVERY major thought and doctrine that is in the KJV.

[Quadrafletch]

Webrehm

You seem to imply that the deficiencies in the Codex Vaticanus are the result of some insidious conspiracy. Some of your comments are incorrect. You stated that it is strange that just the Book of Revelations is missing; and why not also Genesis? The fact is that the Book of Genesis is missing up to chapter 46, and the back of the bood is missing the last of the Bood of Hebrews, all of the pastoral epistles, as well as the Book of Revelations. Some few leaves in the middle have dropped out over time, including a few in Psalms. These missing passages are not a conspiricy, but simply the ravages of time. The Catholic input was in not letting anyone have access to them for fear of diminishing the Latin Vulgate, their official Bible at the time (they have since come around to the Greek text).

The garbage story is in reference to the Codex Siniaticus. When Constantine Tischendorf was searching for Greek manuscripts in 1844, he came to the St. Catherine monastery at Mt. Sinai. While in the library, he noticed some vellum leaves in the trash basket, and upon examining them saw that they were not only the oldest Greek writing he had ever seen, but were from the Old Testament. The librarian indicated that they had already burned several baskets-full, and allowed Tischendorf to keep the ones he had found. As he inquired about more, however, the monks became very reserved and would not let him continue his search. In 1859 he visited again, and in visiting with the steward of the monastery, found that he had some in is room. Upon examining them, Tischendorf found the rest of the Old Testament, as well as a complete New Testament, all from the same collection as those from the trash can. He was able to get permission to take them to his room that night, and said that "it seemed sacrilege to sleep". He spent the whole night reading the oldest copy of the Bible yet known. This manuscript eventually found its way to the British Museum.

Current Greek texts not only take advantage of these manuscripts, but also of the paprylogical material that has been found. This material is not only older than the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but substantiates this family of manuscripts.

[Quiet Hunter]

Usually I simply enjoy reading the writings of others and have never posted a question nor response. However, the issue of Matthew 5:17 and which Law this refers to cannot be ignored. It is not the Mosaic law. It is obviosly the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. These do stand forever. Mosaic law was for the time leading up to the Cross. Remember the curten that was torn in two?

[webrehm]

Quadrafletch:

Do you have any insight into why the footnote for the last verses in Mark 16 says "these verses on not in the earliest manuscripts"?
I seem to recall one footnote that even referred to the vaticanus and siniaticus specifically. If that is true, and so much of the siniaticus is missing, why are there not similar footnotes for many other verses that are not contained in the vaticanus and siniaticus?

[Quadrafletch]

Webrehem

This is a very good question with a very complex answer.

If I am understanding your question correctly, you are asking two questions, a) About the validity of the longer version of Mark.
b) About the footnote practice in identifying differing material, particularly material that may not be present in some of the earlier manuscripts.

In answer to b), Where manuscripts are damaged so that the material is missing so that variants cannot be determined or verified, no footnotes are made, because no textual information is available. Where textual information is available, but the text varies or shows that something was not in that text, then a footnote is inserted. I think this answers this question that you asked, if not, help me understand it better.

As to a), the longer ending to Mark. The earlier manuscripts do not contain this ending, the later ones do. Many of the early church Fathers also demonstrate that this ending was not in the early Greek manyscripts available to them. There are also differences in language, the style and content between the longer ending and the rest of Mark. However, the longer ending certainly has ancient roots and seems to come from some valid source. Remember that the codified books we have are only what is left over; there were obviously other writings. The longer ending seems to be a valid part of a now-missing piece of material. I consider it a valid piece of scripture and so do many others. It was not originally in Mark, but someone in very early times seems to have put it there for the lack of anywhere else to put it. I am glad that they did so that it could be preserved. I am sure that God wanted it to be there. For a more thorough discussion of the textual question, see "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" by Bruce M. Metzger.

Isn't the written word a powerful thing? We can read all these powerful testimonies written by people who saw them and lived them! I am so grateful to these great people and for the preservation of their writings.

[Swanny]

I've enjoyed and benefitted from this entire discussion...thanks to all who have participated! My posting here will have nothing to do with the original subject, but rather with a peripheral subject several have made comments on, so it's not my intent to hijack the thread and carry out a separate discussion. Hopefully I can let the Scriptures speak clearly on the matter.

Here's the subject: Are the Ten Commandments to be considered separately from the rest of the six hundred and some laws, or Torah, that God gave to Moses...since they were given first...making them in essense an intrinsic unchanging 'moral law' meant to govern all God-lovers, or even the entire human race to follow?

It doesn't appear so. They were part and parcel of the covenant...kept in the Ark of the Covenant along with the Book of the Law and Moses' rod...and something else I can't recall right now..Joseph's bones???? (all of which has disappeared!).

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Ex.34: 27, 28)

"This passage explicitly calls the Ten Commandments "a covenant" and refers to them as the "words of the covenant." It is impossible for the Holy Spirit to state any more clearly that the Ten Commandments are the actual covenant terms, or covenant document, that God made with Israel at Sinai.".... a quote from John Reisinger

And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. (Deut. 4:12, 13)

John Reisinger quote: "Again, the text is clear. This passage refers to the second giving of the law. Moses is reminding the people of exactly what happened at Mount Sinai. Notice exactly what Moses wanted the children of Israel to remember. Again, we must remember we are looking at words inspired by the Holy Spirit.

1. God "declared unto you his covenant."

2. God commanded them to "perform," or keep the terms of His covenant.

3. The specific terms of the covenant they were to keep were "even Ten Commandments."

4. These Ten Commandments, or covenant terms, were "written on the tables of stone."

Can anyone doubt for a second that these texts prove that the Ten Commandments are a covenant document? What do the New Testament Scriptures have to say in this regard?

The third chapter of II Cor. is a comparison of the old and new covenants. Paul's point is to highlight the great superiority of the new covenant over the old covenant.

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! (2 Cor 3:6 NIV)"

End of quote....snips taken from: http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index047.htm

The old has gone...the new has come! :)

[webrehm]

My information states that there are many verses not in the Siniaticus that are in the middle of the Bible( I won't go into the details here), not at the front or back where you say were worn away. These middle verses have no footnote saying that they are not there in the earliest manuscripts but the few verses at the end of Mark do have such a footnote. I find that to be inconsistent and hence highly suspect, perhaps intellectually dishonest. Put footnotes in for all those verses or put no footnotes in.

[Quadrafletch]

What footnotes may exist for alternate readings simply depends upon what translation you are using. Most translations merely include alternate readings that seem to them significant. The Nestle and Aland Greek texts have significant numbers of alternate readings. Most translations determine how extensive their footnote system will be based on what they feel will be of value to their readers.

You seem to imply some nefarious, hidden agenda at work. It is not my observation that such a thing exists. There are many fine, honest people who are simply searching for the truth. There are also a few groups whose specific doctrinal inclinations do create an agenda. However, I do not feel that the Nestle and Aland Greek texts are represented by any such groups.