The HIstory of the protestant bible ,and how error has been introduced

[Searchlight]

Dear onsi,

I only want to encourage you with a spirit of gentleness, and politely ask to please look carefully at the quesions I am asking, if you don't mind. Thanks.

Do you believe that its a question of how much of the protestant history fits the bible, and so the scriptures are not changed?

I see a lot of it argued to be sound doctrine, but then do you think that it has its elements of where it doesn't fit the bible?

In addition, there are those like Calvin who has both a good and bad reputation. I don't know what to believe Onsi about him. I see a lot of his theology that fits the bible in my opinion, but not completely.

Also I don't know for sure what happened with him, but it does seem that he didn't show the fruits of God's Spirit. Thats why I wonder if his teachings were of the flesh and not God inspired. Nevertheless,has provided a solid basis for many churches. Only doesn't God want us to come away from what hold allegiance to man, and to come closer to Him?

Thats what I mean about not wanting to follow any man but God. Coming out of manmade doctines and following the Word of God.

This is most certainly not following the Pope, but also to say as well that for me it is neither Luther, Calvin, Arminian either. In reference to the modern day version of 1 Corinthians 1:11-12

Its simply wanting to be guided by God, through His Word and Spirit.

Like wanting the early church in Acts.


I only think positively and encouragingly to what this could lead to, and think this thread is a very good thing and may it be blessed.

[Lambsy]

"Amid the general jubilation over the three hundredth anniversary of the appearance of King James’s version of the Bible, I think it would be a pity if we did not make mention of that great Church to which, under God, we owe our possession of the sacred Scriptures—I mean of course, the Roman Catholic Church. Without striking one single jarring note, I hope, in the universal chorus, yet I feel it would be rather ungenerous, and indeed historically unjust, did we not turn our eyes at least in passing to that venerable figure standing in the background surveying our celebrations, and, as it were, saying, “Rejoice over it, but remember it was from me you got it.” As a Scotsman, who cannot forget that it is the Bible that has made Scotland largely what she is today, I yield to no one in veneration of the inspired Scriptures and in admiration of the incomparably beautiful Authorized Version. Still, honor to whom honor. We shall only be awarding a just meed of praise and gratitude if we frankly and thankfully recognize that it is to a council (or councils) of the R.C. Church that we owe the collection of the separate books into our present Canon of the New Testament, and that to the loving care and devoted labor of the monks and scholars of that Church all through the ages we are indebted, not only for the multiplication and distribution of the sacred volume among the faithful when as yet no printing press existed, but even for the preservation of the Book from corruption and destruction. It is, then, undoubtedly true to say that, in the present order of Providence, it is owing to the Roman Catholic Church that we have a Bible at all. And no one will be a bit the worse Christian and Bible-lover if he remembers, this notable year, that it is to the Mother Church of Christendom he must look if he would behold the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of the “Word that endureth for ever.” "

HENRY GREY GRAHAM

[Onesiphorus]

For anyone who is wondering about Henry Grey Graham ,he was a Catholic bishop in Edinburgh .

[Onesiphorus]

So let us continue with some of the methods used and we need to understand what a couple of terms mean first

1 .....Dynamic Equivalency ,when applied to bible translation was developed by Eugene Nida ,he believed not in translating word for word but in conveying thoughts and messages of what the translators think the thoughts and messages should be ,so mans wisdom again dominant .

2 Textual criticism ,the early translators of the over 5000manuscripts which culminated in the Textus Receptus ,printed Greek texts on the New Testament which was the basis for Tyndale , wycliffe ,the geneva bible and the Authorised King James Bible ,translated directly from the Greek to the English ......

textual criticism was a method in a way similar to no 1 Dynamic Equivalency where a message or thought is presumed as well as the assumption that the original manuscript was incorrect if it did not follow that classical thought or language ...so in textual criticism the translator would change the greek word in his text to fit .

In other words it is like someone reading this post ,and where i use common terms that person would first edit and change the words I have used and give their version of what they think I have said based on their philosophical viewpoint ...that is Textual Criticism


We will come back to these methods at a later date

I will highlight one point in order that I am making myself clear


TEXTUS RECEPTUS IS NOT THE TEXT USED IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VERSIONS ,SO WHEN LAMBSY QUOTED HENRY GREY GRAHAM ,HE IS NOT SPEAKING OF THE VERSIONS ,MANUSCRIPTS, TEXTS OR HISTORY THAT WILL BE COVERED HERE ,

I shall not repeat this or make reference to this in any future post unless to clarify a difference or clarify a post

This is not going to be a criticism of the Catholic bible it is going to be how we as saints have

a ...a different version ,by going back to its foundations

b.....how the modern versions are "Not" what they seem

c ....how our bible is not the bible of the nicean council .

[Richard_1]

I generally do not interject in another person studies but I just wanted to share this about textual criticism.

Textual criticism comes in two forms "Higher textual criticism and Lower textual criticism"

Higher textual criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives. Higher textual criticism is more interested in age qualification (more ancient) than correct reading based on the majority of readings from the common text (text over a larger timeline). It is quite in contrast with those who tend to deem the Bible as the inerrant word of God. So in Higher textual criticism there is a tendency to translate by "Dynamic Equivalency" (conveys the thought expressed in a source text {at the expense of literalness})

Lower textual criticisms objective is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original text reading. Lower textual criticism given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. So in lower textual criticism there is a sense of translating in a "Formal equivalency" (render the text word-for-word)

[Pilgrim]

Ohhhhkay, so I suppose it’s time for me to throw my hat into the ring. An interesting thread, with an interesting proposition, that raises a number of equally interesting questions. So I guess I’ll start with those.

The question underlying the Contestation proposed in this thread: Are the translations of the Bible we currently have accurate? Or, are they filled with error due to mistranslation, for reasons of vested interest on the part of the translators?

Question: Has & does God protect His revelation in the Bible?

Question: Is God able to protect His revelation in the Bible despite the imperfect beings that compiled it & translated from the Aramaic & Greek?

Question: Is the Bible God dictated or inspired & God breathed?

Question: Since none of the original documents exist but only copies of copies how can we be sure that what we have today is in fact what the original author as attributed was 1) the actual Author & 2) what the original Author actually wrote?

Question: Since the extant (existing) copies of the originals are numbered in their thousands & full of variant (differing) readings of certain passages how can we be sure which one is closer to the original?

Question: How great or substantial do these variations affect the actual meaning of each passage theologically?

Question: Given that Biblical Scholarship has determined, as accurately as is possible given our present technology & techniques, which reading is closest. Then how do we deal with the other variant readings that exist?

Question: 1) Does the original contestation that the various versions we have today are full of error for the reasons proposed increase our trust in what has been handed down to us, or decrease our confidence in the Bible?

& 2) Is the presupposition that what we have, as we have it, is inaccurate & full of error & the bias of men valid?

Question: 1) If the original contestation is valid then how do we pick out the parts that are ‘of men’ & the parts that are ‘of God’? & 2) What infallible criteria do we use?

Question: What is the purpose of Dynamic & formal equivalence?

Question: What is the purpose of Textual Criticism?

Thank you for that contribution Richard, whilst not exhaustive it is concise & neutral in presuppositions placed upon the scope & purpose of those critical techniques & very relevant here. I agree that the actual purpose of these techniques is to verify the truth rather than cloud it. They have historically been used to back up the veracity of the Bible rather than throw it into question. Moreover, there is not a version of the Bible including the Septuagint (The Septuagint [pronounced /ˈsɛptʊ.ədʒɪnt/], or simply "LXX", is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria. It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek), which Paul quoted often, which has not been subject to this process. Further, translation involves the transmission of words & concepts from the original language into the target language & culture, which may have no equivalent paradigm. Textual criticism & Dynamic & formal equivalence become unavoidable.

[Onesiphorus]

Dear Richard ,feel free to input at any time because I know at times I shall be flying by the seat of my pants , I want it to be authoratative without it being too academic , I want saints to see through the fog of error and philosophy .

Dear Pilgrim your answers will be given over a length of time ,feel free to contribute at any time

[Pilgrim]

Thank you Onesi, I deeply appreciate that. Please do not take my contributions as an attack upon you. Like yourself I simply endeavour toward clarrification. The endeavour toward truth must include as a prerequisite the endeavour toward objectivity, whilst true objectivity is an illusion, it is nevertheless a goal to be attempted, I’m sure you agree. Considering the history of the Canon as we have it I do not envy you the task you have set yourself.

[Onesiphorus]

Thanks Pilgrim , by the end of this I dare say I shall be offensive to both sides of the divide , so I thank God for His grace ,It con not be as you sai impartial ,but I will do my best to make it as best I can objective ,but as you are aware there will be times when the two sides clash ,but I will try to show the truth from a bible believers perspective and not denominational

[Onesiphorus]

I did so much want to trace the history from the earliest times ,but I am certain I must begin from the end or near the end as there is an urgency in me to highlight the confusion and philosophies behind the modern versions in comparison to those earlier versions ,and work back ,so that is how I propose to start ,i apologise for the delay but I have prayed for clarity of knowledge from the Holy Ghost and I will begin in the morning .I have been struggling to fight against doubt and fear on this ,but this has convinced me that it is important to preach .