![]() In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. ![]() So do the other modern versions and perversions. Both verses are gone: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".īecause "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets) and so does the NIV. In either case, the significant theological point is "Believe in Jesus, Have eternal life." Hell has other scripture to make the case one way or the other. The doctrine of annihilationism is not predicated solely on this Scripture, and in any case, isn't accepted by most Christians. So, the claims is "should not perish" is not supported by the manuscript evidence. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."ĭo you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. Let's give the author a chance to debunk them. (Kurt Aland is also mentioned, the same Aland of Nestle-Aland - probably the best Greek NT out there.) So, we have a lot of scholars making the claim I'm making. That's a fair number of good scholars to disagree with. Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine." False again! Stanley Gundry stated: "Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us." False again. Miller wrote: "No doctrine is affected." False again. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: "No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading." False, again. Sumner wrote: "The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect in any way any doctrine." This is false! Doctrine IS affected. I'd like to show some examples that one commentator says are "significant", from excellent answer: If you like the short answer, stop reading - but I think in trying to make the case that there is "significant theologcal variation, this text indavertently shows how little disagreement there really is In short, this book is way less fluid than modern edits to Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare.Īn examination of claims that manuscripts have significant theological variation This is detail, but I think its worthwhile. When Tischendorff uncovered (stole?) the Codex Sinaiticus in the 1800s, there were no significant discrepancies. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1947, after having been buried for nearly two milennia, there were no significant discrepancies. Glancing through the linked table of contents, it will become obvious how minor the variations are. In his book, The Text of the New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger analyzes thousands of manuscripts, and points out every miniscule variation amongst the miniscules, codices, papyri, and manuscripts. the Woman caught in adultery in John 8), there are sections that are missing in older manuscripts, but no textual variations once the story is added to the corpus. There are admittedly, minor textual variations amongst the various manuscripts, but are there any that have any impact on theology? Most are the grammatical equivalent of a transposed comma or a changed preposition. There are some very bad translations out there (see Was Jesus a Separate God?), but again, those are not the fault of the manuscripts, but rather translation choices that lacked scholarship. If you want to quibble over a translation, you are quibbling over language, not the "Bible." As such, I would confine any "discrepancies" to the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic parts of Daniel). Unlike the Qu'ran, the Bible has no problem with itself being translated. By the same token, should one literally translate Ich habe die Schnatuze voll damit! literally as "I have the nose full with it!" or idiomatically translate the meaning to "I'm sick of it" or "I'm fed up with it!" Of course those expressions mean nothing until the language catches up with it, proving the point that language changes. Whether one translates the term "cell phone" into German as Mobil Telefon or Handy, for instance, is completely arbitrary, although the act of translating does introduce different connotations. I categorically have to rule out translation choices as different "versions" because by definition, languages that change will change their wording to make things clear. ![]() Translation Choices aren't Biblical Version issues ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |