Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6847 | ||
This is an issue I struggled with for years, because I knew God only wrote one Bible. Let me explain why I came to the conclusion that the received text is closest to God’s original inspired words than the critical text. We often pray to God to be greatly concerned about things we ourselves do not seem to care so much about. The received text addresses that in Mat 17:21, the critical text does not. John 7:8 would seem to indicate deception on the part of Jesus if the word “yet” is missing, as in the CT. John 8:1-11 in not included in the CT. Many sermons have been preached on John 8:1-11, with much good fruit brought forth. I don’t think that would have been possible unless it was God’s inspired Word. The last part of Mark is missing in the CT, but it is included with brackets in all CT Bibles. I think this is important, inspired, scripture because it contains direct commands from Jesus, and unless one misinterprets verse 18a, it causes no doctrinal differences among believers. The belief that baptism is meant for believers only is not dependant on one verse, but there is none stronger than Acts 8:37, which is missing in the CT. The longer ending of Romans 8:1, in the RT, would seem to be correct in context with Romans 8:2 and the rest of the chapter that speaks of walking according to the Spirit, not the flesh. The CT text puts much weight on the Alexandrian (Egypt) text. The RT is based on the Byzantine (Antioch) text. The Alexandrian text is closer, date wise, to the originals than the Byzantine text. However, Byzantine manuscript fragments and Byzantine quote’s of church fathers exist that are just as ancient as the Alexandrian text. The church and the Word spread quickly with Antioch as the hub. Consider the fact that the Alexandrian text was in control by only one group of people in Egypt, where Christianity fell quickly. This, to me, this would be a greater risk of corruption than scribble additions. Scribble deletions, to me, would seem more likely than additions anyway, because a deletion would probably be an unintentional mistake whereas an addition would almost have to be done intentionally. Knowing all the above, I was still not convinced until I saw Acts 6:7 (also 12:24, 13:49, 19:20) in the following light. All these verses describe the Word as spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. Heb 4:12 also describes the Word as living and active. This convinces me that the Byzantine text is closer to God’s original than the Alexandrian text. History tells us that the Byzantine seemed to have God’s blessing by spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. The Alexandrian text did not spread, grow, multiply, or prevail; it remained in Egypt. Consider it. As Nolan and Tim have already said, the doctrinal differences that exist among believers are never based on a CT/RT difference. (Unless one misinterprets Mar 16:18a!). God bless you both. retxar |
||||||
2 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6897 | ||
Good observations retxar, and I appreciate your honest answer and coming forward!You specifically mentioned certain verses, like Matt. 17:21.. The critical text seems to lead us to the conclusion that this verse was 'borrowed or copied' from Mark 9:29- thus a scribal error.. Good observation on John 7:8! I think that the 'broader range' of the question concerning this verse could be addressed on its own in a different thread. I agree with you on John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20, these should be in the Bible even though many manuscripts do not include these, they include them in different places, or they contain fragments of each or even a different rendering than that which is traditionally agreed upon. I also agree that Acts 8:37 should be at least in brackets and not excluded from the text. This was one of the main reasons that drove me away from the NIV and to the NASB. The NASB includes this passage (and other critical renderings) whereas the NIV takes it out of the text and places it in the commentary. Another good observation on Romans 8:1. However, it could appear that Romans 8:1 is the 'introductory' verse, therefore making it possible that a scribe could have copied part of 8:4 into the 'heading' of 8:1. I agree with what you said about the addition/deletion issue on part, but I also believe that one could place an addition to a verse after copying so many manuscripts that sound almost exactly the same! As far as deletion, if they skipped over a verse or phrase than they would have to scrap the entire manuscript that they were copying, since they adhered to strict 'rules' while copying Scripture. So either premise for addition/deletion could explain why there are so many variants. But like you said, the history of Alexandria cannot compare to the history of Constantinople. But we must not forget the other cities and sources of 'found Biblical manuscripts'. God indeed has blessed the texts (and the cities) that used the Byzantine family of manuscripts. However, that is not to say that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are in any way inferior, since they have a greater age then any of the Byzantine manuscripts. This is all very good food for thought! Thank you retxar, and I look forward to more input.. | ||||||