Thread 24819800

I noticed that most modern Bibles either don’t include traditional verses or even whole passages, or relegate them to the footnotes because they “weren’t in the earliest manuscripts”.
What translations do unreservedly include them?
All I can think of are:
>The Douay-Rheims Bible (1610; revised and annotated 1752; Latin Vulgate Translation)
>The King James Version (1611; major update to spelling 1769; no Imprimatur)
>The Knox Bible (1950; Latin Vulgate translation)
>The New King James Version (1982; no Apocrypha; no Imprimatur)
None of these seem to be based upon Alexandrine texts, but I could be wrong.

>>24819800 (OP)
>None of these seem to be based upon Alexandrine texts, but I could be wrong.
The current critical text is missing more than 12 whole verses from the New Testament, not to mention sections of different sizes omitted from a large number of other verses. On top of that, there are thousands of smaller changes to single words, and quite a few words added in other places. Overall, the "critical text" is an attempt to reconstruct the Alexandrian text based primarily on two 4th century copies that greatly differ between themselves. The manuscripts sometimes agree but both seem to have very high error rates, likely because they were carelessly-made copies: the original owners probably did not care much about accuracy, so the presence of errors apparently didn't matter to the original owners.

Anyway, the modern critical text is missing overall about 7% of the New Testament when compared to the traditionally-used received text. In total, this would be equivalent to missing the books of 1 and 2 Peter. But every single New Testament passage is affected in some way by the thousands of differences. Despite this, the people who market the modern translations to everyday consumers tend to downplay all of this, characterizing the difference from traditional translations as being merely "updated language," as if they just switched out a few synonymous words here and there, not that they omitted about 7% of the total New Testament.

The NKJV actually does follow Alexandrian readings in a few places, so it's not purely the received text. For instance, the New King James version omitted the phrase "after this manner" from the translation in Acts 15:23. This corresponds to the word "τάδε" in the received text that is omitted in the critical text. The NKJV likewise omitted the words "a certain" before the name "Tyrannis" in Acts 19:9.

Further, the New King James version changes the word particle "by" (= διὰ) from the KJV and received text, into the word "with" (= σὺν) from the modern translations (and critical text), in 2 Corinthians 4:14. Another example is in 2 John verse 7, where the NKJV says "have gone out," in line with the critical text, instead of "have entered" as the KJV and received text says.

The plural "white robes" in Revelation 6:11 is changed to the singular "white robe" in the NKJV, which is another use of the Alexandrian text by the NKJV as well.

Vulgate translations are based on a third text that doesn't fit either of these. For example, where the critical text removes Acts 15:34 from the received text, the Vulgate added an extra sentence to it. The Vulgate shares many omissions with the Alexandrian text (far too many to list), but not all of them. Sometimes it has an intermediate position, such as in Romans 8:1.

The Vulgate in the Old Testament differs substantially as well. For example "his heel" in Genesis 3:15 is uniquely changed to "her heel." It also follows the LXX in Psalm 2:12 and the Ben Asher Masoretic in Zephaniah 3:15.

>>24819800 (OP)
>traditional verses
Isn't the version that's closest to the original text the most "traditional" version? Later corruptions being removed is a good thing.


Having said that, you're looking for the NRSV Updated Edition STUDY bible.

>>24820465
>Isn't the version that's closest to the original text the most "traditional" version? Later corruptions being removed is a good thing.
Right, such as where the verse 1 Corinthians 9:20 is shorter in the received text and longer in the critical text. On the other hand, whenever any part of the original received text is removed, that is incorrect and inaccurate.

Those in favor of the critical text tend to always describe the original text, incorrectly, as a "later corruption" when it actually isn't. The same individuals also tend to be those who want to discredit the Bible as well. As dishonest as it is, it is apparent that promoting a version that they know is corrupted is one way in which they think they can do that.

>>24819800 (OP)
>no Imprimatur
What do you mean by this

later manuscripts are mostly a meme.

>>24820692
The official approval of a bishop of the Catholic Church.

>>24820485
How do you know the received text is identical to the original text?

>>24819800 (OP)
>>24820173
The extra verses come from the vulgate. The NOAB NRSV has them in the notes. Unannotated NRSVUE has them in the notes also.

>>24822590
>The extra verses come from the vulgate.
One can find Christian writers quoting these verses before Jerome even made the Vulgate translation.

>>24819800 (OP)
https://restorationbookstore.org/collections/scriptures-sold-individually/products/90129001

>>24822555
>How do you know the received text is identical to the original text?
If someone asked me how I know the Bible is true, the answer there would be the same. I have read the Holy Bible and I recognize it as being divinely inspired truth. It says in the book of Revelation, "these are the true sayings of God," and I agree.

>>24822670
>I have read the Holy Bible and I recognize it as being divinely inspired truth.
On what basis?

>>24822672
Because it's self evident. Jesus Christ said, in John 18:37, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." I too have heard God's word and believed.

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
(John 8:47)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."
(John 10:1-5)

>>24822679
So "I believe it because I believe it". Excellent circular logic.

>>24822682
I can elaborate a bit more if you still aren't getting it yet.

The explanation here is given to explain why I believe any part of the Bible. It's because it's self evidently true. I know the received text is the original because the original is true. And as it says in Psalm 119:160, "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

And in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." That statement is inspired by God and is self-evidently true.

We see from the above that, according to the biblical account, His words and judgements as God will never pass away. As it says, "every one of his judgments" endures forever. There are plenty of other passages that say the same thing. So there has never been a time when God's word has been lost or corrupted. There have been individual corruptions of course, but the truth (the true original word of God) has persisted and outlasted it. The received text is what has always been used in every generation. It's the original language form of what's been referred to as the source of truth by the faithful churches in all previous generations. It's what's been handed down from every previous generation - therefore it is not something that's only recently been rediscovered. That's what God's word is saying here and in the other passages. That's also the only way God's word can be true.

That is to say, if someone is saying the original word was lost and only recently been rediscovered, that means what it says in those passages of the Bible is false – which means they're effectively assuming the Bible is false a priori. But if they simply assume what they're trying to prove, that's begging the question. They've never actually established their assumption that they're making, which is that the Bible is false about the incorruptible preservation of the original words. They haven't ever shown that to be false – they've just assumed it from the beginning without proper reasons, without any reason. See the problem there, anon? Also, as an added remark, if these people are a priori assuming that the Bible is false a priori, they're not believers. If they're not believers, why do they even care about this subject in the first place? Another unexplained phenomenon. Anyway, hopefully that elaboration of my explanation makes sense to explain what's going on.