Ancient Dead Sea Scrolls digitised in co-project by Israel and Google
Anyone with an internet connection will now be able to take a new look into the Biblical past through an online archive of high-resolution images of the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls completed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and Google.
The scrolls, most of them on parchment, are the oldest copies of the Hebrew Bible and include secular text dating from the third century BC to the first century AD.
IAA, the custodian of the scrolls that shed light on the life of Jews and early Christians at the time of Jesus, said it has collaborated with Google's research and development centre in Israel for the past two and a half years to upload digitised images of thousands of fragments from the collection.
Yossi Matias, the head of Google-Israel R&D centre, described the project launch as "exciting"....
Question wrote: Full of red herrings John. Aren't you forgetting that the original 1611 was printed with the Apocrypha! As for the TR - the so called texts (Beza, Stephanus etc.) do not agree with the KJV and so the TBS have reprinted a supposed text that would underlie the KJV. How brilliant is that?! You should do some research - the MT is not the same as the TR. I am not decided on the textual issue myself, but I do find a great deal of the arguments fatuous nonsense.
Making claims is sooooo different from coming out with actual facts.
Now then, are you or are you not aware that the Sinaiticus ms is composed of the OT, the NT, and The Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas?
Now would you like to comment on THAT!
Something along the lines of, "Well if that ms contains such junk, I would not touch it with a bargepole."
And what about the Codex Vaticanus, which has a huge omission which makes Jesus Christ God's Son a SINNER!!
You might say, "Well I would never trust such a piece of literary junk as THAT!!"
You reckon I ought to do some research? Ha! You go do some, and then some more. And I wish you well in THAT.
"The New International Version (NIV) is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version (NASB) which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield Version which are handled separately in this book) are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt." (Samuel C Gipp)
Note. Westcott and Hort favoured the Alexandrian text.
Mike wrote: I didn't realize the KJV translators even knew about the TR.
Stephanus is best remembered for his edition of 1550. It followed the Erasmus editions of 1527 and 1535 and was the first edition to include marginal variant readings, which were collated from fourteen manuscripts and the Greek New Testament of the Complutensian Polyglot. It became one of the best known editions of the Textus Receptus. Called the "Royal edition", it was very popular in England and is still published today in the United States in the form of an interlinear which is sometimes referred to as the "Berry" text. This is a misnomer because George Ricker Berry simply added the "Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament" and a chapter entitled "New Testament Synonyms" to the edition of the Stephens 1550 text. One of the most important editions of the Textus Receptus is the Beza edition of 1598. This edition, in addition to the Stephens 1550 and 1551 editions, was used as the Greek basis of the Authorised Version of 1611. Beza collated and used numerous Greek manuscripts and printed editions in his work, and incorporated Jerome's Latin Vulgate and his own Latin and Greek text along with textual annotations.
Mike wrote: I didn't realize the KJV translators even knew about the TR.
The collective term "Textus Receptus" was coined by the Elzivir brothers, (1624) from "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ie "According to the text now held from the volume received..."
But the Greek texts have obviously been around for 2000 years. Thus including their availability in the 17th century.
"Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516... "Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 ... "Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565 ... "It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators." (chick.com)
John UK wrote: --- 2. Precisely. So why don't we just go with the thousands of extant mss and accept that? Oh, but then we have the Textus Receptus and the historic line of excellent Bibles translated from it. ---
I didn't realize the KJV translators even knew about the TR.
John UK wrote: And suppose I said that I believed the NIV was the word of God inerrant. Would you or anyone else come at me and ask why I did not believe the KJV was also God's word, even though it had many texts not found in the NIV?..
That works both ways John. If the eclectic text is right and your TR is wrong then we could equally ask why has the TR added these verses?
"Answer" and "The real question" - what dumb answers!! You are suggesting that only KJVist are saved!!
"Yes, there is a faith in Christ which saves, but there is a faith in Christ which does not save. From this statement probably few will dissent, yet many will be inclined to weaken it by saying that the faith in Christ which does not save is merely a historical faith, or where there is a believing about Christ instead of a believing in Him. Not so. That there are those who mistake a historical faith about Christ for a saving faith in Christ we do not deny; but what we would here emphasize is the solemn fact that there are also some who have more than a historical faith, more than a mere head-knowledge about Him, who yet have a faith which comes short of being a quickening and saving one. Not only are there some with this non-saving faith, but today there are vast numbers of such all around us. They are people who furnish the antitypes of those to which we called attention in the last article: who were represented and illustrated in .Old Testament times by those who believed in, rested upon, leaned upon, relied upon the Lord, but who were, nevertheless, unsaved souls." (A.W.Pink)
Question: Which of these two types will use the true "Word of God"?
Question wrote: So my question is, if it is all a matter of faith, then why believe the TR to be any nearer the autographs than say the Majority Text or the Eclectic Text etc
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1.
Do you believe everybody who considers themselves to be a part of ecclesia is telling the truth?
EG: Matt 7:21-23.
The question is what is faith?
"It is impossible to say how far a non-saving faith may go, and how very closely it may resemble that faith which is saving. Saving faith has Christ for its object; so has a non-saving faith (John 2:23, 24). Saving faith is wrought by the Holy Spirit; so also is a non-saving faith (Heb. 6:4). Saving faith is produced by the Word of God; so also is a non-saving faith (Matt. 13:20, 21). Saving faith will make a man prepare for the coming of the Lord; so also will a non-saving faith: of both the foolish and wise virgins it is written, "Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps" (Matt. 25:7). Saving faith is accompanied with joy; so also is a non-saving faith (Matt. 13:20)." (A.W.Pink)
John UK wrote: I do not know it Mike, but I believe it. ....p.s. Mike, without the autographs, nothing about the Bible can be proven...
I have a question for you John.
You maintain, and quite rightly that without the autographs nothing can be proven.
So my question is, if it is all a matter of faith, then why believe the TR to be any nearer the autographs than say the Majority Text or the Eclectic Text etc. And why do you lambast those who believe the other texts to be more accurate? Is their faith any less God given than yours?
Mike wrote: I believe you did also, John. Of course I believe Christ died for the ungodly as well. It plainly says so in my KJV, NASB, NKJV, and NIV. But no, I do not stake my hope in versions, rather the mercy of God through Christ himself, by the power of the Holy Spirit. If hope were bound to a version, many centuries passed without it.
Absolutely Mike. I could have said the "Geneva Bible" or the "Wycliffe Bible".
But the NIV?
Have a look at this verse in your NIV, and tell me if you translated it back to greek, would it compare favourably with Luke's greek text in the first century.
Acts 8:37 KJV 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:37 Geneva Bible 1587 37 And Philippe said vnto him, If thou beleeuest with all thine heart, thou mayest. Then he answered, and saide, I beleeue that Iesus Christ is that Sonne of God.
Acts 8:37 Wyclife 1395 37 And Filip seide, If thou bileuest of al the herte, it is leueful. And he answeride, and seide, Y bileue that Jhesu Crist is the sone of God.
John UK wrote: I do not know it Mike, but I believe it. Just the same as I believe that the Son of God "died for the ungodly". Do you know that is true bro, or do you believe it? Why then would you believe something if it is not true? Is that not deception? Did Paul say that "Christ died for the ungodly" or did he not? I say he did. What do you think? Did he say something else? Is the Bible corrupted and our assurance a big deception? I think not! The Bible is true, and I stake my eternal hopes on it. Surely Mike you do the same? Oh, did I answer the question? Sure I did. At least I believe I did. ---
I believe you did also, John. Of course I believe Christ died for the ungodly as well. It plainly says so in my KJV, NASB, NKJV, and NIV. But no, I do not stake my hope in versions, rather the mercy of God through Christ himself, by the power of the Holy Spirit. If hope were bound to a version, many centuries passed without it.
Romans 15:13 "Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost."
Bequest wrote: What happens when your flavor of sola Scriptura becomes a baseless tradition?
Don't be silly. With God that cannot happen in the elect.
The Elect; John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Mike wrote: So the 400 years of use of the KJV makes it automatically of God to the exclusion of anything else, because, well, 400 years is such a long time, don't you know
"makes it automatically of God" No!
But having studied the version debate using various authors and their polemics I can see the reason for ejecting modern versions. Comparing the 16th/17th century with the 20th century I see the apostate state of the modern church and the greater doctrinal and event powerful, eg Reformation, which contributes to a more faithful perception of choice towards truth production in the 16/17th century.
When I first became Christian I automatically went for the modern version since it seemed logical to do so. Then I studied Greek at theological college and noticed the errors and omissions in the NIV compared with the Greek text. Thought about it and looked, studied for a more accurate translation. The KJV is more accurate, more doctrinally accurate, more plenary accurate and since this is HOW GOD TRANSLATED THE GREEK INTO ENGLISH, then I picked the most reliable version, the KJV. I also favour the TR. As for 'faith' in all of this I believe God led me to the best translation of His Holy Word and Law. Praise be to God. Amen!