The Majority Text: Divine Preservation and Christian Reason

[BPPLEE]

You need to read my two-part post in https://christianforums.net/threads/can-you-continue-to-knowingly-sin-and-remain-a-christian, posts #187 and #188

They explain the error of your claim: "Christians are told scholars establish the "original text" through careful analysis, picking the best variant that conforms to their idea of what the original said. However, that is unsound being circular. They produce a text in their own preconceived image and believe its the truth!"

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[Free]

Prove it, or is that request a violation of the TOS? Your "drive-by" comments are no substitute for good argument. Then everyone is benefited, intellectually challenged.

It isn't a "drive-by." I was stating the fact that you are fallaciously begging the question by presuming the very definition of "word of God" that you're concluding. There simply is no biblical basis to understand that "word of God" in the Bible actually refers to the Bible. Again, you haven't refuted anything.

The cowards scurry away like cockroaches, into the night.

Now that is a violation of the ToS. Any more such statements towards anyone or other violations of the ToS and you'll be removed from this discussion.

 

[grace2]

Hi all,

For me, the best translation of the Scriptures is the one that speaks to one's heart.

In my life as a believer, I've read many different translations of the Scriptures. I have yet to find one, of the reliable translations, that doesn't settle on the exact same issue as being the preeminent issue of God's revelation of Himself to us.

Only Jesus saves.

God bless,
Ted

Which version you read do not matter because no version is perfect IMO.

I read the Bible following the whole context of both OT and NT.

my two cents.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It isn't a "drive-by." I was stating the fact that you are fallaciously begging the question by presuming the very definition of "word of God" that you're concluding. There simply is no biblical basis to understand that "word of God" in the Bible actually refers to the Bible. Again, you haven't refuted anything.


Now that is a violation of the ToS. Any more such statements towards anyone or other violations of the ToS and you'll be removed from this discussion.

I said that about drive by shooters, murderers. That violates the TOS? Clearly, moderation isn't your forte.

And your "reply" was as helpful to others as eating bugs.

 

[BPPLEE]

Which version you read do not matter because no version is perfect IMO.

I read the Bible following the whole context of both OT and NT.

my two cents.

What's missing from your Bible?

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot Note: The following is from a study I did and not taken from the above link. The linked article is very long but very informative. So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Alfred Persson]

What's missing from your Bible?

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot Note: The following is from a study I did and not taken from the above link. The linked article is very long but very informative. So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the...

www.christianforums.com

To some extent I agree, all the versions agree on essentials. But it is inconsistent I have faith God saved me from eternal death utilizing His Word the Bible to accomplish this, but didn't prevent serious corruption of His Word.

That doesn't add up as it were. It seems unlikely God would not keep in great working order, the tool He used to accomplish the job.

My study of the issue changed me from accepting the "eclectic texts" scholars create today, back to the Byzantine Text family used throughout Christendom, down through the centuries. The video in the OP lists excellent reasons to trust God did preserve His Word and it exists in all those copies of it.

 

[BPPLEE]

To some extent I agree, all the versions agree on essentials. But it is inconsistent I have faith God saved me from eternal death, utilized His Word the Bible to accomplish this, but didn't prevent serious corruption of His Word.

That doesn't add up as it were.

My study of the issue changed me from accepting the "eclectic texts" scholars create today, back to the Byzantine Text family used throughout Christendom, down through the centuries. The video in the OP lists excellent reasons to trust God did preserve His Word and it exists in all those copies of it.

God’s message is preserved despite efforts to corrupt and change it. I can take the corrupt New World Translation and still show you the plan of salvation.
Right now I’m using the NET Full Notes version. The notes are incredible.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It isn't a "drive-by." I was stating the fact that you are fallaciously begging the question by presuming the very definition of "word of God" that you're concluding. There simply is no biblical basis to understand that "word of God" in the Bible actually refers to the Bible. Again, you haven't refuted anything.


Now that is a violation of the ToS. Any more such statements towards anyone or other violations of the ToS and you'll be removed from this discussion.

Using the accepted definition of a word or phrase isn't begging the question. And I documented where oral tradition became scripture, hence it is the Word of God even according to Catholic premises.

Even according to official Catholic dogma.


Does the Catholic church use the phrase "word of God" to refer to the Scriptures

Yes, the Catholic Church does use the phrase "word of God" to refer to the Scriptures. The Catholic Church recognizes the Bible as the inspired word of God and regards it as a central source of divine revelation. The phrase "word of God" is often used within Catholic theology and liturgy to emphasize the belief that the Scriptures contain God's self-revelation and communicate His message to humanity.-ChatGPT

Does the catholic church use the phrase "word of God" to refer to the New Testament scriptures

Yes, the Catholic Church does use the phrase "word of God" to refer to the New Testament Scriptures as part of the broader category of Sacred Scripture. The New Testament, which contains the Gospels, epistles, and other writings of the early Christian Church, is considered a vital component of the word of God within Catholic theology.

The phrase "word of God" is used in Catholic teachings and liturgical practices to emphasize the belief that the New Testament Scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, convey God's revelation and communicate His message to humanity. The New Testament is seen as a primary source for understanding the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as the early Christian community and its teachings.

During Catholic liturgical celebrations, such as the Mass, the phrase "word of God" is frequently used when introducing and proclaiming the readings from the New Testament. The Church recognizes the importance of Scripture as a means through which God speaks to His people, and the New Testament holds a central place within that broader context.-ChatGPT

 

[Alfred Persson]

God’s message is preserved despite efforts to corrupt and change it. I can take the corrupt New World Translation and still show you the plan of salvation.
Right now I’m using the NET Full Notes version. The notes are incredible.

The NWT was my first Bible, read it cover to cover. I like it to some degree, but not the corruption of John 1:1, 3 etc. However, I came to Christ via the KJV with the help of a Baptist preacher.

 

[for_his_glory]

miamited

Well said! I think so much of Christianity today is buried underneath thousands of years of tradition and debates and splits over quibbles and squabbles about words like you have said. If I'm guilty of anything it's for erring on the side of the minimalist approach that wants to bypass all that tradition and even debates on the canon of Scripture and go back to the comparative simplicity of the first century church; before we had all these debates; before we have all the schisms; even before we had the Bible, which didn't come until ~300 years later.

I find it a breath of fresh air. I also find it improves my hermeneutics and is more accurate when we continually remind ourselves that we must interpret in the proper first century context of the time. Too often interpretation is done through the lens of a particular tradition, which then leads to misinterpretation and accusations against others of blasphemy when that interpretive lens is forgotten.

For example, in the present case it can sound blasphemous for me to point out that the Bible doesn't expressly teach that it (today's Bible) is the Word of God. That sounds so bad even to the one saying it (me! As I feel the indictment of my own Protestant tradition condemning me). It is difficult to separate the factual statement from what seems the natural emotional reaction ("You are saying the Bible's not authoritative!")---when, no, that is not what I'm saying. It IS authoritative. But that still doesn't change the fact that the proof texts Protestants (of my own tradition) use to support doctrines of Scripture are misuses of Scripture, itself.

I'm not sure how to point that out without being misunderstood or subjecting myself to such accusations. But for what's it's worth I find it refreshing and eye opening when we read the Bible in the way that it was meant to be understood.

Case in point, I just did a search on "the word" in the New Testament (not including the gospels; although that would add to the number), and out of the 90 or so verses in Acts-Revelation (I forget the exact amount), I discovered that in around 80 of those verses "the word," "the word of God," etc. refers to the gospel message that was preached (*maybe I should do a separate post on this). All my years growing up I would always read those verses as meaning "the Bible" (which has significant ramifications for one's theology!).

Now I see the New Testament in a whole new light. The gospel message of Christ's atoning death and resurrection was "the word" and "the word of God" to the apostles (*who did not anticipate the later Bible, but believed the Second Coming of Christ was imminent, and possibly would happen in their lifetime). They were all about the gospel and nothing but the gospel ("For I resolved to know nothing but Christ crucified"). And *everything* depended on, centered in, and revolved around the gospel message. So, yes, I'm guilty of being a minimalist, but I figure I can't go wrong if I follow Paul's lead. ?

When we allow traditional teachings to take place over truth then we fall to man's interpretation falling away from allowing the Holy Spirit teach us all truths. We also have to remember the money making bandwagon of man's doctrines over that of the Doctrines of Christ does cause a great falling away from truth. Majority rule teachings lead others to fall away from truth as the word of God is not a majority rule word, nor is it socially acceptable.

 

[for_his_glory]

Please make it crystal clear. You don't believe the "gospel message" is in the bible?

Stop misrepresent what others have said and quit putting words in others mouth or you will be banned from this thread. Please take this as a warning.

 

[miamited]

Why don't we just cut to the chase: can a person who uses a modern Bible translation still come to a saving knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ?

my answer is a resounding yes

God bless,
Ted

 

[TMal3]

my answer is a resounding yes

God bless,
Ted

Agreed

 

[TMal3]

ChatGPT... Context is important. Gp back to post #101 and note the other statement TMal3 made: "I too believe the Bible is the "Word of God" in that it is divine revelation. But that still doesn't change the fact that references in the Bible to the "Word of God" are not referring to the Bible, which didn't yet exist."

The Bible is a collection of the inspired words of God, but the phrase "word of God" in the Bible cannot be referring to the Bible itself, since the Bible didn't exist when these individual letters were written. It generally refers to words that God has spoken or speaks, or the gospel itself. The exception is "Word of God," which is a name given to Christ as the rider on the white horse in Rev 19:13.

Only the Tanakh and Septuagint existed at the time the NT was being written, but they are generally referred to as the Scriptures.

Both statements are indeed correct. We can now call the Bible the Word of God, being title of a collection of the inspired words of God, but the "word of God" in the Bible don't refer to the Bible, since it didn't officially come to be the collection it is until AD 397.


No, I haven't misrepresented anything.

Yes, a voice of reason! Thank you. As you said, context is everything and there is no 'law of self-contradiction' at play here for the simple fact that words are used to mean different things all the time in languages, and including in the Bible.

Thus, for example: "Lord" in the Bible can mean "master" (as a title of respect given to a human), but it can also mean the God of the universe. Only context can make clear which use is intended. That is not an "A and not A" contradiction, because no one is saying a word means two different things at the same time. Sure, that's a contradiction. But the same word used to mean something else in a different context is not a contradiction at all (not sure why some people are having difficulty understanding that).

 

[TMal3]

So, to recap WE today (in our time and context) refer to the Bible as the Word of God. But "the Word of God" in the context of the first century NT usually means "the gospel message that was preached." That is what the apostles usually mean when they refer to "the Word of God." How do we know this? Context. Because they tell us that's what they mean when they say "Word of God" (See, the 80 or so verses I posted a couple pages back).

A second difficulty is that while the Bible can be inspired, there is no inspired "Table of Contents." That's another reason why the 2 Timothy 3.16-17 proof text doesn't work. "All Scripture is God-breathed." First, that's referring to the OT. But second, even if we did extend that beyond the OT, Christians have never been in full agreement on what constitutes the rest of Scripture.

Take for instance the present conversation. Even here there is disagreement over the so-called "Majority Text," which again wasn't even a "thing" until 1982. There is no "Majority Text" manuscript that has been passed down through history. The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that was first published in 1982:

Hodges and Farstad, 1982. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 2nd edition 1985

And while it's certainly important to be as accurate as we can, even more important is the fact that someone can still come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the "Majority Text," the "Critical Text," or any Bible translation.

 

[GodsGrace]

So, to recap WE today (in our time and context) refer to the Bible as the Word of God. But "the Word of God" in the context of the first century NT usually means "the gospel message that was preached." That is what the apostles usually mean when they refer to "the Word of God." How do we know this? Context. Because they tell us that's what they mean when they say "Word of God" (See, the 80 or so verses I posted a couple pages back).

A second difficulty is that while the Bible can be inspired, there is no inspired "Table of Contents." That's another reason why the 2 Timothy 3.16-17 proof text doesn't work. "All Scripture is God-breathed." First, that's referring to the OT. But second, even if we did extend that beyond the OT, Christians have never been in full agreement on what constitutes the rest of Scripture.

Take for instance the present conversation. Even here there is disagreement over the so-called "Majority Text," which again wasn't even a "thing" until 1982. There is no "Majority Text" manuscript that has been passed down through history. The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that was first published in 1982:

Hodges and Farstad, 1982. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 2nd edition 1985

And while it's certainly important to be as accurate as we can, even more important is the fact that someone can still come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the "Majority Text," the "Critical Text," or any Bible translation.

Thumbs up on your last paragraph!

 

[BPPLEE]

my answer is a resounding yes

God bless,
Ted

I have to agree

 

[Free]

So, to recap WE today (in our time and context) refer to the Bible as the Word of God. But "the Word of God" in the context of the first century NT usually means "the gospel message that was preached." That is what the apostles usually mean when they refer to "the Word of God." How do we know this? Context. Because they tell us that's what they mean when they say "Word of God" (See, the 80 or so verses I posted a couple pages back).

A second difficulty is that while the Bible can be inspired, there is no inspired "Table of Contents." That's another reason why the 2 Timothy 3.16-17 proof text doesn't work. "All Scripture is God-breathed." First, that's referring to the OT. But second, even if we did extend that beyond the OT, Christians have never been in full agreement on what constitutes the rest of Scripture.

Take for instance the present conversation. Even here there is disagreement over the so-called "Majority Text," which again wasn't even a "thing" until 1982. There is no "Majority Text" manuscript that has been passed down through history. The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that was first published in 1982:

Hodges and Farstad, 1982. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 2nd edition 1985

And while it's certainly important to be as accurate as we can, even more important is the fact that someone can still come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the "Majority Text," the "Critical Text," or any Bible translation.

While there is disagreement, I consider 2 Tim 3:16-17 as applying to the NT. The reasons are what Peter says about Paul's writings, putting them on equal footing with the OT:

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

And Paul quotes from Luke's gospel, putting it on equal footing with the OT as well:

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (ESV)

Luk 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. (ESV)

Deu 25:4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. (ESV)

By extension then, the rest of the NT should be considered Scripture.

 

[TMal3]

While there is disagreement, I consider 2 Tim 3:16-17 as applying to the NT. The reasons are what Peter says about Paul's writings, putting them on equal footing with the OT:

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

And Paul quotes from Luke's gospel, putting it on equal footing with the OT as well:

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (ESV)

Luk 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. (ESV)

Deu 25:4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. (ESV)

By extension then, the rest of the NT should be considered Scripture.

2 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter and was probably written late first century to early second century. It's always been one of the disputed books in Church history.

But even ignoring that we have to remember that we have the benefit of cross checking all the various books of the New Testament against each other, while the writers weren't necessarily aware of each other's letters.

And even if 2 Peter was written by Peter and recognized Paul's letters as on the level of Scripture, there's no evidence that Paul considered his writings to be so. It would be against Paul's self deprecating character to self promote his own writings that way as being on par with Scripture and there is no indication in the NT that he does so; including 2 Timothy.

So on balance 2 Timothy 3.16-17 is referring to the OT (At the least, 2 Timothy certainly can't be referring to itself and including the letter of 2 Timothy itself as part of the sacred Scriptures to which it refers).

And regarding the common argument about the "worker due his wage," Paul can't be quoting Luke's gospel, because it probably didn't yet exist. Instead, Paul is most likely quoting a well-known oral tradition going back to Jesus; quoting Jesus's own words, which were obviously accepted as the words of the Lord, not because they are contained in a book but because the Lord Jesus said them. It's also possible to read it parenthetically as Scripture says "don't muzzle the ox" and the worker is worthy his wage.

Finally, even if we dismiss all my points above for sake of argument it still doesn't solve the problem that there is no inspired "Table of Contents" that accompanies Scripture to tell us for certain which writings the Scriptures are identifying as rubber-stamping as sacred Scriptures (if for sake of argument the above verses actually show this).

"All Scripture is God-breathed" but what does that include? Many second century Christians accepted works like 1 Enoch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. While other Christians rejected 2 Peter, and Jude, and Hebrews, and Revelation, and James (which no one even mentioned until the third century). The book of Jude and 2 Peter themselves also rely on and/or quote Jewish pseudopigrapha like 1 Enoch and the Ascension/Assumption of Moses. Jude quotes 1 Enoch as an example of end time prophetic fulfillment.

So, again, Scripture itself does not provide us with clear guidance regarding what constitutes Scripture (which is my overall point). We can only appeal to canonization outside of the Bible, which is equally debated and a matter of dispute.

BUT the good news is none of it obscures the Good News gospel message ?

 

[GodsGrace]

2 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter and was probably written late first century to early second century. It's always been one of the disputed books in Church history.

But even ignoring that we have to remember that we have the benefit of cross checking all the various books of the New Testament against each other, while the writers weren't necessarily aware of each other's letters.

And even if 2 Peter was written by Peter and recognized Paul's letters as on the level of Scripture, there's no evidence that Paul considered his writings to be so. It would be against Paul's self deprecating character to self promote his own writings that way as being on par with Scripture and there is no indication in the NT that he does so; including 2 Timothy.

So on balance 2 Timothy 3.16-17 is referring to the OT (At the least, 2 Timothy certainly can't be referring to itself and including the letter of 2 Timothy itself as part of the sacred Scriptures to which it refers).

And regarding the common argument about the "worker due his wage," Paul can't be quoting Luke's gospel, because it probably didn't yet exist. Instead, Paul is most likely quoting a well-known oral tradition going back to Jesus; quoting Jesus's own words, which were obviously accepted as the words of the Lord, not because they are contained in a book but because the Lord Jesus said them. It's also possible to read it parenthetically as Scripture says "don't muzzle the ox" and the worker is worthy his wage.

Finally, even if we dismiss all my points above for sake of argument it still doesn't solve the problem that there is no inspired "Table of Contents" that accompanies Scripture to tell us for certain which writings the Scriptures are identifying as rubber-stamping as sacred Scriptures (if for sake of argument the above verses actually show this).

"All Scripture is God-breathed" but what does that include? Many second century Christians accepted works like 1 Enoch, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. While other Christians rejected 2 Peter, and Jude, and Hebrews, and Revelation, and James (which no one even mentioned until the third century). The book of Jude and 2 Peter themselves also rely on and/or quote Jewish pseudopigrapha like 1 Enoch and the Ascension/Assumption of Moses. Jude quotes 1 Enoch as an example of end time prophetic fulfillment.

So, again, Scripture itself does not provide us with clear guidance regarding what constitutes Scripture (which is my overall point). We can only appeal to canonization outside of the Bible, which is equally debated and a matter of dispute.

BUT the good news is none of it obscures the Good News gospel message ?

You're right and explain it very well.
There was no scripture when Timothy was written. Except for the OT.
Good information.