Bible Study Majority Text Principle

[JM]

Quote:
As you examine the exercise below concerning the majority text principle, you will note that none of the fifteen examples is exactly right. Many of them make glaring errors that change doctrine. You will find, however, that as you faithfully work the Majority Text Principle, the original will be produced. The real text is preserved in all of the available texts. The real words will be established by the majority of witnesses.

This exercise uses fifteen examples that vary by 20%, and yet you will easily come up with the truth. In the 5,000 texts of the Bible, there is only a 3% deviation. The truth is easy to find through the Majority Text Principle. God does not break His promises! He has preserved His Word! No one man can take credit for the discovery, it is everywhere. God has reserved for Himself the glory, not for the discovery, but for the preservation. The oldest may be corrupt, but in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.
MAJORITY TEXT PRINCIPLE DEMONSTRATED

.EXERCISE IN FINDING THE ORIGINAL BY COMPARING COPIES

(MAJORITY TEXT PRINCIPLE)

(CLICK THE F11 KEY TO MAXIMIZE SCREEN SIZE FOR THIS EXERCISE)
1st Copy: AM I A GOD AT HAND, HE SAITH, AND NOT HIM WHO IS AFAR OFF?
2nd Copy: AM I GOD NEARBY, SAITH THE LORD, AND NOT A GOD AFAR?
3rd Copy: AM I THE GOD AT HAND, SAITH THE LORD, AND NOT A GOD AFAR OFF?
4th Copy: AM I A GOD AT HAND, HE JEHOVAH, AND NOT A GOD FAR OFF?
5th Copy: I AM A GOD AT HAND, SAITH THE LORD, AND NOT A GOD AFAR OFF?
6th Copy: AM I A GOD, AND NOT A GOD AFAR OFF?
7th Copy: AM I A GOD CLOSE BY, SAITH THE LORD, AND NOT A GOD AFAR?
8th Copy: AM I A GOD AT HAND, SAITH HE, AND NOT GOD?
9th Copy: I AM HE WHO IS AT HAND, SAITH THE LORD, AND NOT AFAR OFF?
10th Copy: AM I A GOD AT HAND, SAITH GOD, AND NOT A GOD AFAR OFF?
11th Copy: AM I A GOD AT HAND, SAITH THE LORD, AND NEVER AFAR OFF?
12th Copy: AM I HE, ALWAYS AT HAND, SAITH THE LORD, AND NOT THE GOD AFAR OFF?
13th Copy: WAS I A GOD, EVER AT HAND, SAITH THE LORD, AND NOT A GOD?
14th Copy: THUS SAITH THE LORD, AM I A GOD?
15th Copy: AM I A GOD AT HAND, SAITH THE LORD GOD, AND NOT A GOD AFAR OFF?
Majority text: AM

Now, please complete by comparing each one, word by word, and putting the word used by the majority at the bottom. The first word is done for you.

None of these copies represent an exact copy of the "Autograph". After copying each word that appears the majority of times, refer to Jeremiah 23:23 (the Autograph).

 

[Bick]

Interesting, JM. In the case of the Hebrew Scriptures, I didn't realize there were least 15 copies to translate from. Do they have names for them?

Also, can we assume that the translations are accurate?

Is there a version based on this principle? After all, to compare a number of texts for the total Hebrew and Greek Autographs, would be a monumental task.

Has it been done?

Bick

 

[JM]

I’m not qualified to answer these questions in anyway that will be considered dogmatic etc., so all I can do is give my opinion from the reading I’ve done.

Interesting, JM. In the case of the Hebrew Scriptures, I didn't realize there were least 15 copies to translate from. Do they have names for them?

The two major OT mss are the Masoretic and the LXX [Septuagint]. I'm not sure just how many variations exist.

Also, can we assume that the translations are accurate?

In general terms, no. Avbunyan would be the one to ask about this.

Is there a version based on this principle?

As far as I can tell, the Majority Text New Testament that you can get from E-sword.com for free...and the AV1611.

After all, to compare a number of texts for the total Hebrew and Greek Autographs, would be a monumental task.

The MTP is used for the NT.

Peace,

jm
http://www.emtvonline.com/
http://www.majoritytext.org/
http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html

 

[D46]

The two major OT mss are the Masoretic and the LXX [Septuagint]. I'm not sure just how many variations exist.

In the King James Bible, the Masoretic (old Testament) text and the Textus Receptus or "Received Text' was used for the New Testament. the Septuagint is a hoax.The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.

In this so-called "Letter of Aristeas", the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint. the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.

But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18). the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A).The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!

Sorry to get off on a tangent and rant. I lost myself there momentarily. I'll do better next time. I'm sure others have better comments than myself.

 

[charlesj]

Majority text

Scholars tell us that 80% of the quotes from the N.T. are from the Septuagint.
I just recently purchased "The Apostles Bible." This Bible has the Majority Text and the Septuagint. I don't agree with the translator on some of his doctrine, but his work (translator) seems to be pretty good.
You can view the Septuagint and the Majority text at: http://www.apostlesbible.com/.

View, free, the N.T. Majority Bible: http://www.majoritytext.com/

This is his "first edition" of the translation. He (his name is Paul) tells me that his second edition will come out sometimes early next year. Anyway, you can view it free off the Internet at this site.

Your servant in Messiah,
Charlesj

 

[D46]

Re: Majority text

Scholars tell us that 80% of the quotes from the N.T. are from the Septuagint.
I just recently purchased "The Apostles Bible." This Bible has the Majority Text and the Septuagint. I don't agree with the translator on some of his doctrine, but his work (translator) seems to be pretty good.
You can view the Septuagint and the Majority text at: http://www.apostlesbible.com/.

View, free, the N.T. Majority Bible: http://www.majoritytext.com/

This is his "first edition" of the translation. He (his name is Paul) tells me that his second edition will come out sometimes early next year. Anyway, you can view it free off the Internet at this site.

Your servant in Messiah,
Charlesj

Don't always trust what a "scholar" tells you. Westcott and Hort were also considered "scholars as were their contemporaries, Origen and Clement. Why would Jesus or the Apostles quote from a fraudulent document like the Septuagint? I've said this before and will again. Quotations by Jesus or Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. Eusebius/Origen manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint...those mss are the Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus with the latter two being dubbed the "oldest and best" by deceitful translators and scholars.

There are absolutely NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament. Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. Yes, the source is at least 200 years AFTER Christ! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because they were both penned by the same hand, Eusebius/Origen. Origen rewrote both Old and New Testament to suit his antichrist and strange Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts, which are in fact, Origen’s Hexapla, and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Old Testament. The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on FABLES.

The easily verifiable HOAX of the letter of pseudo-Aristeas proves that the Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons:

1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).

2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."

3. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. SOME OF WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF ARISTEAS. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also. (Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV and NASB contain these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)

4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.

5. The Septuagint can be traced no farther back in time than to its obvious source of Eusebius and Origen’s Hexapala.

I can't say much for the Majority Text bible as it's just another paraphrase of all modern versions extant and reads much like the NIV with much of the same words and verses left out like Acts 8:37 and Colossians 1:14 to but mention a couple.This bible, like the rest of the versiions over the past 150 years, are still from the wrong mss. I don't know why people can't see that this is all for money. Millions have been made over the addition of a new version that hits the market and gullible folks gobble it up...so sad.

 

[charlesj]

Re: Majority text

Don't always trust what a "scholar" tells you. Westcott and Hort were also considered "scholars as were their contemporaries, Origen and Clement. Why would Jesus or the Apostles quote from a fraudulent document like the Septuagint? I've said this before and will again. Quotations by Jesus or Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. Eusebius/Origen manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint...those mss are the Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus with the latter two being dubbed the "oldest and best" by deceitful translators and scholars.

There are absolutely NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament. Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. Yes, the source is at least 200 years AFTER Christ! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because they were both penned by the same hand, Eusebius/Origen. Origen rewrote both Old and New Testament to suit his antichrist and strange Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts, which are in fact, Origen’s Hexapla, and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Old Testament. The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on FABLES.

The easily verifiable HOAX of the letter of pseudo-Aristeas proves that the Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons:

1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).

2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."

3. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. SOME OF WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF ARISTEAS. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also. (Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV and NASB contain these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)

4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.

5. The Septuagint can be traced no farther back in time than to its obvious source of Eusebius and Origen’s Hexapala.

I can't say much for the Majority Text bible as it's just another paraphrase of all modern versions extant and reads much like the NIV with much of the same words and verses left out like Acts 8:37 and Colossians 1:14 to but mention a couple.This bible, like the rest of the versiions over the past 150 years, are still from the wrong mss. I don't know why people can't see that this is all for money. Millions have been made over the addition of a new version that hits the market and gullible folks gobble it up...so sad.

Hello D46:

What version do you use? Is it the KJV?

charlesj

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Excellent, D46. The Jews only translated the Torah into Greek, not the whole Tenach. Could this be a perpetration of fraud on the part of the early promoters of what appears to be not the "completion" of Judaism or the OT, but the invention of a new religion altogether?

 

[D46]

Hello D46:

What version do you use? Is it the KJV?

charlesj

I have several version lying around to include even the Tanakh but, the KJB is my primary source.

The Jews only translated the Torah into Greek, not the whole Tenach. Could this be a perpetration of fraud on the part of the early promoters of what appears to be not the "completion" of Judaism or the OT, but the invention of a new religion altogether?

I have a bible of the Jews known as the Tanakh, published by the Jewish Publication Society. It of course includes The Torah (The Law), The Nevi'im (The Prophets), and the Kethuvim (The Writings). They of course put them into a different order than the Christian bible we know starting with Genesis and ending with II Chronicles. These are the books Christ had available in scrolls at the time of his earthly ministry and it was the Hebrew writings that he made reference to. I believe the Septuagint to be a fraud as for reasons stated earlier. The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 250 - 150 B.C. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text.

I believe from all that I have read that the Septuagint was 100% the work of Origen and most of us have heard of and know of his theology.

 

[heizsofaithful]

The problem with the "Majority Text Principle" has been brought up by Bick but soon got ignored.

The MTP uses English translations to find what is the most likely original. This is completely flawed.

ALL scholarship uses the original languages for any and all attempts at arriving at the most likely original.

NO scholars anywhere at any time will ever claim that a given verse reflects exactly the autograph.

Anyone telling you anything other than this is unqualified to speak of such things, though on this board there are many who speak this way.

M.Div.

 

[JM]

The problem with the "Majority Text Principle" has been brought up by Bick but soon got ignored.

It's an exercise in English to demonstrate the way in which the MTP works with Greek texts.

jm