Bible translations

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Insearchof

glimmer, I agree Baptism is needed, to be Saved, Washed, for One to be Born Again. or in other words, to put off the old man (Adam) and put on the new man (Christ).

I agree. Therefore more than a knowledge of Romans 10 is necessary for salvation.

With regard to the Nature of Man, this is being gone over in other threads without clearing much, I know how you beleive that there was a change in man's nature when Adam sinned, but the founders, wrote there was no Change, quotes from their pens have been Posted.

Actually, I agree with the founders. I never said I believed there was a change in nature. But that is not the point here. We are discussing what knowledge is important for salvation. Clearly, whether or not adam's nature "changed" is not a salvation issue, but whether man's nature is such that he has an "immortal soul" IS a salvation issue. If we can agree that "man is mortal" that is the necessary foundational issue of the nature of man.

They also wrote that when one was baptised, one moved out of Adam into Christ, whilst you beleive that you have put on Christ, but still are in Adam.

I don't see this as an issue where a correct understanding is necessary for salvation.

[Insearchof]

glimmer, you are young in the Christadelphian belief, maybe over a few more years, if the
Lord Jesus as not returned, you will see the great gulf in Christadelphian teaching on the subjects you are at this time not sure about, and will see how those who believe that they are the Body of Christ, have torn each other apart, in the manner of the Eye saying
to the Nose, because you are not the Eye we have no need of you, ect, ect.
If they cannot love the Brother they can see, how can they love the one they cannot.
We should always remember, Christ was there for the weak brother, that He is the Chief
Cornerstone, his brethren are the Temple of the living God, our duty is to build onto that
cornerstone to the best of our abilities, where much is given much will be required, however some will not have the best materials to build with, but build they must, that is
our work, which will be tried by fire, the ones who build with the finest materials will see
their work survive and they will receive rewards, those who build with lesser material will
see their work distroyed, but have that promise from Christ himself that they will be saved.

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Insearchof

glimmer, you are young in the Christadelphian belief, maybe over a few more years, if the Lord Jesus as not returned, you will see the great gulf in Christadelphian teaching on the subjects you are at this time not sure about, and will see how those who believe that they are the Body of Christ, have torn each other apart,

Christadelphians do not have to agree on every detail of Biblical interpretation. I do not believe there is a "great gulf" in Chrisstadelphian teaching. Yes, there are those who want complete agreement in every small Biblical detail and then create division where there should be none. Do we really have to agree on Adam's nature prior to the fall? I don't think so. Personally, I do not think there is as much division within Christadelphia as you say there is.

[Insearchof]

glimmer, you are entitled to your views that there is not as much division in christadelphia as I think there is, there is just one small mistake in that statement, it should read, that I know there is., having been closely connected with and have visited
most of the Fellowships, even some of those that once carried the CDN name proudly, but now have dropped it as a meaningless name, for nearly 60 years, I can tell you without doubt, there is more division than true fellowship, and I am including the Central
fellowship, where some will say we are of Logos, some Testimony,Plus plus, and are
divided amongst themselves. I will now having had my say, and as a Watchman, not guilty of sounding the Shofar when an enemy approached, leave you to your own ways.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Insearchof

glimmer, you are entitled to your views that there is not as much division in christadelphia as I think there is, there is just one small mistake in that statement, it should read, that I know there is., having been closely connected with and have visited
most of the Fellowships, even some of those that once carried the CDN name proudly, but now have dropped it as a meaningless name, for nearly 60 years, I can tell you without doubt, there is more division than true fellowship, and I am including the Central
fellowship, where some will say we are of Logos, some Testimony,Plus plus, and are
divided amongst themselves. I will now having had my say, and as a Watchman, not guilty of sounding the Shofar when an enemy approached, leave you to your own ways.

Brothers, I'd like to point out that each ecclesia is independant of others.

Incidently, for all I knew when I came to the Maidstone ecclesia, they could have been called Roobarb Ecclesia, it meant nothing to me. I just knew that they believed as I do and I was home. It was a long time before I learned that they are Central (I think!).

From what I have read on forums about certain ecclesias I may well have run away fast, like that cartoon Road-Runner birdie - Beep beep!

Woops! we have digressed from Bible Versions - I do like the online NET with all its explanatory notes.

To think, I have been an AV reader most of my life, then I decided, "Why do I have to struggle with archaic outdated language," so I then went to the ESV. Oh, I know all the arguements about text versions, I've studied that for some years. I just want everyday English without dragons, leviathans and cockatrices.

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Bry

Brothers, I'd like to point out that each ecclesia is independant of others.

How true.

Incidently, for all I knew when I came to the Maidstone ecclesia, they could have been called Roobarb Ecclesia, it meant nothing to me. I just knew that they believed as I do and I was home. It was a long time before I learned that they are Central (I think!).

It's not an issue for me either. I'm central but I have brothers (yes - "brothers") who are unamended in a nearby ecclesia. I took my daughters to their kids summer bible school for a week and we had a great time. No division there! Personally I don't care if they are unamended. Maybe others do, but I don't.

From what I have read on forums about certain ecclesias I may well have run away fast, like that cartoon Road-Runner birdie - Beep beep!

I agree (no matter which "branch" of Christadelphia they belong to).

Woops! we have digressed from Bible Versions - I do like the online NET with all its explanatory notes. To think, I have been an AV reader most of my life, then I decided, "Why do I have to struggle with archaic outdated language," so I then went to the ESV.

Have you tried the NKJV? That's my Bible of choice.

Oh, I know all the arguements about text versions, I've studied that for some years. I just want everyday English without dragons, leviathans and cockatrices.

I would be very interested in your opinion about text versions (TR Vs NU) after your years of study!

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Insearchof

I will now having had my say, and as a Watchman, not guilty of sounding the Shofar when an enemy approached, leave you to your own ways.

Umm....ok

[Bry]

Hi Glimmer, I haven't got the hang of grabbing only a part for quoting; but no, I haven't read from the NKJV.

Recently I have been reading letters between Westcott & Hort, that show how they are falsely maligned, which means any opinion about Alexandrian texts being corrupt is the remaining problem. But then, I have recently read somewhere that the Alexandrian text may not be as bad as I had thought. They could be closer to the original day to day speech and writings of Christ's day, and not corrupted after all. ()

Trouble is, I am at an age now where I don't remember detail, I just know that I have read something that satisfied my enquiry.

Although I like the NET, as I do the ESV, when I come to think about it I don't feel somehow completely happy away from the AV. I tend to compare and think that the AV is correct on any matter. It's just a feeling. After all, there is an online AV dictionary that explains the cockatrices and stuff very well. I had bought a King James Easy Reader and that is very good. It explains archaic words underneath the verse. But the print is so small !

It is very likely that I shall go back to the AV inspite of what today are a few naughty words I wouldn't say out loud, I've done that a few times - it's lifelong familiarity together with the fact we use the AV in our ecclesia. Wherever one searches, there are learned people condemning every version ever written. Rather than say foolishly that the TR was good enough for Paul, I should say it was good enough for my dear old Mum, so it's good enough for me.

It's time I stopped reading all about texts after about four years and simply read the Bible. What's the point of studying what others have written, I've forgotten most of what I've read anyway! You know what? Seems I've talked myself back to the AV (KJV). No more arguments....

[dkiversen]

The NKJV is probably the best version in more contemporary language for those accustomed to the KJV. It's more than a transliteration, the choice of modern word was made by reference back to the Greek and Hebrew texts.

I agree that the Bible's more important than reading what others have written.

I'm surprised how much folk go on about Westcott and Hort given that the Greek text used by newer translations is usually the one edited by Nestlé and Aland. The principle W&H established was giving priority to older texts which would be less likely to have accrued transcription errors.

In the 1880's the Alexandrian manuscripts were the oldest known so were bound to be given emphasis.

Another factor is that NT Greek is very peculiar if one's used to literary Greek. Some argued that this was evidence of a very corrupt text. Others that the Bible was written in a special "theological" Greek, which is still commonly pushed by those attempting to justify doctrines like the Trinity. One attraction of the Alexandrian manuscripts to W&H was that they have relatively clean Greek from a literary point of view so seemed to be less corrupt.

Two major things have happened since W&H:

• A large number of earlier manuscripts have been discovered which are given greater weight for the part of the NT they cover
• Archaeology confirmed that the "peculiar" NT Greek was that colloquially used in Semitic countries in the first century

So the emphasis is now on the Caesarian text thought to have been published from Caesaria, which most preserves the colloquial Greek. Many of the features that were supposed to demonstrate the Alexandrian text was the least corrupt are now seen as evidence of the professional scribes associated with the Alexandrian library trying "to clean up" the text.

That said, manuscripts like the Codices Sinaiticus are still influential due to their completeness.

It still remains the case that there is much less variation between the Greek NT manuscripts than there between different translations.

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by dkiversen

The NKJV is probably the best version in more contemporary language for those accustomed to the KJV. It's more than a transliteration, the choice of modern word was made by reference back to the Greek and Hebrew texts.

I agree that the Bible's more important than reading what others have written.

I'm surprised how much folk go on about Westcott and Hort given that the Greek text used by newer translations is usually the one edited by Nestlé and Aland. The principle W&H established was giving priority to older texts which would be less likely to have accrued transcription errors.

In the 1880's the Alexandrian manuscripts were the oldest known so were bound to be given emphasis.

Another factor is that NT Greek is very peculiar if one's used to literary Greek. Some argued that this was evidence of a very corrupt text. Others that the Bible was written in a special "theological" Greek, which is still commonly pushed by those attempting to justify doctrines like the Trinity. One attraction of the Alexandrian manuscripts to W&H was that they have relatively clean Greek from a literary point of view so seemed to be less corrupt.

Two major things have happened since W&H:

• A large number of earlier manuscripts have been discovered which are given greater weight for the part of the NT they cover
• Archaeology confirmed that the "peculiar" NT Greek was that colloquially used in Semitic countries in the first century

So the emphasis is now on the Caesarian text thought to have been published from Caesaria, which most preserves the colloquial Greek. Many of the features that were supposed to demonstrate the Alexandrian text was the least corrupt are now seen as evidence of the professional scribes associated with the Alexandrian library trying "to clean up" the text.

That said, manuscripts like the Codices Sinaiticus are still influential due to their completeness.

It still remains the case that there is much less variation between the Greek NT manuscripts than there between different translations.

Thanks for all the information. I have one question - where does all this leave the TR? Are these new manuscripts moving the original text further away from the TR or closer? Thanks.

[dkiversen]

Originally Posted by glimmer

Thanks for all the information. I have one question - where does all this leave the TR? Are these new manuscripts moving the original text further away from the TR or closer? Thanks.

Sometimes they reinforce the readings of the Siniaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus Codices, sometimes they support readings in the Byzantine manuscripts. So overall I suppose they've brought things closer to the TR.

Textus Receptus is a bit of a myth. It was some publisher's blurb in the preface to a version of the Greek Text published in 1633. There are around 30 different editions of the Greek NT based on collating the manuscripts brought to Western Europe after the fall of Constantinople. A good overview is The Trinitarian Bible Society's Brief Look at the Textus Receptus. They staunchly argue for the TR because many of their supposed proofs for the Trinity rely on readings that are only found in later manuscripts.

I'm going to put details of the differences in The authority of the Bible thread as it relates to the Foundation Clause's statement about errors of transcription.

[Peter]

The Romans 10 passages:
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
and
Rom 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
are very significant; more than we Christadelphians think.
However what they are doing is emphasising some of the key things we must do to be saved.
Firstly their needs to be a belief that Jesus is Lord
Secondly we need to believe that God and therefore Christ is able to do anything he wants - he can perform miracles if he so chooses
Thirdly we need to have the faith that calls upon him.
It is a profile of the type of person who will be saved.
It doesn't pretend to be an exhaustive treatment of the gospel message.
It does not preclude other required attitudes and beliefs.

[Fortigurn]

Originally Posted by dkiversen

So the emphasis is now on the Caesarian text thought to have been published from Caesaria, which most preserves the colloquial Greek.

The Caesarean text type seems to be a combination of the Alexandrian and Western text types, and some scholars have questioned whether or not it should be considered a text type in its own right. Since it is a mixture of two earlier text types, it is clearly not a good reflection of the original Greek New Testament, and is not a very reliable witness. It has little early textual support.

Many of the features that were supposed to demonstrate the Alexandrian text was the least corrupt are now seen as evidence of the professional scribes associated with the Alexandrian library trying "to clean up" the text.

Actually it's the Byzantime text type which typically contains evidence of such 'smoothing'. Those interested in having questions answered about the New Testament texts may find this brief guide useful.