/lit/ - Literature

>>22213490
>That was constructed by ideologists in an earlier period rather.
What do you think they, their editions of the received text came from? Copies of Greek MSS with their source ultimately going back to the 1st century. There is no gap here, no period of time where nobody had the New Testament. That isn't the same with the critical text, because with that you have to say that nobody had it until Tischendorf discovered it in 1859, because that's around the time when he discovered it. And it took even longer for anyone else to see that version, much less the constructions that are partially based on it which the NIV, ESV and so forth are based on. You simply don't have this problem with the received text, because it's all based on a continuous line of MSS, and there is a vast number of them even today, and these still lend their support to the received text over and above the mere construct known today as the "critical text". It's simply not even comparable, for the above reasons.

And that's before we get into the internal differences, such as the glaring contradiction in Mark 1:2 of the critical text, which has Mark the evangelist say that Malachi 3:1 was "written" in Isaiah, which is factually incorrect because you won't find it there. Or the fact that Matthew 5:22 of the critical text contains the teaching that all anger, even righteous anger such as what Jesus Himself displayed, is sinful. I could go on if necessary with even more that I have in mind. The received text tradition is simply superior in every single way, that's just the way it turns out, my friend.

>>21883594
The ESV has a gnostic reading in John 1:18 that many other translations reject. It unnaturally changes "only begotten Son" into the term "only God." Compare this with the regular form that says "only begotten Son" found in most English translations such as the KJV.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
(John 1:18 KJV)

"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." (ESV)

Also consider that the ESV makes some unusual changes to the genealogies that is not found in other major translations. For example, it changes the names of two kings in Matthew chapter 1. The name of the Judean king Asa is changed to "Asaph," (which is the name of David's chief musician), and the name of another king, Amon, is changed to "Amos" (which is the name of a prophet who lived during Uzziah's reign). Apparently the ESV translators do not consider either of these changes to be errors. In Luke chapter 3, the ESV makes another substitution, replacing the name "Aram" with two names, "Admin and Arni." Normally, the genealogy in Luke 3 consists of 77 generations from Jesus going back to Adam (said to be the son of God). However in the ESV this is changed to 78 generations since it replaces one person with two different names in Luke 3:33. Apparently the ESV translators do not consider this to be an error, even though no translation had that genealogy present until 1996 (with the New Living Translation). Apparently they believe that everyone before then - every church, every translation - was wrong about the genealogy of Christ, until around 1996 when the NLT finally got it right, then the ESV followed it in 2001.

>>21563142
There were several different people who spent significant time and resources compiling all of the Greek manuscripts together, who came to similar independent conclusions, and they were able to determine what the original was, after excluding individual typographical mistakes that gradually accumulated among handwritten copies (but obviously didn't affect all of them), and after disqualifying anything that had signs of being tampered with by intermediate parties, as there were several such of these as well. Most notably perhaps is the Vaticanus (B), which showed up around 1475, as well as the Vulgate editions, which were shown to be divergent from the Greek in numerous places. For instance, where the term "daily bread" was changed to "supersubstantial bread" in Matthew 6:11, or where "born" was changed to "born again" (renatus) in John 3:5, but there was no Greek equivalent to these changes in any manuscript. This is known today as the "received text," or "textus receptus," and perhaps the most influential and accurate copies were those of Stephanus in 1550, Beza in 1598 and Elzevir in 1633, among several others that were all very similar to each other. Later, the scholar John Mill gathered together all of these editions and manuscripts, and in 1707 published an extensive apparatus documenting all of the variants between the TR editions, which is available in various scanned copies online today.

>>20907372
Strike the word forget. I was going to say "forget the Vulgate" because it's so irrelevant to anything, but decided against it at the last second.

>>20900205
>And how do you know which word of God is the correct one
The one that is received unchanged from the beginning. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

>and which interpretation of the one true word of God is the correct one?
It says in 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

So we know that there is only one truth, not many individual truths. So if someone says that killing a baby is alright, for example, we know that violates truth and that person is a vicious liar. And the same goes for all the principles of God. There's no relativism to it.

>>20837295
The New Testament itself consistently dates prior to the earliest known written copies. And this is excluding the minority text uncials, because those diverge greatly from the rest, having come from a modified source. We get broad support from the evidence as a whole, including where others quoted from the Scriptures, and so forth. Generally speaking, if we lay aside the Alexandrian minority, the New Testament copies we have, or have ever had, all line up closely with each other, barring minor misspellings or alternate spellings in a limited number of places that can be cleared up through standard textual criticism. It's only when people try to introduce things like the Alexandrian text that the picture starts to appear confused. And before these were published in the 19th century, no one knew of them.