Theologian

The Sadducees had a very different Bible from the Pharisees…they only believed that the first 5 books of Moses were God’s word. Yet you never see Jesus trying to convince them otherwise.

When Jesus corrected their mistaken view on the resurrection He did not do so with what would be clear texts from Scripture that they did not believe to be God’s word. Instead, He quoted from the books that they held to be Scripture (Mat 22:31-32)

Does this example have a place in the Bible version debates?

Does it have a place in the debates over the apocrypha?

Sad indeed…
‘Lord’ is fading at some churches

Vatican panel condemns limbo to eternal dustbin

This was funny…
Get Your Doctorate at The Ruckman University of Street Preachers

Why does Florida prosecute people who hand out Bibles?

Election Violence Claims at Least 21 Lives in Nigeria

New Believer Jailed in Mexico for Receiving Christ

I don’t like the way the ESV translates this verse…

For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers

The “one origin” really bothers me.
I think that verse 14 of the same chapter sheds light on what the Bible is really saying here…

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil

The sanctified and the sanctifier are of one…flesh and blood. It is speaking of His taking on human nature, not of His origin.

The ESV seems to go against one of its principles here and seeks to interpret rather than translate.

Here is an analogy from Dr. Letis that i found quite interesting…

(from The Ecclesiastical Text… pg. 82)

Like modern economics, while the gold standard may have been abandoned the printing of money continues, all the while being further and further debased.

footnote: The application of this analogy to the problem of modern translations can hardly be missed. If the original autographs are the gold standard, and they are now gone, all that can be left is the free printing of “Bibles” (like paper money), based on whatever standard of values a progressively cynical and secularized culture demands.

Just a couple of presumptions in the field of textual criticism that i wanted to throw out there.

The closer to the original the less mistakes in the manuscript…
This is not necessarily the case. Without knowing the care that went into each copy there is no way of knowing how good of a copy it was.
For instance 2 of the copies may be word for word and 3 may be more like paraphrases. That really depends on the premise of the copier going in to make the copy.

If i am given a list to copy that does not need every word conveyed i will approach the task of copying differently than if i had to copy a set of instructions where every word counted.

It would also depend on the skill of the copier.
So age alone can’t give us any degree of certainty regarding how well and literally the source is copied.

I have also heard folks start off by saying something like “the mistakes that were made in the copies would be carried on in the later copies.”

But this presupposes that a person is incapable of copying something without making a mistake. I don’t think that is as proveable as we are lead to believe.

I worked in editing for a while, and can tell you that it is possible to make a word for word copy of an original document without mistakes. And this was working with documents of much less imporatance than the Scriptures.

With being on the fence regarding Bible versions and reading up on the issue once again i found an interesting quote from John Owen.

Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use was the public possession of many generations that upon the invention of printing it was in actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as any thing appears to the contrary; let that, then, pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings as we are now surprised withal. (Owen: 366)

Owen does not seek the non-existent autographs (originals)…

the purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather copies in the original languages, which the Church of God doth now and hath for many ages enjoyed as her chiefest treasure. (Owen: 353)

Minister Found Beaten to Death in Virginia Parsonage

Fury as bishops back Iran

Death In Guyana: Riveting film recounts the life of Jim Jones

Faith, fury mix at Mormon temple

I am currently reading the book Translating Truth.

In this book they have an interesting new way of charting the accuracy of Bible versions. Most of us are aware of the linear chart that goes from literal to dynamic…

This book proposes a triangle chart that reaches its apex at essentially literal…

Observations Concerning the Scripture Oeconomy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption
By: Jonathan Edwards