Reliability of NT or translations?

[Anastasios]

I know at least two important passages of NT, as later additions, amongst the thousands of modifications in letters, words, phrases... I know that it is not something new, but there maybe some people who may not be well informed about these changes.
Do you know any other changes, deletions or additions or incorrect translations in NT?

1- Mark 16.9-20 (Ressurection Scene): http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=16&version=31
2- John 7.53-8.11 (Woman in Adultery): http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207;&version=31
These parts of NT are completely unauthentic.

Many authors indicate many points on NT. Please check these book lists:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/1SKA4F26604VM/ref%3Dcm%5Fbg%5Fdp%5Fm%5F3/002-2548037-9256847
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/20FU9LU9O2LS7/ref%3Dcm%5Fbg%5Fdp%5Fm%5F1/002-2548037-9256847
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/2VKICIE71SWC8/ref%3Dcm%5Fbg%5Fdp%5Fm%5F2/002-2548037-9256847

Regards.

 

[KOG]

1 Timothy 3:16 in both the KJV and NIV is doctored to take a Trinitarian slant. It is corrected in the NASB.
1 John 5:7 Is a blatant forgery in the KJV. It is corrected in most translations but the KJV and NKJV

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

With so many interpretations and forgeries, it makes one wonder what else in the Bible will one day be revealed to be false. This is one reason God sent Muhammed: to point out false worship.

 

[ChrisP]

Oh I thought this was a Windows thread... whoops.

If you're worried about the reliability of your texts you should read concurrent noncanonical or historical writings. This will probably shore up your faith.

 

[jeffrey]

Maybe too, that when we discover a mistake, we admit it and correct it instead of overlooking it. I'm sure all religious texts are full of mistakes. Man wrote them. Man errs.

 

[No*s]

Christ never wrote a book, and I think that is significant if you want to evaluate the role of the Bible in Christianity. There have been changes. Those two passages are the biggest examples, and no, they aren't the only ones. The process, though, was largely uncontrolled. There was no single bishop or king who had access to monitor and censure all that Christianity wrote in those formative years.

I tend to take an extremely conservative approach to dating the NT texts, so I date them early. I am also conservative in that I think that the text is fundamentally reliable. By and large, only 10-15% of the text has variants. Of these, the large majority do not affect the intention of the text (there are some that do). That's actually doing pretty good considering the way the texts were copied.

The way we reconstruct and approach these texts also differs. The current position in vogue right now is to assemble some of the most reliable texts and use some of our knowledge about how texts were copied in order to examine and reconstruct this. Some of the preconceptions will differ, but the resultant text is still largely the same.

For us (here I'm speaking chiefly of the more conservative Christians, as opposed to some of the newer movements), the Bible is not so much the verbatim Word of God as Islam believes about the Koran, but rather, the Word of God in that it is the result of God working inside human beings. As humans become more like Him, their writings reflect that. The Bible is the top of the pile in that category. This different approach isn't really troubled by textual variants, because we don't really treat it as a legal document. Those newer sects that do have some problems here, though. I simply won't speak for them.

 

[Quiddity]

To add to what No*s said this is exactly why in early Christianity (today as well) Oral Tradition was the norm to understand many functions of the Church, but most importantly what the family of God believed regarding faith and morals.

 

[Anastasios]

From Last Supper (it is really not wine in original text, but γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου something from grapes):

Matt 26.29: λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου.
"I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


Mark 14.25: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.
"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."


Luc 22.18: λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ.
For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
​

From other usages of Wine/οἶνος (transliteration is oinos):
These are some passages which we can see wine in different purposes as mixtured with some other materials.

Matt 27.34: ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον· καὶ γευσάμενος οὐκ ἠθέλησεν πιεῖν.
There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it.
Luke 23.36–37: ἐνέπαιξαν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται προσερχόμενοι, ὄξος προσφέροντες αὐτῷ καὶ λέγοντες, Εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, σῶσον σεαυτόν.
The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."
Mark 15.23: καὶ ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον, ὃς δὲ οὐκ ἔλαβεν.
Then they offered him (Jesus) wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.”
​

An approach to Wine in Bible:

Luke 1.15: ἔσται γὰρ μέγας ἐνώπιον [τοῦ] κυρίου, καὶ οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ μὴ πίῃ, καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ

For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He (John the Baptist) is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.
​

We see that as a feature of prophets or prophet-like persons, they don’t consume wine, if John the Babtist didn’t consume wine as emphasized in the text above, we should certainly expect the same feature from Jesus, who has a much more higher spiritual level, too.

Even Paul suggests not drinking wine.

Rom 14.21: καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει.

It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
​

There is only one passage by which we can see a relation between wine and Jesus, as it is understood by Christians that Jesus made an approval for consuming wine. This passage is mentioned only in Gospel of John, as his first miracle in the wedding in Cana. Here story seems a bit strange, actually Jesus didn’t want to be involved it. It shows his reluctance obviously. And he says an unclear phrase as answer to his mother’s direction "Dear woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come.". And then he converts water in to wine. It is weird. This behaviour doesn’t show his greatness spiritually or in a moral way. Also for Mary, it does not seem proper. And we cannot exactly understand the purpose of this miracle. This is a doubtful miracle, and mentioned only in John. This may also be an addition in medieval ages, as can be seen in many parts of Bible, as was observed in the case of woman in adultery (John 8.1-11). But of course this is just a speculation. Perhaps, Jesus made a good sermon after their wine finished, and by doing this he offered a better wine to them in his own way, which is actually a metaphorical wine, replacing with a spiritual taste and feeling. But in any case text doesn’t seem clear.

Deut 32.33: Their (infidels) wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras.
Pr 23.31-32: Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it glideth down smoothly In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.

Regards.

 

[No*s]

Anastasios, could you repost that with transliteration? I don't have my unicode fonts installed yet, and well, the Greek looks like a bunch of jibberish. I'd be happy to discourse with you on the subject, though, once I can read the full post (I don't want to respond to you and not address your points on account of not reading the text).

Perhaps in a day or two, I'l lfind my fonts again and I can display it.

 

[Anastasios]

Anastasios, could you repost that with transliteration? I don't have my unicode fonts installed yet, and well, the Greek looks like a bunch of jibberish. I'd be happy to discourse with you on the subject, though, once I can read the full post (I don't want to respond to you and not address your points on account of not reading the text).

Perhaps in a day or two, I'l lfind my fonts again and I can display it.

I have e-mailed an image to your mail.

Let me know if you have trouble.

 

[may]

With so many interpretations and forgeries, it makes one wonder what else in the Bible will one day be revealed to be false. This is one reason God sent Muhammed: to point out false worship.

Jehovah God is revealing many things in these last days
And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant ...daniel 12;4 the NWT has put many things right in this time of the end ,what a great translation it is, it gets back to the original meanings

 

[No*s]

Thanks Anastasios . Thanks also for putting the words you were focusing on in bold face. I hope to have unicode up again soon.

Before I get going, I'm wondering why you chose your username, given its Greek connotations (just wondering).

From Last Supper (it is really not wine in original text, but gennematos tes ampelou, something from grapes

Yes. It means "fruit" of the vine. Yennema means something "begotten" from the vine. In that case, only fruit or the fruit's yield may be in the author's mind. Grapes do not fit the context for the meal, and thus, wine is a valid interpretation. It cannot be grapes, because the solid in his discourse is identified as bread. It must be wine, because its only other antecedant in the passage is drink, poterion, which He pours out for His believers. It is also the unanimous tradition handed down from the Fathers. I know of not a single exception in the Early Church that didn't treat it as wine (and there was no "grape juice" in the ancient world).

To challenge that, you need more than simply the phrase "fruit of the vine." I don't think it's very difficult to see that that can include "wine" than seeing that "fruit of the field" may be bread (and I have heard just such a thing in our parlance). I'm afraid that "wine" is the only possible interpretation of the passage.

From other usages of Wine (transliteration is oinos):
These are some passages which we can see wine in different purposes as mixtured with some other materials.

I think that you are quoting passages on a very selective basis. Do not forget that Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding of Canna (and the word is oinos) in Jn. 2.1-11. God prescribed it as a sacrifice to Him in Lev. 23.13 and in Ex. 29.40 (would something unclean or bad be used for the Lord's service? I doubt that). The Apostle Paul also prescribed that wine be used for medicinal purposes in I Tim. 5.23.

There are biblical prescriptions against drunkenness, but not against wine or alchohol in its own right. It is just that, though, a prescription against misuse (In a more extreme example: it is OK to have a knife, but I cannot use it on someone). The Lord would not have Christ turn water into wine, prescribe it for sacrifices, or anything else of the sort if alchohol were itself verbaten.

We see that as a feature of prophets or prophet-like persons, they don't consume wine, if John the Babtist didn't consume wine as emphasized in the text above, we should certainly expect the same feature from Jesus, who has a much more higher spiritual level, too.

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no it is not. As I said (and you later in the post dispute), Christ turned water into wine. Where did the Passover custom to use wine come from if not the Prophet Moses? In fact, IIRC, the Jews do it four times.

Even Paul suggests not drinking wine.

As I said, St. Paul also suggested to drink wine. Here, the context is not an absolute prohibition, but refusing to drink it around people who would be offended by it. If a Christian drinks alchohol with a Muslim or someone else who is offended by it, he is sinning by violating the Law of Love. If, however, he drinks it in private, then there is no restriction. This is the expressed reason even in the quote you gave: that it might cause a brother to fall.

There is only one passage by which we can see a relation between wine and Jesus, as it is understood by Christians that Jesus made an approval for consuming wine. This passage is mentioned only in Gospel of John, as his first miracle in the wedding in Cana. Here story seems a bit strange, actually Jesus didn't want to be involved it. It shows his reluctance obviously. And he says an unclear phrase as answer to his mother's direction "Dear woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come.". And then he converts water in to wine. It is weird. This behaviour doesn't show his greatness spiritually or in a moral way. Also for Mary, it does not seem proper. And we cannot exactly understand the purpose of this miracle. This is a doubtful miracle, and mentioned only in John. This may also be an addition in medieval ages, as can be seen in many parts of Bible, as was observed in the case of woman in adultery (John 8.1-11). But of course this is just a speculation. Perhaps, Jesus made a good sermon after their wine finished, and by doing this he offered a better wine to them in his own way, which is actually a metaphorical wine, replacing with a spiritual taste and feeling. But in any case text doesn't seem clear.

What we see in the passage, spiritually, is Christ's great love for His mother, which we are to emulate (both for her and for our own mothers). It is a godly principle to love, respect, and obey one's parents. Christ was doing this. So, there already we have the miracle put in a spiritual skin.

Further, however, it serves as the first of seven miracles St. John recorded. John is the Gospel that most emphasizes the Christian dogma that Jesus is God and assumed flesh. Here Christ takes earthly water and transforms it into wine. It was the beginning of His miracles and in the book also symbolizes His incarnation into earthly vessels.

We also know that Jesus had no qualms about wine. He used it as a point in Mt. 9.15-17. He offered no recriminatory remarks but simply commented the wine would be ruined (and this, in the context, would be a bad thing). Christ's culture used wine. It should be little surprise, then, if He has no problem with wine at one of the most joyous occasions in a person's life: wedding.

When looked at from these perspectives, there is no problem with the passage. Textually, this passage is also pretty solid. It is in all families of witnesses, and it is in our earliest manuscripts. It is no addition. It also forms one of the essential elements in the flow of John. Jesus performs seven great miracles in the book, and the number seven is symbolic. If this were changed, it would be the number six, falling just short of its goal and thus often symbolic of man and sin. We cannot ignore this blatant structure in the Gospel.

Deut 32.33: Their (infidels) wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras.
Pr 23.31-32: Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it glideth down smoothly In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.

For the first, I merely point out that Moses is warning that the nations are a snare, and that they will trap the children of Israel and lead them into idolatry. Wine, being a frequent ingredient to holidays, is dangerous, and poisenous. The real threat here is the beliefs of the nations which work their way in through their customs.

On the latter, do not also forget that Proverbs says:

It is not for kings, O Lemuel. It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes the intoxicating drink; Lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice of all the afflicted. Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitter of heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember hismisery no more.

Proverbs forbids wine to the ruler and prescribes it to the one who suffers. It is both a caution and an endorsement.

The Scripture, then, doesn't forbid wine. It does caution on it. Jesus did use it, and Christians always have.

That said, I don't use it outside of the services. I drink it for the Eucharist, but nowhere else. I fear that I could get drunk, and I don't want to lose control of my faculties. That, however, is a personal issue. I cannot use Scripture to prove it, and I will not try and restrict someone else to not do it.

EDIT:

Since I saw your Greek font in your gif, could you tell me what font you used. That was a very beautiful font.

 

[Anastasios]

Thanks for the explanations No*S. The font I am using is Palatino Linetype which is already included in windows XP. Let me know if you need Greek fonts.

Before I get going, I'm wondering why you chose your username, given its Greek connotations (just wondering).

My user name is from the Byzantine emperor Anastasios I (491-518 AD). My doctoral work is on a very long Greek inscription of Anastasios.

I know of not a single exception in the Early Church that didn't treat it as wine (and there was no "grape juice" in the ancient world).
To challenge that, you need more than simply the phrase "fruit of the vine." I don't think it's very difficult to see that that can include "wine" than seeing that "fruit of the field" may be bread (and I have heard just such a thing in our parlance). I'm afraid that "wine" is the only possible interpretation of the passage.

I can suggest "must, unfermented grape-juice, compote", which was and is used very prevalent in the eastern countries. Even i remember this drink from my childhood. it was very wonderful. This drink is very very old.

The Apostle Paul also prescribed that wine be used for medicinal purposes in I Tim. 5.23.

it is very normal to use it in medical purposes, it is also allowed in islam if it is a medical usage.

There are biblical prescriptions against drunkenness, but not against wine or alchohol in its own right.

Yes, you are right. I didn't say that it was prohibited.

The Scripture, then, doesn't forbid wine. It does caution on it. Jesus did use it, and Christians always have.

Yes, it doesn't. But still we don't have steady base for that Jesus consumed wine. There are some Christian sect who never consume alchocol.

Thanks again.

Regards.

 

[No*s]

I think I might, um, borrow that font from a friend. It is very nice, and I suspect, Unicode.

Now, before I go on, is there any place where I could get a look at the inscription you speak of. I'm rather fond of ancient Greek myself, and I can read most texts I run into.

Now onto the ontopic points.

I can suggest "must, unfermented grape-juice, compote", which was and is used very prevalent in the eastern countries. Even i remember this drink from my childhood. it was very wonderful. This drink is very very old.

Interesting. How would you propose this in contrast with the universal early tradition (I will deal with the sects in a second)? I did cite Jesus' parable with the wineskins as a spot where He spoke about it without recrimination. We also do have the wedding at Canna.

Perhaps an alternative explanation is the ancient practice in vogue in the day in which wine was watered down (it survives to this day in the Liturgy). This would effectively retain the continuity with Tradition and Jewish customs, and satisfy what you seem to be looking for. Even though I picture the Lord drinking wine, I cannot picture Him drinking it as a drunkard, only in moderation.

Yes, you are right. I didn't say that it was prohibited.

My apologies. I'm used to this line of reasoning being aimed toward that end, so I addressed it without thinking.

Yes, it doesn't. But still we don't have steady base for that Jesus consumed wine. There are some Christian sect who never consume alchocol.

Yes, this is true, but the key in your statement is that they are Christian sects. Christianity is an organized religion, and those who break away from the Church do so to change things. This is not a historic view of Christianity and is only popular among the most radical elements. I wouldn't use them for a proof-text (I'm pretty sure Islam has simlar phenomena).

The ancient Tradition, however, has Christ giving wine at the Eucharist. We also don't have any evidence that He was hostile to it, even on a personal level (the two incidents I cited are examples to the opposite). Its connection to the Passover gives a strong hint for wine as well. However, I will say that translating "fruit of the vine" as "wine" is taking a bit too many liberties for me .

Have fun,
Kenneth

 

[shema]

In Revelation, it says that His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. When I was younger I read that his hair was like wool, not white like wool, but Christians believe that God has a way of working things out in his own reasoning. the New Testament was written by a number of people, all inspired by God. To understand Christianity is to understand that changes in the wording is'nt as important as the idea that God imparts into our minds. Many versions are word for word and many our idea for idea, I could rewrite the Bible in slang and still convey the same message. Now as far as the additions, It is a good thing for the NIV to point out these deletions so that we may take them into context and have a better understanding. Take out the additions and the message is still the same without them...Someone did add them, but only to gain a better understanding. Now if there were some additions that were completely talking about something different from what was already said, then we would have something to worry about.

 

[Endless]

Well probably before we voice our own opinions we should see what the majority of scholars/experts in this field say about the reliability of the NT as we have it today. Anyone know this information?

 

[No*s]

Well probably before we voice our own opinions we should see what the majority of scholars/experts in this field say about the reliability of the NT as we have it today. Anyone know this information?

Yes. That's where I got my 10-15% discrepancy (can't remember which author). Scholars generally think that the woman caught in adultery and the ending to Mark are later additions. There are also a large number who see a three-stage redaction to John, and a two stage to Matthew. I am not so inclined in all cases (especially the levels of redaction from before we have any evidence; it gets rather vague and sketchy. The expertes, like all of us, tend to fill in the holes, and what goes into those holes may well change).