Luke 14:5 "an ass, a son or a sheep"?

Luke 14:5 “an ass” or “a son” or “a sheep”?

Luke 14:5 - KJB - “And (Jesus) answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”

NIV, RSV, NASB - “Then he asked them, "If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"

Whiston’s Primitive New Testament 1745 - “And said unto them, Which of you shall have a sheep or an ox fallen into a pit on the sabbath-day and will not straightway pull him out?” (Manuscript D actually reads “a sheep” or an ox)

Let’s see....an ass, A sheep or A son? Yep, pretty close in meaning, right? What is going on here? Well, as usual, the so called “oldest and best Greek manuscripts” are once again in disagreement with each other and the scholars can’t seem to make up their minds which reading God inspired. Sinaiticus reads as does the KJB with “an ass or an ox”, while Vaticanus has “a son or an ox” and Mss. D reads “a sheep or an ox”, and the bible versions are all over the board.

The reading found in the King James Bible of “an ass or an ox” is that found in Wycliffe 1380, 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer’s bible 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the KJB 1611, Wesley 1755, the Revised Version of 1881, and American Standard Version of 1901, the Douay Version 1950, the New English Bible 1970, New Berkeley Version 1969, New Life Bible 1969, Webster’s 1833, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

However, beginning with the liberal RSV in 1952 they began to follow the Vaticanus MS (even though Sinaiticus reads an ass and both the RV and the ASV kept that reading) and changed the text from “an ass” to “a son”. This was then followed by the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message and Wallace’s NET version.

As usual, the Catholic versions are in a state of constant change. The 1582 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read “an ass or an ox,” but then changed to “a son or an ox” in the 1969 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible. However in the brand new 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version they have once again gone back to read “an ass or an ox”.

Foreign language Bibles that read ass-  Jerome’s Vulgate 382 A.D., Vulgate 405, Clementine Vulgate 2005 - “vestrum asinus aut bos in puteum cadet” Anglo-Saxon Gospels, mss. 140 circa 1000 A.D, and mss. 38 circa 1200 A.D. - “eowres assA odde oxa befealp on anne pytt” Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2004 - “¿Quién de vosotros, si su asno o su buey cae en algún pozo, no lo saca inmediatamente, aunque sea sábado?” Italian Diodati 1649, and the Nuevo Diodati 1991 - “Poi, rispondendo loro disse: «Chi di voi se il suo asino o bue cade in un pozzo, non lo tira subito fuori in giorno di sabato?” Portuguese - O Livro 2000 - “Se o vosso JUMENTO (an ass or donkey) ou o vosso boi cair numa cova, não tratam logo de o tirar? “ French - La Bible de Geneva 1669, French Martin 1744, and the French Ostervald 1996 - Puis il leur dit: Qui de vous, si son ANE (ass) ou son bœuf tombe dans un puits, ne l'en retire aussitôt le jour de sabbat?” German Luther 1545, Schlachter 1951 - “Und antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Welcher ist unter euch, dem sein Ochse oder esel (an ass) in den Brunnen fällt, und er nicht alsbald ihn herauszieht am Sabbattage?” Russian Synodal Version, Chinese Union Traditional bible and the Modern Greek N.T. used in the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world.

What we see once again is the total confusion of the modern versionists, and their so called “oldest and best manusripts” (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ from each other thousands of times, and the “scholars” who put together today’s conflicting Bible of the Month Club versions keep changing their minds with practically every new version to come down the pike. Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong. For many more examples of how confused and contradictory the modern versionists so called "oldest and best" manuscripts REALLY are, See - http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm By His grace, believing the Book, Will Kinney

10611 reads
Will Kinney's picture

ChrisC wrote:
you don't mention anything about papyrus 45 or 75
http://www.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay07luk.htm[/quote]

Why should I? Do you think P 45 and 75 are always in agreement? They are not. You guys with no complete and 100% true Bible in any language will always be questioning and changing your "bibles".

Here is an example.

In Luke 11:11 we read: "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?"

All of the capitalized letters are omitted in the NASB and NIV. The NASB says :" Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a FISH (not bread), he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?" There is no "now suppose" in any text; they have changed the active verb "ask" to the passive "is asked" and they have omitted "WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK". The NIV is similar to the NASB. This is because Vaticanus does not have these words and Vaticanus (B) has substitued "Fish" for "bread". P45 and P75 are also in disagreement with each other, as well as the Majority of all Greek texts. P45, agreeing with Vaticanus, has "FISH" (ixthun not BREAD - arton) BUT P75 has a unique reading not found in any bible version I know of. P75 actually has a completely different word here - isxun - STRENGTH, or MIGHT. These two partial, paprus manuscripts often differ one from the other, sometimes following Vaticanus and at others Siniaticus, and sometimes going their own separate ways. For example, both P45 & 75 omit "neither under a bushel" in verse 33, yet the NASB, NIV include these words because they are found in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The reading of the King James Bible in Luke 11:11 is that found in the Majority of all manuscripts including A, C, D and Siniaticus - one of the "oldest and best" (according to modern scholarolatry).

It is of great interest to note that the KJB reading is also that of the Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 which was so highly praised by the NASB as being the Rock of Biblical Honesty. So, why did the NASB change the reading? Hey, they can do whatever they want whenever their fancy strikes them. The KJB reading is also found in the Catholic Douay (1950) and the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968. It is the Catholics that posses Vaticanus, yet even they did not follow it in this place, as did the NIV and NASB, until later Catholic versions came on the scene, like the NEW Jerusalem in 1985. BUT now the latest Catholic version has come on the merry-go-round bible scene and guess what. It has gone back to the original reading once again. It is the 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version and it now reads: "So then, who among you, if he asks his father for bread, he would give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he would give him a serpent, instead of a fish?"

Can we expect the same random changes in the Bible of the Month Club English versions? Most definitely. In fact, it has already happened among those modern versions that follow the ever changing Westcott-Hort, UBS type of fickle scholarship. They are working on a new bible version called the International Standard Version and now in 2010 they have the gospel of Luke finished and "updated" and it too has gone back to the original reading found in the King James Bible all along. The brand new, updated according to $cholar'$ late$t finding$, I$V now reads in Luke 11:11 - "What father among you, if his son asks for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks for a fish, would give him a snake instead of the fish?" Modern scholarship is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

The first version the change the Greek and English text to omit the words “WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK" and to change BREAD to FISH was the liberal RSV, then followed by the NASB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, Message, the Holman Standard and Wallace’s NET version.

The reading of “if a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, and in such Bible translations as: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript circa 1000 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer’s Bible 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 - 1602, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the King James Bible 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation of 1755, Young’s, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac, Weymouth Version 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB), the 1994 21st Century KJV, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.

Foreign language Bibles that read the same way as the King James Bible are Jerome’s Latin translation of 382 A.D., the Latin Vulgate of 405, the Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - “¿Qué padre de vosotros, si su hijo le pide pan, le dará una piedra? ¿o si pescado, en lugar de pescado, le dará una serpiente?”, the 2003 Castillian, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (by the same Lockman Foundation), Luther’s German Bible 1545, the French Louis Segond 1910, the Italian Diodati 1649, and the New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita - “E chi è tra voi quel padre che, se il figlio gli chiede del PANE, gli dà una pietra? “, the Portuguese de Almeida, the Chinese Union Traditional, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996 - “Qui est le père d'entre vous, qui donne à son fils une pierre, lorsqu'il lui demande du PAIN?”, the Modern Greek used throughout the whole world in the Greek Orthodox churches and the Modern Hebrew New Testament.

So if you are trusting the modern "bibles" to give you the complete truth of God, you are getting something "fishy" instead of the bread of God.

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Will Kinney's picture

ChrisC wrote:
you don't mention anything about papyrus 45 or 75
http://www.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay07luk.htm[/quote]

Why should I? You can argue manuscript evidence all day long and not come to any conclusion except that scholars differ one from another on what they think the correct reading may be in almost any verse in the whole Bible version mess out there today.

Should I also mention that ASS is the reading found in all these = א K L X Π Ψ f1 f13 33 157 205 579 597 892 1071 1079 1230 1241 1253 1292 1546 1646 2542 l524 l547 ita itaur itb itc itff2 iti itl itr1 vg (syrs βοῦς ἢ ὄνος) syrpal copbo copfay arm (eth) slav ς CEI ND Dio

Would that help you?

Probably not. You do not believe there ever was and is not now any bible in any language that is the complete and 100% true words of God, so you will end up still holding your own personal opinions as your "final authority" and STILL won't have an infallible Bible.

Good luck with all that,
Will K

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

JohnBrian's picture

Will,

Why don't you get your own blog, post your articles there, then post links to those articles here for discussion?

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Will I edited the OP a little so it looks a little less "in your face." Didn't change any wording.

What it proves: that manuscripts differ and it's sometimes hard to tell which is correct. We all knew that.
What it also proves: the differences often don't amount to much!

Will Kinney's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Will I edited the OP a little so it looks a little less "in your face." Didn't change any wording.

What it proves: that manuscripts differ and it's sometimes hard to tell which is correct. We all knew that.
What it also proves: the differences often don't amount to much!

Hi Aaron. Virtually EVERY verse has variants and the "scholars" who put together today's conflicting, constantly changing and contradictory versions can't even agree among themselves. Nobody defends any modern version as being the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. The majority of present day Christians no longer believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures and it is only going to get worse.

You statement about how "the differences often don't amount to much!" is completely off base and inaccurate.

Are Bible Versions 99.5% the Same?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/arebibles995same.htm

By His grace, believing the Book,

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Not going to waste much of time on this. I have studied a large number of MS differences personally and know what is at stake and what is not.

You believe they are extremely numerous and substantial. I believe they are pretty numerous, yes, but are not very weighty. How we feel about them is pretty moot. They are what they are and claiming one set of them or another doesn't make any of them go away.

For those interested in getting informed on the subject, I recommend [URL=http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Only-Examining-Exclusive/dp/0825420482 ]One Bible Only[/URL ] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Our-Hands-Preserved/dp/1889893870/ref=sr... ]God's Word in Our Hands[/URL ]. I know several of the authors personally and what kind of men they are. These are not "Bible critics." Even if you disagree in the end, the time will be well spent reading them.

Will Kinney's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Not going to waste much of time on this. I have studied a large number of MS differences personally and know what is at stake and what is not.

You believe they are extremely numerous and substantial. I believe they are pretty numerous, yes, but are not very weighty. How we feel about them is pretty moot. They are what they are and claiming one set of them or another doesn't make any of them go away.

For those interested in getting informed on the subject, I recommend [URL=http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Only-Examining-Exclusive/dp/0825420482 ]One Bible Only[/URL ] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Our-Hands-Preserved/dp/1889893870/ref=sr... ]God's Word in Our Hands[/URL ]. I know several of the authors personally and what kind of men they are. These are not "Bible critics." Even if you disagree in the end, the time will be well spent reading them.

And the end result is that not one of you men believe that any Bible in any language is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. Most Christians today do not believe "the Bible" is the infallible words of God and it is only going to get worse. Now I remember why I don't post here very much. A whole forum full of "intellectual" bible agnostics each of whom has been educated out of believing The Book and instead each one has set up his own mind and understanding as his final authority. Of course not one of you agrees 100% of the time with anybody else about what should be in or not in your multiplicity of conflicting "bible" versions, and never will.

Here is just a short list of the confusion in your modern fake bibles. They are getting worse, not better.

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET), or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, RSV, ESV), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard, or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV, NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman) or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac) or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read THREE years old (Hebrew texts, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET) or THIRTY years old (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”) or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV ESV 2001 edition) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET).

By His grace, believing the Book,

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Kevin Miller's picture

Will Kinney wrote:
You do not believe there ever was and is not now any bible in any language that is the complete and 100% true words of God, so you will end up still holding your own personal opinions as your "final authority" and STILL won't have an infallible Bible.
Will K

Will, I do not post on this forum much, and I happen to prefer the KJV. As long as I see a Bible version thread being used here, I want to ask a question that's been on my mind. Are English-speaking people the only people who have an infallible Bible? If someone can only read Spanish, do they have any versions in their language that they can rely on to be infallible? Would a Spanish version be infallible if it is translated from the same texts the KJV used, or would the infallible version have to be a direct translation from the KJV itself?
Kevin

Will Kinney's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:
Will Kinney wrote:
You do not believe there ever was and is not now any bible in any language that is the complete and 100% true words of God, so you will end up still holding your own personal opinions as your "final authority" and STILL won't have an infallible Bible.
Will K

Will, I do not post on this forum much, and I happen to prefer the KJV. As long as I see a Bible version thread being used here, I want to ask a question that's been on my mind. Are English-speaking people the only people who have an infallible Bible? If someone can only read Spanish, do they have any versions in their language that they can rely on to be infallible? Would a Spanish version be infallible if it is translated from the same texts the KJV used, or would the infallible version have to be a direct translation from the KJV itself?
Kevin

Hi Kevin. Excellent question. I often get asked this and so I have written a response to it.

If the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

I am frequently asked this question by other Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any bible is now the inerrant words of God.

I finally decided to put a concise answer together to respond to this common question. Here it is.

Hi brother and sister......, this is a good question but not at all hard to answer if you think about it. God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible. It certainly never turned out this way in history, did it?

In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.

Now that the gospel is going out to the nations, the only promise from God we have is that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14

The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.

But that does not make these other partial translations, bible tracts or versions the perfect words of God. There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language. Since God has promised to preserve His WORDS (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere.

All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book for the last almost 400 years. It was the KJB that was used by English and American missionaries to carry to gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history. It was the KJB that was carried out into space and read from.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude. In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.

Today it is only the King James Bible believer who boldly maintains that there really is an inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible on this earth that a person can actually hold it in his hands and read and believe every word. All modern version proponents deny that any tangible, “hold it in your hands and read Bible” IS now the inerrant words of God.

God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. To whom much is given, from him shall much be required - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48. God has given to the English speaking people His perfect words in the King James Bible. We will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this Book than any other people.

To the degree that foreign language bible versions follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and to the degree that their individual translations match those found in the King James Bible, to that degree they can be considered to be the true words of God. To the degree that they depart from both the texts and meanings found in the KJB, to that degree they are corrupt and inferiour.

I do not believe that every foreigner in non-English speaking countries needs to learn the English language and read the King James Bible. Salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only found the King James Bible. If there are several different versions in their own native language (Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, or whatever), then I would recommend they use the one that most closely follows the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. If they only have a translation based on the ever changing, modern Critical Texts, then they should thank God for what they do have and use it.

Regarding the question of “Well, what about before 1611?” please see my article here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/wordofgodbefore1611.htm

As for: “Can a Translation be inspired?” please see:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/translationinspired.htm

This is how I see it and what I believe. Not a difficult question at all.

In contrast to the KJB believer's views, the multiple choice, contradictory meanings, and "different, omitted, added, or made up underlying texts" proponent has no Final Written Authority or Standard by which all others are to be judged, and he has no inspired, inerrant and 100% true Bible to give or recommend to anyone.

By His grace, accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Will Kinney's picture

ChrisC wrote:
Will Kinney wrote:
ChrisC wrote:
you don't mention anything about papyrus 45 or 75
Why should I?
because p45 is circa 250; p75 is between 175 and 225; but א is circa 330-360.

P45 and P75 are in complete disarray and obviously not all bible translators (not even many who follow the constantly changing UBS critical texts) give much credit to P45 and P75. The portions of this article are from a man who is not even a KJB onlyist.

Papyri Manuscripts

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Minton-HS.html

Here only a few facts about these earliest of New Testament manuscripts need to be mentioned. Surely (some would say) the Spirit would want to get things off to a proper start, and would ensure perfection in the copyists of the first few centuries. Yet the best papyri manuscripts indicate serious divergence from each other; this is hardly Holy Spirit perfection. None of them are identical, but my focus will only be on p45, p66, and p75. P45 is from the Beatty collection and p66 and 75 are from the Bodmer collection. All date to about A.D. 200-225, and all are rightly considered among the most valuable because of their great age and considerable length. These three ancient manuscripts have some 78 verses in common, yet they disagree among themselves more times than that. Christians are thankful for these early witnesses and rightly say the Spirit of God had a providential hand in the copying and preservation process. It is clear that the Spirit gave the responsibility and opportunity to publish the Word of God, but he did not impose an artificial infallibility upon the copiers. In fact, the unified testimony of these three seems to reflect a disaster of isolated church copies made in times of persecution. They are not nearly as accurate as one might wish. The details in the chart that follows are sufficient to suggest that the isolated churches or individuals that produced them may not have been able to freely contact well established Christian centers at c. A.D. 200.

There is then a chart of 78 verses taken from John 10:7-25; 10:30-11:10; 11:18-37; 11:42-57 showing where and how often (and it is VERY often) that P45, P66 and P75 disagree with each other.

The chart lists all 78 verses present in both the Chester Beatty (p45, p46, p47) and the early Bodmer (p66, p72, p75) papyri. It indicates when any of them agree. The passages are John 10:7-25; 10:30-11:10; 11:18-37; 11:42-57. The lac indicates a lacuna in p75 (p75 does not have parts of these four verses).

Out of the 72 verses P45 and P75 have in common (P75 is missing 6 of the 78) these two early papyri agree with each other only 4 times out of the 72 examples!

In the 78 verses above, UBS4 cites 12 variants, NA27 cites 147 variants, MT2 cites 77 variants, and the 114 variants above are cited by Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts. More variants could be listed. For example, at 10:16 NA27 lists four variants, and MT2 lists two (but one is not mentioned by NA27). The Swanson text seems to give a good breakdown of the variants. P45, p66 and p75 all agree three times or 2.9%. P45 agrees with p66 six times or 5.3%. P45 agrees with p75 one time or .9%. P45 disagrees with both p66 and p75 104 times or 91%. All of these numbers could be slightly different, depending on which textual apparatus is examined and on how one interprets the data. However, the results will not vary far from the above.

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Daniel's picture

It is one thing to say there is one Bible for a given time that is inspired, although I will disagree. All it says is God's word will be preserved. What it doesn't say is where, how, in what form, etc. It also is completely different and based upon speculation to say conclusively it is the KJV. What if the KJV was a massive plot by Satan to make us use a translation that is not God's word; we all have been duped. Do you see my point? It is not to argue whether or not it is a massive plot, but to show that you are believing what you want to believe. My theory holds just as much weight as yours. But I digress.

EDIT: I don't believe it is a massive plot. And I think the KJV is still a good translation, but I no longer think it is a good one for the masses. And certainly do not think it is a good one for people of other languages.

Will Kinney's picture

Daniel wrote:
It is one thing to say there is one Bible for a given time that is inspired, although I will disagree. All it says is God's word will be preserved. What it doesn't say is where, how, in what form, etc. It also is completely different and based upon speculation to say conclusively it is the KJV. What if the KJV was a massive plot by Satan to make us use a translation that is not God's word; we all have been duped. Do you see my point? It is not to argue whether or not it is a massive plot, but to show that you are believing what you want to believe. My theory holds just as much weight as yours. But I digress.

EDIT: I don't believe it is a massive plot. And I think the KJV is still a good translation, but I no longer think it is a good one for the masses. And certainly do not think it is a good one for people of other languages.

Hi Daniel. I agree that the Bible says God will preserve His words, but I am using the King James Bible promise found in Psalms 12 as my Scripture reference. What verse are you using to get the same teaching from? IF you really believe what you say about God preserving His word(s), then WHERE are they today? I don't care about the "How" He did it (I believe in the absolute sovereignty and providence of Almighty God), but I am concerned about "Where" He did it. My answer is that He generally preserved them in the Reformation bibles and in all their perfection in the King James Bible.

What is your answer? Do you believe there exists now or ever existed at any time in history a Bible (66 books in a single volume) that was or is the complete, inspired, preserved and 100% true words of God? Yes, No, I don't know, or "Who cares?"

What do you say?

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Daniel's picture

I'll try to answer your second first and first second.
The Bible doesn't speak to having an actual Bible as we know it containing every book of the Bible. So I don't find it necessary to say somewhere in Heaven or on Earth is a book that contains every book of the Bible. Of course, there could be; I just don't find it necessary to prove if and where it is located. As far as if every book of the Bible was inspired, I believe they all were in their original manuscripts. That is not to say whatever Bible we have does not communicate truth to us. Nor does it mean we should not consider it to be God's words.

I didn't realize Psalm 12 says anything about the KJV. Is it in some subscript? Or maybe I am using the wrong version of the KJV. Can you enlighten me as to where it says the KJV is the inspired word of God?

Ron Bean's picture

Will,
I have 2 King James Versions in front of me. Is it "throughly" or thoroughly" in II Timothy 3:17 and which publisher produces the inspired translation?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Will Kinney's picture

Daniel wrote:
I'll try to answer your second first and first second.
The Bible doesn't speak to having an actual Bible as we know it containing every book of the Bible. So I don't find it necessary to say somewhere in Heaven or on Earth is a book that contains every book of the Bible. Of course, there could be; I just don't find it necessary to prove if and where it is located. As far as if every book of the Bible was inspired, I believe they all were in their original manuscripts. That is not to say whatever Bible we have does not communicate truth to us. Nor does it mean we should not consider it to be God's words.

I didn't realize Psalm 12 says anything about the KJV. Is it in some subscript? Or maybe I am using the wrong version of the KJV. Can you enlighten me as to where it says the KJV is the inspired word of God?

Dan, #1 YOU were the one who first said that God has preserved His word(s). I asked you to give me the verse you are using from which you get this idea. I told you what verse I use to support the believe that God will preserve His words. You did not. Instead you show your own blindness and mocking spirit in regards to the King James Bible.

Now, if you would care to tell us which verse you use to support your alleged belief that God promised to preserve His word, I would like to hear from you which verse it is.

You say: "As far as if every book of the Bible was inspired, I believe they all were in their original manuscripts. That is not to say whatever Bible we have does not communicate truth to us. Nor does it mean we should not consider it to be God's words."

#2 Well, there are no originals so they cannot be the words of God now because they do not exist. So, are you then trying to tell us that all these very different, contradictory and textually very diverse "Bibles" we now have like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, etc. are ALL the words of God? Is this what you really believe?

Will K

Thanks,

Will K

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Will Kinney's picture

Ron Bean wrote:
Will,
I have 2 King James Versions in front of me. Is it "throughly" or thoroughly" in II Timothy 3:17 and which publisher produces the inspired translation?

They are both correct. Both words are mere variations of spelling. There is Saviour and Savior, inferiour and inferior, heretick and heretic. No change in underlying Hebrew or Greek text. No change in meaning. This is in sharp contrast to your ever changing NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV etc. which deliberately change not only their English texts but the underlying Greek and Hebrew as well.

So Ron, instead of straining at gnats and swallowing a camel, can you tell us where you think the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible is? You can't say? Don't have one? Don't even believe there should be one? How far down the road of apostasy are you at this point? Have you reached Bart Ehrman's level yet?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Ron Bean's picture

Quote:
So Ron, instead of straining at gnats and swallowing a camel, can you tell us where you think the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible is? You can't say? Don't have one? Don't even believe there should be one? How far down the road of apostasy are you at this point? Have you reached Bart Ehrman's level yet?,

Will, you don't know me at all. I asked you a simple question and your response is typical. I'm going to go read my Geneva. If it was good enough for the Pilgrims then it's good enough for me. :bigsmile:

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Will Kinney's picture

Ron Bean wrote:
Quote:
So Ron, instead of straining at gnats and swallowing a camel, can you tell us where you think the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible is? You can't say? Don't have one? Don't even believe there should be one? How far down the road of apostasy are you at this point? Have you reached Bart Ehrman's level yet?,

Will, you don't know me at all. I asked you a simple question and your response is typical. I'm going to go read my Geneva. If it was good enough for the Pilgrims then it's good enough for me. :bigsmile:

Hi Ron. I don't have to know you at all to be able to ask you some simple questions about what you believe. You just dodged answering them; now I know you a bit more. You are free to read whatever you want to read. I sometimes read and compare the various Geneva bibles too. But since you refused to answer my questions to you, let me at least ask you the same question you asked me - "which publisher produces the inspired translation?" Ooops. Wait a minute. Now we are back to those questions again that you refuse to answer. Sorry;-)

Will K

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Ron Bean's picture

Quote:
So Ron, instead of straining at gnats and swallowing a camel, can you tell us where you think the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible is?

In the apographs. I hold to a traditional/majority text position.

Quote:
How far down the road of apostasy are you at this point?

Not an inch.

Quote:
Have you reached Bart Ehrman's level yet?,

Don't know him.

BTW, there is a difference between throughly and thoroughly.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Jay's picture

Quote:
The plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.

Will, can you affirm the first point of the[URL=http://www.sharperiron.org/doctrinal-statement ] SharperIron Doctrinal Statement[/URL ]?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Will Kinney's picture

Ron Bean ][quote wrote:
So Ron, instead of straining at gnats and swallowing a camel, can you tell us where you think the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible is?

In the apographs. I hold to a traditional/majority text position.

Hi Ron. Thanks for your answer. Saying you believe the complete and inspired and 100% true Bible is "the apographs" means absolutely nothing. You do realize that, don't you? The word apograph means simply a copy. A copy of what? There are thousands of apographs out there that differ from each in hundreds if not thousands of ways. So by saying you believe the apographs are the 100% true words of God is utterly meaningless. You have not identified anything as being your 100% true Bible. In fact, the apographs never did make up a Bible.

If you put all your remaining apographs together, you wouldn't be able to haul them around with a dump truck. Then you further confuse things by saying you hold to the "traditional/majority text position". This would exclude hundreds upon hundreds of your other apographs and it STILL doesn't mean anything.

There are numerous "majority text apographs" that are on one side of a whole verse or reading and the same number on the other side. So which ones do you "hold to"? Then we have the fact that nobody is even in agreement as to which texts are "the majority" AND they never have been placed into a single Bible.

So in a very real way, you actually hold to a mystical, imaginary and unidentified "Bible" that you say you believe is the 100% true words of God.

It looks like you have not thought through your position very well at all.

Is the Geneva Bible what you would call the complete and 100% true words of God? If so, then you are not really a "majority text" guy at all, are you. - i.e. 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37, Luke 17:36 etc.

Anyway, thanks for attempting an answer. It's much better than just ignoring the questions.

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Will Kinney's picture

Jay C. wrote:
Quote:
The plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.

Will, can you affirm the first point of the[URL=http://www.sharperiron.org/doctrinal-statement ] SharperIron Doctrinal Statement[/URL ]?

Hi Jay. Very good question. The first part of the doctrinal statement about the "plenary divine inspiration of the Scripture in the original languages" is fine but ultimately means nothing if it stops at that. There ARE no originals. Now if you try to obscure things while still trying to sound "orthodox" then you say something like "in the original languages", but what does this phrase "the original languages" mean? Hebrew and Greek texts or copies or manuscripts? Then the question is WHICH Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Are ALL the thousands of variants found in these "original languages" equally inspired and infallible? That would be utterly absurd.

So your doctrinal statement in a very real way says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what or where this "word of God" is to be found either today or at any time in history. You have identified nothing concrete, tangible or in print that any of us can hold in our hands and read by this mumbo-jumbo "doctrinal statement". If you say you hold these "original languages" as your inerrant and infallible words of God, would you please do us all a favor and tell us where we can get a copy of them so that we can compare them to whatever we are using now (KJB, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, ISV, NET, Spanish Reina Valera, French Ostervald, Luther's German, or Swahili) to see the differences and similarities?

When you can do that for us, then I will admit that your doctrinal statement actually has some substance to it. Otherwise it is just pious sounding, poorly thought out double speak, that means absolutely nothing.

Something to think about,

Will Kinney

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Ron Bean's picture

Dear Will,

I'm sorry you didn't like my answers. I'm also not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm right and you're wrong.

(I thought I'd get this in before the inevitable happens.)

I'm not up on the language, but I think I'm feeding a troll.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

JohnBrian's picture

Will Kinney wrote:
When you can do that for us, then I will admit that your doctrinal statement actually has some substance to it. Otherwise it is just pious sounding, poorly thought out double speak, that means absolutely nothing.
It's time for you to be banned!

p.s. I have followed the KJV-Only arguments for the past 30 years. Every argument that has been raised by the KJVO folks has been refuted. This final argument, that somehow, in order for God to NOT be a liar, we must have a perfect translation available to us today, and that it MUST be the KJV is "...just pious sounding, poorly thought out double speak, that means absolutely nothing.."

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Ron Bean's picture

As a KJP to my friends, a KJVO to my enemies, and a spineless, compromising neo-evangelical (or apostate) to the Ruckman wannabes, I second John Brian's motion.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Will Kinney's picture

Ron Bean wrote:
Dear Will,

I'm sorry you didn't like my answers. I'm also not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm right and you're wrong.

(I thought I'd get this in before the inevitable happens.)

I'm not up on the language, but I think I'm feeding a troll.

I'm not a troll. I'm just trying to get you to THINK about what you say you believe and see how inconsistent and shallow it really is. You have no complete and 100% true Bible and your case is getting worse with each new version to come down the pike.

Will K

"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" Zechariah 3:2

Pages