Yeah! This! Textus Majoritus thingy.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Yeah! This! Textus Majoritus thingy.
C
Cap
Guest
Z, I would agree with you 100% and would also extend that to the unequally yoked folks who have to deal with this stuff after salvation.
And we all suffer because the world chooses to ignore biblical law and find ways to end relationships at will without concern for Future generations.
I likey me some of that thar stuff too
There was an interesting version that came out a while back that didn't catch on much using majority text....something 2000??? I think it was called. I love my King Jimmy/AV for a variety of reasons, but I liked that version for a while too.
The World English Bible (WEB) is the only modern majority text version I know of, it's very sound as far as I can see, free online but not many printed copies available.
Yes, I'm aware, and I stand by the über-majority of biblical scholars. The reason for the solidarity is the sheer number of ancient sources which lack this story in addition to many later sources which ALSO lack it.
The German scholarship concludes:
"Die Zugehörigkeit des eingeklammerten Abschnitts zum ursprünglichen Textbestand ist ausgeschlossen."
"The text included in the double square-brackets can not be authentic".
As well as the famed Greek scholar Metzger and both critical apparatus of the only 2 modern textual Greek critical works.
The interdenominational agreement I quoted above from Greek scholars from various denominations "it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition" and the highly respected Metzger's comment " “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming”. The scholarship among various denominational scholars agree, this does not belong in the bible.
It's an unassailable position. I agree it can affect theology. It is very rare in the critical apparatus to come across the deadly double [[]] because it's hard to get that much agreement among the scholarship... here they do.
By the way, anyone interested can see the great online edition of highly trusted ancient codex sinaiticus (the oldest complete Greek bible in existence dating to the 300s)
adulteress story missing from codex sinaiticus
That's a link to the page in question, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words right? 'Ol King Jimmy's boys had no idea these wonderful ancient manuscripts existed, they were severly limited to the Erasmian compilation of the day (copies of copies of copies of copies...) and now it's well... TRADITION ... TRADITION! (insert Tevya Der Milcher music here).
I know peeps love their King Jimmy, and in many cases it is very true to the text, where it actually HAD the true text... well we are polygamists and we are accustomed to being in the minority so I kind of expect a lot of folks will ignore the scholarship either way (not saying that's you Sam).
That's fine, just be aware this is not a clear cut "old texts versus new texts" discussion.
If we're informed and choose to include the story well that's the essence of textual criticism anyway; making informed choices about what belongs and what does not because the real world is a far cry from the Baptist teachings that every single word in the bible has survived and it's the same everywhere. Better to read it here in our forums than from some athiest trying to destroy the faith right?
Of course everyone is free to continue to include this midrash in their bible; let's just be aware that it's a slim slim minority and it's kind of a rare event where scholars agree on this magnitude' it is actually one of the less contested deletions as there is great agreement among denominations on the NA28 and UBS5 textual editions.... I feel I've done my job if the next time someone here discusses this story or teaches from the pulpit they at least add a "we aren't sure if this is really part of the bible because the most trusted texts don't have it" or something to that effect. In the very least if we don't use it to build theology that would be the safest take away don't you agree?
*********following just for Torah keepers, Hebrew Roots, Messianics, etc.*******
Torah keepers: before you hurah hurrah the textus receptus you should be aware that's the text that contains the addition about Jesus "He therefore declared all foods clean" which is not in the more reliable, ancient versions. Just saying, if you're gonna toss your towel in with textus receptus you can get your pork chops ready for this sabbath!... you can't have it both ways
**disclaimer (Sam this is not all aimed at you, just added some information for those who may not be aware)**
Last edited:
So if you're gonna go with Textus Receptus Zec you can also cook up your pork chops tonight because that reliable text has the addition
"He therefore declared all foods clean" is added to that text.
Kind of hard to say you gotta eat Kosher with that nice little later addition.
You can't have it both ways, you loves you some Textus Receptus or you don'ts..
Yummy Bacon Receptus coming Zec's way!
Yummmmm textus receptus dietary freedoms.
Last edited:
Boy Ish, for a smart guy you sure can be dense. I don't need that line to tell me all foods are technically clean now. They are. There's no way around it. But the fact that all foods are clean doesn't mean there's not a call and a benefit to observing the dietary Laws, which I am forced to point out is not the same thing as eating Kosher.
I understand now why traditions are so important to you. You're a liberal. You don't have anything else. Your Bible is an uninspired work of man. You've accepted the teachings of the mainstream, essentially secular, academics. Why wouldn't your traditions be as valid as scripture? They come from the same source, ancient peoples who passed them down largely in tact through the generations.
I simply don't understand how any man could willingly submit himself to the arbitrary teachings and restrictions of a two thousand year old anthology of it's not the inspired and inerrant Word of God. If it's made up then I would just as soon make up my own religion or choose one of the really cool new ones like Raelians or even Wicca. They get to worship the Great Horned God naked. I mean if we're going to make something up then let's go ahead and get creative.
I will start working on something that involves aliens, battle axes and buxom young women. And probably bank robbery. I'll let you all know when I'm accepting converts.
Hebrew Roots movement and Messianic Judaism teach that we keep Kosher, i.e. follow the dietary laws not for health benefit but out of obedience to G-d.
If your rationale is along the 7th Day Adventist perspective of "this is for health only and nothing to do with obedience" I did not realize that.
I thought you were a torah-keeper. My mistake
Zec, why do you need to resort to ad hominem attacks on me? I thought you had grown spiritually this last year and weren't gonna do that kind of thing any more.
Well allow me to retort, you apparently weren't reading what I wrote earlier.
I absolutely believe in the inerrant word of G-d as it was revealed in the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.
There are no authorized translations as there are no prophetic translators.
I'm certainly NOT a liberal and calling me this does not help your case intellectually.
If you have some deep seated fear of scholarship, or the truth of how we got the bible I can't help you with that. But name calling isn't' gonna help you there.
Studying will.
Also if you think "liberals are traditional" I think perhaps liberal doesn't mean what you think it means
You say I think the bible is the work of men? I'll have you know I spend no less than 3 hours a day studying the word of G-d; how can you pin me as someone who doesn't believe it's the absolute word of the living G-d of Israel? I'd much rather be playing with electronics or any of my other hobbies.
Why would I study it so diligently if I didn't find it absolutely inspired? Such a shame you are resorting to such insults.
I really thought you'd grown up.
You lost me there.
I don't believe aliens exist, I don't know what "buxom young women" means, and why would I be interested in bank robbery?
Take a breath Zec... and please stop insulting me. You don't need to call me "dense" or "liberal" or insinuate I'm a bible-denier because I believe in the autographia not the King James. You are out of line brother.
If you're not up to the discussion that's fine, but you can bow out gracefully with "I don't know these answers and I'm annoyed to learn new things" or something like that.
I'm happy to let you off the hook.
In Jewish teaching true repentance occurs when we are faced with the same sin again and we resist it the second time. Until that point repentance is incomplete, lo shalem.
shabbat shalom
שבת שלום
Last edited:
On a side note, I totally love this gem!
On the question of whether the story actually happened, ignorance sure was blissful......
It's nice that you believe in the inerrancy of a Bible we don't have, the original Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. It is a little confusing that you think we can't trust the original translators who had access to the dialects and actual manuscripts they were working on but somehow we can trust scholars thousands of years later who have access to neither. There were no prophetic translators but there are prophetic academics? Who are these illuminated academics that God has miraculously endowed to reconstruct the Bible you don't think He could preserve in the first place?
Think about the arrogance of that for one second Ish. God couldn't preserve His Word so you and a bunch of your professor friends are going to fix it for Him. You'll forgive me for being dense I'm sure. An immature, unrepentant Seventh Day Adventist like me can only be expected to accept so many new things at a time and I still haven't wrapped my mind around the wireless completely yet, but please tell me how I can trust you to tell me what God really meant to say when I can't trust Him to really say what He means?
That's the exact same thing I'm coming out of Ish. The experts would take a verse, completely ignore it and then tell me what principles you could derive from it. There's a place for that kind of study but it's a very small one.
If I wanted to ignore scripture and go with someone's gut I could have stayed in the Pentecostal movement.
I want to live my life as closely as I can to how God wants me to, not how man wants me to. You want to put all of these academics and scholars and judges and teachers between me and Him, right after you tell me that there are no inspired translators. You can imagine my confusion.
I realize I'm making an emotional appeal in the face of many details and closely wound reasonings. I don't expect to change your mind.
But I would like to remind you that through out history people have tried to eviscerate the Bible. They tried to hack out miracles, reduce Christ, justify persecution of your people, remove whole books. I've seen people try to remove Paul and I've seen people try to remove the entire New Testament save the words of Jesus. I've seen other people try to remove the entire Old Testament and somehow still cling to the Psalms and for some bizarre reason the Ten Commandments. It all ends up in the same place.
I'll tell you a story to illustrate my point. When I was a boy (which is how most indisputable stories begin) it was announced with much fanfare that cholesterol was killing Americans at an alarming rate and that we should all stop eating eggs. They were little white oviod balls of death and we were all going to die. I even remember there being egg substitutes of some kind to allow us to still have our morning favorites without collapsing on the way to the school bus.
A few years later I remember the all clear being given. It was now safe to eat eggs again. Nothing had changed in the eggs. The experts had just changed their opinion.
I seem (and this little bit of vagueness inoculates my anecdote from fact checking because fact checking someone's childhood memories seems petty and mean and let's face it, inoculations are grown in eggs so we've come full circle) to remember that this went back and forth for several years. For a while we could eat eggs relatively free from risk and at other times eggs were the primary weapon in an avian led plot to wipe our species off the face of the earth.
The damn experts literally couldn't decide what to.have for breakfast. And this has been born out time and time again. The climate experts can't tell if we're going to have global warming or global cooling. The evolution experts have now discovered so many pre-human species and have pushed their supposed emergence so far back that almost had to spring whole out of the big bang. It was an expert that said the Titanic couldn't sink and it was experts that said man couldn't fly. The experts don't have a great track record Ish.
"Jesus called a little child to himself, and set him in the midst of them, and said, 'Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' " Mt. 18:2 (WEB )
...........
"At that time, Jesus answered, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants." Luke 10:25
...........
"But God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;" 1 Cor. 1:27
)...........
"At that time, Jesus answered, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants." Luke 10:25
...........
"But God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;" 1 Cor. 1:27
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
"Jesus called a little child to himself, and set him in the midst of them, and said, 'Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' " Mt. 18:2 (WEB
I'm with you WB, not exactly sure how 'simply' things can become so complicated. Sometimes I think even the Holy Spirit gets confused.
Oops, I posted this in the wrong thread.
Hey guys another thought about the problem with the later added story known as the "adulterous woman".
don't we have a sin problem if Yeshua does not allow them to execute her?
The command regarding adultery is death penalty.
So if Yeshua allowed her to go free without the death penalty isn't He now in rebellion against G-d's Law?
We don't get to pick and choose the Laws and He's the only one who ever lived by the Law of G-d perfectly so ...
If this later addition to the bible is actually true, we have a huge theological problem for Yeshua being sinless.
Hey guys another thought about the problem with the later added story known as the "adulterous woman".
don't we have a sin problem if Yeshua does not allow them to execute her?
The command regarding adultery is death penalty.
So if Yeshua allowed her to go free without the death penalty isn't He now in rebellion against G-d's Law?
We don't get to pick and choose the Laws and He's the only one who ever lived by the Law of G-d perfectly so ...
If this later addition to the bible is actually true, we have a huge theological problem for Yeshua being sinless.
Oy Zec....
go learn some history; of course we have access to the limited documents the translators of the King james had 400 years ago; we have those Erasmian documents AND we have the much older manuscripts found since that time and several hundred more late manuscripts; all in over 5000 manuscripts or fragments.
Just because you wish to remain willfully ignorant of modern scholarship doesn't make it go away.
I'm getting a little tired of you calling me names and implying motives that arent't there. You've done this before and you apologized and here ya go again a year later.
Where is the growth?
I, like any modern seminary student or scholar or in my case wannabee scholar, believe in the inerrancy of the original language bible.
Yes, we have it. It's the BHS and NA28 Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek critical text editions of the bible.
It's a bit humorous you can pound on your King James as "inerrant" yet you criticize those of us who love the original language text.
Do you even know what goes in to getting a decent grammar understanding and vocabulary to be able to wrestle with such texts?
What love for the word is required and the thousands of hours invested over decades?
How are you equivocating climate change "science" (quotes are being generous) with original language bible study?
Now I explained to you a bit about textual criticism, and Andrew chimed in that it's a real thing and not "the devil's trickery" which you seem to be set on thinking it is.
No Zec, I do not believe that these committees which incidentally DO HAVE liberals on them, are inspired translations. Absolutely not, especially when the translations contradict each other in many places. This is why I encourage people who don't want to put time into learning Biblical Languages to use multiple translations, preferably in parallel and if they know any other language (Spanish, German, whatever) to get their hands on a translation in that language. I absolutely see ZERO biblical support for the concept of "INSPIRED COMMITTEE of translators". It's almost as silly as the story that the Septuagint was translated by 70 rabbis each in their own room and they came out and VIOLA! All the translations matched.
Nobody says you have to become a scholar or lift a finger to learn Hebrew, the holy language, or any other biblical language, but you make yourself look not so great when you insist the English translations are some how inspired when they are not the same and you pretend the the original language variances are not worth investigating.
Calm down, think about it for a week. Research, ask some men of G-d who you trust who are not "King James is the only translation that's good". Maybe talk to Andrew or some of the other elders here and get their take on it. He said he used to be where you are now and it was hard to come out of there realizing that the textual criticism of the bible is a real thing;
maybe you and I have a personality thing going on now (I know I don't react well to name calling).
The notion of inspired committee is a bit rich though no matter how you slice it and in my experience, King James only preachers (not you) often just don't want to get off their duff and study.
Shalom, sorry I didn't see this post earlier.
We have over 5000 Greek manuscript evidences for the New Testament and there are difference. We can have our head in the sand and look like idiots when we get challenged by athiests or other liberals, or we can face the music and see G-d's hand even in this, especially in revealing such ancient versions as the Sinai Greek Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Praise G-d for preserving His word in the languages in which His holy prophets revealed them.
C
Cap
Guest
It is my understanding that there is a thing called Victim's Rights that is woven through out the Word, and basically the victim has the ability to forgive any sin committed against them. Since the ultimate victim is God, He has the right to forgive anyone He chooses. The idea is the reason we are all forgiven and not held accountable for our sin against God. So I see no problem in the Son of God forgiving her. And for what it's worth, the story is IN the Bible so it is there for a reason, whoever put it there.
I've never encountered that. In the case of the Son of G-d, he was certainly not the victim of the adultery, her husband was and even if the husband was able to save her from stoning (not the case in Jewish law) then where was he forgiving her?
When we sin often times the sin is against 2 parties: G-d and a human.
We have to ask forgiveness from both. BTW I've seen interprations about Joseph not turning Mary in that say the text makes sure to mention that "normally He was a righteous man" i.e. it' was weird he was being UNRIGHTEOUS in not following the law to turn her in.
I'm just throwing that in as some hyperbole btw
In short, even if G-d forgives the woman, her husband needed to also and the Law served a greater function "thus shall you cut the evil off" so that others would see such a result to such a horrid crime as adultery. In Judaism today if a woman cheats the man must divorce her, even if he forgives her he's not allowed to remain with her...
C
Cap
Guest
On of the things that interested me about understanding biblical divorce has to do with Exodus 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights, which I would include spiritual covering for a woman. If a man does not provide spiritual covering for a woman then that would produce a lack concerning her needs and therefore create a place for her to seek divorce. Which may say a lot about Isaiah 4:1 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!".
I would think that it would be a good idea to really understand that there are going to be women who are looking for a man that can provide that covering and they are more than likely going to come from being married and then divorced. If someone holds onto the view that divorced women are off limits, you could very well be limiting your field of availability.
I would think that it would be a good idea to really understand that there are going to be women who are looking for a man that can provide that covering and they are more than likely going to come from being married and then divorced. If someone holds onto the view that divorced women are off limits, you could very well be limiting your field of availability.
Yeah that's a logical sensible way to extend a commandment.
I think this is the right way to look at the commands; to expand them in ways that are consistent with the rest of the scriptures.
Regarding your second comment about divorced women...it's hard to comment on that.
The scriptures seem really clear about it (New Testament) making this much more difficult.
If I was consulting a close friend or student I'd say "don't touch that". That's just a blanket ethics call based on the sacred text.
In real life situation I think we really have to seek the Holy Spirit on some of these things.
C
Cap
Guest
I've never encountered that. In the case of the Son of G-d, he was certainly not the victim of the adultery, her husband was and even if the husband was able to save her from stoning (not the case in Jewish law) then where was he forgiving her?
When we sin often times the sin is against 2 parties: G-d and a human.
We have to ask forgiveness from both. BTW I've seen interprations about Joseph not turning Mary in that say the text makes sure to mention that "normally He was a righteous man" i.e. it' was weird he was being UNRIGHTEOUS in not following the law to turn her in.
I'm just throwing that in as some hyperbole btw
In short, even if G-d forgives the woman, her husband needed to also and the Law served a greater function "thus shall you cut the evil off" so that others would see such a result to such a horrid crime as adultery. In Judaism today if a woman cheats the man must divorce her, even if he forgives her he's not allowed to remain with her...
Sorry to have to give you a bunch of scripture. I am pretty sure you would know what I am talking about, its just easier. In this parable, a dept was owed and required to be paid by the Law, but was forgiven, so the Law does not always have to be fulfilled, at the discretion of the victim. And that ALL SIN, even the ones I commit against you are God's responsibly to make sure that His verdict is carried out based on whether you require full restitution or you offer forgiveness.
Matthew 18:21-35 New Living Translation
Parable of the Unforgiving Debtor
21 Then Peter came to him and asked, “Lord, how often should I forgive someonea]">[a] who sins against me? Seven times?”
22 “No, not seven times,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven!b]">[b]
23 “Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. 24 In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars.c]">[c] 25 He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.
26 “But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ 27 Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
28 “But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand dollars.d]">[d] He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.
29 “His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. 30 But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full.
31 “When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. 32 Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ 34 Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.
35 “That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisterse]">[e] from your heart.”