• 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.

Response to Mike Winger's Train Wreck on Polygamy and Divorce

... Every translation, repeat every translation including the King James adds words for clarity that are not in the original Greek or Hebrew.
One thing I like about the NKJV and at least some NASB Bibles is that they italicize these words added for clarity to distinguish them from the actual text. That is helpful. I also appreciate when footnotes are added to include alternate "textus receptus" and "critical text" readings.
 
Don’t forget that most of the New Testament was not written in Greek, so you are dealing with a translation of a translation.
Where are you getting that Steve? I haven't heard that before. As I understand it, we have some Greek fragments dating back to the first century. I've never heard of older New Testament manuscripts in Hebrew or Aramaic.

I know some of our Old Testament translation work comes from the Septuagint (therefore a translation of a translation).

You might be right. There's a lot that I don't know about.
 
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Every New Testament Greek scholar believes that. There are Greek manuscript called papyrus manuscripts going back to the 100s AD in Greek, and possibly one going back as far as 90 AD according to Dan Wallace, possibly the greatest Greek manuscript expert in the US today.
 
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Every New Testament Greek scholar believes that.
That's what I've always heard. I just wanted to know if Steve knows something we don't. We will see if he has any support for his declaration. ☺️
 
He may be referring to the Septuagint which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament
 
I have found out that 10 000 manuscripts exist for Bible from ancient times. For Greek philosophers it is lucky if 10 manuscripts have survived.

I just can't believe it would be possible that some verse without correct version exists. 10000 versions and all are false. That's not exactly believable.
 
The fact that you scholars don’t have a clue that the controversy even exists tells me all that I need to know.
Have a nice day.
 
The fact that you scholars don’t have a clue that the controversy even exists tells me all that I need to know.
Have a nice day.
I’ve examined papyrus manuscript myself from the 100s AD including P137 which May date prior to 100 AD, although that’s debated. You also have P52 from the first half of the 100’s. Go on the website csntm.org and you can examine them for yourself

They’re in Greek.

 
Last edited:
The fact that you scholars don’t have a clue that the controversy even exists tells me all that I need to know.
Have a nice day.
So basically...
You don't have any substantial evidence to support you wild proposition.👍

Unless you provide some real evidence, I'll assume it's just a product of your "Hebrew roots" bias.
 
I have found out that 10 000 manuscripts exist for Bible from ancient times. For Greek philosophers it is lucky if 10 manuscripts have survived.

I just can't believe it would be possible that some verse without correct version exists. 10000 versions and all are false. That's not exactly believable.
There are approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts in existence today. There are also over 20,000 ancient manuscripts in other languages such as Coptic and Syriac. There are well over 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today. You also have quotations from early church fathers of essentially the entire New Testament if reconstructed.
 
 
So basically...
You don't have any substantial evidence to support you wild proposition.👍

Unless you provide some real evidence, I'll assume it's just a product of your "Hebrew roots" bias.
Nice, don’t bother to look into it.
Just start labeling.
 
There are approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts in existence today. There are also over 20,000 ancient manuscripts in other languages such as Coptic and Syriac. There are well over 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today. You also have quotations from early church fathers of essentially the entire New Testament if reconstructed.
If you were to actually study it, you might find out why.
 
This link says the manuscript is from the 16th century. There are Greek manuscripts going back to the 100s. Read the link I posted and you can see every manuscript. Plus the manuscript you posted is too well preserved to be an early manuscript. All first second and third manuscripts were in papyrus. That’s what they wrote on. This is not papyrus. The papyrus manuscripts are in fragments because they’re old and have deteriorated. The manuscript you posted is not papyrus which is a dead give away for an early manuscript.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Steve. I appreciate you sending a link. I'll check it out, and try to keep an open mind.

I also noted that the Hebrew manuscript you linked is from the 16th century.
 
Thank you Steve. I appreciate you sending a link. I'll check it out, and try to keep an open mind.

I also noted that the Hebrew manuscript you linked is from the 16th century.
It’s worth examining but please remember every single early manuscript of the Bible is on papyrus. Every one we’ve ever discovered and they’re fragmentary. The first complete Bible we have is from 325 AD, Codex Sanaiaticus. Look at some second century manuscripts and ask yourself if this looks like a fragmentary papyrus manuscript.
 
Steve, I'm concerned about the site you linked to. There is also an article saying that Yeshua/the Logos/Jesus Christ isn't the Creator, that He isn't the "I AM".


John chapter 1 says that the Logos (Yeshua/Jesus) is the Creator. Genesis also says "let Us make man in Our image". That "Us and Our" are somehow plural. The Father is Creator. The Son is Creator.

Jesus also said "before Abraham was, I AM".

Based on the teaching from the 1st and 2nd epistles of John (regarding false teachers and antichrists), I think this author is outside the Faith, and should be considered "antichrist".

Somehow, the Son is fully God and fully Man. Any denial of that truth (hard as it is to grasp) seems to be a critical and deadly error.

"And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: “Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!” (Revelation 5:13 NKJV)
 
It’s worth examining but please remember every single early manuscript of the Bible is on papyrus. Every one we’ve ever discovered and they’re fragmentary. The first complete Bible we have is from 325 AD, Codex Sanaiaticus. Look at some second century manuscripts and ask yourself if this looks like a fragmentary papyrus manuscript.
1681407642515.png
 
Steve, I'm concerned about the site you linked to. There is also an article saying that Yeshua/the Logos/Jesus Christ isn't the Creator, that He isn't the "I AM".


John chapter 1 says that the Logos (Yeshua/Jesus) is the Creator. Genesis also says "let Us make man in Our image". That "Us and Our" are somehow plural. The Father is Creator. The Son is Creator.

Jesus also said "before Abraham was, I AM".

Based on the teaching from the 1st and 2nd epistles of John (regarding false teachers and antichrists), I think this author is outside the Faith, and should be considered "antichrist".

Somehow, the Son is fully God and fully Man. Any denial of that truth (hard as it is to grasp) seems to be a critical and deadly error.

"And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: “Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!” (Revelation 5:13 NKJV)
Just show me one place in Scripture where he is God the Son, as opposed to the Son of God.

I’ll wait.
 
Back
Top