The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum New Testament Texts

John,

First, one must be very careful to recognize the long-standing "battle" that has existed for ages over which manuscript "group", let's call it, is the "real deal"; Textus Receptus vs. Majority Text. The latter group is decidedly older (earlier) and better attested to vs. the former which is much later. The former is said to have been "preserved of God" and the latter admittedly older but fraught with scribal errors, etc. And so it goes.

Second, there is the matter of translation method; formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence. The former is what the historic Church has relied upon and the latter is a very recent method which, IMHO, to varying degrees mitigates against the doctrine of the divine verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.

It is this second subject which the believer should concern himself/herself with and not the first. Textual Criticism is not something the average student of the Bible should fret over. In fact, unless one understands the true intent of that discipline it can prove very detrimental, i.e., shake one's faith in the divine authorship and reliability of the Bible itself rather than a valuable aid to the serious student. You will find that the difference between those translations which use the formal equivalence method of translation is minimal compared to those using the dynamic equivalence method.

My advice, unless you are willing to read through at least one or two GOOD books (conservative authors) on the science of biblical textual criticism, ignore any reference to variances in manuscripts as you are studying. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,