Which Bible translation is the most reliable?

A friend of mine recently asked: "Phil Brown tell me what you think about this."




I watched, and then responded: "Well, much of what James White said is true. However, some of what he said is mere speculation. Older witnesses do not necessarily equal a more accurate manuscript. I haven't heard the story he told about Erasmus concerning Revelation. But, I do know that he, Dan Wallace, and the late Bruce Metzger spread, a false story concerning how Erasmus came to put 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament. They never have admitted that it was fabricated to advance their doctrine."

The post I am referring to is above under 
1 John 5:7 - Verifying Sources

I further responded: "Well, one thing is that the AV (KJV), and the NKJV come from a line of Byzantine manuscripts just like the 1599 Geneva Bible. What White didn't say is that even though Erasmus's first edition was rushed out within a year (as he so eagerly stated), the KJV, and NKJV come from Erasmus's 4th and 5th editions of the Greek New Testament of which he spent 20 or more years editing (I would bet that the Revelation story also is lacking some truth). Also, nobody but some crazy KJV onlyists are ignorant enough to say that they use the 1611 version (That is a straw man). It has been updated and revised. However, what he didn't say is that those revisions "mostly" involve spelling, punctuation, and adjusting the old style English letters to the new style. There is no real major difference between the Oxford and Cambridge editions either. I think the Oxford is a little more readable to the modern reader than the Cambridge. Again, the meaning isn't different, but some of the words were adjusted for modern usage. Many claim that the text of Erasmus was riddled with errors. Other than the fact that the first edition was rushed out, they will use quotes and history from Erasmus's opponents. Erasmus even said himself: "I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee (Archbishop of York) pretended to have discovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars and could not have them." Just like many people do today, when they disagree with something, they will make accusations, even if they are untrue. White also made it sound like the KJV Translators only used the text of Erasmus and that the Geneva Bible came from Beza. Theodore Beza produced 9 editions of the Greek New Testament between 1565 and 1604. The most important are the 1565, 1582, 1588-9 and 1598 editions. Beza's texts differ little from Stephanus' 4th edition of 1551. The KJV translators made large use of Beza's editions 1588-9 and 1598. In 1624, the Elzevir brothers published a text based on Beza's 1565 edition. What he said about the Puritans and the Geneva bible were correct, and it is true that the King only wanted "church" and not "assembly" translated due to the fact that he wanted everyone to submit to the Church of England. But, in all truth that is really a small difference between the Geneva and KJV translations. They are not all that different. The KJV is a little more polished. I personally like the Geneva over the KJV, but the NKJV is sufficient for easy reading. White also said that Erasmus didn't have access to more manuscripts. That is not a true statement. He makes it sound like Erasmus himself had no knowledge of the Alexandrian manuscripts. The Sinaiticus manuscripts were not discovered until the mid 19th century. However, he had access to the Sinaitic-type readings and the Vaticanus. It is claimed that the Vatacan library at Rome was not accessible for use by outsiders until the dawn of the 20th century. That isn't true. Erasmus did have access to Codex B readings and rejected them because he knew how bad they were. Paulus Bombasius discovered the neglected Codex B in the Vatican library in 1521 and in June of that year sent Erasmus its readings from I John 4:1-3 and I John 5:7. B is the Pope's manuscript but he rejected it nevertheless. That is testimony to his objectivity and scholarly integrity. The KJV translators also had the readings of Codex B before them and rejected them as did Erasmus. They weren't ignorant of them as White asserts. Erasmus also had access to Codex D, and Codex Bezae but also rejected it. The KJV translators also had these variant readings and rejected them. White downplays the amount of available manuscripts a little. However, just because we have more doesn't necessarily mean that the TR is incorrect. It also doesn't mean that some manuscripts are correct because they are older. The vast Majority of Manuscripts we have today if piled together would favor the Traditional reading over the Eclectic reading. While White is correct in asserting that the Majority of manuscripts aren't identical to the TR or Textus Receptus, he conveniently forgets to mention that they are less identical to the Critical or "Eclectic" Text that White is in favor of. He says Erasmus's translation of the last part of Revelation isn't like any manuscript available, well, the modern Eclectic text isn't like any one manuscript available either. Like I said, he wasn't all wrong, but he left out some details."

"The problem with the whole issue is that it isn't always characterized with Church history. The Byzantine family ( Traditional text/ What the KJV, NKJV, Geneva translations come from) was used by the Church before and after 300 AD. The Alexandrian family was available, but went out of usage around 300 AD after the council of Nicaea and the extinction of Gnosticism, which today is making a resurgence. Many of the Alexandrian sources were shelved, and were not used as reliable sources. One thing that many Scholars fail to mention is that the Eastern Church used the same family of New Testament manuscripts before and after the Great Schism. If there was that much manuscript corruption going on (as many scholars are so eager to speculate), there would be a great difference between the Eastern and Western churches with regard to the Byzantine family of manuscripts they posess. There aren't though. There is a great link to the "Oldest" manuscripts and Gnosticism. The Gnostics had a peculiar set of doctrines, and did not acknowledge the Jesus we see testified of in the Bible. The Vatacanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which are heavily relied upon for our modern translations have Gnostic origins. If they were translated alone without the clever ingenuity of Modern Greek Scholars mingling them with Traditional sources, they would have been rejected long ago. However, because there is a bit of engineering going on by the scholarly elite, the changes and editing of the Scriptures are more palatable. White's testimony sounds like anyone who would disagree with him is ignorant of history and the Greek manuscripts. The evidence he left out makes his case less solid."

I shared the following video: 

"Gnosticism is subversive to Christianity. Why would scholars rely on such sources? Regardless of how old they are."

I also shared:

Text Note: How many "works of the flesh" in Galatians 5:19-21? 17 or 15?

Comments