The Blog Begins

LAST SABBATH: We discussed Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25 "The Cursing of the Fig Tree." (Note: The Desire of Ages chapter 64 "A Doomed People" has some great commentary on how the fig tree represented the Jewish people who were "corrupted by the love of the world and the greed of gain.")

We noticed that Mark 11:26 is included in KJV but not in modern translations. This got me off on the following tangent:

After our discussion last Sabbath, I did some research. I checked out the SDA Biblical Research Institute web site (adventistbiblicalresearch.org) and found a couple of good articles. Both were excellent and I recommend that you take the time to read them yourself. I am writing a short summary here, though.

The first article, "Which Version Can We Trust?" (click on link to the right to go there) was very interesting. Here are some points that I got from the article (please read the article yourself!):

1. The differences between the Greek texts used for the translations of the various versions of the Bible are not very significant. These differences are minor and do not affect any doctrines or teachings of the Bible. We should never base our belief on a single verse or phrase but should rather look at all the teaching of the Bible on a particular subject.

2. The thousands of Greek manuscripts have been classified into four categories (types, or "families"), two of which are significant: the Alexandrian and the Byzantine.

The Alexandrian is “generally characterized by brevity and austerity” with “little evidence of grammatical and stylistic polishing." This text family includes the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus—two well-known old manuscripts.

The Byzantine has the largest number of manuscripts, but they are “the latest chronologically.” The scribes who worked on these manuscripts tried to smooth over differences in parallel passages, producing harmonizations.

3. The Textus Receptus ("Received Text") (published in the early 1600's) is very similar to the Byzantine text family and this is what the King James Version is based on.

4. Biblical scholars Westcott and Hort published a Greek text in 1881, after 28 years of research. Their goal was to determine the "most probable" reading of the original Greek. The English Revised Version of the Bible (1881-85) and the American Revised Version (1901) relied on a text similar to Westcott and Hort's. This is really where the controversy between the KJV and the "modern versions" began.

5. Modern language translators try to eliminate "verses, phrases, or words that were inserted into the biblical text under the influence of the Byzantine textual tradition. This practice has proved troublesome for many who have come to accept these additions as an integral part of the Word of God, even though they were introduced into the biblical text simply by well-meaning copyists. Their removal is considered blasphemy."

Finally, let me emphasize:

1. READ THE ARTICLES (the other article is "Modern Versions and the King James Version" (click on the link to the right). Don't quote me, read it for yourself--you're already online!

2. DIFFERENCES IN THE PASSAGES ARE MINIMAL. The articles emphasize:
"the teachings of Scripture have not suffered because of these omissions or expansions." "We need to remember, however, that such omissions (or additions) are never vital to Scripture..." Most of them "are trivial and devoid of any theological significance,..."