Have we the word of God today.html

Have We The Word Of God Today, And Can We Rely On Our Bibles To Tell The Truth, The Whole True, And Nothing But The Truth ?

I was surprised to learn at our bible study, on Tuesday 12th March 2013, that in the foot notes of the New International Bible it is stated that the section on John 8 verse 1 to 12, about the women taken in adultery, is omitted in the earliest, or oldest manuscripts that exist today. The suggestion being that the story had been added to our bible at some later date. I saw that there is no such foot note in the King James Bible.

This raised an alarm in my mind, such that that I could ignore it because if this section has been added to our bible, at some later date, then we my rightly ask, how many other additions might their be found in our bibles ? This leading to a very reasonable question, “Do we have a faithful copy of what the inspired writer’s of our bible wrote today. In other words, “ have we the Word of God today ?”

My immediate response to this dilemma was to recall that it is Christian belief that God has always preserved His Word amongst His people, through all generations. Christians have faithfully copied and propagated the scriptures based on the original manuscripts, and passed their copies on to the next generation. Over time the original manuscripts suffered wear and tare and were discarded, eventually lost or destroyed.

There are no original manuscripts of any sections of the bible in existence today, however there are in existence over 4000 hand written sections of our bibles, in various languages, going back to the 4th century. The oldest being the Codex Sinaicus, discovered by Count Tizaldof in the 19 C at a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai.

It is with reference to this manuscript that the publisher of the New International Version makes reference saying that the section in John’s Gospel about the women taken in adultery is omitted in this earliest and oldest manuscript.

The first point I wish to make is that since this manuscript, which was written some 300 years after John’s publication of his Gospel omits the section, it does not mean that it was not in the original of John’s gospel. It just means it is missing or omitted from the Codex Sinaiticus documentthat this was copied from.

The fact that these verses of John’s gospel are recorded in other translations of the bible means that these copies have preserved what was originally recorded, it does not mean that these verses have been added at some later date.

It simple means that the Codex Siniaticus and other manuscripts dating from that time, have omitted these verses, for some reason or other. In other word the Codex Siniaticus is defective and cannot be relied upon but treated with suspicion.

There has been many so called missing books of the bible. Some have altered the text of scripture, intentionally or other wise, but though it all Christians have watched, with care, over the WORD OF GOD, and passed down to us faithful copies of what was originally written.

Christians throughout all ages have had the word of God contained in manuscripts known as the Majority Text. Any discovery of any manuscript that omits or teaches things that are contrary to the word of God that we have received and are contained in the scripture passed down to us through the ages, are to be viewed with suspicion and not to be relied upon.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a fourth century uncial manuscript of the Holy Bible in the Greek language, written between 330 and 350. Originally held at the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai, the manuscript is now split among British Library in London, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Leipzig University Library, and the Russian National Library in St Petersburg.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Sinaiticus

What is Codex Sinaiticus?

Codex Sinaiticus was found, in 1859, by Constantine von Tischendorf on his third visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai in Egypt. The first two trips had yielded parts of the Old Testament, some found in a basket of manuscripts pieces, which Tischendorf was told by a librarian that “they were rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery”.[2] It contains the earliest complete copy of the New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

The only one other nearly complete manuscript of the Christian Bible – Codex Vaticanus (kept in the Vatican Library in Rome) – is of a similarly early date. The only manuscripts of Christian scripture that are definitely of an earlier date than Codex Sinaiticus contain small portions of the text of the Bible.

I hope this observation and comment of mine is helpful.

Codex Sinaiticus - OrthodoxWikiorthodoxwiki.org

Responses from my observations and comments

Romwel Alcaraz Azores: Good point bro. David Clarke, I now recall the subject of my study during my Bible College days back in the Philippines when this NIV footnote was given to us as an assignment. Our subject was the science of bible interpretation - Hermeneutics particularly the method called ‘TEXTUAL CRITICISM’ - which was a science of reconstructing manuscript into its original state by gathering all the available manuscripts and working on all by such method of Textual Criticism and other more scientific methods.’ ------> (Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document’s transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic’s work is the production of a “critical edition” containing a text most closely approximating the original. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism )

Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many...

David Clarke: Yes this matter of the reliability of scripture and do we have the Word of God today was brought to me soon after my conversion in 1971. Here is a quote from “Converted on LSD”, http://www.biertonparticularbaptists.co.uk/resources/ConvertedonLSD/content.htm#a176

Authorized Version of the Bible - ConvertedonLSD

www.biertonparticularbaptists.co.uk

At the Assemblies of God Church, at Richford’s hill, we had a representative from the Trinitarian Bible Society speak. Mr Cyril Bryan confirmed his belief how important it was to use a good translation of the Bible.

David Clarke: My further studies led me to believe the word of God has been preserved in the Majority Text used in the translation of the English Bible, since the 15 Century. The art of trying to reconstruct the original text may be an academic exercise but it is an unreliable and untrustworthy path. This is because it leaves the Christian in the hands of men who are scholars and not necessarily born again men. My question to any serious minded person is what bible text was used by the Myrta’s, Christian worthies down the centuries, before the discovery of the suspicious Codex Siniaticus.

Who Translated or Bible ?

A knowledge of who the translatpor of the English Bible is very helpful and I maintain we are reponsible to educate ourselve in this matter. Here is a useful sdudy on the subject.

Please read, “The Qualification of the Translators of The King James Bible”.