The Covenants--Liberty or Slavery?

[Michaeneu]

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt.26:27-28. (ESV)

And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Mark 14:24. (ESV)

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Luke 22:20. (ESV)

You, as do I, use the KJV for Strong's numbers. But the text that was used to translate the KJV from Latin (textus Vaticanus) into english is actually a very poor text (according to experts) from which to get the best source for the actual Hebrew and Greek translations. There are many other more modern Bibles that actually do a better job of translation from the original languages. One of those Bibles is the English Standard Vestion (ESV) which I have quoted above.

You can see that in Matthew and in Mark Jesus at the last supper did not use the word 'new' in relationship to the 'Covenant'. The text in Luke includes the word 'new'. Luke was not a disciple of Jesus Christ, was not an eyewitness, and got the majority of the information he used in his gospel from Paul, not from eyewitness disciples. On the other hand the eyewitness disciples Matthew and Peter (Mark acting as scribe) use the word 'covenant' without the appelation 'new' in front of it, and they both use the same phraseology, "This is the blood of the covenant". To me this means a great deal in that it is apparent that Jesus didn't use the phrase 'new covenant' to describe the agreement between Himself and the disciples.

And even if you make the choice to believe Luke over Matthew and Peter the word 'new' is not used in this context to mean 'different'. It means new as in 'renewed' or 'fresh'. The implication is that the covenant that Jesus was speaking of was the original covenant given to Israel at Sinai, but 'renewed' or made 'fresh' because of the blood of His sacrifice.

As I understand it, it was the Testus Receptus that was the basis of the KJV, which was a Greek manuscript not Latin. Consequently, your point is arbitrary as all your issues are concerning canon.

Christ was of the tribe of Judah and the Mosaic covenant spoke nothing of the priesthood stemming from Judah or of any mediation before Yahweh. In truth that is what condemned Saul. Yet the messiah has priesthood from another promise found in Psalm 110. That priesthood must end the offering for sin though a covenant that he confirms with many for 7 years. (Daniel 9:27). With and end of the offerings for sin the first temple lost its standing and the Levitical priesthood with it. That hardly speaks of a redundancy or renewing of the Mosaic covenant. And since your weakness is “covenants” it hardly lends credibility to your theory of redundancy.

Michael

[wayfinder]

From the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman

HarperSanFrancisco Copyright 2005

"The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-centry manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us! It's no wonder that modern translations often differ from the King James, and no wonder that some Bible-believing Christians prefer to pretend there's never been a problem, since God inspired the King James Bible instead of the original Greek! (As the old saw goes, If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me.)

Reality is never that neat, however, and in this case we need to face up to the facts. The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text."

Page 209

[John317]

"The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-centry manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us! It's no wonder that modern translations often differ from the King James, .."

Do you understand this to mean that the writer is claiming Erasmus' Greek Text was based on a single twelfth century Greek manuscript?

[pnattmbtc]

W:When the whole message is read the context is clear. "clean hands, pure heart, not lifted up his soul to falsehood and not sworn deceitfully" then....

R:It still comes from the Lord.

W:Yes indeed it does, but it is not a gift through grace, it comes through right doing (righteousness) which is obedience to God.

[Guest]

Amen Pnatt

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

The Everlasting Covenant did not begin with Abraham, otherwise it is not "everlasting". It was conceived in the mind of God in eternity past. This was extended to A & E, Noah, Abraham & his descendants. There is not one covenant for Abraham and another for Jacob, and another to his grandchildren and the rest of his posterity. The Sinai Covenant was the same Everlasting Covenant extended to the descendants of Abraham that was given to him. It became the "Old Covenant" because the Israelites tried to comply with the stipulations on their own. As Paul points out in Hebrews, they did not enter God's rest because of unbelief which he equates it with disobedience. And in Romans 10, Paul says the Israelites were ignorant of the "righteousness that comes from God" and sought to establish their own.

So they turned the Everlasting Covenant/Abrahamic Covenant into "old covenant" because they did not receive it by faith. In the same manner, we can turn the New Covenant into bondage and Old Covenant through unbelief and by trying to establish our own righteousness.

NO

"The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29. " PP

[pnattmbtc]

The Abrahamic Covenant (aka New Covenant, or Everlasting Covenant) included precious promises, which were all that Abraham, or any other saint, needed. These promises were encapsulated in the "inheritance."

What was the inheritance? It was the earth made new, to received by faith:

Quote:

13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.(Romans 4)

The promised inheritance, the earth made new, was given to Abraham on the condition of faith. In this new earth is found righteousness:

Quote:

13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)

So the promise of the new earth, or inheritance, includes the promise of righteousness, because without righteousness, on cannot receive the inheritance.

Saying God made a covenant to give Abraham an inheritance is the same thing as saying that God made a promise to give it to him:

Quote:

6Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal. 3)

Notice that making of the covenant is equated with the giving of promises. The concept of covenant is often confused into thinking that this is referring to a pact, or bargain. It's not. It's referring to a promise, or promises, similar to the covenant spoken of in Genesis:

Quote:

9And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

10And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

11And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. (Gen. 9)

Note that a Covenant made by God is a promise made by Him. Hear we see His promise that the earth would not be destroyed by a flood again, a promise made to every living creature.

So we've seen the promised inheritance includes righteousness and the earth made new. What else does it include?

Since the new earth is an everlasting earth, the promise includes the resurrection and eternal life. Hebrews 11 refers to this:

Quote:

8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God....

13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth...

16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Those who had faith in the promises were pilgrims in this earth, as are we, if we have faith as they did. They sought a city, and a country, made by God, a place not cursed by sin. The key to receive the promise is faith.

What else is included in the promise?

Quote:

After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen. 15:1)

Above all, the promise includes the LORD Himself, as our exceeding great reward. What a promise!

[John317]

... the text that was used to translate the KJV from Latin (textus Vaticanus) into english is actually a very poor text (according to experts) from which to get the best source for the actual Hebrew and Greek translations.

The King James Version wasn't translated from Latin. The Codex Vaticanus, an Alexandrian witness, is a Greek manuscript, which dates to the fourth century AD.

All of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT consist of three fundamental text-types: Western, Byzantium, and Alexandrian.

Today almost all modern translations are based on the Alexandrian text, which is the basis of what is called the Critical Text. The Critical Text in turn is based fundamentally on the codices Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Between them, these two codices contain thousands of variants, or differences.

The Critical Text is published by the United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland Text, Novum Testamentum Graece. Since the third edition of the UBS (1975) and the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Text (1979), the above two main body of texts have been in complete agreement so far as the wording is concerned, with the differences being in the Apparatus'. More than 500 changes were made at that time in the UBS' Third Edition.

The Critical Text does not take into account the reading of thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts and ancient translations. If you want to know what most of those manuscripts say, you'll get a pretty good idea by studying the KJV and the NKJV, because they are both based on the Byzantium text, which represent the majority of Greek NT manuscripts.

[John317]

Reality is never that neat, however, and in this case we need to face up to the facts. The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text."

1) The differences between the King James Version and the NASB is not enough to lead anyone to lose their salvation. Both translations contain the same story of Christ's love and God's mercy and are able to lead people to salvation. No doctrines are changed. I can teach the same doctrines from the NASB as I can from the KJV.

2) The truth is that all Greek printed texts and translations are "faulty." They're all based on a faulty human philosophy of textual criticism and of translation. Humans tend to make mistakes and errors in judgment, and so far as I know, no one would claim that the modern translations are inspired by God.

How do we know they are faulty? Because they keep changing. And the reason they change is that scholars and careful readers acknowledge that they are imperfect.

For instance, the Greek text that is used today for translation of the Bible is different from the Greek text that was thought to be so perfect 110 years ago. And no doubt, the Greek text that we use today will be viewed in the future as being "faulty."

In summary: no informed scholar would claim the KJV is without fault, but at the same time, I don't know of any good scholar who would claim that any translation is without fault.

The best way to study the Bible is to use at least three or four good translations, including the KJV.

It's important to realize that the text that the KJV was translated from is far more representative of the majority of Greek manuscripts used by the Christian church throughout the world than the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That's why in my study I use both the Majority and the Critical Texts.

One example: Ever since the 1880s, 1 Cor. 10: 9 read "Lord" in the Critical Text and in the modern translations, and many people believed the KJV was wrong to read "Christ." That is no longer the case. It's been well demonstrated that "Christ" is the original reading there, and consequently, the Critical Text recently changed to agree with the KJV.

[wayfinder]

I agree to a point and I would also add the Septuagint as a reliable Greek source for the Old Testment.

[Just*]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

The Sinai Covenant was the same Everlasting Covenant extended to the descendants of Abraham that was given to him.

I'm not sure why you wrote NO. It should have been YES! What you quoted certainly agrees with what Gerry wrote. For example, consider this part:

?

[Michaeneu]

I agree to a point and I would also add the Septuagint as a reliable Greek source for the Old Testment.

Well now that you agree to a point we can proceed, right? Ha!

All the versions and translations have some faux pas and the way we overcome these imperfections is to search other passages that shed light upon and support the doctrines we establish. Problem with your paradigm is that it doesn’t do anything of the sort; it casts out passage after passage and makes Yahweh unable to keep his promises and make a lot of pointless declarations and prophecy. If your two road was a viable method why aren’t there two sets of prophecies for the fall in Eden. Why is there not a prophetic revelation concerning what would have happened IF Adam hadn’t fallen? Why is there not a prophetic revelation concerning what would have happened IF Noah hadn’t obeyed? And what about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and so many that COULD HAVE failed? Why is there just two paths concerning one event in the Bible? The quires are rhetorical because such assertions can only be upheld by rationalizing and casting out the preponderance of the Bible, which simply is poor exegesis. Yahweh knew what Adam was going to do as well as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah at Christ's first advent. It would have been redundant to prophesy two paths and prove him incapable of knowing the end from the beginning. Two paths is redundant and untenable in its nature.

And again if the covenant that Christ established was redundant and merely renewed the Mosaic covenant, why did Christ in the middle of the prophetic week of Daniel 9:27 end the offerings for sin? Why the need of a new order of priesthood? Why the need of destroying the temple made with hands and scatter the church and the Jews? Your two path theology really doesn’t have any good answers.

Michael

[John317]

I agree to a point and I would also add the Septuagint as a reliable Greek source for the Old Testment.

I'll have to get back with you about the LXX. That's a tremendously interesting subject.

[Ron Amnsn]

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Gal 4:24

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

I'm not sure why you wrote NO. It should have been YES! What you quoted certainly agrees with what Gerry wrote. For example' date=' consider this part:

?

[/quote']

Here's what Gerry wrote in context:

Quote:

The Sinai Covenant was the same Everlasting Covenant extended to the descendants of Abraham that was given to him. It became the "Old Covenant" because the Israelites tried to comply with the stipulations on their own. As Paul points out in Hebrews, they did not enter God's rest because of unbelief which he equates it with disobedience. And in Romans 10, Paul says the Israelites were ignorant of the "righteousness that comes from God" and sought to establish their own.

So they turned the Everlasting Covenant/Abrahamic Covenant into "old covenant" because they did not receive it by faith. In the same manner, we can turn the New Covenant into bondage and Old Covenant through unbelief and by trying to establish our own righteousness.

So when he said the Sinai Covenant was the same Everlasting Covenant, he was talking about God's promise to the Israelites, not what happened after the Israelites' response of unbelief.

[Michaeneu]

That's right. Here Paul is saying that God's later covenants do not annul earlier covenants. Folks who think that the New (renewed) Covenant annuls the Sinai Covenant haven't yet grasped what Paul actually teaches. They are still living in the fairy-tale theology concocted by the Roman church to justify Rome's abuse of power.

Yea, Just, I want to here your answer to this too and I'm probably going to agree with you too. For the most part I think you've got a good grasp of the subject.

Michael

[Just*]

[is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid Gal 3:21

It was added because of transgressions Gal 3:19

concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Gal 3:22

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ Gal 3:24

But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Rom 5:20 through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Heb 13:20

the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8

the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, Gal 3:17

through the righteousness of faith. Rom 4:13

the blessing of Abraham Gal 3:14

Being justified freely by his grace Rom 3:24

God imputeth righteousness without works, Rom 4:6

I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; Heb 10:16

working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Heb 13:21

[Michaeneu]

[is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid Gal 3:21

It was added because of transgressions Gal 3:19

concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Gal 3:22

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ Gal 3:24

But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Rom 5:20 through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Heb 13:20

the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8

the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, Gal 3:17

through the righteousness of faith. Rom 4:13

the blessing of Abraham Gal 3:14

Being justified freely by his grace Rom 3:24

God imputeth righteousness without works, Rom 4:6

I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; Heb 10:16

working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Heb 13:21

Might I add that the inauguration process is being confused with ratification. While the two are related timing is not. Inauguration was the process of dedicating the covenant with blood.

“Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.” Heb. 9:18

Yet Yahweh, through Moses, confirmed the provisions of the covenant before and after the dedication or inaugural event as in Exodus below.

“Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.” Ex. 12:15

“Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Ex. 31:14

Being cut off for disobeying these and more infractions were certainly provisions of the covenant that were confirmed before and after the dedication of the covenant and we find the same procedure concerning the New Covenant.

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease…” Dan. 9:27

We find Christ confirming provisions of the covenant 3 ½ years prior to inaugurating it with his blood and then the confirmation process continued with his disciples in the temple and at Jerusalem for another 3 ½ years before the church was scattered at the stoning of Stephen.

Consequently, we cannot have the provisions merely dismissed just because they were not revealed precisely upon the inauguration as some imply here. And there is certainly was a new covenant dedicated at the cross since it caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, which was the central provision of the Mosaic covenant. And I don’t agree that the continuation of the animal sacrifices by the Jews after the flesh deny this because it was their legal standing before Yahweh that ended, even if the Jews after the flesh refused to recognize it.

Michael

[Musicman1228]

From the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman

HarperSanFrancisco Copyright 2005

"The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-centry manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us! It's no wonder that modern translations often differ from the King James, and no wonder that some Bible-believing Christians prefer to pretend there's never been a problem, since God inspired the King James Bible instead of the original Greek! (As the old saw goes, If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me.)

Reality is never that neat, however, and in this case we need to face up to the facts. The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text."

Page 209

I erred in the indentification of the text source for the KJV, sorry. I thought my memory was better than it was. However, I agree that the New Testament part of the KJV was translated by a Dutch scholar named Erasmus from faulty 12th century Greek texts. Erasmus had at his disposal no more than six Greek manuscripts (we have thousands at our disposal today), and probably far less. The term Textus Receptus, or Received Text, came from a blurb in another Greek text produced in the early seventeenth century by the Elzevir brothers. It is one of the precursors of the KJV, and it is from this text that Erasmus made his translation.

There were some big problems with the text that Erasmus used. For one thing, none of his sources had the last six verses of the book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek (That is why I mentioned the Vulgate). Thus, in his text "several words and phrases may be found that are attested in no Greek manuscript whatsoever."

There are four families of Greek texts that are used to translate the New Testament: Byzantine, Alexandrian, the Caesarean, and the Western. It is from the Byzantine text that the Textus Receptus and the later KJV comes from. The fundamental debate between scholars in the King James/modern version controversy is over the question of the most accurate Greek text family or families. The Byzantine text was the dominant Greek text from about the eighth century until the end of the nineteenth century. In 1881, however, two scholars named Westcott and Hort published a new Greek New Testament which relied more on other text families than on the Byzantine family.

Text dating is important. Church fathers before the fourth century "unambiguously cited every text-type except the Byzantine." If the Byzantine text-type comes directly from the original writings, one would expect unambiguous quotations of it from the beginning. They also point out that there are no Byzantine manuscripts older than the fourth century, whereas there are copies of other text families older than that.

Westcott and Hort used the principles of textual criticism to evaluate the Greek texts, and published a Greek New Testament based on texts other than the Byzantine family of texts. Their Greek text became the basis of the New Testament portion of modern Bible translations.

In their study they argue that the Byzantine text was not the closest to the original writings as the King James advocates claimed. They believed it was at least two steps removed from the original writings. They also noticed that early church fathers quoted from the other families of texts much more than from the Byzantine text, which suggested to them a higher level of authenticity than could be derived from the Textus Receptus.

It has been estimated that there are upwards of 30,000 contradictions between the Greek texts from the four families of texts. Copy errors and editorial comments certainly crept into downstream copies of these texts, much more so than the texts of the Old Testament, which were subject to much greater monitoring and care in copying by Jewish scholars.

There is one thing certain in all of this; God's concern in all this was to preserve His words and the words of His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus said this would be the case because He told His disciples in no uncertain terms that they would remember everything He said to them, and that others would come to understand the truth because of what they testified to. It is our responsibility to use the most up-to-date versions and information possible in our search for the Truth.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

... the text that was used to translate the KJV from Latin (textus Vaticanus) into english is actually a very poor text (according to experts) from which to get the best source for the actual Hebrew and Greek translations.

The King James Version wasn't translated from Latin. The Codex Vaticanus, an Alexandrian witness, is a Greek manuscript, which dates to the fourth century AD.

All of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT consist of three fundamental text-types: Western, Byzantium, and Alexandrian.

Today almost all modern translations are based on the Alexandrian text, which is the basis of what is called the Critical Text. The Critical Text in turn is based fundamentally on the codices Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Between them, these two codices contain thousands of variants, or differences.

The Critical Text is published by the United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland Text, Novum Testamentum Graece. Since the third edition of the UBS (1975) and the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Text (1979), the above two main body of texts have been in complete agreement so far as the wording is concerned, with the differences being in the Apparatus'. More than 500 changes were made at that time in the UBS' Third Edition.

The Critical Text does not take into account the reading of thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts and ancient translations. If you want to know what most of those manuscripts say, you'll get a pretty good idea by studying the KJV and the NKJV, because they are both based on the Byzantium text, which represent the majority of Greek NT manuscripts.

That's interesting.

[wayfinder]

Absolutely, without question, I agree.

[Guest]

With what?