- Editorial -

Addressing the
Two Oldest Manuscripts

This was written to a "Thread Type Forum" where pastors and preachers were trying to make a point in favor of the 2 Oldest Manuscripts.

Could I address the "oldest manuscripts" as being the nearest to the originals?
The 2 oldest manuscripts (although current evidence seems to indicate that they are not as old as thought, but lets assume they are) by logic, should be closer to the originals because they did not have time to be changed as much as the more recent.
If this is true, then how can the 2 closest to the originals vary so differently from each other? "Things which are different cannot be the same." Only one can be true. Which one is not true? Incidentally, these 2 oldest manuscripts also differ widely from the other manuscripts.
Also, these 2 oldest manuscripts differ widely from the Byzantine manuscript which is also very old and has been considered by many to be the closest to the originals, even before all this argument of the last century.
On top of that, the Byzantine manuscript is almost a mirror image of the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus" or the "Majority Text", thereby proving the reliability of the Majority Text Rule (used to discover what the original manuscripts were).
The logic here is that a Majority Text that is derived from all the other texts and when compared to a text (Byzantine) already in existence show to be the same, verifies the use of both.
If we have the original manuscripts in the "Majority Text" then why bring into play the 2 oldest manuscripts that agree with nothing at all?
The reason is that the KJB is translated from the "Majority Text" ONLY and the latter day translations are from a mixture of all the texts without weight, except for how old they are, including the 2 oldest manuscripts. Those defending the latter day translations want to make a distinction between them and the KJB so they bring up the one fact, the use of the 2 oldest manuscripts, that sets them apart. This fact destroys their argument because no one can decide which one of the 2 is true and which is error, since they do not agree. Why include both?
Here is something to think about.
If a person has a preference for the latter day translations, which one of the group is the right one? No one will pick, because they cannot decide, because their decisions are based on preference, not fact. Which one is true and which one is error?
I have a lot of trouble basing something as important as the Bible on my personal preferences. I am a sinner, a feeder of the flesh and my preferences almost always shovel the feed to the wrong place.
Clarity!
I literally talk to hundreds and hundreds of lost people every year, due to a unique ministry. I only use the KJB with which to witness. I do not hear even once per year, something like: "What does that mean?" "What is that saying?" "Those words are too difficult." or some such. And many of these have very little education. (of course this day and time, who in public schools are getting an education, when they graduate kids that cannot read, spell, figure change at a cash register, nor write legibly)
I too like to dig around in the Bible and find some blessings that apply to me, my family, my friends and the lost. But, it takes very little digging to find what the lost, those who are the most needy, need. Shouldn't we be busy about the simple things, the meaningful things, the eternal things?

G. Steven Andres

TOP

G. Steven Andres
Psalms 45.17
eMail Response

Editorials Page