The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Scott Pitta]

The simple answer for determining the veracity of a given passage is to gather the 30 earliest Greek manuscripts that contain the passage in question. Read them and see if they all have the same wording. If they do, all is well.

If there are differences between the 30 manuscripts, scholars trained in sorting them out have a few different ways to go about determining which is the most likely original reading.

Despite all the bluster of those who argue which is the best group of Greek texts, and which is the best process for sorting them out, there is plenty of reason to believe the Bible we now read is accurate and authentic.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Despite all the bluster of those who argue which is the best group of Greek texts, and which is the best process for sorting them out, there is plenty of reason to believe the Bible we now read is accurate and authentic.

Again, though, if the King James and Received Texts Bibles are authentic and accurate, the modern versions are full of corruption, and even hard errors, dozens. And if, somehow, the modern versions with the hard errors (like Herod's daughter dancing, or Jesus not going to the feast, or the synagogues of Judea, or the swine marathon from Gerasa, or Jesus as an only-begotten god) are accurate and authentic, then the Geneva and AV are full of errors.

"These are, in our opinion, the objective facts ."

Sometimes we can downplay critically important differences.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,
that both thou and thy seed may live:

There has been a lot of misinformation and agitprop coming out of the seminaries, pushed by the Bible version industrial complex.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

this is a quote of Rufinus admitting to changing the writings of Origen.

It doesn't say anything about Matthew 28:19 being spurious. You do understand that?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It doesn't say anything about Matthew 28:19 being spurious. You do understand that?

Incidentally, Origen has four quotes that affirm the Matthew 28:19 baptism text. One is in Greek, and thus is unrelated to the work of Rufinus. They all are in the context of Origen's argument, so they are all easily accepted as authentic. (They had nothing to do with Rufinus omitting some text.)

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and other writers supply many other similar references in the century and more before Eusebius. The wealth of referencing is corroborative one to another.

The early church writer evidence is powerful and a tremendous confirmation of the virtually unanimous textual evidence.

Steven

[navygoat1998]

I am really am appreciating the dialogue between you brethren.

[Scott Pitta]

It is very interesting.

Quotes from early church fathers are not always verbatim. They may be allusions, or not meant quotes at all.

My focus is on actual Greek manuscripts of Matthew. Since they all read the same in Mat. 28:19, the references by the early church fathers are of secondary importance. The differences in the early church fathers is not seen in the Greek manuscripts of Matthew.

Since translators actually translate manuscripts of the book of the NT, and not quotes or other data, the wording in English Bibles remains the same.

It would be very interesting to have a translation composed only of quotes from the early church fathers, but none I know of have been produced.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Again, though, if the King James and Received Texts Bibles are authentic and accurate, the modern versions are full of corruption, and even hard errors, dozens. And if, somehow, the modern versions with the hard errors (like Herod's daughter dancing, or Jesus not going to the feast, or the synagogues of Judea, or the swine marathon from Gerasa, or Jesus as an only-begotten god) are accurate and authentic, then the Geneva and AV are full of errors.

"These are, in our opinion, the objective facts ."

Sometimes we can downplay critically important differences.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,
that both thou and thy seed may live:

There has been a lot of misinformation and agitprop coming out of the seminaries, pushed by the Bible version industrial complex.

Steven

Yes, therefore the issue isn't about Matthew 28:19 being spurious. The issue is greater. Like Brother LeDeay's claim that Dan was removed from a Hebrew original of the book of the Revelation. Isn't the problem, the problem is that where you have one mistake, many will follow. It is just the logical odds. Saying that Matthew 28:19 was inserted as well as the longer version ending of Mark 16 only begs the question. What else has been added? Do we take out scissor, paper, and paste and do like Thomas Jefferson to create our own Bible? Muslims were created out of the premise that the Bible was corrupt, LDS created out of a premise that the Bible was corrupt. Yet, so many groups come along a the 12 Tribes community, Yahwists, Yashuaites, and other Hebrew roots groups as revisionists. Building their entire religion on the premise that the Bible was originally constructed in another language. Therefore we need to figure out how to bring it back to its pristine condition?

Again, if Matthew 28:19 is spurious? Then what else that we don't know about is also spurious?

[Scott Pitta]

Those who translated the KJV also picked and choses which text to translate. Or, in other words, they also used scissors and paste to determine what and what not to translate.

I have not seen a Hebrew text of Revelation.

Determining which text to use, and why is the big question. There are a few different approaches. I am not sure which is the best.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Those who translated the KJV also picked and choses which text to translate. Or, in other words, they also used scissors and paste to determine what and what not to translate.

I have not seen a Hebrew text of Revelation.

Determining which text to use, and why is the big question. There are a few different approaches. I am not sure which is the best.

KJV translators and interpreters had help in their work. The LXX, MAsoretic text, Jerome, Erasmus Desiderius, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Luther and Tyndale. The KJV translators and interpreters in the KJV opening express that they did the best job they could do. If anyone can improve on their work they should. No conspiracy, no hidden Illuminate agenda, but scholars who worked painstakingly understanding that their endeavor was a holy one. I'm by no means KJV onlyism, but I do understand what these men were doing was in no way the cut and pasting that Thomas Jefferson was performing.

You have never seen a Hebrew Revelation because it NEVER existed. It only exists in the mind of those who would push their Hebrew Onlyist agenda.

We have literally thousands of manuscripts, parchments, and fragments. All in Greek. Plus historical writings which go back thousands of years backing up what we have to date.

To flippantly state that what we have today is some pasted together document which went through an electric shredder. Then brought to 50 landfills. Only to be found, and loosely pasted together. It's not only incorrect, but will cause anyone to lose the argument that the Bible is even truth.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You have never seen a Hebrew Revelation because it NEVER existed. It only exists in the mind of those who would push their Hebrew Onlyist agenda. We have literally thousands of manuscripts, parchments, and fragments. All in Greek. Plus historical writings which go back thousands of years backing up what we have to date.

We also have a lot of early Latin, and some decently early Syriac and Coptic and other versions. There is nothing extant from Hebrew until way into the middle ages.

Steven