CoxRox wrote:Hi guys. I need some help please: I was checking out a web site, and one of it's 'claims' is:
''Prior to the twentieth century scholars had never come across any document that was written in the same type of Greek as the Bible. So they assumed the Bible was written in a special language; a language made specifically and only for the Bible itself. But at the turn of the twentieth century, so many original Greek manuscripts were pulled from the sands of Egypt that the mass of material was measured in the tons. And it wasn’t long before archaeologists realized these tons of materials were all written in the very same Greek as the Bible itself.''
The quoted passage is quite correct...
When I said in my earlier post that the claims in question are not correct, I was not referring to this quoted passage, but rather to what CoxRox quoted further down:
What the author goes on to claim, is that NT manuscripts were translated using classical Greek meanings, rather than Koine Greek meanings and so the Bible translations we have today, contain many errors that obviously cause the original meaning to be lost.
There are tons of things wrong with this statement. First of all, it is not clear what he means by "the Bible translations we have today." Again, versions like the NASB and the NIV make full use of the papyri. Secondly, even at the time of the KJV, "Koine Greek meanings" were sufficiently known from the massive amount of extant Koine writings apart from the papyri. Third, again the papyri do not, in any case, SIGNIFICANTLY alter any of the meanings of Greek words known before the late 1800's. As for Andrew's example:
Andrew Chapman wrote:One important example of the value of the finds is the word γένημα (Mark 14:25 etc). Before the papyri finds, this word was unkown outside the New Testament, and if you look it up in Thayer's Lexicon for example, you will see a suggestion that it may be a result of scribal error, and that it should have read γέννημα. The latter comes from γεννάω, whereas the former, of which many examples were found in the papyri, is said to come from γίνομαι.
There was never any question what γένημα means. In fact, γένημα and γέννημα are merely dialectical variants used interchangeably in the manuscripts and Gospel parallels. I once made the public, on-line challenge to show me one place where Thayer's pre-papyri definitions have been fundamentally altered by the papyri. Nobody has been able to come up with one. I'm willing to be to be proven wrong.
What bothers me about the statement made above is that it implies that the received versions of the Bible need to be fundamentally improved/replaced based on supposed "new discoveries." This is one of the things used to undermine the authority of the traditionally received versions Bible and to replace them with the subjective speculations of scholars, but it really has no basis in fact. Luther's Bible or the KJV do NOT "...contain many errors that obviously cause the original meaning to be lost." They have no need for revision based on the papyri, as far as I can tell.