Greetings,
In my research I have found that the Bibles of today could have come from many sources of manuscripts. Some of the manuscripts the Bibles of today could have come from are the Latin Vulgate translated around the end of the 4th century AD(NT and OT) and the Septuagint Greek manuscripts dating from early 3rd century BC(OT). There is a large list of manuscripts that exist today and If you wish to find out the many different sources other then the ones I have reported please go to the following URLS.
1)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html2)
English Bible History: Timeline of How We Got the English Bible3)
Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
The most reliable manuscripts that exist today are the Massoretic manuscripts 900AD(OT), Dead Sea Scrolls 150BC-70AD(OT), Codex Vaticanus 325-450AD(NT), and Codex Siniaticus 325-450AD(greek NT manuscripts).
So, if a person or group were to translate a Bible today using the most reliable sources listed above and perahps a few that I have not listed what we would have is a reliable reading in comparison to the Bibles autographs.
Please keep in mind that I am not debating the fact that there are many manuscripts and translations that exist today. What I am claiming is that if we ignore the translations and stick to the manuscripts we should have no error in our current Bibles translated from said manuscripts in comparison to the autographs written during the time of the Apostles.
*Key
Autograph: Orignal Writings in whatever language written.
Manuscript: Copies of the autograph in the Original language.
Translation: Copies of either copies or autographs in a different language.
*Request
I only have one request for those who wish to participate in this debate. Please respect the nature and organization of this thread; which means do not respond to anyone unless it pertains to this original post.
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, 11-05-2005 06:13 PM
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, 11-05-2005 06:14 PM