And the KJV actually states that the Matthew verse has "prwtotokon."
My whole point was that fraud and corruption is to be found in what we call the "word of God." and that we should approach "text-proofing" very cautiously.
So many versions, deletions, additions, redactions, etc. have been made of the original that we don't know which is true and which is misleading. In other words, the Bible is thoroughly corrupted by human hands and minds, agendas, prejudices, etc.
In view of that, accusing anyone of dishonesty when it comes to the Bible, is just plain silly, or worse. Scratch the surface of any Christian community, any sources, etc. and you will find dishonesty, greed, corruption, discrepancies.
The same is true of the various version of the Septuagint, the differences between the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Bible may have been inspired by God and pure in its original version, but by now it is a tainted beyond repair.
The reason I took issue with you is because, to their shame, everyone claims that "small differences" (what an understatement!) do not change what the Bible teaches. Yes, to some extent that is true, and miraculously so, but clearly we do not believe in one and the same thing, and probably a lot has to do with the fact that we do not read one and the same Bible!
Otherwise we wouldn't have a major division within Christianity, and thousands of divisions of "true" churches in the Protestants community. I would go as far as to say that there are as many versions of Christianity as there are people!
What is really dishonest is that everyone discards gross differences and claim without any proof whatsoever that a word here and there does not affect the verse. Is that not incredibly dishonest, Blogger?
You and I were arguing over whether Mat 1:25 actually says "firstborn" because to you that was an indication (if not even "proof") that Mary had more children. Without that latter-day addition, you would have never used that verse to attempt to draw that conclusion.
So, imagine how important it is what an individual reads and believes to be the inerrant word of God! What he or she ends believing will not be determined by the Holy Spirit but what a human mind decided to add or delete, and human hand wrote intentionally or not.
Oh, yes, it matters a lot. Take Isaih 9.6 in Septuagint and KJV. The latter compares the son to God almighty, Prince of Peace, the Comforter. The former calls the son a messenger of great counsel. Imagine what impression you are left with if you read only one version? In one, the son is God; in the other the son is a messenger (aggelos), an angel.
How do you know it is a latter day addition? You don't. We don't have the original autographs. As I stated before, just because a particular manuscript is older doesn't mean it is better. Lots of heretics took their crack at writing books and tinkering with Scripture.
The textual critics ASSUME that it was a latter day addition because in some manuscripts it isn't found in there. In others (quite old ones as well such as the Peshitta Syriac) it is in there. Who took it out or added it? We don't know for sure nor can we claim to know since we don't have the autographs. We do know that it appears to consistently be in Luke, so what is the problem with it being in Matthew as well?
The problem with the Greek Orthodox commentator is that he interjected into Hebrews something that wasn't there. Noone disputes that Jesus is the WORD. His implication is that the Bible said Jesus was the firstborn WORD and he then took that to say if firstborn WORD only means first with others following then there would be other "WORDS." The Bible doesn't use the phrase firstborn WORD though. Such an argument was dishonest. Sorry. That's how I see it.
"Text Proofing" should be done cautiously. But caution and arrogantly tossing on Scripture because you buy into some belief that it is somehow untrustworthy is another.
The Septuagint, incidentally is a bit older than the manuscripts used for translation of alternate Greek Texts from the Textus Receptus. By your logic, it should be better. Incidentally, in this case I would agree knowing the care that the Jews took to preserve their Scripture. They wouldn't have stood for some insertion.
Consider the context of the manuscripts found then make a decision as to which is the better.
In other words, the Bible is thoroughly corrupted by human hands and minds, agendas, prejudices, etc.
Surely you do not believe this.
That there are some differences in the versions, translations, autographs, etc. ... is undeniable.
But those differences are a very small percentage of the text of scripture.
The basics of scripture ... for instance, that which was encoded in the early creeds (i.e. Apostles', Nicean ...) ... is unambiguously agreed upon by the whole of Christianity.
I would say that everything else ... is peripheral to the basic gospel message.
And I would say further ... if one cannot trust the scriptures to adequately proclaim the gospel of Jesuus Christ (because of these minute difference within the texts), ... how is it that one would trust the communities (i.e. churches) which are responsible for this so-called corruption ?