How do theists justify the translations of the scriptures?

[Drich]

And the instances where the variations go beyond different approaches to transliterating Aramaic? Because the addition of an entire verse is not something that strikes me as just a different interpretation of some Aramaic.

And your remark on Aramaic not having a written form, I’m not sure how to interpret it, whether it means Aramaic didn’t actually have a written alphabet at the time, which is flat-out wrong, whether the original Aramaic speakers who told the stories didn’t actually write it down until Greek supplanted Aramaic, which is accurate, or if you meant that it was hard to properly transliterate a system that doesn’t have its own vowels into one that does, well, it’s an oversimplified version of the truth.

have you even look at some of the translations side by side?

No

because in truth there are only three cntextual variances for the NT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
e Alexandrian text-type
(also called the "Neutral Text" tradition; less frequently, the "Minority Text")
2nd–4th centuries CE
This family constitutes a group of early and well-regarded texts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Most representatives of this tradition appear to come from around Alexandria, Egypt and from the Alexandrian Church. It contains readings that are often terse, shorter, somewhat rough, less harmonised, and generally more difficult. The family was once[when?] thought[by whom?] to result from a very carefully edited 3rd-century recension, but now is believed to be merely the result of a carefully controlled and supervised process of copying and transmission. It underlies most translations of the New Testament produced since 1900.
NIV, NAB, NABRE, Douay, JB and NJB (albeit, with some reliance on the Byzantine text-type), TNIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, EBR, NWT, LB, ASV, NC, GNB, CSB
The Western text-type
3rd–9th centuries CE
Also a very early tradition, which comes from a wide geographical area stretching from North Africa to Italy and from Gaul to Syria. It occurs in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church. It is much less controlled than the Alexandrian family and its witnesses are seen to be more prone to paraphrase and other corruptions. It is sometimes called the Caesarean text-type. Some New Testament scholars would argue that the Caesarean constitutes a distinct text-type of its own.
Vetus Latina
The Byzantine text-type; also, Koinē text-type
(also called "Majority Text")
5th–16th centuries CE
This group comprises around 95% of all the manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition. It had become dominant at Constantinople from the 5th century on and was used throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. It contains the most harmonistic readings, paraphrasing and significant additions, most of which are believed[by whom?] to be secondary readings. It underlies the Textus Receptus used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament.
KJV, NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops' Bible, OSB

And the changes are very minor things like you shall not murder. verses a later version of you shall not kill. there is a difference in meaning but the principle and the means is still communicated effectivly. It is not like there are completely different bibles.

These three compilations are the three primary/showing the most dramatic differences.. those difference are the ones found in some of the oldest bibles like the tynsdale or the king james version.

If you want to compare the contextual differences side by side look at an original kjv and a 21st century king james version. The later bible has the older text.

[mordant]

Dritch is oversimplifying things as usual. He is describing certain historic collections of manuscripts rather than the current known universe of manuscripts, which is all that textual criticism legitimately concerns itself with today. Some parts of scripture have attestation in hundreds of manuscripts, some (small) fragments as far back as the mid 2nd century. We can look at that sentence by sentence and classify all the differences in the manuscripts. And there are MANY discrepancies; it's just that they're not very consequential.

In the 2 to 3 centuries prior to Westcott and Hort (1890 or so) many translations of the Bible were based on the Textus Receptus. After W&H, we had various discoveries including the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., but most 20th century translations are based on W&H and this draws on a much larger corpus of known manuscripts than the TR. Yet, the resulting translations have not caused some sort of theological crisis. A handful of verses have shifted a bit in meaning, and that's about it. This, more than anything else, suggests to me that one can have reasonable confidence that currently available manuscripts reflect substantially what the originals did, even assuming for the sake of argument that there are discrete original manuscripts rather than a gradual committing of a prior oral tradition to writing.

Again, though, it's all for naught, as the substantive content of all these manuscripts is fabulist nonsense with all sorts of internal contradictions, anyway. I rejected late 20th century evangelical Christian dogma based on it not being even a poor explanation or prediction of lived experience -- not on the basis that its urtext was from a faulty or questionable source. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of how it evolved to be bullshit and -- importantly -- on how the bullshit interpretation of the bullshit evolved.

[Rev. Rye]

Dritch is oversimplifying things as usual. He is describing certain historic collections of manuscripts rather than the current known universe of manuscripts, which is all that textual criticism legitimately concerns itself with today. Some parts of scripture have attestation in hundreds of manuscripts, some (small) fragments as far back as the mid 2nd century. We can look at that sentence by sentence and classify all the differences in the manuscripts. And there are MANY discrepancies; it's just that they're not very consequential.

In the 2 to 3 centuries prior to Westcott and Hort (1890 or so) many translations of the Bible were based on the Textus Receptus. After W&H, we had various discoveries including the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., but most 20th century translations are based on W&H and this draws on a much larger corpus of known manuscripts than the TR. Yet, the resulting translations have not caused some sort of theological crisis. A handful of verses have shifted a bit in meaning, and that's about it. This, more than anything else, suggests to me that one can have reasonable confidence that currently available manuscripts reflect substantially what the originals did, even assuming for the sake of argument that there are discrete original manuscripts rather than a gradual committing of a prior oral tradition to writing.

Again, though, it's all for naught, as the substantive content of all these manuscripts is fabulist nonsense with all sorts of internal contradictions, anyway. I rejected late 20th century evangelical Christian dogma based on it not being even a poor explanation or prediction of lived experience -- not on the basis that its urtext was from a faulty or questionable source. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of how it evolved to be bullshit and -- importantly -- on how the bullshit interpretation of the bullshit evolved.

Well, that and he's just copy-pasting Wikipedia without looking into whether or not the passage he pasted even supports his claim of 1900 years of written consistency. He didn't even mention my point about the Johannine Comma  as an example of late-origin texts being adopted into the Bible. Hell, he even got the bit about the 21st Century King James Version wrong, since he claims it's a translation based on a different set of texts than the original KJV, when it's nothing of the sort. To quote the 21CKJV's overview page:

The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21®) is neither a new translation nor a revision, but an updating of the King James Version (KJV) of A.D. 1611. While no attempt has been made to "improve" the timeless message or literary style of the KJV, words which are either obsolete or archaic, and are no longer understood by literate Bible readers, have been replaced by carefully selected current equivalents. Also updated spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and paragraphing have been used. These changes have been painstakingly made so as not to alter the meaning or beauty of the King James Version in any way. They simply make the KJ21® easier to read and understand.

Seriously, Drich couldn't have been more wrong about the 21CKJV if he tried.

[Drich]

Dritch is oversimplifying things as usual. He is describing certain historic collections of manuscripts rather than the current known universe of manuscripts, which is all that textual criticism legitimately concerns itself with today. Some parts of scripture have attestation in hundreds of manuscripts, some (small) fragments as far back as the mid 2nd century. We can look at that sentence by sentence and classify all the differences in the manuscripts. And there are MANY discrepancies; it's just that they're not very consequential.

In the 2 to 3 centuries prior to Westcott and Hort (1890 or so) many translations of the Bible were based on the Textus Receptus. After W&H, we had various discoveries including the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., but most 20th century translations are based on W&H and this draws on a much larger corpus of known manuscripts than the TR. Yet, the resulting translations have not caused some sort of theological crisis. A handful of verses have shifted a bit in meaning, and that's about it. This, more than anything else, suggests to me that one can have reasonable confidence that currently available manuscripts reflect substantially what the originals did, even assuming for the sake of argument that there are discrete original manuscripts rather than a gradual committing of a prior oral tradition to writing.

Again, though, it's all for naught, as the substantive content of all these manuscripts is fabulist nonsense with all sorts of internal contradictions, anyway. I rejected late 20th century evangelical Christian dogma based on it not being even a poor explanation or prediction of lived experience -- not on the basis that its urtext was from a faulty or questionable source. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of how it evolved to be bullshit and -- importantly -- on how the bullshit interpretation of the bullshit evolved.

Well, that and he's just copy-pasting Wikipedia without looking into whether or not the passage he pasted even supports his claim of 1900 years of written consistency. He didn't even mention my point about the Johannine Comma  as an example of late-origin texts being adopted into the Bible. Hell, he even got the bit about the 21st Century King James Version wrong, since he claims it's a translation based on a different set of texts than the original KJV, when it's nothing of the sort. To quote the 21CKJV's overview page:

The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21®) is neither a new translation nor a revision, but an updating of the King James Version (KJV) of A.D. 1611. While no attempt has been made to "improve" the timeless message or literary style of the KJV, words which are either obsolete or archaic, and are no longer understood by literate Bible readers, have been replaced by carefully selected current equivalents. Also updated spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and paragraphing have been used. These changes have been painstakingly made so as not to alter the meaning or beauty of the King James Version in any way. They simply make the KJ21® easier to read and understand.

Seriously, Drich couldn't have been more wrong about the 21CKJV if he tried.

sorry I meant the NEW King James Version
Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translation applies the most recent research in archaeology, linguistics, and textual studies.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Ne...KJV-Bible/

[Rev. Rye]

Closer to the truth, although the NKJV is still based largely on the same text types of the original KJV, though they do take more recently discovered texts into account. At least it’s still a new translation. I’m told the NRSV is probably the translation that takes the oldest known manuscripts into account the most, though I’m not 100% certain.

So, do you think you can reconcile the history of the Johannine Comma with your assertion that the Bible has 1900 years of written consistency?