Changes in Scripture - A Comparative of the KJV/NIV Side By Side

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

my faith is in the God of the Bible who is Jesus Christ, the fulness of the godhead bodily.

He is all powerful and ever able to preserve his words to every generation forever.

unlike you puny little men gods who you look up to to tell you what is the word of God and what is not.

Did you not see what these men gods did to the first chapter of Genesis. How do you think these men gods fair on the rest of it?

What?
Now you are going all crazy fundamentalist
It's not a good look

Bless you bro, go read what the fruit of the Holy Spirit is

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

you can eat anything you want, pork abstention was only for the Jews.

Yeah, I know that.

I was replying to Olaru12 who made the "Bacon...yummmmmm" quote.

Personally, I like bacon.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Neighbour, you need to slow down, and perhaps talk to your pain management specialist again.

You really are sounding like one of those kooks on a street corner. You know what is right, not all the others ... sigh

You appear to be worshiping a book. That is Idolatry, which is a no no in your faith. You should expand your reading abit. Try some of hte theological works that have been written by actual scholars who are Christian,

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

and despite you twisting it ways what it says literally were it says it about the LORD preserving his word pure as if it were tried as silver to every generation forever.

I wasn't twisting it.

Also, it doesn't say "Lord" in the original texts (which would be 'Adonai' in Hebrew). It says "YHWH" (Strong's ref H3068) and in verse 7 it says that YHWH will preserve it "from this generation for ever" (even in the AKJV).

You either believe it or not.

if youdon't then that is to your hurt not mine. I know whom I have believed and it is not a God who cannot preserve his word to every generation like your gods are, men that is.

As I said, the AKJV contains the preserved Word of God for its generation and is part of the preserved Word of God that exists in the body of scriptures and translations.

The earlier stuff hasn't gone away and the later stuff uses our language. It is preserved.

John 5/39 40 are fascinating and the verses that lead up to that end any arguments about the totality of scripture
Jesus is the heir of all things not the bible
The bible is not the 4th part of the Trinity, it has no deity

The bible is akin to John the Baptist, not God but a pointer, a witness to Jesus
The bible calls us to believe in Jesus, not believe in the bible

So sick of this silly argument

It's inerrant and infallible in its purpose, pointing to Jesus
In itself, it's flawed

Inspired and useful, it doesn't say about itself it's infallible

a reply to: chr0naut

There is no need to interpret it into a new English translation for people to understand it. Now that may entail that readers need to learn something in order to understand it but actually there is no need to. What I mean by that is they might need to understand the "eth's and est's", and the differences between the words you, ye, thee and thou (all of the newer English versions use only the word "you" in place of the you, ye, thee and thou), but usually it is clear by the context what those endings and words mean.

Are you honestly telling me that you do not understand the AKJV English?

Please understand there are no "Original Texts" to verify your claim that Adonai and JHWH, YHWH is Greek and there was no Greek Old Testament before Jerome made one around 400AD. Having said that, there was a Greek Translation of the Five Books of the Law that was commissioned by Alexander the Great. Everyone always goes to the fall back claim of the "Original Text", but there are none available since after Moses, since the Apostles including Paul. In short only copies of copies and none of them (copies) were complete texts.

No preservation is needed by man when God's word says that he, the LORD, will preserve it, that is if it needed to be preserved any further in English but it doesn't, that is because it is in a very simple English to begin with.

The NIV is not preserving he Bible, it is changing it, all the while saying they are not changing it. If you will look at the chart of biblical line you will see the NIV and the other versions since 1881 are only using 45 documents in making their version. Most of their versions are word for word translations from Wescott and Horts Greek NT, and from the OT of The Jesuit Rheims English Bible of 1582 and that was from Jerome's Greek OT. The AKJV used over 5,000 texts now that is a vast difference just in itself. When they Transliterated into English they Used a complete word, JHVH was transliterated to the English LORD largely because of the Jewish tradition of not wanting to use the name of the LORD in vain so they said the Hebrew equivalent of lord, as it was found in piece of the Hebrew Bible. Also words like Lucifer was transliterated from the Latin word for Lucifer instead of translating it was the NIV and the new versions since 1881.

And for Raggedyman, Jesus is heir of all things but God did not say he would not preserve us his word for us and then tell us to Study it, read it, believe it, teach it, and share it. If the case for Jesus over the Bible as you say it is were true. then we would not have any Bible to hold in our hands. We would still need to have a preserved Bible so we knew what Jesus said and taught. But try to understand the teachings of Jesus make up less than 0.1% of the Bible, thereby leaving us with a whole lot of something else we would need to know. 1) God created the heaven and the earth, 2) he promised a man from woman's seed would come forth to save the world, 3) he chose one man, Abraham, out of millions and promised him land, he passed that promise to Isaac, then to Jacob and then to his 12 sons alone. No Ismael not Esau, the land not only was Canaan but later he said from the Euphrates, to the Nile from Saudi Penensula to the border of today's Turkey, 4) he chose one tribe out of 12 to have his son come from and it wasn't Levi, it was Judah, 4) when he was born of a woman's seed with no earthly father, he was said his life would be a ransom for many, he died as prophesied in the OT and was risen as it was said in the OT, 5) It was said of him that he would rule all the world from the throne of David for all eternity, 6) it was said he ascended to sit at the right hand of God in heaven until a certain time and then he would return, 7) we learned form the Apostle to the Gentile that he died for all men, 8) it is said he will return and fight for his people Israel and he will kill off the UN troops that encircle Jerusalem at the time of his return, 9) it is said he will rule for a 1,000 years from Jerusalem and that men without any influence from the Devil will sin against him, 10) He will one last time wipe out the UN forces of that day, destroy the earth, the heavens and make new ones and rule forever more in a sinless universe where there is no longer any darkness.

The bible has more to say on those 10 topics than it does about pointing to Jesus, all of Jesus's teaching, baptism, loving thy neighbor, doing good, the golden rule, keeping the Sabbath, keeping the commandments, and salvation by God's grace through faith on Jesus Christ. the second largest teaching to that of the nations Israel is about God's words the Holy Bible.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut
There is no need to interpret it into a new English translation for people to understand it. Now that may entail that readers need to learn something in order to understand it but actually there is no need to. What I mean by that is they might need to understand the "eth's and est's", and the differences between the words you, ye, thee and thou (all of the newer English versions use only the word "you" in place of the you, ye, thee and thou), but usually it is clear by the context what those endings and words mean.

Are you honestly telling me that you do not understand the AKJV English?

I do, but I also read Shakespeare (@ 1600 AD) and Beowulf (@ 1000 AD) in its original text.

And there are things like "Unicorns" in the AKJV which made sense to people at the time but were not in the original texts (which say "reh-ame" which is an extinct Wild Ox or Auroch). That is an outright error in the KJV, right there (Job 39: 9-12)!

Please understand there are no "Original Texts" to verify your claim that Adonai and JHWH, YHWH is Greek

What?

We have enough extant early texts to be fairly sure we know the quality of the copies and therefore the content of the original texts.

Those four letters (in Hebrew) were given to Moses by God as His name at the burning bush. The title for those four letters, 'the Tetragrammarton', is Greek in origin but the letters themselves have been used in the Torah, as the name of God, since Moses penned the first five books about 3,400 years ago.

We have an extant use of YHWH as the name of the Israelite God in the Mesha Stele which has been dated to 840 BC.

Educate yourself.

and there was no Greek Old Testament before Jerome made one around 400AD.

The Septuagint was the Torah, in Greek, and was translated from Hebrew 200 to 300 years before Jesus' incarnation. That's BC, not AD.

Educate yourself

Having said that, there was a Greek Translation of the Five Books of the Law that was commissioned by Alexander the Great. Everyone always goes to the fall back claim of the "Original Text", but there are none available since after Moses, since the Apostles including Paul. In short only copies of copies and none of them (copies) were complete texts.

In use, vellum scrolls such as the Temple master scrolls, have a life of about 800 years (by comparison, the oldest extant complete scroll we have is about 2,500 years old). Moses is estimated to have lived about 1400 BC, the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls (of which we have a full extant copy) was penned about 350BC. This means that, at the time of the writing of that scroll, they were most probably using the first copy of the original scrolls and that the original scrolls written by moses were probably still in existence but not publicly available.

Not only do we have that scroll of the Psalms, but the DSS manuscripts represent the entire Hebrew Bible in several copies, made at several times, and from which we can verify the accuracy of most of our other extant ancient manuscripts.

No preservation is needed by man when God's word says that he, the LORD, will preserve it, that is if it needed to be preserved any further in English but it doesn't, that is because it is in a very simple English to begin with.

Indeed it is a fairly simple translation using words in common vocabulary in 1611.

English has changed, though, despite modern English being shaped by the KJV.

The NIV is not preserving he Bible, it is changing it, all the while saying they are not changing it. If you will look at the chart of biblical line you will see the NIV and the other versions since 1881 are only using 45 documents in making their version. Most of their versions are word for word translations from Wescott and Horts Greek NT, and from the OT of The Jesuit Rheims English Bible of 1582 and that was from Jerome's Greek OT. The AKJV used over 5,000 texts now that is a vast difference just in itself.

The NIV had more source texts from which to translate and was far more particular about which texts represented God's Word. The AKJV basically two main texts and uncritically cross referenced it with anything they could get their hands on.

King James Version - Sources - Wikipedia

New International Version - Translation Methodology - Wikipedia

When they Transliterated into English they Used a complete word, JHVH was transliterated to the English LORD largely because of the Jewish tradition of not wanting to use the name of the LORD in vain so they said the Hebrew equivalent of lord, as it was found in piece of the Hebrew Bible. Also words like Lucifer was transliterated from the Latin word for Lucifer instead of translating it was the NIV and the new versions since 1881.

The Hebrew letter 'Yod' (or "jot" as the KJV translates it) does not transliterate to the letter "J" but closer to "Y". Hence, JHWH is not a valid translation but a Germanicised mistranslation. Jesus would not have pronounced 'yod' as "J" or "jot". Translated into Greek it would be 'iota', so it is clear that Jesus was actually saying the Hebrew letter 'yod' or the Aramaic 'yodh' in Matthew 5:18. Another clear error of translation in the AKJV.

And lucifer is a title, not a name. It was first used in the Latin Vulgate, which translated הֵילֵל by the Latin word lucifer (uncapitalized), meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing". The capitalization of the word 'lucifer' represents yet another error of the KJV.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Funny, the bible wasn't even needed for the first few hundred years of Christianity , it wasn't even necessary and now you worship it
I just think that's a bit funny

If someone chooses to believe the bible is perfect, good on you, God bless, that's great
If they don't, that's awesome as well, I am glad to hear that as well

I am just explaining my position, I hope you could understand why I have a different opinion and accept why
I don't like Calvinism, though I accept them as Christians, because I understand why they think like they do.


Oh, those 10 topics you pointed out, they all point to Jesus, go see.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The NIV is not preserving he Bible, it is changing it, all the while saying they are not changing it.

Very true. The NIV bible was taken primarily from the Vaticanus anf Sinaiticus MSS which considered the corrupt texts.

Bible sales in U.S. as of 2014 ---

1611 AD -KJV bible=31%, -- NIV bible =13%, -- ESV bible =9%, -- NKJV bible= 7%, -- Amplified bible=7 %, --- The rest of the many bibles are 4% and less.

There are two groups of MSS used in translations of almost all English bibles. *Accurate copies [Textus Receptus] which are about 95% + of all of the 5,309 MSS available today.
*Corrupted copies [Alexandrian MSS] which are less than 5% of all of the 5,309 MSS available today.

Most all modern bibles since 1881AD are from the Alexandrain group of manuscripts or better known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus group of corrupted copies. This group is the MSS that was the basis of Westcott and Hort rendition of the NT which in turn forced Westcott and Hort to use the Textus Receptus to complete their rendition of their bible.

The Vaticanus MSS omits --
Genesis 1:1- through Genesis 46:28.
Psalms 106-138
Matthew 16:2-3
The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
Hebrews 9:14 - 13:25
Entire Revelation

In addition to this the Alexandrian MSS leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences which the Textus Receptus MSS have. This is what was used in the NIV bible and the ESV bible which is the revision of the RSV bible.

My question is as follows.----
The corrupt MSS that are used in most all modern bibles of today do omit Genesis 1:1 through 46:28 by using the Vaticanus MSS, -- why then are the missing MSS found not only in the 95% + of the accepted MSS but also found in the dead sea scrolls? Here we see two English scholars using a manuscript which has over 45 chapters chopped out of over 5,000 other agreeable manuscripts.

The corrupt MSS of Westcott and Hort omits Genesis 1:1 –through 46:28, in which some of this missing MSS is found in the dead sea scrolls, what does that tell you of the corrupt MSS that is probably in your bible?
DSS cave number one shows us Gen. 1:18-21--- Gen. 3:11-14 – Gen. 22:13-15 –
Gen. 23:17-19 – Gen. 24: 22-24 ---------------

Today we have over 5800Greek NT fragments and MSS, over 10,000 Latin NT MSS dating from 2nd to 16th centuries. Many other MSS of other languages of Coptic , Syriac, Gothic, and Arabic have also been found. Putting them all together we have a pot of over 25,000 handwritten copies of the NT alone. The average size of a NT MSS is about 450 pages while many are simply fragments.

The most telling of this is that almost all of the New Testament is confirmed by the church fathers. The truth then lies in what MSS did the church fathers use to verify the New Testament?

The church fathers, dated from 0 to 600 AD and can verify the entire New Testament agreeably. Out of the thousands of NT MSS that are in Greek and that have made up the English Bibles have been scholarly compared with the church fathers and have been found to be over 95% agreeable with each other. Note that I did not say word for word but I did say that the entirety of the MSS agree with the message without taking away from the message.

The question now is that what happens to the other 5% MSS that do not agree with the 95% MSS that do agree and what exactly is this 5% that has been rejected? That 5% MSS is not destroyed but is set aside as reference material and is called corrupt MSS by most but not all scholars. The 95% MSS that do accept the same message is called the majority of the texts or Textus Receptus.

The church fathers only came up to about 600 AD and by their works we can compare all newly discovered MSS by not only the Textus Receptis MSS but also by the church fathers MSS. Our first English bible came to us by William Tyndale in 1494-1536 AD and Tyndale’s work is the bases of the KJV bible. In fact about 95% of Tyndale’s bible was used in the Geneva and the KJV bibles. The Pilgrims of 1492 used the Geneva bible for many years before the KJV became the normal bible of North America.

So it was John Firth and William Tyndale who started the English rendition of the first English bible. Tyndale was a master of eight languages of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and English. English was his first language. He was strangled and burned at the stake by the Church and then two years later was approved by Henry the VIII and his work used in the Coverdale Bible which became the national bible of Britain.

William Tyndale started his bible 894 years after the church fathers ceased their work. Now during those 894 years what copies of literature did Tyndale use? He had very little MSS in but he had vast references of the church fathers of which he translated to his bible. Out of the Tyndale’s bible came the Coverdale bible, Geneva bible and the KJV bible with over 95% of Tyndale’s work which is proven agreeable today with thousands of additional MSS having been discovered since Tyndale’s day.

In effect we are looking at about 482 years that William Tyndale did influence the world by his work and today the KJV bible is the most popular English Protestant bible at about 30 % of the sales on the market. Why is the KJV bible so popular? It is the most researched translated literature with concordance of both Greek and Hebrew known to exist and it remains constant in both thought and intent. Actually there is no need for other translations as a concordance will be all that is needed to span the cultures.

Why then was there a need for other translations of the same languages? Many reasons are given and the most truthful is that of money and power. Power is attained through doctrines and money is predominant by word change which leads to copy rights. Word change invites false doctrines just as corrupt manuscripts invite false translations.
My opinions of course ------------

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn

There are two groups of MSS used in translations of almost all English bibles.
*Accurate copies [Textus Receptus] which are about 95% + of all of the 5,309 MSS available today.
*Corrupted copies [Alexandrian MSS] which are less than 5% of all of the 5,309 MSS available today.

What we have today are at best only copies of copies of the original autographs. As time went on the very language in which these were written, Greek, became a dead one as far as Roman Catholic-dominated Western Europe was concerned. However, with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks A.D. 1453, many Greek scholars and their manuscripts were scattered abroad, resulting in a revival of Greek in the Western citadels of learning.
Some fifty years after this, or early in the sixteenth century, Ximenes, archbishop of Toledo, Spain, a man of unusual ability and integrity, invited leading scholars of his country to his university at Alcalá to produce a multiple-language Bible—for the educated, not for the common people. The result was the Polyglot, named Complutensian after the Latin equivalent of Alcalá. It was a Bible of six large volumes, beautifully bound, containing the Hebrew Scriptures in four languages and the Christian Greek Scriptures in two. For the Christian Greek Scriptures these scholars had but few manuscripts at their disposal, and those of late origin, even though they were supposed to have access to the Vatican library. This Bible was completed in 1514 but was not approved by the pope until 1520 and was first released to the public in 1522.

THE “RECEIVED TEXT”

One who learned of the completion of this Bible and of its awaiting the approval of the pope was Froben, a printer in Basel, Switzerland. Seeing an opportunity for making profits, he at once sent word to Erasmus, who was the leading European scholar of the day and whose works he published in Latin, begging him to rush through a Greek “New Testament.” This Erasmus obligingly did in six months. In fact, Erasmus was in such haste he rushed the manuscript containing the Gospels to the printer without first editing it, making such changes as he felt necessary on the proof sheets. Because of this great haste the work also contained many typographical errors, Erasmus himself admitting in its preface that it was “rushed through rather than edited.” The first edition appeared in 1516, and corrected and slightly improved editions appeared in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.
These editions, we are told, proved to be a brilliant success, a literary sensation. They were low in cost, and the first two editions totaled 3,300 copies, as compared with 600 copies of the large and costly six-volume Polyglot Bible. In the preface of his editions Erasmus also stated: “I vehemently dissent from those who would not have private persons read the Holy Scriptures, nor have them translated into the vulgar tongues.” He may have “vehemently dissented,” but still Erasmus left it up to others to incur the displeasure of his church by translating the Bible as well as his own works into the vulgar tongue.
Luther used Erasmus’ 1519 edition for his German translation, and Tyndale the 1522 edition for his English translation. The editions of Erasmus also were the basis for further Greek editions by others, such as the four published by one Stephanus (Stephens). According to most historians, the third of these, published by Stephanus, in 1550, became the Received Text of Britain and the basis of the King James Version. However, others hold, and with apparently stronger evidence, that one of Beza’s editions, that of 1589, became the English Received Text.
The editions of Theodore Beza were the next to appear and were obviously based on an Erasmian text. They did not even vary as much as might be expected from those of Erasmus, seeing that Beza was a Protestant Bible scholar and possessor of two important Greek Scripture manuscripts of the sixth century, the D and D2, the first of which contains the Gospels and Acts and the second the Pauline letters. Next followed the Dutch Elzevir editions, which were practically the same as those of the Erasmian-influenced Beza text. In the second of the seven of these, published in 1633, appeared the statement (in Latin): “You therefore now have the text accepted by everybody.” This edition became the Textus Receptus or the Received Text on the Continent. It appears that this victory was in no small way due to the beauty and convenient size of the Elzevir editions.
Except for like practical consideration the editions of Erasmus had little to recommend them, for he had access to but five (some say eight) Greek manuscripts of comparatively late origin, and none of these were of the complete Christian Scriptures. Rather, these consisted of one or more sections into which the Greek Scriptures were generally divided: (1) the Gospels; (2) Acts and the general letters (James through Jude); (3) the letters of Paul; (4) Revelation. In fact, of the some 4,000 Greek Scripture manuscripts only about fifty are complete.
Thus Erasmus had only one copy of Revelation. It being incomplete, he simply retranslated the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. He even repeatedly brought his Greek text in line with the Latin Vulgate, this accounting for the fact that there are some twenty readings in his Greek text not found in any Greek manuscript. And after leaving out 1 John 5:7 from his first two editions he inserted this spurious text upon dubious authority, apparently as a matter of policy, being pressured to do so by Stunica, the editor of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible.

Hmmm, let me do the math on that one: Erasmus "had access to but five (some say eight) Greek manuscripts" out "of all of the 5,309 MSS available today" (using your number) = 0.094% ("some say" 8/5309 = 0.15%). Comparing with only the "4,000 Greek Scripture manuscripts" (a number from 1962) it's 0.125% or 0.2%. Still nowhere near your 95% + that you attribute to "Accurate copies [Textus Receptus]" (the Received Text, the other editions being "based on an Erasmian text" as explained in the article above). Anyway...

DETHRONING THE RECEIVED TEXT

For some two hundred years Greek Bible scholars were in bondage to the Erasmian-oriented Received Text. As they became acquainted with older and more accurate manuscripts and noticed the flaws in the Received Text, rather than to change that text they would publish their findings in introductions, margins and footnotes of their editions. As late as 1734, J. A. Bengle of Tübingen, Germany, apologized for again printing the Received Text, doing so only “because he could not publish a text of his own. Neither the publisher nor the public would have stood for it,” he complained.
The first one to incorporate his findings in the text itself was the scholar Griesbach. ... Still Griesbach did not fully break away from the Received Text. The first one fully to get out from under its influence was Lachmann, professor of ancient classical languages at Berlin University. ... As one authority expressed it: Lachmann “was the first to found a text wholly on ancient evidence; and . . . did much toward breaking down the superstitious reverence for the textus receptus.”

Source: Why Is It Missing from the New World Translation? (1962)

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Most all modern bibles since 1881AD are from the Alexandrain group of manuscripts or better known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus group of corrupted copies. This group is the MSS that was the basis of Westcott and Hort rendition of the NT which in turn forced Westcott and Hort to use the Textus Receptus to complete their rendition of their bible.

It would be misleading to try to compare the medieval editions that are based off of Erasmus' works in the early 16th century where Erasmus "had access to but five (some say eight) Greek manuscripts of comparatively late origin, and none of these were of the complete Christian Scriptures" with actual ancient manuscripts such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, a vellum codex from the fourth century C.E., containing all of the Christian Greek Scriptures (a.k.a. "the New Testament"), by talking about both as if they are groups or families of MSS; they're not even in the same category.
Coming back to the article in my previous comment:

As one authority expressed it: Lachmann “was the first to found a text wholly on ancient evidence; and . . . did much toward breaking down the superstitious reverence for the textus receptus.”

Following Lachmann came Constantine Tischendorf, best known for his discovery of the famed Sinaitic Manuscript, the only Greek uncial (large type) manuscript containing the complete Christian Greek Scriptures. Tischendorf did more than any other scholar to edit and make available the evidence contained in leading as well as lesser uncial manuscripts. During the time Tischendorf was making his valuable contributions to the science of textual criticism in Germany, one Tregelles in England made other valuable contributions. Among other things, he was able to demonstrate his theory of “Comparative Criticism,” that the age of a text may not necessarily be that of its manuscript, since it may be a faithful copy of an earlier text. His text was used by J. B. Rotherham for the Christian Greek Scriptures of his version. The fact that Tischendorf and Tregelles were stout champions of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures doubtless had much to do with the fruitfulness of their labors.

THE WESTCOTT AND HORT TEXT

The same was also true of their immediate successors, the two English scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. Hort, upon whose text the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures is based. They began their work in 1853 and completed it in 1881, working for twenty-eight years independently of each other, yet regularly comparing notes. As one scholar expressed it, they “gathered up in themselves all that was most valuable in the work of their predecessors.” They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve the difficulties that conflicting texts presented, and when two readings had equal weight they indicated that in their text. They stressed that “knowledge of documents should precede final judgment upon readings” and that “all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history.” They followed Griesbach in dividing manuscripts into families, stressing the importance of manuscript genealogy. They also gave due weight to internal evidence, “intrinsic probability” and “transcriptional probability,” that is, what the original writer most likely wrote and wherein a copyist may most likely have made a mistake.
They leaned heavily on the “neutral” family of texts, which included the famed fourth-century vellum Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. They considered it quite conclusive when these two manuscripts agreed, especially when supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts. However, they were not blindly bound to the Vatican manuscript as some have claimed, for by weighing all the factors they time and again concluded that certain minor interpolations had crept into the neutral text that were not found in the group more given to interpolations and paraphrasing, such as the Western family of manuscripts. Thus Goodspeed shows that Westcott and Hort departed from the Vatican manuscript seven hundred times in the Gospels alone.
The text of Westcott and Hort was acclaimed by critics world-wide and, although produced eighty years ago, is still the standard. Well has it been termed “epoch-making in the literal sense of the word,” and “the most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New Testament text which has yet been made,” excelling all others “in regard to method and extraordinary accuracy.” Of it Goodspeed, in his preface to An American Translation, states: “I have closely followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every scholar knows its superiority to the late and faulty texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the AV were made.”

In view of the foregoing it can clearly be seen why the New World Bible Translation Committee chose to use the Westcott and Hort text rather than any Received Text of two to three centuries before. There remains but the question, Why is it that omissions rather than additions appear to distinguish the later text from the earlier one?
Because, contrary to what might generally be expected, copyists were prone to add, to elaborate and to paraphrase, rather than to leave out things. Thus we find that the most dependable text is at once the most severe, the most condensed. Of the various places in which the Received Text differs from the Vatican manuscript, 2,877 are instances of additions. Of course, if one is first acquainted with the Received Text, these would appear as omissions.

But as earlier mentioned, the Vatican manuscript is of the 4th century unlike the "Received Text". So that should a ring a bell for some people who understand how this works.

...Then in 1516 ... Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures... Later,... Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott and 15 late manuscripts. The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611.
Quite noteworthy in more recent times is the master Greek text prepared by J. J. Griesbach,... He viewed extant manuscripts as comprising three families, or recensions, the Byzantine, the Western, and the Alexandrian, giving preference to readings in the latter. Editions of his master Greek text were issued between 1774 and 1806, ...
A Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures that attained wide acceptance is that produced in 1881 by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,” which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E.

Source: Manuscripts of the Bible

a reply to: whereislogic

I find it funny that Chester John defends his AKJV like JWs defend their NWT

I have always considered the JWs a cult based on their belief that they are the only ones who are right and every one else is wrong
I note that about Chester John as well

a reply to: Raggedyman

the Jw's use every bible to make their doctrine because the NWT lacks and others that don't agree with it they use so they could teach, for if they used just one bible they couldn't teach all their doctrines.

It is not fanatical or a cult to hold to what the scriptures clearly say. IN psalm 12:6, 7 it says The LORD will preserve his word to every generation, and if he hasn't then he is not worth following.

a reply to: Raggedyman

They had Bibles the scriptures during that time you are mistaken to believe otherwise.

So in your view, believing the Bible is preserved is just "good"however if I don't believe it is reserved that is "awesome". Do you not see what you just said

Being a AKJV Bible believer in a preserved Word of God we can hold in our hands with all the words, phrases, verses and sections in it, is just GOOD
But NOT to believe in a preserved text and to hold in your hand one of many Bible versions with missing words, phrases, verses, and sections is AWESOME.

Which one would you really want to be? the Good or the Awesome?

If all I have is good then that is good enough for me at least I have all the words of God preserved.

You will struggle all your life trying to learn with a bible that is not complete and whole. That is why the JW's decided to use any and all versions as long as they can teach their false doctrines and keep you in bondage to their cultic practices.

a reply to: chr0naut

I hate to tell you but any the Shakespeare or Beowulf books you have are copies, however there is an original to check those books to. but there is not original to check the Bible to there are only conflicting copies and pieces of those at that. see above a Seede gave an accurate evidence of the books being used.

Today's Hebrew is not the same as Palestinian Hebrew circa 4-99 BC or Ancient Hebrew used by Moses. in 1918 they brought back Hebrew language but it is not the same it is more based on German Yiddish. So you can post all the Hebrew Letters you want it is not the same.

So No ORIGINAL Koine Greek, No Palestinian Hebrew, no Babylonian Chaldean, no Ancient Hebrew languages were known since 300BC.

So the only way the Bible was preserved for us in our Generation is by the power of God. The only one that has the sign of God hand on it is AKJV Bible. Take it or leave it bat that is it, no other English version is needed by God to get ALL his words to us today. All other bibles were made to make men Money.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0nautI hate to tell you but any the Shakespeare or Beowulf books you have are copies,

They are indeed not in my personal library but are scanned and online.

however there is an original to check those books to. but there is not original to check the Bible to there are only conflicting copies and pieces of those at that. see above a Seede gave an accurate evidence of the books being used.

Today's Hebrew is not the same as Palestinian Hebrew circa 4-99 BC or Ancient Hebrew used by Moses. in 1918 they brought back Hebrew language but it is not the same it is more based on German Yiddish. So you can post all the Hebrew Letters you want it is not the same.

So No ORIGINAL Koine Greek, No Palestinian Hebrew, no Babylonian Chaldean, no Ancient Hebrew languages were known since 300BC.

So the only way the Bible was preserved for us in our Generation is by the power of God. The only one that has the sign of God hand on it is AKJV Bible. Take it or leave it bat that is it, no other English version is needed by God to get ALL his words to us today. All other bibles were made to make men Money.

Firstly, we don't know if what we have is original or not (although it is most likely not).

Secondly, not having the originals does not particularly matter if we have numerous early copies and translations that agree very closely with only very minor and unimportant textual differences.

Thirdly, the AKJV has a number of errors of meaning and obvious mistranslations. None of them particularly major, but enough to refute the idea that it has somehow more of "the hand of God" in it than any other attempt to convey what God wants us to know (His Word).

The Apostle Paul, at the Areopagus, used contemporary cultural idiom (the "unnamed God") to evangelize. He didn't refer to any scriptures as his audience would not be likely to have read them.

To use culturally inappropriate language with terms that are not understood by listeners and readers is NOT a way to reach the lost.

The Word of God, which is the message rather than the medium (the book or language it is written in), is not being preserved in the hearts of the receivers by someone sticking to the deprecated idiom of an antiquated book. It will turn off those who simply don't understand or who don't apply themselves to decode the meaning.

So, don't venerate the media, that is just idolatry.

God's Word is vital, which means it is 'living' in a way that static ink, on a page, in a particular language, in a particular book, is not.

The message of God's Word is what is preserved, the books and scrolls it has been written in, in the past have definitely not been preserved.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Good awesome, just words I used, has my phraseology become inspired as well.
Stop trying to make it look like I am saying what I am not, that's reaching, over reaching CJ.
I don't think the AKJV is prefect in any way, inspired yes, perfect no.
I have seen fresh fruit and preserved fruit, same same but very different
If you want it to be perfect, fine by me, want to accept there are errors, fine by me
Your choice

Now as for your comment that they had scripture during the early times,,yes they did but it wasn't the AKJV They carried back then

I don't believe the AKJV is perfect, my Christianity is fine. I don't need a perfect word, I have the Holy Spirit and relationships a

a reply to: chr0naut

Well that is the difference between you and I. I have faith in God's words and you have faith in the works of men.

Which is more secure faith in God's words or faith in men?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh but it is exactly what you said, good if I believe the AKJV, and awesome if you and others believe in a plethora of translations.

It shows you faith is in man to preserve God's words and and my faith to believe God can preserve his words in a book written by men, starting with Moses, as he is commanded to in Exodus 17. There the first time in Scripture, that the word "WRITE" is used in instructing what God did, and later his commands, his judgements, his testimonies, his words, his ways, his ordinances, his precepts, his statutes, and his laws. All of these are found in the one chapter that is wholly given to God's words Psalm 119.

I have his perfect word with all his words in one volume of 66 books that I can hold in my hand, I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Ghost, they indwell me, they guide me, the Holy Ghost teaches me his words, and I am just as secure in my salvation today as I was in the day I first asked Jesus to save me.

So I have one up on you s would seem. I do need and want a perfect word and I have it in the AKJV Bible.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

CJ you are projecting your fears on me, I don't believe that man can preserve Gods word, I never said that
You are being silly to justify a stupid argument

God bless you, I truly don't care if it's perfect to you or not
I just want others to know that if it's not prefect, that doesn't reflect on Jesus