Pastor Waldron, if I'm not mistaken, the reason these verses are not included in modern versions is because they follow critical Greek texts that are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts. Most textual scholarship around New Testament manuscripts seeks to find the reading that's closest to the original, and so they choose to go with the earliest (Alexandrian) manuscripts. The textual variants between different manuscript families seem to be a result of addition of verses on the Byzantine manuscripts, rather than removal of verses in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Bibles translated before the 19th Century follow a critical Greek text, the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Byzantine manuscripts). For the most part, textual scholars who work with New Testament manuscripts agree that verses were not taken out, they were just not there to begin with. God bless.
The habits of the scribes was to omit material to have the text conform to their doctrinal views rather than add. This is why the modern versions are much shorter. They follow the Alexandrian Greek text of Tischendorf, Lachmann, Tregelles, Wescott/Hort and others. These are not the same as the Traditional Text that was handed down from the 2nd century and represent over 90% of the manuscripts in Greek. This text is also the one quoted by most 'church' fathers before the 4th century and the text represented by the majority of papari.
Modern 'scholars' have a tendency to misrepresent the facts and distort the truth to fit their purposes. They will ignore the 95% over the so-called 'oldest and best'.
@@gray6580 Good points. I don't see much evidence for scribes omitting material (not just biblically, but in general). For example, comparing the Greek translation of the Old Testament to the available Hebrew manuscripts, it seems clear that the translations have added material not included in the original reading (as far as we know). This also seems to be the case with the transmission of New Testament manuscripts, noting that seemingly independent texts (geographically separated) seem to follow the so-called "early" texts (i.e. the shorter versions) instead of the Byzantine texts. It's true that the Byzantine texts represent 95% of the available manuscripts but they are all from the same location and relatively later time periods. This is somewhat expected since the 5% of Alexandrian texts are confined to earlier times (as far back as the 2nd Century) and have been preserved in areas where Greek had been mostly replaced by Latin whereas the other manuscripts have been distributed continuously (in fact some of these Majority manuscripts were composed as late as the 10th century, for example, Minuscule 1424) because Greek in their region remained the official language. I do have to disagree with one of your statements, most church fathers before the 4th century did not quote from the Byzantine reading, in fact, the earliest quotation if I remember correctly comes from the 4th century (not before). By reading the writings of the early Church fathers in Greek, you can notice that their quotes reflect the Alexandrian readings more often than not. The earliest Byzantine texts quoted by church fathers actually differ from the Majority Texts (95%) even though they come from the same geographical region and manuscript family. I also wouldn't know if the Traditional Text was handed out from the 2nd century since the earliest evidence we have for its existence comes from the 4th century onward.
@@guzkae4606 No, the traditional text is from a wide range of locations all over Asia Minor, Turkey, and Europe. It is the Alexandrian text that is localized. The traditional text is also the text of most of the early versions and Old Latin. It is also the text used in all lectionaries . I would suggest you check out Dr. Jack Moorman on the church fathers, papari, and manuscripts. Also see Dr. Wilbur Pickering on the Text of the New Testament. Some sources harder to find would be Which Bible, True or False, and Counterfeit or Genuine by Dr. David Otis Fuller. The standard defense that to this day has not been refuted adequately are the writings of Dean John William Burgon, Revision Revised. I highly recommend his writings for insight on these matters. The late Dr. Harry Sturz wrote an excellent book, The Byzantine Text-type and New Testament Textual Criticism. Age is a relative thing and does not prove accuracy or reliability. The Alexandrian texts disagree among themselves in thousands of places (Vaticanus and Alef disagree in the Gospels over 3080 places alone!) My contention is that the 'oldest' are not the best nor the most accurate. We must examine the totality of the witnesses and noone has the originals, so we cannot appeal to them. There is no such thing as manuscript families...just similarity of renderings. The so-called 'laws' of textual criticism are not scientific but speculations slanted to the Alexandrian renderings by rationalist scholars of German rationalism.
There may be something to have and something to take away from the alexandrian, textus receptus, and the western text. For example KJV ex 12:40 tells us that Israel was in Egypt for 430 Gal 3:16 tells us is that from the promise givin to abraham at 75 to the receiving of the law it's 430 years not 430 in Egypt. Or Ps 145 which is a acrostic each verse starts with a letter in order of there alphabet so there should be 22 verse for the 22 letters but theres 21. There's two other verse with acrostic missing a letter נ There's also the years men became fathers from araxphad to nahor it should say they became fathers at 135 instead of 35. Gen 46:27 says 70 people went into Egypt stephen the martyr said 75 which agrees with the septuigent and the samarian pentetuch. Ecc 2:8 was changed as well the latter part of the verse reads like this the pleasures of the sons of men an musical instrument and that of all sorts but a Hebrew interliner bible reveals that it says the pleasures of the sons of men a concubine and concubines hiding the promotion of polygamy theres also Isaiah 61:1 which leaves out and to recover sight to the blind the old testament of most translations use the Hebrew Masoratic which is corrupted.
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
I've heard the argument that all those verses are in the footnotes. I still find it nefarious because how many people in general actually read the footnotes, especially if you are doing a complete read through of the bible? Why not put them back in the main text, and leave a footnote of an alternate reading. Why is it just the NT, and why theologically important verses. It raises too many questions that nobody should have to even ask when reading their bible.
Thanks, the reason I asked was because I watched a series of UA-cam videos by Dr. James White, who said that Erasmus modified his "Textus Receptus" four times, once under pressure by the Catholic Church to make modifications. ua-cam.com/video/L4usirZN-vs/v-deo.htmlsi=ormNIDnE0B3s03AC
I watched your UA-cam of your church meeting where you list the passages missing. But you failed to say that the Bibles in question have put those verses in footnotes. The reason they have done that is because they now have much earlier transcripts of the Bible. Where as the kjv is taken from the 12th century , the nic and other’s use transcripts from the 2nd century.
Truth lover. Amen can't find any scripture that supports KJV onlyism. Or that it is the standard, we should use. Or that it is the "preserved word of God". When it is nothing more than a translation. Like all translations imperfect and uninspired.
Even though modern eclectic textual criticism has rejected the Byzantine text and modern translations are based almost exclusively on the text of Westcott/Horts or in his modern edition of Nestle-Aland, there is much to be said for taking as a basis the text that was demonstrably predominant in Christendom until the printing of the book and which can be represented very well. This text comes from the area in which the New Testament was created and copied. The core area of the Greek language was there and the copyists understood what they were copying (and could verify it). In the Byzantine tradition, passages long since discarded by modern scholars, such as the pericope with the adulteress and the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, have come down to us completely undisputed and beyond doubt. The main arguments against the Byzantine text form, e.g. the thesis of recension, have been introduced by Westcott/Hort, but remain unprovable and thus to be declared speculative. It is therefore desirable to revert to the text of the early Christians as the basis of modern translations and to set aside editions by editors who did not believe in Scripture as God's infallible and error- and mistake-free Word and assumed errors in the original text (e.g. Kurt Aland). Christians must also assume that God's Word did not become accessible to readers only with the late discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (one of the two main witnesses to the critical text), but that God always ensured that his Word was and remains accessible to people. Thus, the present edition of the Byzantine text is to be given preference over all others.
Is there an assumption here that the Catholic Church is responsible for multiple Protestant bibles removing Scripture to the footnotes? If so, please explain how that occured. The editorial board for the production of the NIV was entirely evangelical Protestant (as stated in the book's forward): "The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational [though non-Catholic]. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966. “Responsibility for the new version was delegated by the Palos Heights group to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries. In 1967, the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship for the project - sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars. The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias."
8:49 (Baptism in Catechism) and 1:30 (Immaculate Conception concerning 'brothers'.) Just as a clarification, Catholics are asked to read editions that have a nihal obstat certification by an official censor that a particular bible is not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds. Catholic editions like the RSV-CE have not taken out "brothers of Jesus" nor moved the wording to footnotes. (Even thou we disagree with the Protestant interpretation of the word 'brother'.)
There are so many translations that do harm to the Word of God. I've studied and looked through most of them and find most are lacking. I started out with the KJV back in 1985 when I got saved and I never had a need for any other translation. If I didn't understand something, I just prayed about it, asked for help, and researched it. The only translations I have found that don't destroy the Word is the KJV21, the Geneva, and the Jubilee. Somewhat decent is the MEV, but I'll stick with the old tried and true KJV.
@@hargisP2 No, the bible says the opposite. It calls many copies of the bible scripture; and says they were inspired. David, Hezikiah, Esra, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus and all the apostles, Timothy and a slew of others did not read from any original texts. They were ALL copies called scripture. The "original text/autographs" claim is an invention by Texual Critics. Sounds good but it makes the bible out to be lying. God had his hand on copies of the word of God. He wasn't absent. He kept his word. God bless.
From my understanding John 3:4-5 were taken out because people believed it was promoting superstition. Also 1John 5:7 because erasmus didn't have it when he was translating and told the others he was debating that they should bring a text with because he had none. They came back with it but it seemed convenient in the time they brought it to him so it keeps getting added and taken out.
There are a lot of such Modern Scholar (mostly last 150 years or so) bedtime stories. These are Textual Critic biases that they claim with absoluteness. But, I have seen no hands down proof that these verses are not part of the original or otherwise "added".
The second hale of 1 John 5:7 actually only appears in 5 manuscripts out of 26,000. It was placed in the footnotes as it’s not in the most reliable ones.
@@yahrescues8993 Here’s part of the problem, the Greek manuscripts are significantly more accurate due to not only being the original language of being closer in time to win the original was written. The Latin text at the earliest was written over 300 years later. There are also significantly more known Creek copies then Latin copies
@@warrenrhinerson6373 I also prefer the Greek manuscripts, and don’t typically look to Latin manuscripts for the correct reading. You might be surprised to know that I don’t necessarily embrace the verse, but I don’t entirely reject it either. But I wanted to point out that what you said wasn’t entirely accurate and might want to know for the future. The virtual manuscript room shows 259 Greek manuscripts for 1 John 5:7, and only 5 are before 800AD. 5 out of 260 (ish) for the comma would be a better figure. It might not sound that much different, but 5/26000 is 0.019% but 5/259 is 1.9%. I land in between the majority text and the TR which is why I don’t totally embrace 1 John 5:7. I am a student and take variants on a case by case basis.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thank you Reverend; I was raised on the NWT and this particular version (I believe to be the closest to the original intent) held up against "knowing Gods true name" and the manuscripts being authentically accurate enough to allow a Born in Witness become Born Again, by the Grace of God; and as you have said versions can lead to "different Christianity". Thank you again sir, May Christ keep your paths straight. Amen.
Guzkae said it better than I would have. Please read his post. One other thought: Pastor Waldron, you did not engage in any textual criticism. Basically, you are using the KJV as the standard and when any of the other translations differ from the KJV they are wrong. The KJV should not be the standard but rather the Greek manuscript copies. There are over 5000 of them. God Bless.
KJV is the only received text in English so it is the standard. It is clear as day that the modern versions are inferior in their translation and underlying text. As for Greek manuscript copies the Nestle text is only represented by 1% of them.
Is there any real proof that the KJV translators did not translate correctly? I have not yet seen anything Textual Criticism says against the KJV that makes it wanting. Most claims a child could debunk. I would question them. TC's basis is completely flawed. Textual criticism would have us believe that the standard is Textual criticism, an invented "science" which includes the Greek MSS along with hundreds of presumptions and theories that are directly contrary to what the Bible says (at least my KJV). According to Textual Criticism, all manuscripts/copies are flawed; and the original is lost and is continually being rediscovered. Bible says the opposite. You won't hear them mention that the word of God shall never pass away, the word is unchanging, God will keep his word, etc. Their path to interpretation is through them! The bible declares that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding, wisdom and knowledge. It is now 6,000 extant MSS and they agree with the KJV.
@@LightningSnake That is a claim by Textual Critics/Modern "scholars" dating back at least 150 years ago. These people did/do not know. They hide behind their degrees to make their claims. They are guessing and comparing the Septuagint, and Hebrew/Greek from the Alexandrian Text mostly. As the name of their "science" of bible interpretation suggests, they are Critics of the Authorized Version (kjv). The basic tenent of Textual Criticism is to claim what the Bible in the KJV REALLY says/means. They actually say that over and over. TC's believe that all copies of the original text is a work of man and that God did not have a hand in it being faithfully passed down to us. No one dare question them though...just the KJV.
Jehovah witness Bible will use... When they remove a verse and in there Bible they remove John 8:1-11 and Jehovah witness Bible says take up your tourecherstake and follow me daily
Pastor Waldron, if I'm not mistaken, the reason these verses are not included in modern versions is because they follow critical Greek texts that are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts. Most textual scholarship around New Testament manuscripts seeks to find the reading that's closest to the original, and so they choose to go with the earliest (Alexandrian) manuscripts. The textual variants between different manuscript families seem to be a result of addition of verses on the Byzantine manuscripts, rather than removal of verses in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Bibles translated before the 19th Century follow a critical Greek text, the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Byzantine manuscripts). For the most part, textual scholars who work with New Testament manuscripts agree that verses were not taken out, they were just not there to begin with. God bless.
The habits of the scribes was to omit material to have the text conform to their doctrinal views rather than add. This is why the modern versions are much shorter. They follow the Alexandrian Greek text of Tischendorf, Lachmann, Tregelles, Wescott/Hort and others. These are not the same as the Traditional Text that was handed down from the 2nd century and represent over 90% of the manuscripts in Greek. This text is also the one quoted by most 'church' fathers before the 4th century and the text represented by the majority of papari.
Modern 'scholars' have a tendency to misrepresent the facts and distort the truth to fit their purposes. They will ignore the 95% over the so-called 'oldest and best'.
@@gray6580 Good points. I don't see much evidence for scribes omitting material (not just biblically, but in general). For example, comparing the Greek translation of the Old Testament to the available Hebrew manuscripts, it seems clear that the translations have added material not included in the original reading (as far as we know). This also seems to be the case with the transmission of New Testament manuscripts, noting that seemingly independent texts (geographically separated) seem to follow the so-called "early" texts (i.e. the shorter versions) instead of the Byzantine texts. It's true that the Byzantine texts represent 95% of the available manuscripts but they are all from the same location and relatively later time periods. This is somewhat expected since the 5% of Alexandrian texts are confined to earlier times (as far back as the 2nd Century) and have been preserved in areas where Greek had been mostly replaced by Latin whereas the other manuscripts have been distributed continuously (in fact some of these Majority manuscripts were composed as late as the 10th century, for example, Minuscule 1424) because Greek in their region remained the official language.
I do have to disagree with one of your statements, most church fathers before the 4th century did not quote from the Byzantine reading, in fact, the earliest quotation if I remember correctly comes from the 4th century (not before). By reading the writings of the early Church fathers in Greek, you can notice that their quotes reflect the Alexandrian readings more often than not. The earliest Byzantine texts quoted by church fathers actually differ from the Majority Texts (95%) even though they come from the same geographical region and manuscript family. I also wouldn't know if the Traditional Text was handed out from the 2nd century since the earliest evidence we have for its existence comes from the 4th century onward.
@@guzkae4606 No, the traditional text is from a wide range of locations all over Asia Minor, Turkey, and Europe. It is the Alexandrian text that is localized. The traditional text is also the text of most of the early versions and Old Latin. It is also the text used in all lectionaries . I would suggest you check out Dr. Jack Moorman on the church fathers, papari, and manuscripts. Also see Dr. Wilbur Pickering on the Text of the New Testament. Some sources harder to find would be Which Bible, True or False, and Counterfeit or Genuine by Dr. David Otis Fuller. The standard defense that to this day has not been refuted adequately are the writings of Dean John William Burgon, Revision Revised. I highly recommend his writings for insight on these matters. The late Dr. Harry Sturz wrote an excellent book, The Byzantine Text-type and New Testament Textual Criticism. Age is a relative thing and does not prove accuracy or reliability. The Alexandrian texts disagree among themselves in thousands of places (Vaticanus and Alef disagree in the Gospels over 3080 places alone!) My contention is that the 'oldest' are not the best nor the most accurate. We must examine the totality of the witnesses and noone has the originals, so we cannot appeal to them. There is no such thing as manuscript families...just similarity of renderings. The so-called 'laws' of textual criticism are not scientific but speculations slanted to the Alexandrian renderings by rationalist scholars of German rationalism.
There may be something to have and something to take away from the alexandrian, textus receptus, and the western text. For example KJV ex 12:40 tells us that Israel was in Egypt for 430 Gal 3:16 tells us is that from the promise givin to abraham at 75 to the receiving of the law it's 430 years not 430 in Egypt. Or Ps 145 which is a acrostic each verse starts with a letter in order of there alphabet so there should be 22 verse for the 22 letters but theres 21. There's two other verse with acrostic missing a letter נ There's also the years men became fathers from araxphad to nahor it should say they became fathers at 135 instead of 35. Gen 46:27 says 70 people went into Egypt stephen the martyr said 75 which agrees with the septuigent and the samarian pentetuch. Ecc 2:8 was changed as well the latter part of the verse reads like this the pleasures of the sons of men an musical instrument and that of all sorts but a Hebrew interliner bible reveals that it says the pleasures of the sons of men a concubine and concubines hiding the promotion of polygamy theres also Isaiah 61:1 which leaves out and to recover sight to the blind the old testament of most translations use the Hebrew Masoratic which is corrupted.
Amen brother, God bless you for this, l believe as you do !❤️💍✈️💕
Amen!
This is a fact, regardless of where you are at on the Bible Version issue. God bless!
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
Amen!
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thanks. Blessings.
They are missing because of two guys in 1881 , Wescott and Hort
Amen!
I've heard the argument that all those verses are in the footnotes. I still find it nefarious because how many people in general actually read the footnotes, especially if you are doing a complete read through of the bible? Why not put them back in the main text, and leave a footnote of an alternate reading. Why is it just the NT, and why theologically important verses. It raises too many questions that nobody should have to even ask when reading their bible.
This has me very, very concerned.
Are they missing or were they added to the KJV since the Textus Receptus is younger then the Alexandrian Text type.
Missing. Ancient scribal practice precluded most additions. Deletions reigned supreme.
Thanks, the reason I asked was because I watched a series of UA-cam videos by Dr. James White, who said that Erasmus modified his "Textus Receptus" four times, once under pressure by the Catholic Church to make modifications.
ua-cam.com/video/L4usirZN-vs/v-deo.htmlsi=ormNIDnE0B3s03AC
I watched your UA-cam of your church meeting where you list the passages missing. But you failed to say that the Bibles in question have put those verses in footnotes. The reason they have done that is because they now have much earlier transcripts of the Bible. Where as the kjv is taken from the 12th century , the nic and other’s use transcripts from the 2nd century.
I have gone over that point so much, and it’s implications, it seems tedious just just repeat the same information constantly.
I’ve even done a video called, But It’s in the Footnotes or something like that.
like how kindly you ended the video, may the Lord bless you for sticking to his preserved words KJB
can you provide this list? that would be awesome!
I think I’m done a video on it.
They are not missing in modern translations, they where added in the KJV.
I think I’m going to do another video about that.
Truth lover. Amen can't find any scripture that supports KJV onlyism. Or that it is the standard, we should use. Or that it is the "preserved word of God". When it is nothing more than a translation. Like all translations imperfect and uninspired.
Even though modern eclectic textual criticism has rejected the Byzantine text and modern translations are based almost exclusively on the text of Westcott/Horts or in his modern edition of Nestle-Aland, there is much to be said for taking as a basis the text that was demonstrably predominant in Christendom until the printing of the book and which can be represented very well. This text comes from the area in which the New Testament was created and copied. The core area of the Greek language was there and the copyists understood what they were copying (and could verify it). In the Byzantine tradition, passages long since discarded by modern scholars, such as the pericope with the adulteress and the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, have come down to us completely undisputed and beyond doubt. The main arguments against the Byzantine text form, e.g. the thesis of recension, have been introduced by Westcott/Hort, but remain unprovable and thus to be declared speculative.
It is therefore desirable to revert to the text of the early Christians as the basis of modern translations and to set aside editions by editors who did not believe in Scripture as God's infallible and error- and mistake-free Word and assumed errors in the original text (e.g. Kurt Aland). Christians must also assume that God's Word did not become accessible to readers only with the late discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (one of the two main witnesses to the critical text), but that God always ensured that his Word was and remains accessible to people. Thus, the present edition of the Byzantine text is to be given preference over all others.
Good, you said the truth; Jesus was her only child.
Is there an assumption here that the Catholic Church is responsible for multiple Protestant bibles removing Scripture to the footnotes? If so, please explain how that occured.
The editorial board for the production of the NIV was entirely evangelical Protestant (as stated in the book's forward):
"The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational [though non-Catholic]. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966.
“Responsibility for the new version was delegated by the Palos Heights group to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries. In 1967, the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship for the project - sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars. The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias."
No. Who said that?
8:49 (Baptism in Catechism) and 1:30 (Immaculate Conception concerning 'brothers'.)
Just as a clarification, Catholics are asked to read editions that have a nihal obstat certification by an official censor that a particular bible is not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds.
Catholic editions like the RSV-CE
have not taken out "brothers of Jesus" nor moved the wording to footnotes. (Even thou we disagree with the Protestant interpretation of the word 'brother'.)
@@barbwellman6686 K
There are so many translations that do harm to the Word of God. I've studied and looked through most of them and find most are lacking. I started out with the KJV back in 1985 when I got saved and I never had a need for any other translation. If I didn't understand something, I just prayed about it, asked for help, and researched it. The only translations I have found that don't destroy the Word is the KJV21, the Geneva, and the Jubilee. Somewhat decent is the MEV, but I'll stick with the old tried and true KJV.
😂 quote: "he still hates the King James" It actually sad 😔 why would a Christian hate God's words.
The only inspired text, is the original text. All others are translations hundreds of years later.
@@hargisP2 No, the bible says the opposite. It calls many copies of the bible scripture; and says they were inspired. David, Hezikiah, Esra, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus and all the apostles, Timothy and a slew of others did not read from any original texts. They were ALL copies called scripture. The "original text/autographs" claim is an invention by Texual Critics. Sounds good but it makes the bible out to be lying. God had his hand on copies of the word of God. He wasn't absent. He kept his word. God bless.
From my understanding John 3:4-5 were taken out because people believed it was promoting superstition. Also 1John 5:7 because erasmus didn't have it when he was translating and told the others he was debating that they should bring a text with because he had none. They came back with it but it seemed convenient in the time they brought it to him so it keeps getting added and taken out.
There are a lot of such Modern Scholar (mostly last 150 years or so) bedtime stories. These are Textual Critic biases that they claim with absoluteness. But, I have seen no hands down proof that these verses are not part of the original or otherwise "added".
The second hale of 1 John 5:7 actually only appears in 5 manuscripts out of 26,000. It was placed in the footnotes as it’s not in the most reliable ones.
@@warrenrhinerson6373 26,000 includes Latin and this verse is in the majority of Latin. It is only in around 5 of the Greek manuscripts.
@@yahrescues8993 Here’s part of the problem, the Greek manuscripts are significantly more accurate due to not only being the original language of being closer in time to win the original was written. The Latin text at the earliest was written over 300 years later. There are also significantly more known Creek copies then Latin copies
@@warrenrhinerson6373 I also prefer the Greek manuscripts, and don’t typically look to Latin manuscripts for the correct reading. You might be surprised to know that I don’t necessarily embrace the verse, but I don’t entirely reject it either. But I wanted to point out that what you said wasn’t entirely accurate and might want to know for the future. The virtual manuscript room shows 259 Greek manuscripts for 1 John 5:7, and only 5 are before 800AD. 5 out of 260 (ish) for the comma would be a better figure. It might not sound that much different, but 5/26000 is 0.019% but 5/259 is 1.9%. I land in between the majority text and the TR which is why I don’t totally embrace 1 John 5:7. I am a student and take variants on a case by case basis.
Divine Name KJV is deserving of a thorough review; it has the best of the Cambridge and Oxford choices where they differ.
Thanks.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thank you Reverend; I was raised on the NWT and this particular version (I believe to be the closest to the original intent) held up against "knowing Gods true name" and the manuscripts being authentically accurate enough to allow a Born in Witness become Born Again, by the Grace of God; and as you have said versions can lead to "different Christianity".
Thank you again sir, May Christ keep your paths straight. Amen.
Guzkae said it better than I would have. Please read his post.
One other thought: Pastor Waldron, you did not engage in any textual criticism. Basically, you are using the KJV as the standard and when any of the other translations differ from the KJV they are wrong. The KJV should not be the standard but rather the Greek manuscript copies. There are over 5000 of them. God Bless.
KJV is the only received text in English so it is the standard. It is clear as day that the modern versions are inferior in their translation and underlying text. As for Greek manuscript copies the Nestle text is only represented by 1% of them.
Is there any real proof that the KJV translators did not translate correctly? I have not yet seen anything Textual Criticism says against the KJV that makes it wanting. Most claims a child could debunk. I would question them. TC's basis is completely flawed. Textual criticism would have us believe that the standard is Textual criticism, an invented "science" which includes the Greek MSS along with hundreds of presumptions and theories that are directly contrary to what the Bible says (at least my KJV). According to Textual Criticism, all manuscripts/copies are flawed; and the original is lost and is continually being rediscovered. Bible says the opposite. You won't hear them mention that the word of God shall never pass away, the word is unchanging, God will keep his word, etc. Their path to interpretation is through them! The bible declares that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding, wisdom and knowledge. It is now 6,000 extant MSS and they agree with the KJV.
@@brianhaley4471 it is not badly translated as a whole. But it has its gaps example Hosea 11:12
@@LightningSnake That is a claim by Textual Critics/Modern "scholars" dating back at least 150 years ago. These people did/do not know. They hide behind their degrees to make their claims. They are guessing and comparing the Septuagint, and Hebrew/Greek from the Alexandrian Text mostly. As the name of their "science" of bible interpretation suggests, they are Critics of the Authorized Version (kjv). The basic tenent of Textual Criticism is to claim what the Bible in the KJV REALLY says/means. They actually say that over and over. TC's believe that all copies of the original text is a work of man and that God did not have a hand in it being faithfully passed down to us. No one dare question them though...just the KJV.
“Some would say….” I suggest you learn about textual criticism.
Others would suggest I’ve studied it for 40+ years and taught it in college.
Stock with a King James Version. Avoid study Bibles - unless you want another man's bias interpretations.
Your "journey" got you lost brotha. These verses aren't "missing" rather they were ADDED by KJV translators at the behest of the catholic church.
Absolutely no evidence for that my friend. None
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa yeah ok
@@aeiplannerwhere is the evidence?
get Ripplingers booklets =)
Jehovah witness Bible will use... When they remove a verse and in there Bible they remove John 8:1-11 and Jehovah witness Bible says take up your tourecherstake and follow me daily