9,900 changes

[placebofactor]

Check it out for yourselves. Today’s modern Bible translators rejected many verses in the Received Text of the K.J.B. In most modern Bibles, more than 9900 Greek words have been added, subtracted, or changed from the words of the K.J.B. That’s more than 15 words per page or 7% of the total 140,521 words of the New Testament. Also, there are approximately 1950 omissions, 467 additions, and 3100 other changes, plus 4300 more words, a total of 9,900 + changes in the New Testament.

Following are important verses in the K.J.V., that are not found in the N.W.T. N.I.V. N.A.S.V. CSV., and others. These Bibles use the so-called oldest manuscripts, the A. and B. I am not passing judgment, only presenting information to those who may not be aware of these changes. Each of you may judge for yourselves.

K.J.V. published 1611.
N.I.V. published, 1973.
N.W.T., 1961.
R.S.V. N.T. copyright 1946. O.T. section copyright, 1952.
N.A.S.V. copywrite, 1971.
We can see that most modern Bibles are only recent publications, their foundations are founded on the A. and B. manuscripts. Over the past 200 years, they have passed through many hands. They are claimed to be superior, but they differ in many verses even though they use the same manuscripts.

An O.T. prophesy in Mark 15:28 is quoted from Isaiah 53:12.

K.J.V. Mark 15:28. "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, and he was numbered with the transgressors."

N.W.T. and N.I.V. and others removed the verse but left the # 28 in.

A portion of the verse in Isaiah 66:24, has been left out.
K.J.V. Isaiah 66:24, "For the worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." This verse is quoted twice in Mark 9:44 and 46.

N.W.T. and N.I.V. have removed the verse but left the numbers 44 and 46 in. These verses support and witness to the doctrine of eternal damnation in the fires of hell.

K.J.V. John 5:3, "In these lay a great multitude of impotent (sick) folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water."
.
N.W.T., N.I.V., and others have removed, "Waiting for the moving of the water."

K.J.B. John 5:4, “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

N.W.T., N.I.V., and others have removed the whole verse.

Why is this important? The people who were blind, paralyzed, or lame believed that an angel came and stirred it, and the first to go into the water would be healed. Archeologists have discovered this pool in Bethesda.

John 5:5, tells the story of a man who had no one to help him get into the pool, Jesus intervenes, and the man is healed.

See how the corrupted manuscripts like the A. and B. can confuse a verse.
K.J.B. John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

N.W.T. John 1:14, “So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we have a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.”

What caught my eye is the phrase, "son from a father" son both in lowercase. Are they implying Jesus is from Joseph, not “The Father” from heaven? I would like a Witness to clarify what they are implying.

Changed from “grace and truth” to "kindness and truth.”

Now the N.I.V. writes John 1:14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Only begotten changed to “One and Only.” So the N.W.T. and the N.I.V. use the same manuscripts but have different ideas concerning Jesus. Can it be because of the 9,900 changes made in the original document have caused this confusion?

[Difflugia]

Popularity, hmmm! When the K.J.B. was being published, the Catholics were sending out their people to torture and murder anyone who opposed them or their Latin Vulgate Bible. It took brave men to do this work, dedicated men, not wimps like today, sitting behind a computer, copying the work of others, with a great deal of personal opinion thrown in. The K.J.B. was 200 years old when these old manuscripts were found. Found in a Catholic monastery, yet do not match up with the Catholic Bible. Catholic manuscripts are found in a Catholic monastery and the manuscripts do not agree with their own Bible. The Douay Version of the Catholic Bible is very, very similar to the K.J.B, excluding the added books like the Maccabees.

Considering that the Douay-Rheims version is itself in English, I think you have your timeframe a bit mixed up about when the Church was murdering people over the Vulgate. I'm trying to piece together what the overall conspiracy is here. Is there a website or something that lays it out? It seems to be a mashup of a few different conspiracy theories, but I hate trying to guess.

Only the 1984 edition of the N.W.T. has this list.

That's the one I was looking at. If you don't mean the ones in the footnotes I mentioned, where is it? One of the appendices?

This 4th-century manuscript had 10,000 changes made to it when found in a wastepaper basket at the Vatican ready to be thrown in a fire-place back in the early 1800s. So Older is not better, not with 10,000 changes made to the original document.

Can you point us to a source that explains what you're talking about? It sounds like Jack Chick's old Catholic conspiracy stuff. Does yours involve Westcott and Hort being gay?

[placebofactor]

Popularity, hmmm! When the K.J.B. was being published, the Catholics were sending out their people to torture and murder anyone who opposed them or their Latin Vulgate Bible. It took brave men to do this work, dedicated men, not wimps like today, sitting behind a computer, copying the work of others, with a great deal of personal opinion thrown in. The K.J.B. was 200 years old when these old manuscripts were found. Found in a Catholic monastery, yet do not match up with the Catholic Bible. Catholic manuscripts are found in a Catholic monastery and the manuscripts do not agree with their own Bible. The Douay Version of the Catholic Bible is very, very similar to the K.J.B, excluding the added books like the Maccabees.

Considering that the Douay-Rheims version is itself in English, I think you have your timeframe a bit mixed up about when the Church was murdering people over the Vulgate. I'm trying to piece together what the overall conspiracy is here. Is there a website or something that lays it out? It seems to be a mashup of a few different conspiracy theories, but I hate trying to guess.

Only the 1984 edition of the N.W.T. has this list.

That's the one I was looking at. If you don't mean the ones in the footnotes I mentioned, where is it? One of the appendices?

Open you bible, it's on the 4th page.

This 4th-century manuscript had 10,000 changes made to it when found in a wastepaper basket at the Vatican ready to be thrown in a fire-place back in the early 1800s. So Older is not better, not with 10,000 changes made to the original document.

Can you point us to a source that explains what you're talking about? It sounds like Jack Chick's old Catholic conspiracy stuff. Does yours involve Westcott and Hort being gay?

No! I have no idea who Jack Chick is. I have no idea if either Wescott or Hort were gay, I could care less.

The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2nd Thessalonians 2:2), along with false prophets and teachers who would not only bring in damnable heresies but would seek to make merchandise of the true believer through their own feigned words (2 Peter 2:1-3).
Paraphrased: “To make suckers of the true believers through their lies.” It did not take long for this to occur. In the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterward, several doctrinal heresies arose. Their early beginnings are referred to in the New Testament.
Galatians 1:6-8; “I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:” Also, 1st John 4:3; 2nd John 1:7; and Jude 1:3
They not only plagued the early Church but are still with us today, in modern form, in many contemporary Christian cults. These false doctrines influenced the transmission of scripture and account for some of the differences in the line of manuscripts.
Following are two such characters. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism that underlay their Greek N.T. and several other Greek N.T. since (such as Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text).
Greek New Testaments such as these, produced the modern English translations of the Bibles on the market today. So, we need to know the theory of Westcott and Hort, because these two men greatly influenced modern textual criticism.
Their theory begins with, “The Bible is to be treated like any other book.”
Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text that under-lies the K.J.V. was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).

If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something about their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.

Here's what Westcott and Hort said about the Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
Perhaps this is why both the R.V. (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the A.S.V., translated 2nd Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV).

Concerning the Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but His revelations aimed to lead men to see God in Him."
(Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

"(Revelation 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, page 36).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature).

Salvation:
"The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1st Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (ASV).


Hell:
"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matthew 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.

Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible? Page 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Romanism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother. Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild).
Westcott and Hort talked to Spirits of the dead. I call it Satanism.


Westcott and Hort

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) have been highly controversial figures in biblical history.
On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text.
On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.

I have no desire to sling mud nor a desire to hide facts.

I believe it is essential at this time that we examine what we know about these men and their theories concerning the text of the Bible.

These are the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son, Arthur, and The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, written by his son.

Most of the material will be directly from the following sources to prevent it from being secondhand.

We cannot blindly accept the findings of others without investigating what their beliefs are concerning the Bible and its doctrines. Scholarship alone makes for an inadequate and dangerous authority; therefore, we are forced to scrutinize the lives of these men.

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Westcott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were older. This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity.

Hort said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Genealogy, page 92—as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, page 257).

Vicious Prejudice

In spite of the fact that the readings of the Universal Text were found to be as old, or older, Westcott and Hort still sought to dislodge it from its place of high standing in biblical history. Hort occasionally let his emotions show...
Hort said: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” (Life, Vol. I, p. 211).
Westcott and Hort built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. It has been stated earlier that these perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text!
Burgon exposed Dr. Hort's confession. Even Hort had occasion to notice an instance of the Concordia discourse. Commenting on the four places in Mark's Gospel (14:30, 68, 72, a, b) where the cocks crowing is mentioned said:
"The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all four places." 87

A Shocking Revelation

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

Hort wrote, quote:
“For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity.”

He also states, Quote: “In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission.”
We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?

Blatant Disbelief

Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.


Hort denies the reality of Eden:
I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adams fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues. 90
Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of Essays and Reviews.

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858,
"Further I agree with them [Authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible." 91
We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible:
"If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you."
He also stated:
"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces groundless, on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did recognize Provident in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So, I still await judgment."
And further commented to a colleague:
"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing." 92

Strange Bedfellows

Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly:
"...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."
And to John Ellerton he writes:
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."
Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes:
"In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge."
"Coleridge was the college drop-out whose drug addiction is an historical fact. The opium habit, begun earlier to deaden the pain of rheumatism, grew stronger. After vainly trying in Malta and Italy to break away from opium, Coleridge came back to England in 1806."

"One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers."
This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge. Forsaking Colossians 2:8,
Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. MacMillian, he stated:
"You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in revelation." 97

Lost in the Forest
In some cases Hort seemed to wander in the woods. In others he can only be described as utterly lost in the forest. Take, for example, his views on fundamental Bible truths...

Hort's Devil

Concerning existence of a personal devil he wrote:
"The discussion which immediately precedes these four lines naturally leads to another enigma most intimately connected with that of everlasting penalties, namely that of the personality of the devil. It was Coleridge who some three years ago first raised any doubts in my mind on the subject - doubts which have never yet been at all set at rest, one way or the other. You yourself are very cautious in your language."

"Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?" 98

Hort's Hell
Hort also shrunk from the belief in a literal, eternal hell.
"I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word eternal has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible. 99

Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions of a distant future, even while I held the doctrine. 100

Hort's Purgatory

Although the idea of a literal devil and a literal hell found no place in Hort's educated mind, he was a very real believer in the factious Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote in 1854:
I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity is independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; (3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be named. 101

Also while advising a young student he wrote:
The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended.
I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important truth. 102
Thus we see that Dr. Hort's opinions were certainly not inhibited by orthodoxy. Yet his wayward ways do not end here. For, as his own writings display, Dr. Hort fell short in several other fundamental areas.


Hort's Atonement

There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind.
"The fact is, I do not see how Gods justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." 103
In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christs atonement as heresy!
"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christs bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." 104
The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christs payment for sins than God.
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father." 105

Hort's Baptism

Dr. Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of baptismal regeneration was more correct than the evangelical teaching.
...at the same time in language stating that we maintain Baptismal Regeneration as the most important of doctrines ... the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical. 106

He also states that, Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom. 107
In fact, Hort's heretical view of baptism probably cost his own son his eternal soul, as we find Hort assuring his eldest son, Arthur, that his infant baptism was his salvation:
You were not only born into the world of men. You were also born of Christian parents in a Christian land. While yet an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an unconscious member of His Church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ, united to Him by strange invisible bonds; to know that you have as your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven. 108

Hort's Twisted Belief

Along with Hort's unregenerated misconceptions of basic Bible truths, there were his quirkish and sometimes quackish personal beliefs. One such example is his hatred for democracy, as he asserts in a letter to Rev. Westcott dated April 28, 1865:
"...I dare not prophesy about America, but I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms." 109
It is not an amazing thing that any one man could hold to so many unscriptural and ungodly beliefs. It is amazing that such a man could be exalted by Bible believing preachers and professors to a point of authority higher than the King James Bible!

Dr. Hort was a truly great Greek scholar, yet a great intellect does not make one an authority over the Bible when they themselves do not even claim to believe it! Albert Einstein was a man of great intellect, but he rejected Scripture, and so where he speaks on the subject of Scripture he is not to be accepted as authoritative. Possessing a great mind or great ability does not guarantee being a great spiritual leader. Dr. Hort was a scholar, but his scholarship alone is no reason to accept his theories concerning Bible truth.

If fundamental pastors of today enlisted the services of an evangelist and found that this evangelist had beliefs paralleling those of Fenton John Anthony Hort, I believe that the pastor would cancel the meeting. Strangely through, when a pastor discovers such to be true about Dr. Hort, he excuses him as a great Greek scholar and presents his Authorized Version to him to be maliciously dissected and then discarded as Dr. Hort sets himself down in the seat of authority which the Bible once held. Here again I must assert that most often this is done with childlike faith on the part of the pastor, due to the education he received while in seminary. The seminary is not really guilty either, for they have simply and unsuspectingly accepted the authority of two men raised under the influence of a campaign by the Jesuits to re-Romanize England. Wilkenson reports that Hort had been influenced by these Roman Catholic forces: Dr. Hort tell us that the writings of Simon had a large share in the movement to discredit the Textus Receptus class of MSS and Bibles. 119


Problems with Westcott

Unfortunately for the new Bible supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that Moses and David were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.

Westcott states:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So, it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the sun rising, it was no less necessary that he would use the names Moses and David as His contemporaries used them... There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)

[Difflugia]

Only the 1984 edition of the N.W.T. has this list.

That's the one I was looking at. If you don't mean the ones in the footnotes I mentioned, where is it? One of the appendices?

Open you bible, it's on the 4th page.

Are you talking about the list of abbreviations in the footnotes on page 9 of the hardcover "Reference Edition" (Rbi8-E)?

This 4th-century manuscript had 10,000 changes made to it when found in a wastepaper basket at the Vatican ready to be thrown in a fire-place back in the early 1800s. So Older is not better, not with 10,000 changes made to the original document.

Can you point us to a source that explains what you're talking about?

Since you didn't give me anything more to go on, I tried to figure out what you were talking about. It turns out that this is a garbled account of Codex Sinaiticus that's been through the telephone game. Tischendorf's own account of discovering the Codex can be read in his book, When Were Our Gospels Written? I won't bother repeating the whole thing since you can read it yourself, but the main point is that rather than having been discarded by the Vatican, the manuscript was in a monastery in Egypt, the monks of which didn't realize the value of what they had.

The whole "10,000 changes" thing just underscores the importance of the manuscript. First, it indicates that the manuscript was being actively used during at least portions of its history. As such, its caretakers thought it worth the effort to make as accurate as possible, from whatever point of view. Second, the corrections themselves are often important as they can be both dated and associated with particular redactors. As some of the redactors show signs of bringing Sinaiticus into harmony with other later manuscripts, this offers clues to researchers about the history of New Testament changes overall. An interesting discussion of corrections to the Gospel of Mark in Sinaiticus may be downloaded and read here.

The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2).

Starting here, the rest of your post is copypasta. I found this screed, in whole or part, pasted into numerous forum posts advocating for KJV only. The closest I came to an original source is this PDF that claims to be a reprint from a personal website that no longer exists. The hosting site is a German archive page of an internet mailing list for Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

Skimming the rant, the entire presentation is a series of mined quotes trying to show that Westcott and Hort have unorthodox theological positions. There's nothing to actually help argue that either the Textus Receptus is reliable or that textual criticism is somehow flawed.

So the argument thus far is an emotional appeal against Codex Sinaiticus that doesn't address any actual scholarship, coupled with neither Westcott nor Hort having been your favorite brand of Christian.

[placebofactor]

Only the 1984 edition of the N.W.T. has this list.

That's the one I was looking at. If you don't mean the ones in the footnotes I mentioned, where is it? One of the appendices?

Open you bible, it's on the 4th page.

Are you talking about the list of abbreviations in the footnotes on page 9 of the hardcover "Reference Edition" (Rbi8-E)?

This 4th-century manuscript had 10,000 changes made to it when found in a wastepaper basket at the Vatican ready to be thrown in a fire-place back in the early 1800s. So Older is not better, not with 10,000 changes made to the original document.

Can you point us to a source that explains what you're talking about?

Since you didn't give me anything more to go on, I tried to figure out what you were talking about. It turns out that this is a garbled account of Codex Sinaiticus that's been through the telephone game. Tischendorf's own account of discovering the Codex can be read in his book, When Were Our Gospels Written? I won't bother repeating the whole thing since you can read it yourself, but the main point is that rather than having been discarded by the Vatican, the manuscript was in a monastery in Egypt, the monks of which didn't realize the value of what they had.

The whole "10,000 changes" thing just underscores the importance of the manuscript. First, it indicates that the manuscript was being actively used during at least portions of its history. As such, its caretakers thought it worth the effort to make as accurate as possible, from whatever point of view. Second, the corrections themselves are often important as they can be both dated and associated with particular redactors. As some of the redactors show signs of bringing Sinaiticus into harmony with other later manuscripts, this offers clues to researchers about the history of New Testament changes overall. An interesting discussion of corrections to the Gospel of Mark in Sinaiticus may be downloaded and read here.

The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2).

Starting here, the rest of your post is copypasta. I found this screed, in whole or part, pasted into numerous forum posts advocating for KJV only. The closest I came to an original source is this PDF that claims to be a reprint from a personal website that no longer exists. The hosting site is a German archive page of an internet mailing list for Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

Skimming the rant, the entire presentation is a series of mined quotes trying to show that Westcott and Hort have unorthodox theological positions. There's nothing to actually help argue that either the Textus Receptus is reliable or that textual criticism is somehow flawed.

So the argument thus far is an emotional appeal against Codex Sinaiticus that doesn't address any actual scholarship, coupled with neither Westcott nor Hort having been your favorite brand of Christian.

Neither one of us were there, so we have to depend on historians and history. Here is what I found some 25 years ago and have had it on my website for that long.

Two of the oldest, and complete manuscripts found to date are called the Codex Alexandrinus, or A; and Vatican manuscripts, or B. For the most part, these are the foundation documents for almost every modern-day Bible in print today, except for the King James Bible.

So, does older mean better? Both A, and B. are said to be the most important manuscripts found to date because of their age, but are they the best? Let’s examine the facts. Both A. and B. are 4th-century manuscripts. The 4th century was a time of trouble, as many controversies swept the early Catholic Church.

It was the time of the Presbyter of Alexandria, Arian. Arian had voiced his opinions in strong language, claiming Jesus the Son of God was NOT co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with the Father.

Both A.B. were found in a Catholic monastery in the early 1800s. One was found on a shelf, in excellent condition, the other in a wastepaper basket ready to be burned for heating. These manuscripts when discovered by Tischendorf were in excellent condition. Tischendorf claimed to be a Bible scholar.

So, the question is, 'Why were these 13-hundred-year-old documents in such excellent condition? Answer, because they were not used. Scrolls were the usual form of books in the ancient world. As we know, scrolls rolled, and when used regularly wear out quickly because of the paper, or skins they are written on. The Dead Sea scrolls are the exception only because of the place (desert region) and the way they were stored and sealed.

When scrolls began to show wear, they would be re-copied by scribes and then examined carefully for errors by others. If even one error was found that copy would be destroyed, and a new copy started.

When Tischendorf found the A. and B. scrolls, they had already had thousands of corrections made to them. For this reason alone, they should have been rejected and burned. They may have been used as teaching tools for beginner scribes.

But they were saved, being passed from one hand to another. When Tischendorf was finished with his added corrections, they were presented to other scholars of the day, who rejected them. In the late 1800eds two men, Wescott and Hort began to alter the text further in thousands of places. Westcott was a bishop of the Anglican Church; Hort was a teacher at Cambridge University.

Westcott and Hort made over 5000 changes to these newly acquired manuscripts. The changes included roughly 1900 omissions, 467 additions, and 3185 other changes. 4366 words were added, making a total of almost 10,000 changes. Add to the thousands of changes made by Tischendorf, it would seem that these manuscripts should have been rejected, and trashed.

In the early 20th century liberal scholars from Europe came to America, teaching their particular brand of Christianity. Unconventional, independent in thought, at times radical in their thinking. Something other than the K.J.B was needed, and the A. and B. text fit that bill. In the 1930es, Nestles and Allen gave these free-thinking liberals the tools needed to advance certain agendas. They resurrected and reinvented the A. and B. texts.

If you examine the articles, I have posted concerning the differences between the K.J.B. and all the others, N.I.V. N.W.T., N.A.S.V., Revised Standard, etc., they all pretty much read the same, but the N.W.T. agrees with no other Bible that I know of and is used exclusively by one organization out of thousands of denominations worldwide. We can't all be wrong and the Witnesses right.

[Difflugia]

Both A.B. were found in a Catholic monastery in the early 1800s. One was found on a shelf, in excellent condition, the other in a wastepaper basket ready to be burned for heating.

You're confusing your manuscripts. Here are the histories of Codex Alexandrinus and Vaticanus. Both descriptions are from page 67 of The Text of the New Testament: by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman.

Codex Alexandrinus:

This handsome codex, dating from about the fifth century, contains the Old Testament, except for several mutilations, and most of the New Testament (the whole of Matthew's Gospel as far as 25.6 is lost, as well as the leaves that originally contained John 6.50-8.52 and 2 Cor. 4.13-12.6). It was presented in 1627 by Cyril Lucar, patriarch
of Constandnople, to King Charles I of England. Today, it rests along with Codex Sinaiticus in one of the prominent showcases in the Department of Manuscripts of the British Library. A photographic reproduction of the codex was published in 1879-83 by the British Museum, under the supervision of E. Maunde Thompson, Subsequendy, F. G. Kenyon edited a reduced facsimile of the New Testament (1909) and of parts of the Old Testament.

Codex Vaticanus:

One of the most valuable of all the manuscripts of the Greek Bible is Codex Vaticanus. As its name indicates, it is in the great Vatican Library at Rome, which has been its home since some date prior to 1475, when it was mentioned in the first catalogue made of the treasures of the library. For some reason that has never been fully explained, during a large part of the nineteenth century, the authorities of the library put continual obstacles in the way of scholars who wished to study it in detail. It was not until 1889-90 that a photographic facsimile of the whole manuscript, edited by Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi, made its contents available to all. Another facsimile edition of the New Testament was issued at Milan in 1904.

Tischendorf was given permission to work with both, but he didn't find either one.

When Tischendorf found the A. and B. scrolls,

They're codices, with pages much like modern books, not scrolls.

they had already had thousands of corrections made to them. For this reason alone, they should have been rejected and burned. They may have been used as teaching tools for beginner scribes.

You're thinking of the rules of the Masoretes for copying a Torah. Christian copyists weren't held to even similar standards until much later in the Medieval period.

But they were saved, being passed from one hand to another. When Tischendorf was finished with his added corrections, they were presented to other scholars of the day, who rejected them. In the late 1800eds two men, Wescott and Hort began to alter the text further in thousands of places. Westcott was a bishop of the Anglican Church; Hort was a teacher at Cambridge University.

Westcott and Hort made over 5000 changes to these newly acquired manuscripts. The changes included roughly 1900 omissions, 467 additions, and 3185 other changes. 4366 words were added, making a total of almost 10,000 changes. Add to the thousands of changes made by Tischendorf, it would seem that these manuscripts should have been rejected, and trashed.

I wouldn't think you mean that they actually modified the codices, but at this point, I'm not assuming anything. The critical texts produced by Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort were eclectic texts in that they matched no single source text. The choices that they made reflected readings selected from among the texts based on a systematic set of criteria. If you're interested, they published their critical text in two volumes. Volume 2 contains their notes and reasoning behind important or controversial decisions.

In the early 20th century liberal scholars from Europe came to America, teaching their particular brand of Christianity. Unconventional, independent in thought, at times radical in their thinking. Something other than the K.J.B was needed, and the A. and B. text fit that bill. In the 1930es, Nestles and Allen gave these free-thinking liberals the tools needed to advance certain agendas. They resurrected and reinvented the A. and B. texts.

That's quite the accusation. Do you have any actual evidence for the idea that the critical texts support some free-thinking agenda?

If you examine the articles, I have posted concerning the differences between the K.J.B. and all the others, N.I.V. N.W.T., N.A.S.V., Revised Standard, etc., they all pretty much read the same, but the N.W.T. agrees with no other Bible that I know of and is used exclusively by one organization out of thousands of denominations worldwide. We can't all be wrong and the Witnesses right.

The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, and ESV are all nominally revisions of the KJV and so they'll necessarily be very similar. All of those translations, though, are based on eclectic critical texts (even the NKJV, which intentionally retains some KJV readings). Other translations, including the NIV, are often quite different than the KJV depending on specific translation criteria. If you're looking for differences in the underlying source texts, you're better off looking at something like the NRSV. We know that the NWT is based on a critical text, so any claims that textual criticism is invalid will apply equally to the NWT and NASB. If you want to differentiate the NWT specifically, look at the translation choices that in support of their peculiar theology. Those have little or nothing to do with the choice of source text. John 1:1 in Greek is the same no matter which source text you use, but the NWT translates it differently.

[marke]

source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274101/104/0


==================================================================

Marke: A huge error committed by students of translations is assuming older manuscripts are better. Another error is assuming that 5% of the entire body of manuscripts that drastically differ from the 95% of the rest are superior to the 95% because of their age. Older corrupted manuscripts may have been locked away in religious vaults for hundreds of years to preserve them but the fact that they were not worn out from use does not mean they are superior to the manuscripts that have been faithfully copied and recopied down through the centuries.

[JehovahsWitness]

source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274101/104/0


==================================================================

Marke: A huge error committed by students of translations is assuming older manuscripts are better. Another error is assuming that 5% of the entire body of manuscripts that drastically differ from the 95% of the rest are superior to the 95% because of their age. Older corrupted manuscripts may have been locked away in religious vaults for hundreds of years to preserve them but the fact that they were not worn out from use does not mean they are superior to the manuscripts that have been faithfully copied and recopied down through the centuries.

Thank you for your comment, I'm not sure why you are telling me this but thanks anyway.



JW

[Difflugia]

Marke: A huge error committed by students of translations is assuming older manuscripts are better. Another error is assuming that 5% of the entire body of manuscripts that drastically differ from the 95% of the rest are superior to the 95% because of their age.

Nobody assumes that older manuscripts are better, but they do recognize that older manuscripts are older. When the manuscripts differ, there are a number of criteria used to decide which reading is original.

Older corrupted manuscripts may have been locked away in religious vaults for hundreds of years to preserve them but the fact that they were not worn out from use does not mean they are superior to the manuscripts that have been faithfully copied and recopied down through the centuries.[/b]

How did you decide that the older manuscripts are the corrupted ones rather than the later ones?

[marke]

Marke: A huge error committed by students of translations is assuming older manuscripts are better. Another error is assuming that 5% of the entire body of manuscripts that drastically differ from the 95% of the rest are superior to the 95% because of their age.

Nobody assumes that older manuscripts are better, but they do recognize that older manuscripts are older. When the manuscripts differ, there are a number of criteria used to decide which reading is original.

Older corrupted manuscripts may have been locked away in religious vaults for hundreds of years to preserve them but the fact that they were not worn out from use does not mean they are superior to the manuscripts that have been faithfully copied and recopied down through the centuries.[/b]

How did you decide that the older manuscripts are the corrupted ones rather than the later ones?

Marke: The overwhelming majority of ancient witnesses and transcripts support the Greek wordings used to translate the KJV.

[placebofactor]

Only the 1984 edition of the N.W.T. has this list.

That's the one I was looking at. If you don't mean the ones in the footnotes I mentioned, where is it? One of the appendices?

Open you bible, it's on the 4th page.

Are you talking about the list of abbreviations in the footnotes on page 9 of the hardcover "Reference Edition" (Rbi8-E)?

This 4th-century manuscript had 10,000 changes made to it when found in a wastepaper basket at the Vatican ready to be thrown in a fire-place back in the early 1800s. So Older is not better, not with 10,000 changes made to the original document.

Can you point us to a source that explains what you're talking about?

Since you didn't give me anything more to go on, I tried to figure out what you were talking about. It turns out that this is a garbled account of Codex Sinaiticus that's been through the telephone game. Tischendorf's own account of discovering the Codex can be read in his book, When Were Our Gospels Written? I won't bother repeating the whole thing since you can read it yourself, but the main point is that rather than having been discarded by the Vatican, the manuscript was in a monastery in Egypt, the monks of which didn't realize the value of what they had.

The whole "10,000 changes" thing just underscores the importance of the manuscript. First, it indicates that the manuscript was being actively used during at least portions of its history. As such, its caretakers thought it worth the effort to make as accurate as possible, from whatever point of view. Second, the corrections themselves are often important as they can be both dated and associated with particular redactors. As some of the redactors show signs of bringing Sinaiticus into harmony with other later manuscripts, this offers clues to researchers about the history of New Testament changes overall. An interesting discussion of corrections to the Gospel of Mark in Sinaiticus may be downloaded and read here.

The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2).

Starting here, the rest of your post is copypasta. I found this screed, in whole or part, pasted into numerous forum posts advocating for KJV only. The closest I came to an original source is this PDF that claims to be a reprint from a personal website that no longer exists. The hosting site is a German archive page of an internet mailing list for Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

Skimming the rant, the entire presentation is a series of mined quotes trying to show that Westcott and Hort have unorthodox theological positions. There's nothing to actually help argue that either the Textus Receptus is reliable or that textual criticism is somehow flawed.

So the argument thus far is an emotional appeal against Codex Sinaiticus that doesn't address any actual scholarship, coupled with neither Westcott nor Hort having been your favorite brand of Christian.

Neither one of us were there, so we have to depend on historians and history. Here is what I found some 25 years ago and have had it on my website for that long.

Two of the oldest, and complete manuscripts found to date are called the Codex Alexandrinus, or A; and Vatican manuscripts, or B. For the most part, these are the foundation documents for almost every modern-day Bible in print today, except for the King James Bible.

So, does older mean better? Both A, and B. are said to be the most important manuscripts found to date because of their age, but are they the best? Let’s examine the facts. Both A. and B. are 4th-century manuscripts. The 4th century was a time of trouble, as many controversies swept the early Catholic Church.

It was the time of the Presbyter of Alexandria, Arian. Arian had voiced his opinions in strong language, claiming Jesus the Son of God was NOT co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with the Father.

Both A.B. were found in a Catholic monastery in the early 1800s. One was found on a shelf, in excellent condition, the other in a wastepaper basket ready to be burned for heating. These manuscripts when discovered by Tischendorf were in excellent condition. Tischendorf claimed to be a Bible scholar.

So, the question is, 'Why were these 13-hundred-year-old documents in such excellent condition? Answer, because they were not used. Scrolls were the usual form of books in the ancient world. As we know, scrolls rolled, and when used regularly wear out quickly because of the paper, or skins they are written on. The Dead Sea scrolls are the exception only because of the place (desert region) and the way they were stored and sealed.

When scrolls began to show wear, they would be re-copied by scribes and then examined carefully for errors by others. If even one error was found that copy would be destroyed, and a new copy started.

When Tischendorf found the A. and B. scrolls, they had already had thousands of corrections made to them. For this reason alone, they should have been rejected and burned. They may have been used as teaching tools for beginner scribes.

But they were saved, being passed from one hand to another. When Tischendorf was finished with his added corrections, they were presented to other scholars of the day, who rejected them. In the late 1800eds two men, Wescott and Hort began to alter the text further in thousands of places. Westcott was a bishop of the Anglican Church; Hort was a teacher at Cambridge University.

Westcott and Hort made over 5000 changes to these newly acquired manuscripts. The changes included roughly 1900 omissions, 467 additions, and 3185 other changes. 4366 words were added, making a total of almost 10,000 changes. Add to the thousands of changes made by Tischendorf, it would seem that these manuscripts should have been rejected, and trashed.

In the early 20th century liberal scholars from Europe came to America, teaching their particular brand of Christianity. Unconventional, independent in thought, at times radical in their thinking. Something other than the K.J.B was needed, and the A. and B. text fit that bill. In the 1930es, Nestles and Allen gave these free-thinking liberals the tools needed to advance certain agendas. They resurrected and reinvented the A. and B. texts.

If you examine the articles, I have posted concerning the differences between the K.J.B. and all the others, N.I.V. N.W.T., N.A.S.V., Revised Standard, etc., they all pretty much read the same, but the N.W.T. agrees with no other Bible that I know of and is used exclusively by one organization out of thousands of denominations worldwide. We can't all be wrong and the Witnesses right.

You will have to explain why it took 150 years to get it into publication, and why it was rejected by hundreds of scholars for the same 150 years.