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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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


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

[placebofactor]

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


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




LMGTFY--->
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=why+do+c ... e+bible%3F

How can someone ask the Lord a question and your Bible leaves out the answer? Makes no sense!
If three bear witness, why wouldn't you name the three?
Why would you leave out "we have redemption through his blood?
Why leave out a quote from the N.T. taken from the O.T.?
There are sick and dying people lying by a pool. Why leave out the reason they were there? Then leave out the whole of the next verse that explains everything.
Why change "only begotten of the Father" and replace it with "son from a father?" Makes no sense.
Why would anyone use manuscripts that have had thousands of changes made to them by unknown hands?
Throughout the whole Old and New Testament, the word Spirit, as in the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the LORD, etc. has been put in lowercase.

Rules for English:
A proper noun is a type of noun that refers to a specific place, person, or thing by name. Proper nouns should always be capitalized, as should any adjectives derived from them (also called ‘proper adjectives’).

Proper nouns—names of specific people, places, organizations, and sometimes things—should always be capitalized. This helps to differentiate between general and specific nouns, providing clarity and respect for the subject.

I asked the question on the Internet. Should the Holy Spirit be capitalized?

Answer: Yes, "Holy Spirit" should be capitalized as it is a specific being and not a general term. Christians may refer to the Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost, which should also be capitalized as well. All pronouns referring to the Christian God should also be capitalized as a form of respect and less ambiguous reading between human and divine antecedents.

The reason the Watchtower has done this is, that they reject the Holy Spirit as a separate entity, the third person of the Trinity.

[Difflugia]

How can someone ask the Lord a question and your Bible leaves out the answer? Makes no sense!
If three bear witness, why wouldn't you name the three?
Why would you leave out "we have redemption through his blood?
Why leave out a quote from the N.T. taken from the O.T.?
There are sick and dying people lying by a pool. Why leave out the reason they were there? Then leave out the whole of the next verse that explains everything.

Later scribes and copyists thought the same way you do and that's why they added the answers to their copies.

Why would anyone use manuscripts that have had thousands of changes made to them by unknown hands?

Presumably for the same reason you do, because they think that those additions make the manuscript superior to ones without them.

If you have a Greek Testament that includes the critical apparatus, you can see which manuscripts have which differences. The Textus Receptus was based primarily on later manuscripts and most of the words and verses that you've pointed out as being removed weren't in earlier manuscripts in the first place. The NA27 apparatus shows that the following important manuscripts are missing Mark 15:28:

• Codex Sinaiticus
• Codex Alexandrinus
• Codex Vaticanus
• Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
• Codex Bezae
• Codex Athous Lavrensis

Since so many important and early manuscripts lack that verse, it's probable that it was added later. Why would you want a verse in your Bible that wasn't in the original?

[placebofactor]

How can someone ask the Lord a question and your Bible leaves out the answer? Makes no sense!
If three bear witness, why wouldn't you name the three?
Why would you leave out "we have redemption through his blood?
Why leave out a quote from the N.T. taken from the O.T.?
There are sick and dying people lying by a pool. Why leave out the reason they were there? Then leave out the whole of the next verse that explains everything.

Later scribes and copyists thought the same way you do and that's why they added the answers to their copies.

Why would anyone use manuscripts that have had thousands of changes made to them by unknown hands?

Presumably for the same reason you do, because they think that those additions make the manuscript superior to ones without them.

If you have a Greek Testament that includes the critical apparatus, you can see which manuscripts have which differences. The Textus Receptus was based primarily on later manuscripts and most of the words and verses that you've pointed out as being removed weren't in earlier manuscripts in the first place. The NA27 apparatus shows that the following important manuscripts are missing Mark 15:28:

• Codex Sinaiticus
• Codex Alexandrinus
• Codex Vaticanus
• Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
• Codex Bezae
• Codex Athous Lavrensis

Since so many important and early manuscripts lack that verse, it's probable that it was added later. Why would you want a verse in your Bible that wasn't in the original?

[placebofactor]

How can someone ask the Lord a question and your Bible leaves out the answer? Makes no sense!
If three bear witness, why wouldn't you name the three?
Why would you leave out "we have redemption through his blood?
Why leave out a quote from the N.T. taken from the O.T.?
There are sick and dying people lying by a pool. Why leave out the reason they were there? Then leave out the whole of the next verse that explains everything.

Later scribes and copyists thought the same way you do and that's why they added the answers to their copies.

Why would anyone use manuscripts that have had thousands of changes made to them by unknown hands?

Presumably for the same reason you do, because they think that those additions make the manuscript superior to ones without them.

If you have a Greek Testament that includes the critical apparatus, you can see which manuscripts have which differences. The Textus Receptus was based primarily on later manuscripts and most of the words and verses that you've pointed out as being removed weren't in earlier manuscripts in the first place. The NA27 apparatus shows that the following important manuscripts are missing Mark 15:28:

• Codex Sinaiticus
• Codex Alexandrinus
• Codex Vaticanus
• Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
• Codex Bezae
• Codex Athous Lavrensis

Since so many important and early manuscripts lack that verse, it's probable that it was added later. Why would you want a verse in your Bible that wasn't in the original?

If we knew who the "they" are, it could make a difference, but we don't. What I do know is, the A. and B. are in the minority, exactly 3%. If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is? I like the odds, so that's the one I support.

Manuscripts are different because of the many languages they have been written in. Syrian, Latin, Armenian, English, Hebrew, Greek etc. And when translated into one language, certain words may be different, but they should all agree on all major doctrines. Is Jesus God, or is he a god? Is there a Holy Spirit, or is it the Father's breath, or an "active force whatever that means?" And if a question is asked, and the answer is left out, why bother publishing the question? For me, it is all about common sense, things the average person can read and understand, not something an organization has to explain.

[Difflugia]

If we knew who the "they" are, it could make a difference, but we don't.

I was answering your question. "They" are the people using manuscripts with thousands of changes.

What I do know is, the A. and B. are in the minority, exactly 3%. If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is? I like the odds, so that's the one I support.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the A." and "the B." Are those specific manuscripts? Manuscript families?

Even if your 3% number maps to something in the real world, is popularity the determining factor for you?

Manuscripts are different because of the many languages they have been written in. Syrian, Latin, Armenian, English, Hebrew, Greek etc. And when translated into one language, certain words may be different, but they should all agree on all major doctrines.

I think you have a somewhat distorted idea of what a "manuscript" is and what the differences are. All of the manuscripts I listed are in Greek, though one is both Greek and Latin on facing pages. There are differences between manuscripts and manuscript families even when just including those in Greek. There are a number of translated manuscripts and other "witnesses" included in the same apparatus entry for Mark 15:38 that I didn't bother mentioning, but in most cases, those aren't necessasry to make an educated decision about whether a passage is likely original.

Is Jesus God, or is he a god? Is there a Holy Spirit, or is it the Father's breath, or an "active force whatever that means?"

These are questions that need to be answered by the text, not read back into it. If you have multiple manuscript families and they give you different answers, then that's a problem. Deciding which manuscripts are closer to the original by which ones most closely match your dogma will certainly give you the answer you might want, but that's unlikely to match the actual history of the textual tradition.

And if a question is asked, and the answer is left out, why bother publishing the question? For me, it is all about common sense, things the average person can read and understand, not something an organization has to explain.

That's fine if the common person actually understands what's going on. I'm not sure that's the case here, though.

[placebofactor]

If we knew who the "they" are, it could make a difference, but we don't.

I was answering your question. "They" are the people using manuscripts with thousands of changes.

Okay.

What I do know is, the A. and B. are in the minority, exactly 3%. If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is? I like the odds, so that's the one I support.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the A." and "the B." Are those specific manuscripts? Manuscript families?

The A. is, The Codex Alexandrinus: the B. is the Vatican manuscripts of 1209.

Even if your 3% number maps to something in the real world, is popularity the determining factor for you?

Absolutely! If the 97% or 5500 agree, and because many were written in different languages when translated into one language like English, they agree. And when you take into consideration who the translators were, and the credentials they brought with them..

Manuscripts are different because of the many languages they have been written in. Syrian, Latin, Armenian, English, Hebrew, Greek etc. And when translated into one language, certain words may be different, but they should all agree on all major doctrines.

I think you have a somewhat distorted idea of what a "manuscript" is and what the differences are. All of the manuscripts I listed are in Greek, though one is both Greek and Latin on facing pages. There are differences between manuscripts and manuscript families even when just including those in Greek. There are a number of translated manuscripts and other "witnesses" included in the same apparatus entry for Mark 15:38 that I didn't bother mentioning, but in most cases, those aren't necessasry to make an educated decision about whether a passage is likely original.

Examine the N.W.T. 1984 edition. They have a list of the manuscripts, or Codex's used for their translation. I counted 96. Their list includes the Textus Receptus, Latin vulgate, Sinaitic Syriac codex, Hebrew, Greek etc.

Is Jesus God, or is he a god? Is there a Holy Spirit, or is it the Father's breath, or an "active force whatever that means?"

These are questions that need to be answered by the text, not read back into it. If you have multiple manuscript families and they give you different answers, then that's a problem. Deciding which manuscripts are closer to the original by which ones most closely match your dogma will certainly give you the answer you might want, but that's unlikely to match the actual history of the textual tradition.

Only 3% give different answers.

And if a question is asked, and the answer is left out, why bother publishing the question? For me, it is all about common sense, things the average person can read and understand, not something an organization has to explain.

That's fine if the common person actually understands what's going on. I'm not sure that's the case here, though.

Explain to me what's going on??????????????? You cannot claim to use the Textus Receptus and come up with, "And the Word was "a god" in John 1:1. Because the Witnesses did say "the Word was a god," that tells me of all the 96 manuscripts they used, they picked and chose verses that supported their teaching.

[Difflugia]

Even if your 3% number maps to something in the real world, is popularity the determining factor for you?

Absolutely!

So, if a mistake is copied a hundred times, does it stop being a mistake?

If the 97% or 5500 agree,

I'll assume for a moment that your 3% is accurate. It's plausible. Mark 15:28 first appears in the Codex Alexandrinus, which dates to the early fifth century. Of the estimated 5800 or so extant manuscripts, only about 150 predate this. Since all of the 150 lack Mark 15:28, that's powerful evidence that Mark 15:28 didn't exist when those were written and it was added sometime during the late fourth or early fifth century. That it was popular enough to be copied into more and more manuscripts later makes it even more striking that it is completely absent in all earlier manuscripts. Your claim of 3% makes the difference sound unimportant, but that 3% isn't a random distribution and the pattern of manuscripts is what makes the evidence so powerful.

and because many were written in different languages when translated into one language like English, they agree. And when you take into consideration who the translators were, and the credentials they brought with them..

I don't know what you mean by this.

Examine the N.W.T. 1984 edition. They have a list of the manuscripts, or Codex's used for their translation. I counted 96. Their list includes the Textus Receptus, Latin vulgate, Sinaitic Syriac codex, Hebrew, Greek etc.

The only such lists I found were footnotes to Mark 16:9-20 (the "long ending" to Mark) and John 7:53-8:11 (the "Pericopae Adulterae"). These aren't comprehensive lists, but brief explanations of the text critical decisions that were made in deciding that those verses weren't original to the Gospels. These aren't decisions that were made by the NWT translators themselves, but by the compilers of the critical texts. Most of the manuscripts that are important to the process are Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but there are some in Latin and Syriac that were translated from older Greek manuscripts and thus may retain readings from them.

Deciding which manuscripts are closer to the original by which ones most closely match your dogma will certainly give you the answer you might want, but that's unlikely to match the actual history of the textual tradition.

Only 3% give different answers.

But which 3% is of critical importance.

Explain to me what's going on??????????????? You cannot claim to use the Textus Receptus and come up with, "And the Word was "a god" in John 1:1. Because the Witnesses did say "the Word was a god," that tells me of all the 96 manuscripts they used, they picked and chose verses that supported their teaching.

The Textus Receptus has nothing to do with the Witness translation of John 1:1. That argument has to do with the exact wording of that verse in Greek, which is the same in all textual traditions. If the Witnesses are right, then the majority of translations are wrong, regardless of which source text they used.

[placebofactor]

Even if your 3% number maps to something in the real world, is popularity the determining factor for you?

Absolutely!

So, if a mistake is copied a hundred times, does it stop being a mistake?

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.

If the 97% or 5500 agree,

I'll assume for a moment that your 3% is accurate. It's plausible. Mark 15:28 first appears in the Codex Alexandrinus, which dates to the early fifth century. Of the estimated 5800 or so extant manuscripts, only about 150 predate this. Since all of the 150 lack Mark 15:28, that's powerful evidence that Mark 15:28 didn't exist when those were written and it was added sometime during the late fourth or early fifth century. That it was popular enough to be copied into more and more manuscripts later makes it even more striking that it is completely absent in all earlier manuscripts. Your claim of 3% makes the difference sound unimportant, but that 3% isn't a random distribution and the pattern of manuscripts is what makes the evidence so powerful.

and because many were written in different languages when translated into one language like English, they agree. And when you take into consideration who the translators were, and the credentials they brought with them..

I don't know what you mean by this.

See below:

]Examine the N.W.T. 1984 edition[/b]. They have a list of the manuscripts, or Codex's used for their translation. I counted 96. Their list includes the Textus Receptus, Latin vulgate, Sinaitic Syriac codex, Hebrew, Greek etc.

The only such lists I found were footnotes to Mark 16:9-20 (the "long ending" to Mark) and John 7:53-8:11 (the "Pericopae Adulterae"). These aren't comprehensive lists, but brief explanations of the text critical decisions that were made in deciding that those verses weren't original to the Gospels. These aren't decisions that were made by the NWT translators themselves, but by the compilers of the critical texts. Most of the manuscripts that are important to the process are Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but there are some in Latin and Syriac that were translated from older Greek manuscripts and thus may retain readings from them.

Deciding which manuscripts are closer to the original by which ones most closely match your dogma will certainly give you the answer you might want, but that's unlikely to match the actual history of the textual tradition.

Only 3% give different answers.

But which 3% is of critical importance.

Explain to me what's going on??????????????? You cannot claim to use the Textus Receptus and come up with, "And the Word was "a god" in John 1:1. Because the Witnesses did say "the Word was a god," that tells me of all the 96 manuscripts they used, they picked and chose verses that supported their teaching.

The Textus Receptus has nothing to do with the Witness translation of John 1:1. That argument has to do with the exact wording of that verse in Greek, which is the same in all textual traditions. If the Witnesses are right, then the majority of translations are wrong, regardless of which source text they used.

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