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?

[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.

One more thing. If you think it's okay to leave out whole verses in the Bible, change words, then use it. But I will continue to warn others about their corruption.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #21]

I found the following on the internet, it was written by Luke Moosey

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and best” manuscripts. The oldest claim has been disproved elsewhere. This document will focus on the nature of these two favored manuscripts. Sinaiticus has been recently made available to all on the internet by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, with the mainstream media and general Christians fawning over this “world’s oldest Bible.” This manuscript, in conjunction with Codex Vaticanus, form the basis for most modern Bible translations. However, these two manuscripts differ substantially from the text of the bulk of the manuscripts. Thus, the public needs to know the truth about these manuscripts.

Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.

Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. Its history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes and has been corrected by at least two more3. Vaticanus adds to the Old Testament the apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Dean Burgon describes the poor workmanship of Vaticanus:

Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.4

The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”5 Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!

The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:

When Egeria visited the Sinai around the year 380, she wrote approvingly of the way the monks read to her the scriptural accounts concerning the various events that had taken place there. Thus we can speak of manuscripts at Sinai in the fourth century. It is written of Saint John Climacus that, while living as a hermit, he spent much time in prayer and in the copying of books. This is evidence of manuscript production at Sinai in the sixth century. The library at the Holy Monastery of Sinai is thus the inheritor of texts and of traditions that date to the earliest years of a monastic presence in the Sinai. In earlier times, manuscripts were kept in three different places: in the north wall of the monastery, in the vicinity of the church, and in a central location where the texts were accessible.8

This monastery has a library full of old manuscripts. One would then assume that Tischendorf found the prized Sinaiticus one a library shelf, hidden among other manuscripts. Well, this is not exactly the case. He found it in a trash can, waiting to be burnt! Sound incredible? Tischendorf gives his personal testimony:

It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my research. In visiting the library of the monastery, in May 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, moldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.9

Why would the monks of St. Catherine’s throw out such a valuable manuscript? Perhaps because of its low-quality transcription and its “heavily corrected text.”10 Concerning its sloppy penmanship, Burgon writes, “On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.11” His colleague, Frederick H. Scrivener, goes into detail:

Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton…whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament…Tregelles has freely pronounced that “the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.”12

Sinaiticus has also been corrected by “…at least ten revisers between the IVth and XIIth centuries…”13 The Codex Sinaiticus Project readily admits:

No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences. 14

[Difflugia]

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.

Are you talking about Codex Sinaiticus now?

Considering your inability to even get the details of your own conspiracy theory right, I'm not sure why any part of it is my responsibility to explain. All you've argued and are apparently still arguing is that the later texts are more popular and so, apparently, are closer to the original state of the autographs. You've repeatedliy asserted that Alexandrian texts are corrupted, but when asked in this or other threads what you mean by that, you change the subject. You haven't addressed the methods of textual critics or how they use the various manuscripts, only that Alexandrian manuscripts shouldn't be used in the way that you imagine the critics are using them.

In short, it looks to me like you're positive that the textual critics have it wrong, but you've absolutely no idea why.

[placebofactor]

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.

Are you talking about Codex Sinaiticus now?

Considering your inability to even get the details of your own conspiracy theory right, I'm not sure why any part of it is my responsibility to explain. All you've argued and are apparently still arguing is that the later texts are more popular and so, apparently, are closer to the original state of the autographs. You've repeatedliy asserted that Alexandrian texts are corrupted, but when asked in this or other threads what you mean by that, you change the subject. You haven't addressed the methods of textual critics or how they use the various manuscripts, only that Alexandrian manuscripts shouldn't be used in the way that you imagine the critics are using them.

In short, it looks to me like you're positive that the textual critics have it wrong, but you've absolutely no idea why.

I could care less about a few words being changed, but when words and phrases are changed the twist basic fundamental doctrine, then I have a problem. The N.W.T. is notorious for twisting the truth of God into a pretzel. As far as I am concerned the N.W.T. teachings on almost every subject go against 2000 years of basic fundamental doctrine, be they Catholic or Protestant.

N.W.T. teaches,
No Hell
No Trinity
No person of the Holy Spirit, only the Father's breath.
Jesus is not God, but a god.
The heaven and earth were created over 6000 years, 1000 years for a day.
Man does not have a soul or spirit.
The Father destroyed Jesus' body.
The 144,000 are not Jews. And on and on it goes.

[JehovahsWitness]

The heaven and earth were created over 6000 years, 1000 years for a day.

INCORRECT Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the above.

Man does not have a soul or spirit.

INCORRECT Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the above.

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

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs can be found on their official CLICK HERE website www.jw.org



JW

[marke]

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.

Are you talking about Codex Sinaiticus now?

Considering your inability to even get the details of your own conspiracy theory right, I'm not sure why any part of it is my responsibility to explain. All you've argued and are apparently still arguing is that the later texts are more popular and so, apparently, are closer to the original state of the autographs. You've repeatedliy asserted that Alexandrian texts are corrupted, but when asked in this or other threads what you mean by that, you change the subject. You haven't addressed the methods of textual critics or how they use the various manuscripts, only that Alexandrian manuscripts shouldn't be used in the way that you imagine the critics are using them.

In short, it looks to me like you're positive that the textual critics have it wrong, but you've absolutely no idea why.

The shady history of Codex Sinaiticus coupled with eyewitness testimony claiming it was forged and combined with the fact of thousands of variant readings, additions, and omissions have prompted good translators to reject it. Sadly, however, there is hardly a modern English version today that has not been damaged by the use of the Sinaiticus in some part of its translation process.

[Rxlx]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

so what?

My KJV says GOD created everything in six days with Adam being the last creation.
It tells of Jesus and his dying at the hands of the Jews.
It then details how the Israelites became today's Anglo-Saxon English and American Christians .
And it tells how all nonChristians will be destroyed during Armageddon.

This is all we Christians need to know.

[Difflugia]

I could care less about a few words being changed, but when words and phrases are changed the twist basic fundamental doctrine, then I have a problem. The N.W.T. is notorious for twisting the truth of God into a pretzel. As far as I am concerned the N.W.T. teachings on almost every subject go against 2000 years of basic fundamental doctrine, be they Catholic or Protestant.

I think you're right about the NWT, but those problems are independent of its use of a critical text. You're trying to combine too many discussions into one. If you want to discuss the NWT, it's best to compare it to other modern translations to avoid getting distracted by KJV-only topics. Similarly, if you want to discuss KJV-only and textual criticism, including the NWT and its odd translation choices just muddies the water.

[Difflugia]

The shady history of Codex Sinaiticus coupled with eyewitness testimony claiming it was forged and combined with the fact of thousands of variant readings, additions, and omissions have prompted good translators to reject it.

Nobody's translating Sinaiticus by itself and calling it their Bible. It's being used with full knowledge of its provenance and history as data in the overall process of textual criticism. Even if for the sake of argument we assume all of your claims are true, none of them address how Sinaiticus and the other sources are actually being used.

Sadly, however, there is hardly a modern English version today that has not been damaged by the use of the Sinaiticus in some part of its translation process.

You haven't actually made a case that the process of textual criticism is faulty.

[placebofactor]

The heaven and earth were created over 6000 years, 1000 years for a day.

INCORRECT Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the above.

Man does not have a soul or spirit.

INCORRECT Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the above.

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

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs can be found on their official CLICK HERE website www.jw.org



JW

I'm sorry, if the Witnesses have changed their teaching over the past few years on both subjects, I stand corrected. But you are absolutely wrong. I have had dozens of conversations with Witnesses who are Elders over the past 40 years, and that's what they believed. I have no reason to lie to you, that's exactly what I was told. I will call my nephew today, and Elder in your church and see what he has to say about both subjects.