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]

It then details how the Israelites became today's Anglo-Saxon English and American Christians.

My KJV also says that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I find that to be an interesting metaphor.

[marke]

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.

Marke:

AI Overview:
Learn more
Most modern translations of the New Testament use the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament as their primary source. This Greek New Testament is also a standard resource for academic study of the New Testament.
Explanation
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is a combination of readings from other editions of the Greek New Testament.

Marke: Most Nestle-Aland text made extensive use of the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, and other Alexandrian texts rejected by Bible scholars favoring the KJV for accuracy.

AI:
Key points about Nestle-Aland and Sinaiticus:
Balanced approach:
Nestle-Aland aimed to combine the strengths of different early manuscripts, not just relying on Sinaiticus.
Tischendorf's influence:
Earlier editions of the Greek New Testament, particularly those by Tischendorf, who discovered Sinaiticus, often gave more weight to its readings.
Critical apparatus:
The Nestle-Aland text includes a critical apparatus that notes variant readings from different manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, allowing scholars to see how different texts compare.

[Difflugia]

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

Marke: Most Nestle-Aland text made extensive use of the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, and other Alexandrian texts

Again, even if everything you say is true, you haven't made a case against textual criticism.

rejected by Bible scholars favoring the KJV for accuracy.

Which Bible scholars are those? That sounds to me like doctors that favor cigarettes for the many health benefits.

AI:
Key points about Nestle-Aland and Sinaiticus:
Balanced approach:
Nestle-Aland aimed to combine the strengths of different early manuscripts, not just relying on Sinaiticus.
Tischendorf's influence:
Earlier editions of the Greek New Testament, particularly those by Tischendorf, who discovered Sinaiticus, often gave more weight to its readings.
Critical apparatus:
The Nestle-Aland text includes a critical apparatus that notes variant readings from different manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, allowing scholars to see how different texts compare.

If these are meant to support your case, you'll have to explain how.

[marke]

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

Marke: Most Nestle-Aland text made extensive use of the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, and other Alexandrian texts

Again, even if everything you say is true, you haven't made a case against textual criticism.

rejected by Bible scholars favoring the KJV for accuracy.

Which Bible scholars are those? That sounds to me like doctors that favor cigarettes for the many health benefits.

AI:
Key points about Nestle-Aland and Sinaiticus:
Balanced approach:
Nestle-Aland aimed to combine the strengths of different early manuscripts, not just relying on Sinaiticus.
Tischendorf's influence:
Earlier editions of the Greek New Testament, particularly those by Tischendorf, who discovered Sinaiticus, often gave more weight to its readings.
Critical apparatus:
The Nestle-Aland text includes a critical apparatus that notes variant readings from different manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, allowing scholars to see how different texts compare.

If these are meant to support your case, you'll have to explain how.

Marke: John Burgon wrote "The Revision Revised" in response to Westcott and Hort's rewriting of the NT Greek and publication of their 1881 Revised Version. Burgon's arguments have never been refuted. Westcott and Hort werte shoddy translators but did have an eye for making money.

[Difflugia]

Marke: John Burgon wrote "The Revision Revised" in response to Westcott and Hort's rewriting of the NT Greek and publication of their 1881 Revised Version. Burgon's arguments have never been refuted.

I downloaded an electronic version of this from Project Gutenberg and read the first article, "The New Greek Text," since that's the part relevant to this discussion. The article is little more than a rambling argument from incredulity. Burgon's argument can be summed up by starting with his observation that late manuscripts are more consistent with each other than early texts, and by ending with his conviction that God supernaturally preserved the text. If the arguments have never been refuted, I suspect it's because nobody with any understanding of textual criticism saw the need to do so.

The first textual example he presents is the identification of the healing fountain in John 5:2. The KJV and Textus Receptus put the fountain at Bethesda, while the critical text of Westcott and Hort has Bethzatha with a footnote indicating Bethsaida. The translators of the RV (the precursor to the ASV) left it as Bethesda, but included a footnote. This so offended Burgon that he took a whole paragraph to express his shocked incredulity:

Undeniable at all events it is, that the effect which these ever-recurring announcements produce on the devout reader of Scripture is the reverse of edifying: is never helpful: is always bewildering. A man of ordinary acuteness can but exclaim,—“Yes, very likely. But what of it? My eye happens to alight on ‘Bethesda’ (in S. John v. 2); against which I find in the margin,—‘Some ancient authorities read Bethsaida, others Bethzatha.’ Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertain which of those three names is right?”... Not so the expert, who is overheard to moralize concerning the phenomena of the case after a less ceremonious fashion:—“ ‘Bethsaida’! Yes, the old Latin and the Vulgate, countenanced by one manuscript of bad character, so reads. ‘Bethzatha’! Yes, the blunder is found in two manuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us that another manuscript exhibits ‘Belzetha’?—another (supported by Eusebius and [in one place] by Cyril), ‘Bezatha’? Nay, why not say plainly that there are found to exist upwards of thirty blundering representations of this same word; but that ‘Bethesda’—(the reading of sixteen uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Peschito and Cureton's Syriac, the Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic Versions,—Didymus, Chrysostom, and Cyril),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To speak plainly, Why encumber your margin with such a note at all?”... But we are moving forward too fast.

Textual criticism is apparently unnecessary because we already know what the text is supposed to say. That's not too circular, is it?

Westcott and Hort werte shoddy translators but did have an eye for making money.

Considering that they weren't translators, I'll assume that this is just your own unsupported attempt at polemic. I'll bet they were doodie heads, too.

[marke]

Marke: John Burgon wrote "The Revision Revised" in response to Westcott and Hort's rewriting of the NT Greek and publication of their 1881 Revised Version. Burgon's arguments have never been refuted.

I downloaded an electronic version of this from Project Gutenberg and read the first article, "The New Greek Text," since that's the part relevant to this discussion. The article is little more than a rambling argument from incredulity. Burgon's argument can be summed up by starting with his observation that late manuscripts are more consistent with each other than early texts, and by ending with his conviction that God supernaturally preserved the text. If the arguments have never been refuted, I suspect it's because nobody with any understanding of textual criticism saw the need to do so.

The first textual example he presents is the identification of the healing fountain in John 5:2. The KJV and Textus Receptus put the fountain at Bethesda, while the critical text of Westcott and Hort has Bethzatha with a footnote indicating Bethsaida. The translators of the RV (the precursor to the ASV) left it as Bethesda, but included a footnote. This so offended Burgon that he took a whole paragraph to express his shocked incredulity:

Undeniable at all events it is, that the effect which these ever-recurring announcements produce on the devout reader of Scripture is the reverse of edifying: is never helpful: is always bewildering. A man of ordinary acuteness can but exclaim,—“Yes, very likely. But what of it? My eye happens to alight on ‘Bethesda’ (in S. John v. 2); against which I find in the margin,—‘Some ancient authorities read Bethsaida, others Bethzatha.’ Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertain which of those three names is right?”... Not so the expert, who is overheard to moralize concerning the phenomena of the case after a less ceremonious fashion:—“ ‘Bethsaida’! Yes, the old Latin and the Vulgate, countenanced by one manuscript of bad character, so reads. ‘Bethzatha’! Yes, the blunder is found in two manuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us that another manuscript exhibits ‘Belzetha’?—another (supported by Eusebius and [in one place] by Cyril), ‘Bezatha’? Nay, why not say plainly that there are found to exist upwards of thirty blundering representations of this same word; but that ‘Bethesda’—(the reading of sixteen uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Peschito and Cureton's Syriac, the Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic Versions,—Didymus, Chrysostom, and Cyril),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To speak plainly, Why encumber your margin with such a note at all?”... But we are moving forward too fast.

Textual criticism is apparently unnecessary because we already know what the text is supposed to say. That's not too circular, is it?

Westcott and Hort werte shoddy translators but did have an eye for making money.

Considering that they weren't translators, I'll assume that this is just your own unsupported attempt at polemic. I'll bet they were doodie heads, too.

Marke: Westcott and Hort told Burgon they would not alter the Greek text in their new revision but they lied to him and produced an entirely different Greek text that foolishly relied on corrupted or fake manuscripots like the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

The Revision Revised, John Burgon

I. I pointed out that ‘the New Greek Text,’—which, in defiance of their instructions,’ the Revisionists of ‘the Authorized English Version’ had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of the published confession of one of the Revisionists,? I explained the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body.’ I called attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort’s guidance: had preferred his counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but ievitable—result. All this L explained in the October number of the ‘ Quarterly Review’ for 1881.

[placebofactor]

It then details how the Israelites became today's Anglo-Saxon English and American Christians.

My KJV also says that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I find that to be an interesting metaphor.

Rxix, what would a whole lot of God's leaven do to the N.W.T.? Ka-Boom!!!!!!

[lifelongseeker]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

They told me to seek the truth. I finally did.

Our OT was produced by Masorete Jews 1000 years after Christ called them sons of Satan.

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ. Ordered into cannon by...for...
____________
Masoretes -"𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛". Masoretic Text - "𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛" (Jewish Tanakh, from 1008BC) is our Old Testament.
Jeremiah 8:8 

Many ancient manuscripts have been found. Mystic, Gnostic, another messiah...

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

They told me to seek the truth. I finally did.

Our OT was produced by Masorete Jews 1000 years after Christ called them sons of Satan.

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ. Ordered into cannon by...for...
____________
Masoretes -"𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛". Masoretic Text - "𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛" (Jewish Tanakh, from 1008BC) is our Old Testament.
Jeremiah 8:8 

Many ancient manuscripts have been found. Mystic, Gnostic, another messiah...

Who told you to seek the truth?

[historia]

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ.

Unfortunately for this doomed hypothesis, we have a handful of 2nd century and numerous 3rd century papyrus manuscripts of the NT. So the text was clearly written well before "300 years after Christ," which would be the 4th Century.

Ordered into cannon by...for...

By . . . whom? And for . . . what?