If the root of the issue is one of manuscripts, it must be demonstrated that one family of manuscripts is inferior to another, based on some criteria. This has not been done.

What is the evidence that the Alexandrian family is corrupt and Byzantine family trustworthy? By what standard are you measuring each group? By comparing to each other? By comparing to an outside standard?

If comparing to each other, the families are just different, not "good" or "bad".

If comparing to an outside authority, what is that authority? That "authority" then becomes the "Official Word of God". Whatever it is cannot be the KJV, because the KJV was produced from one of the families, and that becomes circular reasoning.

I just remembered this from the KJV.


It adds "hath he quickened," which is not in the manuscripts.

Does that count as adding to God's word?

I don't think there is a special need to compare one line of manuscripts against another to know which of them is superior. However, I think that a simple comparison of them does indeed lead us to a knowledge of the truth on the matter. For those who wish to think it would be circular logic to do so, let me present the option via an allegory.

A man by the name of Benjamin Wolff goes seeking for the most authentic clock, trying to find the most original measure of time. He has heard rumors of time having changed over the years, and wishes to lay such theories to rest. Knowing that many good and famous clocks were made in Switzerland, he travels to Switzerland and visits numerous clock shops.

Some naysayers have touted claims that time has been changed, and that the modern minute is no longer equal to the minute used in times past. To settle the matter, Benjamin assays to compare several thousand of the world's finest antiques, and he checks their measurement of time against a finely-calibrated modern atomic clock. Imagine his surprise to find that there was some truth in the naysayers' arguments! In fact, as he studies, he finds one particular small line of clocks whose minutes deviated from the modern measure so that they were more than a second longer than 60 seconds!

All other clocks in Switzerland, France, and Europe which Benjamin timed were within a tenth of a second of the standard time--with the vast majority of those deviating less than two-hundredths of a second per minute.

To solve the conundrum, Benjamin has just a few facts to go on, for the clocks, along with the shops from which they came, date back beyond any living memory or record. Here are the facts:

1) The clocks which are all timed within a couple hundredths of a second of the modern minute are in the majority. In fact, over 95% of all clocks are of this line.
2) The line of clocks with the longer minute, apart from being fewer in number, are also less widespread in origin, and seem to originate from one of about three major places, all of which may have been associated at an earlier point in time.
3) The standard-minute clocks have been considered the standard by many people in all walks of life for centuries, and are frequently referenced in government documents, private letters, and other ancient records--all of which agree with the modern time.

Who has the "original" time?

If Benjamin had but two watches on his wrist, both of which differed from the other, would he have any way of knowing which of the two were more accurate? Of course not. But suppose Benjamin had three watches on his person, two of which agreed while the third differed...which time would he trust? Would he not trust the two which showed the same time?

Now, in the case that there are 20 clocks, and only one is different while 19 all show the identical same time--which time would a wise person trust?

That is exactly the situation with the Bible manuscripts. The "Majority Text" is a subset of all known copies of the Bible manuscripts comprising about 95% of them. Only 1 in 20 manuscripts differs, and is part of the Alexandrian text, or "Neutral Text" as it was christened by Westcott and Hort--after they had edited and revised the original copies.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Arnold,

In this particular case, it may be that some of the original manuscript was beyond legibility and the translators added the words in order to harmonize with the rest of scripture. There are a few other places where the KJV translators have done this.

Here is the text which they likely used to fill in the blanks:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Rosangela, I asked my wife and she said the Bible version in most Spanish countries is the 'Reina Valera', which is the KJV for all intents and purposes. Is that also the case in your churches?

Here is a good study I came across on this issue....

http://themoorings.org/doctrine/issues/versions/CT.html


I also came across a list of some the versions that published using the Alexandrian Codices or the Hort-Westcott - Critical Text:
Greisbach, Johann - 1805
Lachmann, Karl - 1842
Tischendorf, Constantine - 1869
Tregelles, Samuel - 1857
Alford, Henry - 1849 revised in 1871
Westcott and Hort - 1881
Weiss, Bernhard - 1894
Nestle - 1927 as revised in seventeenth edition in 1941
Nestle-Aland - 1979 - Twenty Sixth Edition
Nestle-Aland - 1993 - Twenty Seventh Edition
United Bible Societies - 1983 - Fourth Edition
Von Soden, Freiherr - 1902

Here is a good site which shows the versions...
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/CriticalEds.html

How do we know the modern atomic clock is correct? Where does it get it's basis? Isn't it from an arbitrary time? (Preciseness doesn't mean correct)

Except in your case, you have circularly picked a clock you like, found some in the past which agree with you, and therefore conclude it is "correct". Perhaps this is another case where one of your analogies has broken down again.

In my example, it doesn't matter whether or not the atomic clock is correct. What matters is that it can be a consistent measure of time used to compare the other clocks. In my example, the other clocks would be considered the source of the "correct" time--only, which ones? The atomic clock would accurately compare the differences, don't you think?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"In my example, it doesn't matter whether or not the atomic clock is correct."

I'd agree with that statement based upon how it relates (or doesn't) to the Bible versions.

No matter how many different words you use, you are still saying, more is better.

Perhaps you haven't understood the argument.

Perhaps you are one who would prefer to believe the time on the one clock that was different, and ignore the 19 clocks which all read the same.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.