King James Version or RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?

Take a look at this comparison of the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV....

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/articles-BibleInsight-BibleBattle.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emgkCvzJTIY&eurl=http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/articles-BibleInsight-BibleBattle.html Battle of the Bibles

did they show where the kjv lacks in some verses that other versions give an accurate reading such as hebrews and the most holy place?

http://www.t3asda.org/articles/articles.htm
Translations of ta hagia Compared.pdf

out of curiosity has anyone "tested the spirits" and compared various versions generally to see how other verses compare? i ask because i read pioneer articles where they had issues with the king james version. ellen white quoted the revised version when it came out and i have a very hard time believing that God just didnt get around to telling her there was something wrong with that version.

Teresa,

I challenge you or anyone else here to study this issue to its core. Our church's stance on this has been a morally weak, but politically correct statement that all Bibles were created equal. In essence, the General Conference adopted the philosophy so well stated by Arthur Maxwell in his book "Your Bible and You," printed by the Review and Herald. He wrote, "Perhaps you too are wondering whether the book you hold in your hand is really the Bible. You need not worry. No matter what version it may be, it is still the Word of God" (p 43).

Personally, I can think of a few versions and books that I would not call the Word of God.

However, what many people do not realize, is that this issue of which version is best does indeed transcend the English language. It is not, in fact, an issue over which translation is the most accurate, but rather over which original manuscripts should serve as the source material.

I hear many people say that the NIV is more accurately translated than the KJV. This may be true, but it is a comparison of an apple and an orange, because they are not translated from the same "Bible." The NIV is translated from the Alexandrian Text, whereas the KJV was translated from the Majority Text also called the Textus Receptus (Received Text).

More than 95% of the original manuscripts of the Bible all agree. That is why we call them the "majority text." However, in order to support their own doctrines, modern translators have gone to a minority, outlying text, which was doctored by the RC church both centuries ago and in more recent times, and have claimed that these texts are "more ancient," thus implying "more original."

So here is the issue at its core:

"Textus Receptus" aka "Majority Text" aka "Byzantine Text"

versus

"Alexandrian Text" aka "Egyptian Text" aka "Neutral Text"


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

yes, i know that it has to with which original manuscripts a version goes by.

but the criticisms do not deal with this fact:


if you choose to buy into all this i believe your choice should be respected and none say anything about it. i also believe others who do not see it the same way should be respected and not "beat up" for preferring another version, as ive seen so many do. it should not be set up as a "test" as is happening.

oh well, it seems adventists can find more to argue over and discuss than studying the essentials that make us ready for heaven.

I like considering as many different versions as possible. The Internet is good for that. Looking at different languages is nice too. Sometimes some version or language will bring out a point you haven't thought of before.

I agree with GC's point about the Textus Receptus. For example, regarding the story of the woman caught in adultery, the NIV says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." So that makes one wonder if this story belongs in the Bible or not. There are many verses like this.

Teresa,

I don't have a hard time with it. Do you "have a very hard time" with believing that God did not present the Sabbath truth to Martin Luther? What about the statements from Mrs. White to our early church pastors that they should not be telling people to give up their pork?



Obviously, God had not yet "revealed" this to the early Advent movement. However, a good case could be made for saying that He had already revealed it in Leviticus.

I can easily make a case against such spurious versions of the Bible as the NIV based solely on a text-by-text comparison. And I would also point out that there are hardly just two or three in our church today with the light on this subject. God may not reveal everything to every generation. But Ellen White has emphasized the fact that there would be more light to come after her, and that the church must continue to grow in its knowledge of truth.

The NIV did not exist in her day, and she never used it. Should her use of the RV sanction every Bible version to follow? Or, should we merely recognize that she, under wisdom of the prophetic gift, knew how to choose just the right verses which were better portrayed in the RV, and that she avoided those which would lead away from the truth?

She gave explicit instructions to her editors not to use another Bible version without her supervision. What should that mean to us today?

Here is a quote from the Adventist Biblical Research Institute on the topic of Mrs. White's use of Bible versions:


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

There are whole concepts removed from the modern versions such as the NIV. For instance, try proving the benefit of fasting from any of the Alexandrian Bibles. Try using the NIV to establish that Jesus' death on the cross did NOT abolish the Ten Commandments.

You will have a very hard time.

In fact, if there are some NIV lovers here, please show me how to prove, solely from the NIV, that Jesus did not abolish the law on the cross.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree the NIV is very hit and miss. No translation is perfect. For accuracy, the KJV is hard to beat. Young's Literal Translation seems quite good as well.

There's more "miss" in the NIV than you might think. How about knowing that the Never Inspired Version gives credit to "Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim" for killing Goliath! (See 2 Samuel 21:19 in NIV.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

KJV is my sole study version. Coupled with concordances, the true meaning should be clear to the contrite seeker for truth. EGW's very limited use of other versions to clarify select verses is not an endorsement of the Alexandrian text. She was not writing for scholars alone, but sought the clearest contemporary explanation where possible. From observation, her use of non-KJV sources is rare. (5%, 2%, 1% ???)

Translator error & bias appear in the KJV, but are revealed by use of Strong's Concordance (most holy place, etc). We must remember the Bible constantly repeats God's themes of justice and mercy, that non may err. One questionable passage rightly compared will find its true context in the weight of evidence.

Since EGW's work has been edited (esp. latterly), its possible other version (RSV) entries were not her own. The Maxwell "any version" doctrine is Jesuit propaganda. This ecumenical seed was planted by Rome, leading to the many confused versions and denominations today. I could never safely encourage a reading of multiple versions, many of which have been authored with the specific intention to deceive.

The definitive SDA study on this subject is Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) by B.G. Wilkinson.

[The following explanation was posted a couple of years back - GB]

In 1930, despite opposition from the General Conference, B.J. Wilkinson published 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated'. Wilkinson was Dean of Theology at Washington Missionary College (SDA) in Takoma Park, D.C.

This classic text reveals two distinct manuscript sources for today's Bibles, one relatively pure, from which springs the King James Version. The other is a corrupted stream and the source for Roman Catholic and most modern Bibles (e.g NIV). After reading Wilkinson's book one understands the reason for confusion in the churches. Ellen White corroborates his findings when speaking of the Waldenses - "They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution." GC 65. Perhaps this was a prophetic type for the last days.

All those interested in Bible study would benefit from reading Wilkinson's book. It is reprinted by Leaves of Autumn in Payson, Arizona. When the G.C. responded strongly against the book and its author, Wilkinson issued a companion volume to answer the unfounded charges of faulty scholarship, 'Answers to Objections to Our Authorized Bible'. He may be one of our last truly protestant scholars. Sola Scriptura.

Is God able to protect His Word? Certainly; almost 400 years as our English Bible. Does Satan seek to draw us from the pure stream of Life? Yes, but not with book bonfires of the past. Instead, subtle corruptions which confuse our study.

In my opinion the more versions, the more confusion, and this by design. I can safely recommend the King James Version. As well, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, published 1890. Available at any Christian bookstore and most public libraries. Verify that the Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries are included. Avoid abridged versions of Strong's.

Serious Bible students will be blessed to own the New Englishman's Hebrew and Greek Concordances, by George V. Wigram. (Published 1843 & 1844). (Hendrickson Publishers)

The Bible is our Great Treasure House. We must mine it to the depths. "None but those who have fortified the mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict" GC 593.

i am not only responding to you but to the positions of others on this issue, who have made it a "test", and completely bought into some things said without "testing the spirits". there is no english translation that is without error.

someone pointed out that a certain version "proved" pergatory. well, the kjv supports "hell". i remember when we had to point out the real meaning of those particular verses. the kjv also supports the view that Christ entered into the most holy place upon ascension which is important to those of us who believe otherwise.



you will have to point out where i said, or thought, the above bolded part.



no statement was given to support that, but i assume it to be true. i would also assume she meant other than the version she used for each specific quote she used in her writings, not that they couldnt read another version for themselves or teach from it.

i can understand egws reasonings in the last quote you gave.

my issue has been, and is, with the legalists who are all worried about jewelry wearing, meat eating, which version a person reads, but has little interest in actually living the 10 commandments. they have just discovered one more rule to live by and inflict on their fellowman.

the important point is that all translations have error and that is what we need to be aware of when studying any version.

could you supply specific alterations in egws writings, please?

there werent many denominations before?

its amazing!! let someone come into our church with the right words and we are sold hook, line and sinker. after all they are pointing out the errors of the papacy which we believe, right? but can anyone show me where the main focus is preaching "Christ and Him crucified"? that might be a better test of whether the persons statements should be accepted or not.

again, man is "adding to the words". she did not state the "kjv version of the bible".

Hello Teresa,

I concur with many sentiments you've expressed and will address what I can.

1. I use the KJV for a number of reasons. The language appeals to me, majestic yet compact. I believe God purposely preserved this version (and the Textus Receptus) as the guiding light of the Protestant Reformation. William Miller sparked the Great Second Advent Movement with the KJV and Cruden's Concordance. The KJV was the foundation for the SDA pioneers, notably the prophet EGW during her visions. All this amounts to a good starting point. Almost 400 years and very many printing plates later.

But form and pedigree must bow to function. What good is a book if it does not work? When married with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and those mentioned above by Wigram, the KJV reveals riches without measure. Today these same tools must be available for many versions, at least online, but I've felt no draw to use an e-Bible for study.

Yes I admit that certain issues (e.g. - most holy place) can be misunderstood. But if we would take the example of W. Miller who truly believed in the Second Coming, (as some here might also profess) our study would be deep and diligent. Miller used a Bible Concordance, but Cruden's is vastly inferior to Strong's Exhaustive (1890). If we used the tools at our disposal (prepared for those who do not understand the original languages), we'd be far less prone to error or confusion. We must rightly divide the Word. The KJV works for me.

2.Quote:
"She gave explicit instructions to her editors not to use another Bible version without her supervision."

I've not read these instructions either. It may not matter what she requested. EGW was ignored, disobeyed, even reviled and despised by many within the denomination. She was a prophet, a messenger, not a denominational leader or authority. Jesus gave instructions which were ignored too. Nothing new here. Perhaps some of the worst were those most closely associated with her writing work. (Fanny Bolton, Uriah Smith for starters)

3. TereQ:"my issue has been, and is, with the legalists who are all worried about jewelry wearing, meat eating, which version a person reads, but has little interest in actually living the 10 commandments. they have just discovered one more rule to live by and inflict on their fellowman."

Agreed Teresa, Love is the fulfilling of the law. If there is no love, the law has not been understood.

4. TereQ: "the important point is that all translations have error and that is what we need to be aware of when studying any version."

Ok, all translations contain error, but some is incidental or accidental. Other errors (entire Bibles) have been intentionally planted. The Jesuits have for their sole objective the annihilation of true Protestantism to allow world domination by the Vatican. Where the Inquisition methods (Dominicans) will not work, they use education and literature to undermine faith in God's Word. They have inspired numerous versions in use today, in many languages. I believe the first was the Jesuit New Testament of 1582. Please see the Wilkinson book noted above & available for free online viewing at several sites. (Google)

5. TereQ: "could you supply specific alterations in egws writings, please?"

I may disappoint you, for I've not chronicled all the examples I've seen. But they have convinced me I must be a Bible student if I hope to know the truth. There was a good site posted on an AOL "homepage", but it disappeared recently after a few years. I'm sure there are plenty of sites documenting various changes. Some of course written to discredit EGW. But if you read her early work (esp. originals or photofacsimile reproductions, and compare it with later works, you'll see what I mean.

As you may know, shortly after James White (husband) died in 1881, the GC convened a committee of five men (1883) to edit EGW's work. (Uriah Smith, W. C. White, J. H. Waggoner, S. N. Haskell, George I. Butler.) Prior to this I believe James was both editor and publisher of her works. Fortunately she wrote a fair bit before this date, and some is still available as photofacsimile reproductions from Review & Herald. (Spiritual Gifts 1-4, Spirit of Prophecy vols. 1-4, Sketches from the Life of Paul.)

To be continued...

5. ..cont. TereQ: "could you supply specific alterations in egws writings, please?"

When I realized there had been alterations I was relieved, for it explained the inconsistencies I had found which had first occassioned confusion and perplexity. I believe there may be hundreds or thousands of alterations/additions/omissions. Some SDAs have researchd this to greater depth, but there may be more important ways to spend our time. If we accept the counsel of the prophet that we should not depend upon her writings for doctrine unless we can first prove it from the Word, we will all be on safer ground. It's also very likely there are unreleased writings.

Although the 1884 Great Controversy (Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 4) was published the year following the committee's creation, I believe it escaped under the wire - perhaps the manuscript was already prepared and typeset. This book sets the standard, especially the chapter titles which have been changed in the 1911 (current) GC. As well, one might note four entire pages of the 1884 GC which do not appear in the current edition. These were the initial pages of the chapter 'The Snares of Satan', warning the people of God of coming deception. Vanished.

Steps to Christ has been changed. The current version (millions in print) has one extra chapter - the first chapter. This chapter is not found in the original (1892) published by Fleming Revell. I have examined an original copy - the first chapter is entitled 'The Sinner's Need of Christ'. Today's versions starts with 'God's Love for Man'. Some claim this was added by Uriah Smith. Likely, but I have no proof.

Some (or many) of the charges of plagiarism against EGW could stem from material added by Uriah Smith or others. This may be one reason the 1911 GC is roughly twice the size of the 1884 GC, though most additions were probably made in 1888.

Am I the only one to feel uncomfortable reading the protracted account of the French Revolution (ch 15) in the 1911 GC?? Seems forced, doesn't follow her style and it's only a few pages in the 1884 edition.

Other changes include the current and growing Trinity debate. Words have been capitalized to give emphasis - 'Third Person' as opposed to the original 'third person'. Where she usually wrote 'it' to refer to the Spirit, this has been changed to 'He'. It's all very dishonest and misleading, including the insertion of the word Trinity in certain headings, implying she used this word. From my study, she never used the word Trinity.

6. TereQ: "there werent many denominations before?"

Indeed. But the more confusion, the greater the splintering of Protestantism. The Jesuit MO (Modus Operandi) is divide and conquer. This has been the effect of multiple divergent versions. The result, as with the SOP tampering, is to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.

7. TereQ: "its amazing!! let someone come into our church with the right words and we are sold hook, line and sinker... but can anyone show me where the main focus is preaching "Christ and Him crucified"? that might be a better test of whether the persons statements should be accepted or not.

Agreed. But the right words are not necessary, just a pin or introduction that reads 'pastor', 'reverend', 'Dr.' The majority will swallow almost anything from someone with a title and a suit. Jesus wouldn't make the cut. From where ?? - Nazareth?!?

Christ and Him Crucified is the core message. But there are only two responses:
1) "they were pricked in their heart, and said...what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)
2) 'they were cut to the heart and took counsel to slay them" (Acts 5:33)

The contrite response requires a change ("what shall we do?"). Do you know many (any) willing to change?

The rebellious response will get one 'slain' or removed from the synagogue. Do you know many (any) willing to risk their income, house, children's education package, pension and career or life to preach Christ and Him Crucified?

So yes this is a better test than Pope-bashing ability. But it requires the death of self. So here's the real test. Are we ready to die? Are we converted? Can we tell what Christ has done for us? Has here been a change of heart? No recognition of sin in the life, no conversion story? Love our enemies or hate them?

8. TereQ: "if ellen white was referring to the king james version in this quote she would have stated so."

Quite true Teresa. The Waldenses (of that era) preceded the KJV by hundreds of years. But note that EGW makes a distinction that it was possession of truth unadulterated which rendered them special objects of hatred & persecution. It was not Romanized or Baylonian wine from which they drank. No mingling of their doctrine. This implies that even then specious teachings or perhaps whole Bibles existed which did not identify "the Church of Rome to be the apostate Babylon of the Apocalypse." GC 65

Finally, I believe many rely too heavily on EGW. She is not our authority, nor ever claimed to be. Without question she was inspired by God to shed light upon the Scriptures due to our benighted condition. To bring us out of darkness. But we have not walked in that light, nor advanced it. This renders us no better than Lutherans or Methodists. The people of God follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. We will not advance by studying EGW. She is not the Source. We would be stronger Christians by exhausting a topic from the Word before cracking an EGW book.

i think a topic should be started investigating each item of egws that has been tampered with/altered/edited. we shouldnt go around saying or believing such is true without proving it beyond a shadow of doubt one way or the other.

i have seen no proof yet that the charges are true from the several over the last year that have claimed it to be true.

TQ: "i think a topic should be started investigating each item of egws that has been tampered with/altered/edited."

So start a topic Teresa. Have you verified the above examples?

TQ: "we shouldnt go around saying or believing such is true without proving it beyond a shadow of doubt one way or the other."

So don't. Don't go around saying or believing without proof. Don't endorse EGW's writings unless you can prove they are authentic. Otherwise just promote the ones you've verified. Believe what you wish, but don't expect the men in black to always speak the truth. They can talk about Rome, but do they speak of Christ and Him crucified?

I've proven these things for myself, but few can tolerate investigation of their pet institution. The EGW Estate kept reams of manuscripts from generations of loyal tithers before releasing them (some?) in the 1990s. Same as in Christ's day. Keep the people in the dark. EGW would denounce the way her writings are used today, as she did when alive.

In truth it would be interesting to have a list or database showing the changes. I have seen many posted online, then verified with the books. At this point it would seem better to invest the time in learning about Christ crucified as you stated.

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt will only come by faith and weight of evidence. God will never remove all cause for doubt.

Don't be loyal to an institution. Be loyal to Christ. Speak the truth.

Teresa,

I will vouch for having seen some of those changes in the Great Controversy. I've been working with multiple translations of EGW's writings, and have discovered whole chapters to be different, depending on the language. For example, the French version of Great Controversy has a whole lot to say that was especially about France, the Spanish version has a whole lot to say peculiar to Spain, and the English version contains a different version yet. This is limited (I think) to one chapter which is added to those translations. However, as a polyglot I have also been surprised at the inaccuracies of some of the translation which I have seen. Most of the time, the translation is quite good--but there have been a few cases that have seemed to cross the line.

The frustrating part is trying to determine from which edition of the Great Controversy the foreign language versions were translated. The paragraph count, and/or chapter sizes are different between the several editions of the Great Controversy. Unfortunately, not all of Mrs. White's books are translated with a solid reference as to their source. In the Asian languages that I've seen, many of her books are published without any English text in them--so there goes the ability to pick up a book and say, "Ah! This is the 'Desire of Ages' that I want to give my friend in the local language."

In spite of our testimony on these things, I would agree with Gordon that you should verify for yourself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

All versions of the Bible have their good and bad points. That's why comparing versions is useful. The same thing applies to the SOP. When we compare everything she has written on a given topic we cannot help arriving at sound conclusions. We also have the 28 fundamental beliefs to help guide us. In many cases I have found that the people who are looking for excuses for their frequent failures are less likely to wholeheartedly embrace the truth as it is in Jesus. On the other hand, those who are eager to obey and observe everything Jesus commanded are often boorish and brutal on themselves and the rest of us. Surely there must be a beautiful balance. Jesus found it, so may we, with His help.

What do you mean by "testing the spirits", and if you go back to the original Greek you can see the intent of the writer, or you can compare your version to the KJV which is tried and tested..

Here is part of the comparison Proffesor Veight did...

KJV
(King James Version)RSV-------------(Revised Standard Version)-----------NIV(New International Version)

1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
---For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
---For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
---( missing )


Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
---Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
--- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,


Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
---wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
---and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
---wash your sins away, calling on his name.
__________________

The problem with some versions is that it is not a just a'different translation', sometimes there is editing to take out whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with their doctrine or traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own... and I like where the professor adds 'You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV...'

So its not just a 'different translation' with some versions....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The Textus Receptus (the vast majority of copies from original, and what the King James is based on) has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands....


"...Textus Receptus

Before we considerthe King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.

Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2) The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim, under whose editorship it was printed in in 1524-5).
Two Bibles


In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller's first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:
Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). For 45 years I was in this camp; but I thank God for opening my eyes.
Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text - Textus Receptus. I have now joined this camp.
Fuller continues: Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)
Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?

The answer is because:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
Reverend Gipp comments further:
Quote: "The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents themajority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3)


Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book: Quote: "Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' " (Ref:B4)
In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus: Quote: "Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref3) In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
Quote: "For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text… If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be."(Ref: E1)
__________________

for anyone interested this is an article by our pioneers back in the day on the kjv.

some thoughts by our pioneers on the "common version" aka kjv

review and herald VOL. XVIII. BATTLE CREEK, HIGH,, THIRD-DAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 1861. No. 23.

Words Added to the Scriptures in the Common Version.

ITALIC letters are used in the common version to denote the words and phrases, which have been added by the translators to complete what they supposed to be the sense. Many of these are mere human additions to the words of inspiration. A few examples will make this plain,

In the 19th Psalm, David, contemplating the glory of God in the material heavens, exclaims:
" Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth
knowledge."

But lest this might impart an erroneous impression, he adds,

" No speech! No language ! Their voice is not heard ! but their line hath gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

As Addison says:

"What though nor real voice nor sound Amidst their radiant orbs be found ?
In reason's ear they all rejoice, And utter forth a glorious voice, Forever singing as they shine The hand that made us is divine."

But in the common version this idea is completely changed by the addition of italic words, making the psalmist say:

" There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

In Matthew xx, 23, our Lord says:

" To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but for whom it is prepared of my Father."

The meaning here is plain. Christ gives it only to those for whom it is prepared by the Father, this meaning is completely changed by the words inserted in italic, which make the passage read:
" It is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."

By these words it is represented that Christ has not the power to give, thus contradicting his declaration that all power is given to him in heaven and earth.

In many passages the word man is inserted, limiting or destroying the sense of the original, which is none, or no one. In John x, 29, our Saviour says of his sheep, " No one is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Our version makes it, " No man is able.

So in Hebrews x, 12, the word man is inserted, where it is not in the original. The sense of the passage is much injured here, and in various other places, by such an insertion., The manhood of Christ is not here referred to, but his priesthood.

2 Cor. iii, 3 : "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men, manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ," is changed by inserting the useless and perverting words, " For as much as ye are."

"Words in the Common Version Mistranslated,

THE number of words and phrases in the common version that do not express the meaning of the original, have never beeu accurately computed. Dr. Conquest lately published a. Bible with twenty thousand emendations. Some of these alleged amendments undoubtedly are changes which do not introduce much
improvement, and others may be regarded as doubtful, but the great body of them are those which commentators and other scholars have proved to be needed to express the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. Any one who has examined the revision of Job by Dr. Conaut, and carefully compared it with the common version, must be convinced that the errors of the common version are far more numerous than is indicated by the work of Dr. Conquest. A few examples will show their character :

Matthew vi, 25. " Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat,or what ye shall drink." This inculcates an improvidence about temporal matters, which would bring confnsion and distress into every household. The meaning of the original is,

Be not anxious, etc.

Matthew v, 25. " Offend," This word frequently occurs in the New Testament. The original word never means to cause offense, but to cause to fall, entrap, to allure to sin, etc.

Acts vii, 45. " Jesus" is put for Joshua,

Matthew xxiii, 24. A typographical error, substituting " AT" for out,gives the idea of an attempt to swallow, instead of that which the original furnishes, "straining out."

Teresa,

Oh how I wish people today would be so careful about the message and purity of God's Word! The (per)versions of Scripture which abound today would soon fail to find an audience if such were the case; and perhaps we would have a truly improved translation from the Textus Receptus that would have fixed these errors without adding more errors into the equation.

Where are the Tyndales, the Husses, and the Jeromes today? I know oh-so few people today who would be willing to die to preserve God's Word. So many have allowed It to become compromised.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The NIV was my main Bible before I switched to the NKJV. I don't remember having a particularly hard time establishing the everlasting nature of God's law.


I'm no NIV lover, but I think it can be done. First, find the verse that tells us that love is the foundation of the law. Then, find a verse written after the cross that tells us that love is still important. Then, find a verse that tells us that God and love are inseparable. IIRC, all of those are in the NIV. In fact, it's easier to use the NIV because the KJV uses "charity" (which is an amalgamation of agape and eros, or so I'm told) instead of "love" in the verse.

you know, there was a time when i wouldnt touch the kjv. the reason? it appeared to be a mysogenist bible. it was the one the most prejudiced against women used. it was also the one the most prejudiced period used.

i got over that.

not real inclined to pick up anyone elses errors. but if you feel the need to be kjv only person, well that is your right.

but why do sdas keep coming up with, and supporting these side issues, nary a one that is going to get us into heaven? betcha theres going to be a lot of people in heaven who read the "wrong" version, but were looking for God and not error.

Teresa,

I'm a bit puzzled in trying to piece together your line of reasoning here. In the "Ellen White" thread, you seem quite defensive of her writings, and do not wish for them to be altered. Here is your most recent post there:



And then you say this in this thread:


Are you saying it's less important if errors creep into the Bible than if it were into Mrs. White's writings?

Regarding EGW, you asserted "but i would prefer to make sure that i am speaking the absolute truth." Can you understand how I might also feel just that way about the Bible? I would prefer to make sure it is speaking the absolute truth. After all, my salvation may depend upon it. Ignorance will excuse no one. The truth is what sets us free.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well you have to check what it is based on, if it is the Textus Receptus it is very hard to change the meaning with so many copies, 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. This ensures the integrity of the words and meaning, but if you use the Egyptian/Minority Texts which is a few copies which have gnostic influences and other corruptions, then you are looking for trouble.

And more and more modern Bible versions are picking this corrupted texts, here is what I found on this, ".....Most modern English Bible versions are translated from Greek new Testament texts (Hort/Westcott -- Nestle/Aland) based on primarily two sources--Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.



Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are part of a group of texts called the "Minority" Texts, because the texts in agreement with them are very few in number.
(These two texts do not even agree with one another).
(In the 1800's two men, Westcott and Hort made another Greek New Testament
text from the Minority Text which included Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since
the time of Westcott and Hort another revision was created called the
Nestle/Aland. Nearly all of the new translations of the Bible are based upon
one of these two Greek New Testaments and not the Textus Receptus. That
means that the newer versions are based on 5% of the manuscripts in stark
contrast to 90% on the other side)





Compare this to the thousands of texts confirming the agreement and reliability of the Textus Receptus or "Majority" Text.
The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or Jesus as the Son of God.
The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. (pause and consider that stunning fact).
The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.


"The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: '

"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

In the world today, there only really exists tWo classes of Bibles; those based upon the
Textus Receptus and those based upon the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek
New Testaments. If a person has a New International Version, New American Standard
Version, or Revised Standard Version, he is reading from the Westcott/Hort,
Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments that are only supported by 5% of the
existing manuscripts

When we understand the differences between the texts, all we have left to do is decide which source we find to be the most trustworthy--the Majority Text, from which the Kings James Bible comes (a word for word translation), or the Egyptian/Minority texts, which is the source material for almost every other English Bible version (most using the paraphrase --thought for thought method)...

http://endtimeoutreach.com/whichbible.html

http://www.bkdesign.ca/translations/part1-3.html

Others even non-SDA have noticed the changes of this minority text...

"...During a Sunday morning service I was asked to read the verses... I did not like what I read from my NASB in 1Corinthians 11:24. It said: "This is my body, which is for you." A key word was missing, the word "broken". It should have read "This is my body, which is broken for you (KJV)." It's the most important part of the verse. It gives the application, and purpose. That put some questions in my mind and spirit concerning this translation. I have read other verses that were not perfect in the NASB, as there are in the KJV. However, this is a verse of critical importance to me. I began studying and with some research I have come up with numerous mistranslations in the NASB and NIV; all in key areas of importance. These areas have to do with the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith, the blood of Jesus, His second coming, and judgment of the saints. All are in areas having to do with our faith, salvation and hope..."

"...I knew something was wrong in the NASB; because key verses were either changed, or had missing words. In simple language, the NASB and most modern versions are translated from what are known as the 'minority' texts. ....I also found out where these minority texts came from, and that they had been corrupted. They are held by the Catholic Church, who is and has long been behind the effort to destroy the Word of God that we have. Don't forget all the men who endangered their lives and suffered and some being martyred by the Catholic Church for trying to give the common man the Word of God in their own language, to give them worship music in their own language, and teach them that they could and should read the Bible for themselves without having a Catholic priest to interpret it for them.
These corrupted texts contain numerous other books, such as the Apocrypha, and the Gospel of Barnabas, etc. The corrupted texts came out of Alexandria, Egypt; being accomplished at the hands of Origen, who was promoted by the Catholic Church as a great early church father, but was in reality a heretic...."

others have noticed the changes of this minority text...

"...During a Sunday morning service I was asked to read the verses... I did not like what I read from my NASB in 1Corinthians 11:24. It said: "This is my body, which is for you." A key word was missing, the word "broken". It should have read "This is my body, which is broken for you (KJV)." It's the most important part of the verse. It gives the application, and purpose. That put some questions in my mind and spirit concerning this translation. I have read other verses that were not perfect in the NASB, as there are in the KJV. However, this is a verse of critical importance to me. I began studying and with some research I have come up with numerous mistranslations in the NASB and NIV; all in key areas of importance. These areas have to do with the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith, the blood of Jesus, His second coming, and judgment of the saints. All are in areas having to do with our faith, salvation and hope..."

"...I knew something was wrong in the NASB; because key verses were either changed, or had missing words. In simple language, the NASB and most modern versions are translated from what are known as the 'minority' texts. ....I also found out where these minority texts came from, and that they had been corrupted. They are held by the Catholic Church, who is and has long been behind the effort to destroy the Word of God that we have. Don't forget all the men who endangered their lives and suffered and some being martyred by the Catholic Church for trying to give the common man the Word of God in their own language, to give them worship music in their own language, and teach them that they could and should read the Bible for themselves without having a Catholic priest to interpret it for them.
These corrupted texts contain numerous other books, such as the Apocrypha, and the Gospel of Barnabas, etc. The corrupted texts came out of Alexandria, Egypt; being accomplished at the hands of Origen, who was promoted by the Catholic Church as a great early church father, but was in reality a heretic...."

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/which_ve..._accurate.html

you have read some variations to what i actually wrote, my brother.

i came from a very harsh, judgmental, site of mostly error. shepherds rod, and a few other groups who shall remain nameless. all they could do was pick up and magnify error. so im rather touchy in this area. actually, too many discussions seem to be focused on error.

but anyway, i do not deny there are legitimate concerns.

I know about the MSS. There is a good reason why I use the NKJV. But even with the 5% difference, I can still prove the continuing validity of God's law using the remaining 95%. It's really not that difficult.


AFAIK, all modern Bibles use the Nestle-Aland/UBS text. The only major exceptions I know of are the KJV variants.

Teresa,

I'm still confused. Is this response intended to be humorous? A pun, perhaps, in light of the subject?

Not sure how to take it, but seriously, I directly quoted your own words, and have not altered nor "varied" from them.

Feel free to clarify your position.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well check what happens to some of Adventists favourite texts with some of the new 'translations'....

John 14:15 (King James Version)
15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:15 (New International Version)
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command.


John 15:10 (KJV)
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

John 15:10 (New International Version)
10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.


1 John 5:3 (KJV)
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

1 John 5:3 (New International Version)
3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,


Revelation 12:17 (KJV)
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:17 (Today's New International Version)
17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.


Revelation 14:12 (KJV)
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Revelation 14:12 (Today's New International Version)
12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.


Revelation 22:14 (KJV)
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Revelation 22:14 (New International Version)
14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Different is not always bad. John 14:15 is an example of the NIV being more forceful than the KJV. The difference between an imperative and a declarative is huge.

Teresa,

I'm still confused. Is this response intended to be humorous? A pun, perhaps, in light of the subject?

Not sure how to take it, but seriously, I directly quoted your own words, and have not altered nor "varied" from them.

Feel free to clarify your position.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa. [/quote]

ill give you a little help. in red.

when i read what someone writes it is my responsibility to make sure i read and understand what they wrote. it is not their responsibility to point out where i misread it, however accidental that might be.

i can understand wanting to make sure the "bible" is saying the absolute truth, so it would seem we need to learn hebrew and greek and all their nuances, que no? many are doing just that and come up with some interesting discoveries.

Yes, the nuances of the original languages can be really interesting, Teresa! I find this true of both the Greek and the Hebrew, except I have learned from pastors and interlinear Bibles than learning the languages myself, yet! Mastering several modern languages keeps me busy enough, but the Biblical languages should get their due time...

Rev 19:7 is really interesting, especially for us Adventists, letalone the rest of Christendom. Published translations read "...for the marriage of the lamb has come", but the original reads: "...for the marriage of the lamb came"...!

This text places the wedding of the Lamb and his bride before he 2nd Coming of Christ...: thus, the close of probation is really the marriage of the lamb, clothed as his bride is with "the righteous deeds of the saints", and the investigative judgement is purely marriage counselling for the saints, culminating in the marriage of the Lamb and his bride, which is the close of probation, which leads rather directly to the time of trial and Christ's return.

So, our distinctive doctrine of judgement of God's people is beautiful beyond our dreams, isn't it...

yes, that was a good example, and should be very important to us as a people. i came across a site that studies the original hebrew and there are many insights in studying the original words.

on another note, last night it occured to me that the damage done was by the scofield bible and its darbyism. and that bible is kjv!!! that bible, scofield kjv, virtually wiped out all historicist interpretation in favor of futurism, including the day for a year understanding.

i have seen for myself how dependent people are on those notes. it seems that because it is in the bible it is infallible.

i wonder why the veiths, etc would change the focus. instead of worrying what bible people are reading, we need to worry about what notes in their bibles that they are reading and believing.

asygo brings up a good point. it seems to me it would be of much more benefit to know how to teach our doctrines using any bible and knowing the original words, than it would be trying to talk everyone into being kjv only.

Teresa,

Would you consider it beneficial to know how to demonstrate the inferiority of the modern translations in order to avoid their false doctrines the better?

It just so happens that it's mighty difficult, if not impossible, to prove certain points from the modern translations.

I'm just about to start a thread focusing on the NIV, as this is the most common one people seem to like these days, and it's difficult and confusing to compare many versions at once.

(I almost started it already a time or two, but keep finding that I want to improve upon it and/or research a little better before posting. When it comes, I hope folks will find it a handy reference, and eye-opener.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

im old enough to come from a time when there was pretty much only the kjv and i remember errors being pointed out in that version on a regular basis.

so i dont see any biggy that all these other translations have error. they are translations, after all.

i also have made the mistake of pointing out that the modern translations have error and the kjv is more reliable. it just made people stop reading at all since they found the kjv difficult. needless to say i decided to keep my mouth shut from now on.

i think my major thought is that when i run into people and certain subjects come up i have to deal with the bible they are reading. so, for me, at least, knowing what the original is, if their version contradicts, would be much better.



but none of this changes the fact that it is the scofield notes that have done the most damage.

but it would probably be a good thing knowing the errors in other bibles if we know what the original meant.

Teresa,

It is never a mistake to teach the truth, especially when that truth has a bearing on one's salvation.

Honestly, I think people who have not studied the issue of Bible versions with sufficient depth have no idea how devastating they are to modern theology. As Adventists, we should hold the standard high.

As for your last sentence...the original is where the REAL DIFFERENCES exist. That is just the thing. It's not so much the quality of the translation, but the quality of the original that is so important.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is the issue with the corruption from the Westcott-Hort Greek Text which gave great weight to two corrupted manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) which was found in a monastery wastebasket at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844, both clearly attempts to make changes....They had a agenda to change doctrines and truths they didnt agree with, so brought in changes using these corrupted manuscriptes. Its always desireable in my eyes to get the best version without the corruption inherent in these manuscripts.

Here is some background on Westcott and Hort which gives you insight into why they allowed the corruption and the changes to check on....

"...- Westcott rejected the literal account of creation as given in Genesis.
- Westcott rejected a literal heaven and the second coming of Christ.


- Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments.
- Hort rejected the infallibility of the Bible.
- Hort rejected the Trinity.
- Hort didn’t believe in Angels either.

Westcott and Hort were the ones who decided in the latter part of the 1800's that the Sinaiticus was superior to the text of the King James Bible. Remember, it was discovered by Tischendorf in a Greek Orthodox monastery in a wastebasket (where it belongs). Let's examine these two theologians. For the benefit of those not familiar with the term, a Mariolator is one who worships the Virgin Mary.

Westcott wrote to Archbishop Benson on November 17, 1865,

I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness.

Hort wrote to Westcott:

I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry.

Hort wrote to Westcott on October 17, 1865, I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.....(WHICH BIBLE by Dr. David Fuller, page 196).

"...These two men are the "fathers" of all modern translations of the Bible. The King James Bible had been translated in 1611 by men who knew about the corrupt manuscripts, but rejected them in favor of the Receptus..... After deciding that the Sinaiticus was superior to the King James text, Westcott and Hort compiled their own Greek text. The Greek texts of Nestle and Wikgren-Aland-Black-Metzger are basically Westcott and Hort Greek texts. While pretending to merely correct the King James in a few places, they departed from the Receptus 5337 times. In the resulting Revised Version of 1881, they differed from the King James over 36,000 times....."

http://www.solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliologia-Traducoes/OnlyTwoBibles-Ellis.htm

Now concerning the two Catholic 4th century manuscripts and some of the theological points which were affected:
- ‘Vaticanus’ was found in a library in the Vatican.
- It contains the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.
- The manuscript omits the entire books of 1Timothy (No doubt because of anti-catholic verses in 1:4, 2:5, 3:2-4, 4:4 and 6:3-5), 2Timothy (No doubt because of anti-catholic verses in 1:9, 2:15, 3:5, 3:15-16), Titus (No doubt because of anti-catholic verses in 1:6-7, 1:16 and 3:5) and Revelation (No doubt because of Revelation 17 where Rome is judged)
- In ‘Vaticanus’ the Book of Hebrews conveniently stops at 9:14, omitting verses 9:22, 9:25-28, 10:10-14 these are the verses that totally destroy the notion of the ‘mass’.
- ‘Vaticanus’ is a clearly a corruption of the Bible.

- ‘Sinaiticus’ was found in a monastery in Egypt, in a RUBBISH BIN. It was about to be destroyed by the monks because it didn’t match up with the standard Bible text, when a German scholar brought it to Europe.
- It also contains the Apocrypha.
- ‘Sinaiticus’ contains the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’, ‘Shepherd of Hermas’ and ‘the letters of Clement’ in its New Testament, all four books teach unbiblical doctrines and that’s why we don’t have them as part of our canon.
- ‘Sinaiticus’ is also a corruption of the Bible.

It is abundantly clear there were some attempts to makes changes in the Bible in the 3rd and 4th century some by Arians and Gnostics and these two manuscripts have some of this corruption.

One must believe on Christ before he is baptised but Catholics practice infant baptisim. 5000 Greek manuscripts contain this truth in Acts 8:37 (as preserved in the KJV) but it is missing in ‘Sinaiticus’ and hence all the modern corruptions that take their translation from it.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (KJV)

Acts 8:36 As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”
Acts 8:38 And he ordered the chariot to stop. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. (NIV)

Thus verse 37 is missing in many of the modern versions.

It is because of these corrupt manuscripts that 1Timothy 3:16 says ‘ “He” was manifest in the flesh’ rather than ‘God was manifest in the flesh’ (KJV).
And it is because of these manuscripts that modern Bible translations remove the verses they remove, Even though God said,

DEUTERONOMY 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
And
REVELATION 22:19 … if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Even older manuscripts than ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’ support the KJV readings, such as the ‘Pashitta’ 145 AD and the ‘Old Latin’ 157 AD. Manuscripts such as The ‘Old Syriac’ and The ‘Armenian Bible’ are from around 400 AD and these also support the KJV readings.

The KJV is the one version today that you can be sure did not translate their Bible from the ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’......

Hi, Im coming in way late on this topic but have you ever seen the Total Onslaught Videos by Walter Veith? There are two Videos just on this topic of the Changing of the Word.

Its amazing. I think that at first Satan wanted to keep the Bible away from everyone during the Dark Ages but now that we have the Bible he wanted to change it, and move the "signposts" so to speak. Its amazing.

The way I see it is that there are the Ten Virgins and each has their LAMP, which is symbolically the Word of God.

And what better way to make it where the Virgins arent putting out LIGHT then to tamper with their Lamps, right?