I've read every quote I could find from Wescott and hort. they had an agenda they were romanist. after the protestant reformation the jesuits did a counter reformation to bring em back in line with rome. today it's done thru ecumenism.

The two different texts that you're espousing (Majority and Critical) agree on about 98% of the text and even though there's disagreement on a small percentage, there's no doctrinal difference between the two. Yet, you claim the differences mean only ONE is the true word of God.

Let me provide an example. The Majority Text renders Mark 16:16 as "he who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned". The Critical Text excludes Mark 16:16 because it's omitted in the earliest texts (those around 400-500 AD). Using your logic, the conclusion must be "the Critical Text removed the significance of baptism" because of its omission of Mark 16:16. Yet, that's an incorrect conclusion because baptism is very much emphasized in NUMEROUS other passages in the Critical Text - Acts 22:16, John 3:3-5, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38, etc. AND, many translations based off the Critical Text INCLUDE Mark 16:16 but footnote it by saying "some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20". If the Critical Text is guilty of removing the emphasis from baptism, it would be seen in every one of those other passages also. In reality, the only issue is that one set of texts (Majority) include that passage and the other (Critical) did not include it.

Once again, however, it's a useless discussion because the KJV was NOT based on the Majority Text. It was based on the Textus Receptus, a text that is similar to the Majority Text but has many differences. For those reading these posts, there's one thing to understand. Whether you read from a KJV, NASB, or ESV, you're reading the word of God. If you want to know what's missing in translations based on the Critical Text, look at the footnotes and read the entirety of what's on a page. Jesus, in quoting the Old Testament in the gospel accounts, used what was seen as "an inferior text" (the LXX) in His day and time - yet He called it "Scripture". Mathews Prostaff would have you believe that modern versions aren't the true word of God because he sees the Critical Text as "an inferior text". Remember Jesus' example and continue reading the bible and be confident that it's God's revelation to mankind.

every single thing I have ever read.every single scholar I've listened to has all said that all the English bibles I've mentioned leading up to and including the king james was based off the syriac. you and got questions guy are the only ones I've ever read said that Wescott and hort were based off majority text. I know for a fact that the Alexandrian the sinaticus and vaticanus is the text they used and those were not syriac text type. again the king james magnifies our great God and savior Jesus Christ.

bamarich I do enjoy a good debate and truly desire to know the truth and I appreciate your interaction with me on this topic.

there is only 4 beast mentioned in the book of Daniel that play a significant role before Jesus comes back.
babylon medo Persia Greece and Rome. Rome was split in to two then into ten the antichrist arose from among the ten and Jesus smashes the image at the feet. the Biblevsays that the antichrist whose seat is in Rome would devour the whole earth. Rome is in charge today. everything is ecumenical with Rome. Wescott and hort were ecumenical with rome

Mathews prostaff... let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying that the majority text is the one and only true Word of God. And the reason you are saying that is because it is attacked? That is the proof you have?

i think he is just trying to protect the kjv from those who contend it just isn't what it is cracked up to be. so many better translations ...

the kjv was translated into 400 year old english, and included the word Easter for Passover. Easter was the babylonian fertility goddess and her "holiday" was set by the same moon phases as those used by the hebrews and other eastern peoples. using her holiday to rename Passover/Resurection Sunday was a heinous mistake - or done on purpose. How can the rest of the translation be trusted? Easter priestesses and priests had sex on their temple altar in front of roaring worshippers. think about that the next time your pastor or church calls Resurrection Sunday by its pagan name ...

And this very example is why the KJV, in my opinion, isn't the best translation. Words and phrases meant some totally different 500 years ago. Nowadays, no one associates the word Easter with a sex god. They associate Easter with Christ's death burial and resurrection. Languages have changed. The word Easter shouldn't have been used in that translation. But in more current translations, it is fine.

An easy example is Matthew 3:12 KJV. If a 15 year old kid reads that, he don't have a clue what it means. Heck 90% of adults don't have a clue what it means. Chaff and wheat process was common knowledge then. It isn't now. But if you read the same verse in the NCV, you can figure out what the verse is saying.

indeed, Pwyse, but believers SHOULD DEMAND the E word be removed from any translation. it is utterly degrading to the work of Christ ...

They nailed him to a cross and killed him. I don't think he is offended by words. Maybe you, but not Jesus

And the work Jesus did has saved millions of people who believed on him. I dont think anything Jesus ever did got degraded. Maybe unnoticed, maybe unappreciated.

Yeah I don't think it's degrading at all. The meaning of the word and how it is used in today's language by today's believers is not offensive to Christ at all.

Now... changing the word "ass" to "donkey"... I'll get on board with that 🤣. Try reading the Christmas story to your 5 year old son before you open presents and say Mary rode into Bethlehem on an ass... laughing and giggling for the next 20 minutes 🤣

Lol. Or try standing in a pulpit and reading such a text to a congregation. Even worse would be those texts that describe men as those that "pisseth against the wall." Somebody else can do that, but I ain't.

I usually just use the NKJV for preaching. It's close enough to the KJV that people can recognize the passages, but it eliminates the archaic words that we no longer use. And unlike something like the NASB, it has a cadence that sounds right to the ear.

There weren't that many people who could read in 1611, so most were gonna experience the Bible by hearing it read aloud. One of the best things the committee did was to translate it into English in such a way that it sounds right when read aloud. That also makes it the best translation for memorizing Scripture. If you want something that is as literally a word for word translation as possible, then Young's Literal Translation is very hard to beat. It isn't perfect, but the guy did a really good job with it. If you have never studied the original languages, it's a wonderful study guide.

Another wonderful study guide is this site:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/

Put in the verse you are studying and then click the "Tools" button in the left margin and it will give you a very good interlinear translation, along with several study guide options. I would have paid a lot of money for access to this when I was struggling through Greek and Hebrew in seminary, and now it is free for anyone. You don't have to know much at all about the original languages to use it.

One way to really benefit from it is to check and see what sort of liberties any translators might have taken with the text, and many of them took great liberties. Here's an example from the NIV that I often use as an illustration:

1 Timothy 6:10 NIV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

Ok, that isn't a translation; it's an interpretation. If you check it on the blue letter site, you will see that there is no Greek word that could be translated as "kinds". Somebody decided to add that word because they just didn't think that the love of money could be the root of ALL evil.
You can see how adding that one little word really changes the meaning.

thank you, country preacher. good illustration ...

pwyse I'm saying God promised to preserve His word. there were gnostics who were trying to corrupt God's word that's why Paul said in Corinthians for we are not as many which corrupt the Word of God. they were dealing with the gnostic cults of Alexandria. again the first mention of the Alexandrians in the book of acts is when they were arguing with the Christian Stephen. they introduced gnostic goslples like the gospel of Mary and the gospel of Thomas those were gnostic works...do yall consider those the Word of God?
no one has refuted or had an explanation to the clear differences I laid out in those few passages.

Matthews prostaff, its almost as if you feel like God is dependant on us. Like he couldnt preserve his word without the help of a human. If God said his word will be preserved, itll happen with or without us and theyll be no way any human can prevent it.

PCP, thanks for weighing in on the verse,
1 Timothy 6:10 NIV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on something that in the past month has stuck out to me, like a sore thumb.

I'm sure no biblical scholar and don't know any/many words of Hebrew or Greek. About a month ago, one thing that really jumped off the pages of scripture, is how pitiful the English language is, in translating any original text, regardless of which original language it's written in. To me the word that sticks out isn't "kinds", it's love. In our pitiful language we use the same word to describe our Creators all encompassing feelings for us, and how much we enjoy eating a good mess of crappie. We LOVE crappie and HE LOVES US. Pretty anemic, isn't it?!

I love my family
I love Crappie fishing
I love a good nap
I love wearing overalls
God loves me

Not a single one of those things use LOVE to mean the same thing, or mean as much as it does when used in other sentences. God is big enough to make any translation "good enough." But IMO as long as the scriptures are only studied in English, then there's a lot of room for us to mess it up. God loves my family too, more than I do. He ate fish when he was incarnate walking around with the disciples. Maybe he loves a good mess of Crappie too, but he doesn't love them as much as He loves me, or my family.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

.

That my friend is the issue with translating languages. Sometimes the words just don't translate.

So what do the gnostics have to do with which letters and writings were chosen to put into the New Testament we know today? In Paul's time, the only "word" was the Torah. The letters and Gospels were not considered the "word" they were just letters. And there really isn't any proof, only assumption due to where they were discovered, the the gospel of Thomas was gnostic. It's just a bunch of sayings and parables that are attributed to Jesus. Most of these are also in the 4 Gospels you consider the preserved Word of God.

When it comes down to it... there is no proof. No proof that the right letters were chosen to be in the Holy Bible. That why I said in an earlier post, it takes faith on our part to believe it.

And the explanation for the differences is simply that translation isn't perfect. Sometimes we as humans learn more about ancient language as time goes on. So things are translated and interpreted differently. As more discoveries come about, there may be even more things wrong with the KJV than the few that you brought up.

I agree with you completely. There is no doubt that English is a very inefficient language, with all sorts of grammatical contradictions. Most folks who study it as a 2nd language struggle with it because it's inconsistent and inefficient both. I found Greek to be much superior, though Hebrew never made much sense to me.

I think that languages that are very inflectional are easier to learn and can also be more expressive than English. Being inflectional means that a lot of the meaning in words come from the prefixes and suffixes that are basically the same for all words. Learn the charts and you already know a lot about the language. I've never studied a constructed language, but I've always thought it would be possible for one of them to be better than any natural language. The problem with a constructed language is getting people to take the time to learn it. There have been a few that have been mildly popular, but I don't know if any were worth the trouble. And then there's things like Klingon that were constructed by people with way too much time on their hands.

Not sure where you got the idea that's highlighted in red. W&H consulted those manuscripts, but didn't base their work on them... choosing instead to go with older manuscripts. As far as the part highlighted in green, the implication you're making is that translations based on the Critical Text DON'T magnify God and Christ. I agree when I check out a sampling of passages found in some of them as noted below.

* Psalm 34:3 (ESV) - O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name forever.
* Psalm 99:5 (ASV) - Exalt ye Jehovah our God, and worship at his footstool: holy is he.
* Romans 11:36 (NASB) - For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
* Ephesians 1:3 (ESV) - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.
* Philippians 2:9-11 (NIV) - Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
* Hebrews 1:3 (RSV) - He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
* 1 Peter 2:9 (ESV) - But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
* 1 Peter 4:11 (NIV) - If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

Again, though, you've yet to respond to the charge that the KJV isn't based off the Majority Text, which you are championing as superior. Most KJV-only proponents claim the Textus Receptus is superior to both the Majority and Critical Texts.