Someone is in Big Trouble

[Bluesproverb]

I have judged KJV 1611 the best overall.
Even it has ...pneuma...greek...miss interpreted it should be Holy Spirit....not Holy Ghost.

The NEW AGE RELIGION bibles have been written and published since the 1960's. They have many new false interpretations never recorded before that time frame.
The Bible....does not change.

Thanks. 😊💕

 

[crossnote]

I checked the Latin Vulgate which was translated a thousand years before the KJV. The Latin Vulgate omits that sentence, 'I am the Alpha..."

So a Bible translation from the fourth century does not contain those extra words, what more can I say?

IF the Latin Vulgate (and that is a big IF) is true to the original autograph, then I would say someone has added to the text.

 

[Mem]

Here is Jesus' take on the matter...

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:18)

Indeed, jots and tittles speak to the Hebrew where every stroke contains a treasure chest full of meaning.

 

[crossnote]

Indeed, jots and tittles speak to the Hebrew where every stroke contains a treasure chest full of meaning.

Exactly, that's why God's words, no matter how small, are important.

 

[Inquisitor]

With all the versions out there, which is the closest most authentic to what would be the first bible?

The Bible that uses the earliest manuscripts.

The Vulgate was assembled in the fourth century and that is the earliest Bible translation.

 

[Inquisitor]

IF the Latin Vulgate (and that is a big IF) is true to the original autograph, then I would say someone has added to the text.

There is no ifs or buts. The Vulgate is a fourth century translation. It is highly probable that the Vulgate, is the closest we will ever get to the original letters.

 

[Bluesproverb]

IF the Latin Vulgate (and that is a big IF) is true to the original autograph, then I would say someone has added to the text.

I was looking for the closest version to the original autographs. One source said the Codex Sianatacus was the most reliable?

Another source referred to the Tyndale bible.

 

[crossnote]

There is no ifs or buts. The Vulgate is a fourth century translation. It is highly probable that the Vulgate, is the closest we will ever get to the original letters.

Oh please, I at least know enough about manuscript evidence that we have fragments and partial codices from the 2nd century.

 

[crossnote]

I was looking for the closest version to the original autographs. One source said the Codex Sianatacus was the most reliable?

Another source referred to the Tyndale bible.

There are different schools of thought on the different bodies of text. Some say 'older is more reliable' and others say 'the majority rules', but that isn't what this thread is about...or is it?

 

[peldom10]

There is no ifs or buts. The Vulgate is a fourth century translation. It is highly probable that the Vulgate, is the closest we will ever get to the original letters.

I have spent little time with it.
How is it presented vs 1611 KJV? Knowing would be helpful.

 

[peldom10]

There are different schools of thought on the different bodies of text. Some say 'older is more reliable' and others say 'the majority rules', but that isn't what this thread is about...or is it?

Yes.

 

[Mem]

There are different schools of thought on the different bodies of text. Some say 'older is more reliable' and others say 'the majority rules', but that isn't what this thread is about...or is it?

Haven't they all claimed, "Hy you guys! We've figured it out! No, really! Cam on, this way!" Of course, I'm just paraphrasing...

 

[peldom10]

There are different schools of thought on the different bodies of text. Some say 'older is more reliable' and others say 'the majority rules', but that isn't what this thread is about...or is it?

WOW...majority of what?

 

[crossnote]

Haven't they all claimed, "Hy you guys! We've figured it out! No, really! Cam on, this way!" Of course, I'm just paraphrasing...

Are you asking if they are politicians?

 

[crossnote]

WOW...majority of what?

Majority of texts, documents, manuscripts etc., in comparison to two (but earlier).

 

[Mem]

Are you asking if they are politicians?

There are those that claim there is no separation between politics and religion, both being developed from deeply held moral convictions.

 

[posthuman]

Revelation 1:11 (New King James): "saying, 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,' and, 'What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.' "

Revelation 1:11 (Virtually all others): "saying, 'Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.' "

The Alexandrian manuscripts (2nd example above) are as unreliable as they come.

gotta say as far as the deity of Christ goes i am 100% ready to fight anyone who denies it - and Revelation 1:11 ((per the textus recepticus line)) is an enormously clear testimony to it.
yet i have been told the Alexandrian line of texts is in general perceived as historically more likely to be accurate and less likely to be amended or altered by scribes. that being said i have zero formal education in the subject and everyone who has taught me has had biases. perhaps it is only the anti-kjv-only crowd who say that, but equally ((or possibly more)) likely is that anyone who is kjv-only readily dismisses any evidence contrary to their position whether or not they have any valid reason to do so.
so i'm surprised by the information in the OP

with regard to scripture something that superficially doesn't make sense or is a surprise is a good thing: it means there is something very valuable at the bottom of it.
thanks @crossnote

OK now i guess i'll read the rest of the thread, lol

 

[crossnote]

gotta say as far as the deity of Christ goes i am 100% ready to fight anyone who denies it - and Revelation 1:11 ((per the textus recepticus line)) is an enormously clear testimony to it.
yet i have been told the Alexandrian line of texts is in general perceived as historically more likely to be accurate and less likely to be amended or altered by scribes. that being said i have zero formal education in the subject and everyone who has taught me has had biases. perhaps it is only the anti-kjv-only crowd who say that, but equally ((or possibly more)) likely is that anyone who is kjv-only readily dismisses any evidence contrary to their position whether or not they have any valid reason to do so.
so i'm surprised by the information in the OP

with regard to scripture something that superficially doesn't make sense or is a surprise is a good thing: it means there is something very valuable at the bottom of it.
thanks @crossnote

OK now i guess i'll read the rest of the thread, lol

Both sides make good points but until the originals show up the debate goes on.
Personally, I lean towards a KJVP position (King James Version (is) Preferable), not because of the speculative manuscript theories but after comparing the omissions and additions, and with my previous knowledge of God’s Word…the MT doesn’t seem to ‘fit’ right.
I wouldn’t be a KJVO person because I personally prefer the Geneva Bible over the KJV, but that is just me.

 

[ResidentAlien]

but that isn't what this thread is about...or is it?

It is to some extent because the two "old" manuscripts which modern "scholarship" relies on are shorter; they have fewer words. The majority text has longer readings. So really this thread comes down to which is right. Who has added or who has taken away?

 

[peldom10]

There are those that claim there is no separation between politics and religion, both being developed from deeply held moral convictions.

For the God fearing original Bible believing Christian....we must separate ourselves from conflicting politics.
Otherwise you are a secular politically based sinner.