Bible versions-Is there only one?

Question for the scholars. How did the prophecy of the pre-incarnate Christ going forth in old times change to Christ having an origin? And if your answer is origins means going forth, then when did the NIV chose to use language that makes it appear that Christ had an origin?

Micah 5:2 New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

What did I misread?

I'm surprised you don't see it yet...

Original-LANGUAGE manuscripts.

The original-language manuscripts don't exist. COPIES of them exist... but lets see how childish this discussion can go.

Ignore me? I don’t care. I thought this was a discussion board. I’m not taking my ball and going home.

95% percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining 5% evidence.😩

Your new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition.

All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible.

Handwritten copies of original-language manuscripts in the original languages would be...


(Dunh Dunh Dunh...)


original-language manuscripts.


There... is that childish enough for you? Or do I need to dumb it down some more?

That is a stupid and ignorant comment on which I have already corrected you. That you repeat it is beyond belief.

How would you know? What manuscript evidence do you have against which to compare them?

No that's good enough for me. Do you even acknowledge that some of those copies for corrupt?

In fact, I do! Why? Because we are fallen. True, Christ has saved us, but we are not perfect or glorified. That is why the earliest manuscripts are more accurate, because the hand of imperfect people has touched them less. The Byzantine manuscripts have all been logged and the mistakes charted through families. The errors are well known, in every one of the 4 families. Constantly, the other 3 families tend to agree with one another, when compared to the Byzantine, too.

On the other hand, God has preserved the Bible, by allowing well studied and humble men to compare texts, to find the errors and eliminate them. Is the Bible accurate? Of course!! Is it perfect? It cannot be, as long as men are involved.

Your faith in the perfection of the KJV is pure and unadulterated magic. God knew from when Adam and Eve fell in the garden, he would have to arrange to have the best possible manuscripts be discovered. Daniel Wallace was given permission to go into the libraries of Constantinople, (Now know as Istanbul) and Greece and photography, copy and name every unknown manuscripts. His goal is to find the original autographs, which God may make available as we grow closer to the return of Jesus. If not, he has still found thousands of new manuscripts, older, better, or perhaps newer and even more corrupt, for scholars to ponder for decades to come. With computers, this job may also be much easier than it ever was.

There are over 6000 manuscripts of the Greek NT extant. The KJV used 7 corrupt ones. It baffles me how someone could ever believe the KJV could be perfect. God says his Word will be preserved. For me, right now, that is the NET in English, the Revised Martin Luther Bible in German, the Septuagint, which the disciples and Jesus quoted over 80% of the time. And funny how the disciples and Jesus never got hung up on whether the Hebrew or Septuagint were more perfect versions. No, they just quoted both, although the Septuagint was used so much more in the first century, because besides Aramaic in the NME, Greek was the common language of the Roman world, reflected in the word, Koine, which means common.

Do I "even" acknowledge? I suspect an agenda behind that.

I acknowledge that there are differences in the original-language manuscripts. I prefer to reserve the word "corrupt" for malintentioned mistranslations.

The ancient manuscripts, fragments, codex's, artifacts, ancient historians, early church writings, early Christian apologist, and translations. All can be used within textual criticism and cross examination to determine how close our Bible is to the original wording.

If this is true, why don’t these men give us a perfect Bible?

You know that’s not even possible.

That’s comical.😂. Where were these manuscripts found? The Vaticanus and sinaiticus?

The issue is not a perfect Bible . . . But we do have a perfect God who is able to use imperfect men . . .

...To preserve God’s pure words that He commanded us to live by.

If we don’t have God’s preserved perfect words, how can God hold us accountable to obey His words? Hmmmmmmm

Let's go through some examples then. List a few so they may be discussed. Let's see how much they alter the meaning of scripture. But you must also show that the KJV was accurately translated compared to the manuscripts, codex's, fragments that we now have.

What do you mean? God through men did give us a perfect Bible. It is perfect because we know what is false, errors, or differences. We know the message has been unaltered throughout the centuries.

Since 1611, there have been standardized spelling changes in the King James Bible. In the early editions of the KJB, words like "bear," "dark" and "fear" had the letter "e" on end of them. Words like "mooued," "bee" and "mee" were changed into "moved," "be" and "me." These changes made no change in the context or in any doctrine.