I'm pondering to improve verse comparison feature in biblesearch.es. Would there be any clear improvements or features to make the current verse comparison better (better UX for example).
Just finished a minor update, now the user's selected Bible translation is highlighted and moved at the top of the list. Any other ideas to make it better/more user friendly?
As an example:
Current verse comparison for 1 john 5:7
One should show manuscript support for 1 John 5:7 and other verses. For example:
- In 200 AD, Tertullian makes a statement that coincidentally sounds precisely like the end of the Comma (The three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV).
- Cyprian quotes the Comma entirely in 250 AD (Saying that it was written by John).
- In 350 AD, you have more quotes of the Comma by others (Priscillian, Idacius Clarus, and Athanasius) which is also the date of Sinaiticus (mid 4th century) and a rough date of Vaticanus (4th century).
- We can see a pic of the Vaticanus with double dots (umlauts) at 1 John 5:7 showing there was a variant for the Comma (Source).
- The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus NT Greek manuscripts are not the best as the scholars claim. They are not trustworthy because they have corrections all over them. In the Vaticanus, one scribe tells another to keep the old reading, calling him a fool. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in thousands of places. There are also crazy or odd readings in the text that are not used by Modern translators today in these two manuscripts, as well. So these two are not the best as the scholars claim. In fact, these two manuscripts were not even used by the church throughout history. When Modern Bibles claim that a verse or set of verses (like the ending of mark is not in the oldest and best manuscripts, it is a reference primarily to these two questionable manuscripts (Which is deceptive because it makes it sound like there are a lot of old manuscripts that support them, when in reality this is not the case).
- Various men in history said that 1 John 5:7 was corrupted.
- Various men in history claimed there was a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is removed. In fact, a Greek Grammarian today (Georgios Babiniotis) who lives in Greece, whose native tongue is Greek, and is expert on his own language says there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is removed. (Note: Most scholars do not have the same level of the knowledge of Greek as Georgios).
So manuscript evidences or witnesses for a verse should include early church fathers, etcetera. You should note that deception was employed with 1 John 5:7 in the Modern Bibles.
Deception was employed involving 1 John 5:7 in Modern English Bibles. In the Revised Version, Westcott and Hort moved the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 to fill in the empty verse in 1 John 5:7. This appears to be done to not alert the new reader that there is a MAJOR verse that is missing that teaches the Trinity. Later, Modern Bibles decided to be even more sneakier or deceptive than the Revised Version. Many Modern Bibles slightly reword the beginning words in 1 John 5:8 (“And there are three that bear witness” (KJV), and change it to “For there are three that testify:” (NIV)), and then these words are then moved to fill in the empty verse or spot for 1 John 5:7. This merely shows that there is a wrong spirit at work trying to deceive people here involving this verse. It would of course be a spirit of the same dark kingdom of spirits that removed the verse in the first place in the two famous texts favored by Westcott and Hort.
One should say that the Modern Bibles are based on the Alexandrian texts, and the KJV is Antiochian / Byzantine Manuscripts or Reveived Text (which is also known as the the Traditional Majority Text - not be confused with the modern-day incomplete work of the Majority Text of Arthur Farstad, and Zane Hodges. One should show that Westcott and Hort started the Modern Bible Movement and show the doctrinal differences between both the KJV and Modern Bibles. Athur Farstad worked on the NEW King James Bible (NKJV) and there are critical text readings in this work (even though he denies this fact on the John Ankerberg Show that showcased a KJV debate).
One should mention that a Textual Critic scholar did a comparative study of the Westcott and Hort 1881, and discovered that it is barely any different from the current Nestle and Aland 28th edition (Which is used for the NT Greek for current Modern English Bibles). One should point out the liberal beliefs of Westcott and Hort who started the current Modern Bible Movement we have now. One should point out the different NIV editions, ESV editions, and the major intentional substantial changes made between them that affects meaning, and this is not the case for the KJV.
One should mention how a Unitarian was on the Revised Version committee (Which was the first English Bible in the current Modern Bible Movement).
Most modern version supporters claim that no doctrines are affected by the changes of modern versions, George Vance Smith was a
Unitarian scholar who worked on the RV translation committee and wrote a book explaining that the new RV readings favor Unitarian doctrines. He called it: Texts and margins of the revised New Testament: affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed. He shares some candid thoughts about the doctrinal impact or, potential doctrinal impact of changes in the RV, some of which reflect changes in the base-text and some of which are translational.
Smith stated in relation to the
John 1:18 reading "only-begotten God" which the RV revisers only placed in the margin that "there is nothing at all unlikely in the supposition that this may be the true original reading of this verse" (p. 19). Yet he nevertheless regarded that reading as "a greater blow than the popular or orthodox theology of our day would have been able to bear" (p. 17).
Most modern version supporters claim that no doctrines are affected by the changes of modern versions, George Vance Smith was a
Unitarian scholar who worked on the RV translation committee and wrote a book explaining that the new RV readings favor Unitarian doctrines. He called it: Texts and margins of the revised New Testament: affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed. He shares some candid thoughts about the doctrinal impact or, potential doctrinal impact of changes in the RV, some of which reflect changes in the base-text and some of which are translational.
Smith stated in relation to the
John 1:18 reading "only-begotten God" which the RV revisers only placed in the margin that "there is nothing at all unlikely in the supposition that this may be the true original reading of this verse" (p. 19). Yet he nevertheless regarded that reading as "a greater blow than the popular or orthodox theology of our day would have been able to bear" (p. 17).
In other words, I would suggest...
Transparency.
2
jk
