Bible versions-Is there only one?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Is there only one true version of the Bible?


  • Total voters
    21

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,610
1,031
113
Are footnotes scripture? And I’m pretty sure Scripture says several times not to add to or take away from the word of God. Either the KJV is adding to or the new versions are taking away.
Footnotes are not adding or taking away it’s under the scripture words.
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,610
1,031
113
Yes, but the verse is missing in the text.
Here’s some of what I’ve read the reason.

the verse is absent in Codex B and Codex א. These early fourth-century manuscripts are the oldest copies we have of this passage. The verse was also absent in Codex L (eighth century), Codex Θ (ninth century), and minuscule 892 (ninth century), though it was later added into these copies by a different scribe. It is additionally lacking in minuscule 33 (ninth century), and other later Greek manuscripts on through the middle ages. While the vast majority of the Latin tradition favors the verse, there are two Old Latin manuscripts that do not contain it: ite (fifth century) and itff1 (eighth century). Likewise, though the majority of the Syriac tradition favors some form of the verse, the oldest manuscript (the fourth century Sinaitic Palimpsest) does not contain it, nor do the Palestinian Syriac manuscripts. Most of the Coptic manuscripts lack the verse, spanning across all dialects and including the earliest copies which date back to the fourth and fifth centuries. Thus, while the verse is lacking in only a small minority of the manuscripts, it seems to be missing in the earliest examples of many major streams of transmission and is certainly absent in our earliest copies. Scholars also find it hard to explain, if these words were original to Matthew, why early scribes would have removed them, especially while universally leaving the same words in Luke 19:10.
 
Sep 17, 2016
3,311
844
113
Here’s some of what I’ve read the reason.

the verse is absent in Codex B and Codex א. These early fourth-century manuscripts are the oldest copies we have of this passage. The verse was also absent in Codex L (eighth century), Codex Θ (ninth century), and minuscule 892 (ninth century), though it was later added into these copies by a different scribe. It is additionally lacking in minuscule 33 (ninth century), and other later Greek manuscripts on through the middle ages. While the vast majority of the Latin tradition favors the verse, there are two Old Latin manuscripts that do not contain it: ite (fifth century) and itff1 (eighth century). Likewise, though the majority of the Syriac tradition favors some form of the verse, the oldest manuscript (the fourth century Sinaitic Palimpsest) does not contain it, nor do the Palestinian Syriac manuscripts. Most of the Coptic manuscripts lack the verse, spanning across all dialects and including the earliest copies which date back to the fourth and fifth centuries. Thus, while the verse is lacking in only a small minority of the manuscripts, it seems to be missing in the earliest examples of many major streams of transmission and is certainly absent in our earliest copies. Scholars also find it hard to explain, if these words were original to Matthew, why early scribes would have removed them, especially while universally leaving the same words in Luke 19:10.
Great info.
 
Aug 12, 2019
2,368
1,238
113
And James White trumps them all. So what?
LOL

James White can be a bit grumpy, but he isn't anywhere near as weird as those guys. And, he has credibility since he worked for a translation committee.

Ruckman, especially, was a weirdo....he wasn't above calling his opponents silly, childish names like "poopy-pants". Multiple individuals received correspondence from Ruckman that mentioned words like this. No academic arguments; just a juvenile insult written across the letter.

Gail Riplinger has no biblical credentials..she got her degrees in home economics, interior design and some other secular subject (I don't remember what). Yet, her writings are some of the most common I've run across talking to KJVers. "God told me" is the closest she can come to credentials, and I don't believe that from anyone outside of the authors of Scripture and their recorded words.

I guess if you're into conspiracy theories, though, these guys might appeal to you.

I recommend that others watch the preaching of Gene Kim I linked to. He is quite amusing. He's a Ruckmanite.
 
Aug 12, 2019
2,368
1,238
113
Yes, but the verse is missing in the text.
"The verse is missing in the text" assumes that the standard is the KJV and not the original manuscript evidence.

That's the fundamental issue with KJV Onlyism..

To them:

Standard = KJV

NOT

Standard = autographs (original writings)

We don't have the original writings, but we have manuscript evidence, so the compilers of Greek New Testaments look at all the evidence in an attempt to get back to the original writings.

The KJVer declares the KJV to be the standard, and then complains if anything is different in a modern translation, because to them, the standard is the KJV and not the autographs, and this is an erroneous assumption.

Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza only had limited manuscript evidence of relatively late dates, so they were working with very little when their Textus Receptus was created.
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,610
1,031
113
Yes, but the verse is missing in the text.
On defense of the KJV the scribes didn’t have the amount of material like today so many more fragments and other scripture writings have been uncovered since 1600 to compare with. I like the KJV it’s in my top 3
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,490
1,047
113
The verse is not "taken away" if it were never there in the first place.

I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again: the KJV is not the standard.
Then the KJV is accursed for adding to Scripture, you know, the Bible that’s led more people to Christ than all other versions combined.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,490
1,047
113
On defense of the KJV the scribes didn’t have the amount of material like today so many more fragments and other scripture writings have been uncovered since 1600 to compare with. I like the KJV it’s in my top 3
The corrupt Septuagint?😂
 
Aug 12, 2019
2,368
1,238
113
Then the KJV is accursed for adding to Scripture, you know, the Bible that’s led more people to Christ than all other versions combined.
The KJV wouldn't be cursed, but if folks intentionally added verses to Scripture, they would be accursed.

I don't think it was intentional. I think earlier owners of manuscripts added marginal notes that got included in the copies that were made by others.

But, in essence, what you have is a puzzle with a bunch of extra pieces in it. Those extra pieces are largely marginal notes, etcetera, that got copied in subsequent copies.
 
Aug 12, 2019
2,368
1,238
113
The corrupt Septuagint?😂
In some cases, the Septuagint is apparently better than the Masoretic text, as the Septuagint was used by the author of Hebrews apparently. Many of it's references come from it, rather than from the Masoretic text.

In some portions of the Septuagint, the translation was better than other portions apparently.
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,610
1,031
113
In some cases, the Septuagint is apparently better than the Masoretic text, as the Septuagint was used by the author of Hebrews apparently. Many of it's references come from it, rather than from the Masoretic text.

In some portions of the Septuagint, the translation was better than other portions apparently.
I’ve read the KJV used the Septuagint as well.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,490
1,047
113
The KJV wouldn't be cursed, but if folks intentionally added verses to Scripture, they would be accursed.

I don't think it was intentional. I think earlier owners of manuscripts added marginal notes that got included in the copies that were made by others.

But, in essence, what you have is a puzzle with a bunch of extra pieces in it. Those extra pieces are largely marginal notes, etcetera, that got copied in subsequent copies.
The entire verse is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, including D, E, F, G, H, I, K, M, N, S, U, V, W, X,Y, Sigma, Phi and Omega. It is the reading in the Old Latin copies a, aur, b, d, f, ff2, g1, l, n, q, r1 and r2.

It is also found in the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Herclean, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopian ancient versions. It was also included in the Greek Diatessaron 160-175 A.D.

It is quoted by such early church writers as Hilary, Chrysostom, Chromatius and Augustine.

Westcott and Hort completely omitted the entire verse from their critical Greek text. And this is mainly because the verse is not found in Sinaiticus, or Vaticanus, and only a handful of other manuscripts.

You should get you a Bible that has all the verses, for man should not live by bread alone, but be every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,490
1,047
113
I’ve read the KJV used the Septuagint as well.
Then you would know how perveterd the Septuagint really is. It has the blood missing for redemption.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
2,610
1,031
113
Then you would know how perveterd the Septuagint really is. It has the blood missing for redemption.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
there’s a reason for that as well same as the other mentioned.

Let us first look at the manuscripts to our disposal. The oldest Greek manuscript we have containing the words “through his blood”, is Ms. 1912 dating ±950 A.D. and then again in Ms. 35 of ±1050. After that most minuscule manuscripts do have these words.

Of all the Antique translations available only one, the Harclean Syriac translation of ±600 A.D. contains these words! The first time we again find these words in a translation of the Bible, is the Clementina edition of the Roman Vulgate, printed during 1592. That was 76 years after Erasmus printed these words in the first published printed edition of a New Testament, and could just as well have been adapted accordingly. Erasmus’s printed edition of the New Testament (1516) later became known as the Textus Receptus and due to its availability and ease of reading had been used as source text for many translations, including the King James Version.

https://bibledifferences.net/2014/12/13/110-jesus-blood/
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,490
1,047
113
there’s a reason for that as well same as the other mentioned.

Let us first look at the manuscripts to our disposal. The oldest Greek manuscript we have containing the words “through his blood”, is Ms. 1912 dating ±950 A.D. and then again in Ms. 35 of ±1050. After that most minuscule manuscripts do have these words.

Of all the Antique translations available only one, the Harclean Syriac translation of ±600 A.D. contains these words! The first time we again find these words in a translation of the Bible, is the Clementina edition of the Roman Vulgate, printed during 1592. That was 76 years after Erasmus printed these words in the first published printed edition of a New Testament, and could just as well have been adapted accordingly. Erasmus’s printed edition of the New Testament (1516) later became known as the Textus Receptus and due to its availability and ease of reading had been used as source text for many translations, including the King James Version.

https://bibledifferences.net/2014/12/13/110-jesus-blood/
I’m redeemed through the blood of Jesus. And you? Of course you are.