Someone is in Big Trouble

[crossnote]

There are at least 2500 fewer word in the New Testament of modern Bibles compared to the KJV. See Jack Moormon, Missing In Modern Bibles, pp. 25-26.

After watching the following video it should be clear to anyone that the modern versions were created with an agenda and the verses were removed, not added.

The problem with that is 'how do we know some zealous scribe didn't add words to the Received Text? (adding and/or omitting text is what is in question with the OP.

 

[ResidentAlien]

The problem with that is 'how do we know some zealous scribe didn't add words to the Received Text? (adding and/or omitting text is what is in question with the OP.

That's why I posted that video. It explains in depth why it's far more likely that text was omitted rather than added.

There are primarily two manuscripts upon which the modern versions are based. That's right—two! Compared to thousands of manuscripts and manuscript fragments of the Byzantine type. So, first of all, why should we trust the testimony of two witnesses. Second, Alexandria was a hotbed for Gnosticism. Who would be more likely to corrupt the text: Gnostics or the believers in the region around Syria where Christianity was birthed?

If the two Alexandrian manuscripts were preferable, there would be many more copies. As it is, we don't have any record of them at all before the mid 19th century when they we discovered. If they were superior wouldn't it stand to reason they would've been in use and could've been used to refute the so-called addition of text by scribes?

 

[Dino246]

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.

All you have done is shown a difference between the two. You have provided no evidence as to which is correct. Let's examine a few more verses for some context...

Revelation 1:8-11, compared:

NKJV:
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, [d]the Beginning and the End,” says the [e]Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
9 I, John, [f]both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, [g]“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 [h]which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

KJV:
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

NIV:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, [d]the Beginning and the End,” says the [e]Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
9 I, John, [f]both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, [g]“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 [h]which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

NASB:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who [g]is to come, the Almighty.”
9 I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and [h]perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the [i]Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11 saying, “Write [j]on a scroll what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

Given that the same words are said at the beginning of verse 8, it is likely that a copyist inadvertently repeated the line in verse 11.

 

[Dino246]

There are at least 2500 fewer word in the New Testament of modern Bibles compared to the KJV. See Jack Moormon, Missing In Modern Bibles, pp. 25-26.

After watching the following video it should be clear to anyone that the modern versions were created with an agenda and the verses were removed, not added.

Moorman made the same mistake here, assuming that the TR is the correct one. Difference in word counts is evidence only of...

difference.

It does not establish or support either as being correct.

 

[Dino246]

There are primarily two manuscripts upon which the modern versions are based. That's right—two!

Wrong. All the available manuscripts are considered in the preparation of the Nestle-Alland.

So, first of all, why should we trust the testimony of two witnesses.

Do I really need to quote the verse to you?

Second, Alexandria was a hotbed for Gnosticism. Who would be more likely to corrupt the text: Gnostics or the believers in the region around Syria where Christianity was birthed?

Genetic fallacy, twice. The location does not dictate the belief. Athanasius, who debated Arius, was bishop of, oh, where was it...

Alexandria.

If the two Alexandrian manuscripts were preferable, there would be many more copies. As it is, we don't have any record of them at all before the mid 19th century when they we discovered. If they were superior wouldn't it stand to reason they would've been in use and could've been used to refute the so-called addition of text by scribes?

Another fallacy, though I can't remember the exact term just now.

Please stop parroting the refuted arguments of others, and learn some basic logic so you can spot the errors before you post them.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Depends how technical you want to get. Koine Greek didn’t use punctuation. When Greek was translated into various languages they added punctuation. Just a misplaced comma can drastically alter the meaning of a sentence. So where a comma is placed in a sentence is subjective. That could potentially result in “adding to” or “taking away” from the book, technically speaking.

If a translator was wrong even a bit, are they guilty?

Are we guilty if we perpetuate their error by pasting mistranslated passages from Revelation?

John was a Jew and a fisherman. Unlikely he'd be all that literate. And certainly not versed in writing Koine Greek.

 

[Dino246]

John was a Jew and a fisherman. Unlikely he'd be all that literate. And certainly not versed in writing Koine Greek.

Israel under Rome was a literate society, and Koine Greek was the common language spoken across the Eastern Mediterranean. Why would John not be literate in the language, especially after decades of being a missionary?

 

[Bluesproverb]

Israel under Rome was a literate society, and Koine Greek was the common language spoken across the Eastern Mediterranean. Why would John not be literate in the language, especially after decades of being a missionary?

He didn't need to be literate. His master's good news was spoken, not written down by Jesus.

And being a Jewish fisherman before Jesus found him, his native tongue would have been Hebrew. Aramaic would be the language of those Jews who had been in Babylon under exile.
While Greek was the language of the upper class in Rome, and as a second language for those doing business with Rome.

While a Jewish fisherman of Bethsaida would have been in business for himself among his people in Palestine.

 

[ResidentAlien]

All you have done is shown a difference between the two. You have provided no evidence as to which is correct.

How 'bout common sense? That seems to be in short supply these days.

You're entrenched in your modern versions so your opinions come as no surprise. I was entrenched in them too at one point but now I see the error of my way.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Please stop parroting the refuted arguments of others, and learn some basic logic so you can spot the errors before you post them.

Nah, I don't think so. Two old manuscripts come along with absolutely no history behind them and you're ready to jump on them as if hand delivered by Christ Himself. What kind of logic do you use to justify this?

 

[ResidentAlien]

Fenton John Anthony Hort speculated that sometime between 250 and 350 AD certain people added words to the original text; and that later another such revision happened. But there's not one shred of evidence to back up these assertions. Modern Biblical scholarship accepts these ideas as true without any evidence whatsoever!

 

[Dino246]

He didn't need to be literate. His master's good news was spoken, not written down by Jesus.

And being a Jewish fisherman before Jesus found him, his native tongue would have been Hebrew. Aramaic would be the language of those Jews who had been in Babylon under exile.
While Greek was the language of the upper class in Rome, and as a second language for those doing business with Rome.

While a Jewish fisherman of Bethsaida would have been in business for himself among his people in Palestine.

Hebrew was no longer the common people since their exile in Babylon; that's why it had to be translated by the priests as noted in Ezra.

You aren't making a coherent point. John was likely literate, and could easily have learned both to speak and write Greek.

 

[Dino246]

How 'bout common sense? That seems to be in short supply these days.

You're entrenched in your modern versions so your opinions come as no surprise. I was entrenched in them too at one point but now I see the error of my way.

You know next to nothing about me, so I'll tell you: I've done my homework. I'm not "entrenched" in anything except what Scripture actually says.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You know next to nothing about me, so I'll tell you: I've done my homework. I'm not "entrenched" in anything except what Scripture actually says.

I know every time a debate arises between the critical text and the received text you always argue fiercely for the critical text.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Hebrew was no longer the common people since their exile in Babylon; that's why it had to be translated by the priests as noted in Ezra.

You aren't making a coherent point. John was likely literate, and could easily have learned both to speak and write Greek.

I'm making a coherent point.

Your actual issue is, it's one you don't agree with.

 

[Dino246]

I know every time a debate arises between the critical text and the received text you always argue fiercely for the critical text.

I fiercely refute bad arguments and thoughtlessly parroted errors.

 

[Dino246]

I'm making a coherent point.

Your actual issue is, it's one you don't agree with.

I don't agree because your point is contrary to truth.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I fiercely refute bad arguments and thoughtlessly parroted errors.

Yeah, and every argument for the received text is a bad argument.

 

[Bluesproverb]

I don't agree because your point is contrary to truth.

My point is sustained by the Bible and the culture of the time.

Your issue is, it is contrary to what you prefer to believe.

 

[Bluesproverb]

I know every time a debate arises between the critical text and the received text you always argue fiercely for the critical text.

Do you argue back everytime?
If so, how often have you changed their mind?
If that answer is, not once, why repeat that same behavior expecting a different outcome? A change of mind.