is there an older manuscript
Wow. I’m still going to read the NASB on my Literal Word app along with the KJV plus my actual Bible is the NKJV. I’m not sure what part of the Bible you are referring to but I’d like to look it up if you don’t mind. From what I read is that the modern versions used older manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd century. Oh I read that you don’t like the NKJV
I’m sure sorry about that sir!! lol
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have never been chemically dated to see if they are actually as old as they claim. Sinaiticus was going to be date tested, but the day it was scheduled, it was oddly stopped.
Even if they are old, we have very good reasons to reject Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. When these two manuscripts are examined closely, it becomes evident that they contain serious textual corruptions. For instance, both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus depict Jesus being pierced by a spear before His death on the cross (See Matthew 27:49-50), a reading that never appears in any English translation. In Hebrews 1:3, Vaticanus omits the crucial phrase “by himself,” erasing the only New Testament reference to Christ personally purging our sins. Next to this verse in Vaticanus is a marginal note that reads, ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει (“Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!”), revealing that even scribes recognized and objected to the textual corruption in progress. Moreover, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in roughly three thousand places within the Gospels alone, which is hardly a mark of trustworthy or reliable witnesses.
These manuscripts are far from the best, as many scholars claim. In fact, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were virtually unknown throughout church history and only gained prominence in 1881 when Westcott and Hort smashed them together to form their Westcott and Hort 1881 Greek text. This Frankenstein monster of a Greek text they created was the textual basis for the release of the Revised Version, headed by Westcott and Hort. The Revised Version was supposed to be a KJV update. It even says on the half title page that it was the version set forth in 1611, but it is not the version set forth in 1611 because it eliminated many readings not found in the KJV, like the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7, etc. In other words, they lied. A Critical Text advocate on a Christian forum even admitted to me that this was a deception by Westcott and Hort. To make matters worse, they moved the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 to where the missing Comma was in 1 John 5:7 without any footnote. This is deception. They did not want to alert the new believer about the change, in that they removed the only direct reference to the Trinity within the standard English Bible. So the Westcott and Hort / Nestle and Aland Modern Bible Movement has its origins rooted in various deceptions. On top of that, Westcott and Hort had a Unitarian on their committee named George Vance Smith. They fellowshipped with him at the committee event. Meaning, they all partook of communion or the Lord’s supper together. Later, Unitarian George Vance Smith wrote a book about how theological doctrines were changed in the English Revised Version in his book, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament (1881). He mentions how the readings in it favor his Unitarianism. It's in the public domain, so you can check it out.
I also catalogued about 25 Catholic ideas in Modern Bibles. Many of these Catholic ideas have grown over the years since the Revised Version. This is no surprise because even the Catholics switched to the Nestle and Aland and Carlo Maria Martini, who was in line to be a pope, worked on the different Nestle and Aland editions. Note: This is not like Erasmus by any means because Erasmus was not working on behalf of the Vatican as Martini had. It says in the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland that it was supervised by the Vatican.
Even your precious NASB has Catholic ideas in it. So much darkness in that Bible that you are not even aware of.
Care to know?
Or is ignorance bliss?
The KJV New Testament, on the other hand, was translated from the Textus Receptus tradition, relying chiefly on Theodore Beza’s 1598 edition along with earlier TR editions (which follow the Byzantine Tradition, although certain readings are not an exact match). Because the underlying Greek sources are different, many of the changes in modern versions stem not only from translation choices but also from textual differences.
....
....
