turnorburn
Member
- Nov 21, 2007
- 8,713
- 462
- Thread starter
- #181
How would you possible know what is "bogus" and what is not?
Are you expert in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek? No, you are not.
On what do you base your opinion that they are "bogus"? Answer: on what the 7th Day Adventist church teaches you.
Your dedication to Satan's work to the divide the body of Christ by insisting on propagating the "King Jame only" nonsense is duly noted.
I'm no expert but...
Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?
Welcome to the Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge!
The chart below illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was replaced with a text assembled by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in the nineteenth century and used as the basis for the English Revised Version, which nearly all modern translations closely follow.
The text shown here is the King James Version. Words, sentences, or entire verses in strikethrough illustrate portions that have been removed from the text underlying the KJV New Testament. Not all modern versions are the same. Sometimes the ESV will include a word the NIV doesn't, or the NASB might omit a phrase the NIV and NRSV both retain, etc... but for the most part, the examples below represent nearly all of the popular modern versions. (Psudeo-KJV versions such as the NKJV are far more subtle and are a different case. See the articles section for NKJV examinations.)
Compare your modern version and see what the KJV has that yours doesn't. This list is not comprehensive, it is just a sample! The modern critical text that forms the basis for nearly all modern versions omits the equivalent of the entire books of 1st and 2nd Peter.
Critics commonly charge that the traditional Bible text used by believers for 1800 years adds material, and that we should be thankful for Westcott and Hort who came along in the 19th century to restore the text of the New Testament that had been corrupt for 1800 years and during the entire reformation. This charge is of course made against evidence to the contrary, as you will find if you research the text lines (read other articles on this website). Further, it is interesting to note that one of these verses is this:
Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the modern critical text (and therefor most modern versions). Now I ask you: is it reasonable to assume that a scribe added a self-incriminating phrase to the passage? Isn't it more likely that "those who corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17, KJV) removed the phrase which indicted them?
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html