Which is the true Bible

[Nick]

Just one note about Acts 8:37 and why it is omitted from some "newer" translations.

Here is a quote from a website that might explain the rationale behind this.

Thanks for this.

 

[AKJVReader]

What is the difference between the AKJV and the others (except the ones with extra chapters and misinterpretations/falsification - like that guy's own, i.e. The preacher whose heaven is on earth)

I would recommend these sources:

One Book Stands Alone

By Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer​

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Douglas_Stauffer/one_book-02.htm

Why I Only Read the King James Bible?

By David J. Stewart

Why Do I Only Read the King James Bible?

Why King James Only?

The purpose of this video is to explain why Bible Believers Fellowship uses only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible and to serve as an educational tool informing Christians of the errors in new bible versions.

In this program, we will perform a simple comparison to see the the new translations have not simply updated but have CORRUPTED the Bible.

We follow a Translation Checklist that includes:

Genesis 1:1
Isaiah 14:12
Daniel 3:25
Matthew 5:22
John 1:18
1 Timothy 3:16

Why King James Only? - SermonAudio.com

​

 

[D4Christ]

I have found a more thorough explanation about the differences between the KJV and newer bible versions, here. Althougth the explanation comes from the NLT website (my preferred version) it does a good job at explaining the history behind the "changes" or maybe more accurately the corrections. This article goes on to list many of the verses in question and where they orginally appear and where they were "inserted" into other gospels.

Q. Why are some verses that appear in the KJV missing from the text of the NLT and other modern translations?

This is not a simple question, since answering it must assume a fair amount of knowledge about Bible translation and how the Scriptures have been passed down to us from ancient times. Since many readers have asked this question, the following pages have been written to give some background on the issues. You can be certain that we have not excluded verses from the Bible out of carelessness or disrespect for God’s Word. On the contrary, we have sought to translate the New Living Translation from the Hebrew and Greek texts as close as possible to the original inspired texts of Scripture.

The Holy Bible, New Living Translation is a modern-language translation of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. The original manuscripts of the Scriptures no longer exist, but there are thousands of ancient copies of those manuscripts available to scholars today. For the most part, the wording of the texts is identical between all the ancient manuscripts. But since these manuscripts were all copied by hand before the invention of the printing press, there are many small differences between them. Over time, differences were introduced by scribes in the copying process. Some were clearly simple mistakes; others were intentional explanatory additions. This adds an additional challenge for translators. They not only need to translate the text from an ancient language; they also must select the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the translation will be made. (The textual issues that concern most readers are in the New Testament, so the following comments will focus on the Greek New Testament texts.)

Most modern English translations differ with the King James Version and the New King James version on some fairly significant textual issues. The King James Version translators used a Greek text of the New Testament known as the Textus Receptus (which means, “Received Textâ€), commonly abbreviated as TR. This text came primarily from the compilation work of Erasmus, a noted Catholic textual scholar, who was a contemporary of Martin Luther. The Greek New Testament compiled by Erasmus was the first to be produced on the printing press, thus creating a new standard with multiple copies. (The printing press had only recently been invented.) When Erasmus compiled this text in the 1520s, he used five or six very late manuscripts dating from the 10<SUP>th</SUP> to the 13<SUP>th</SUP> centuries A.D. These manuscripts are far inferior to hundreds of other much earlier manuscripts that have been discovered by archaeologists during the past 200 years.

Some of the most significant, newly-discovered manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus,Codex Vaticanus, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (nearly 50 manuscripts), the Beatty Papyri (P45, P46, P47), and the Bodmer Papyri (P66, P72, P75). These manuscripts, all dated before A.D. 350 (and many dated in the 2nd and 3rd centuries), preserve a text that is closer to the original writings than the later and inferior manuscripts used by Erasmus to compile the Textus Receptus. One of the primary differences is that the later manuscripts contain scribal expansions--that is, through the course of time, scribes added theological explanations, inserted liturgical information, or added verses to one gospel by borrowing from parallel passages in the other gospels. Some of these changes were originally introduced in the margin, but then incorporated into the text by still later scribes. None of these additions could be considered heretical in content, but neither were they part of the original text.

In the past 150 years, scholars such as Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and Aland have produced editions of the Greek New Testament based on the evidence of the earlier and superior manuscripts. In these editions, most of the scribal expansions that appear in the Textus Receptus have been eliminated. Thus, modern translations based on these Greek editions also differ from the King James Version and New King James Version, especially in the gospels, where most of the scribal additions occurred. Seen in this light, the reader must realize that modern translators have not removed anything from the Scriptures. Rather, they have simply translated a Greek text that is closer to the original Greek New Testament. If the translators of the King James Version were alive today, they would have done the same. In their day, they used the best Greek text available to them.

The translators of the New Living Translation used the two presently recognized standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993, often referred to as the UBS<SUP>4</SUP> edition), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty-seventh edition, 1993, often referred to as the NA<SUP>27</SUP> edition). These two editions, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent the best in modern textual scholarship. The scholars have painstakingly studied the early manuscripts to reconstruct a New Testament Greek text as close to original as possible.


It is these two standard Greek New Testament texts, or related texts, that have been used by the translators of most modern translations, including:

• New American Standard Bible (NASB), which generally used Nestle’s 23<SUP>rd</SUP> and later editions;
• New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which used the 3<SUP>rd</SUP> and 4<SUP>th</SUP> editions of the UBS text;
• New International Version (NIV), which used an eclectic text similar to UBS<SUP>4</SUP> and NA<SUP>27</SUP>;
• New American Bible (NAB), which generally used Nestle-Aland’s 25<SUP>th</SUP> edition.

Some of the differences between the ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts are reflected in twenty passages where verses included in the Textus Receptus are not included in the earliest manuscripts. These “extra†verses appear in the King James Version, which based its translation on the later Greek manuscripts. The editors of the UBS<SUP>4</SUP> believe--and there is good evidence to support this belief--that these extra verses were not present in the original texts of Scripture. Since the New Living Translation is a translation of the UBS<SUP>4</SUP> Greek text and the NLT translators in most instances agree with the UBS<SUP>4</SUP> assessment, those verses were not included in the NLT text itself. But since those verses are included in several popular English translations (notably the King James Version and the New King James Version), the NLT translators felt that they should be included in the NLT footnotes.

 

[Mtwildman]

I would like to address this subject using God’s own Word!<O:p</O:p
How can one say that the verses removed in bibles (so called) are not important? Let us look at what scripture tells us.<O:p</O:p
2 John 1:7-11 (KJV) 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.<O:p</O:p
By removing such verses and if we except these bibles that remove these verses, they and ourselves become antichrist, and by excepting these Per-versions of the bible bringing them into our homes, we become partakers of their evil deeds.<O:p</O:p
Se we see when they remove verses like Acts 8:37 and others, they denie Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.<O:p</O:p
Jesus warns of these teachings.<O:p</O:p
Matthew 16:6 (KJV) 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.<O:p</O:p
Matthew 16:11-12 (KJV) 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.<O:p</O:p
Mark 8:15-21 (KJV) 15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. 16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? 19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. 20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. 21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?<O:p</O:p
Luke 12:1-2 (KJV) 1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.<O:p</O:p
1 Corinthians 5:6 (KJV) 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?<O:p</O:p
Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.<O:p</O:p

 

[Mtwildman]

Let me show you what Jesus was talking about when he said…<O:p</O:p
Luke 12:2 (KJV) 2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.<O:p</O:p
Example of what Jesus spoke of in Luke 12:2<O:p</O:p
We see in Isaiah, Lucifer, being spoken to: but wait is it Lucifer or is it Jesus being spoken to?<O:p</O:p
Bible comparison showing that nothing will be hid!<O:p</O:p
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!<O:p</O:p
Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) 12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!<O:p</O:p
Who are they speaking to in this bible Per-version? Looks like Jesus Christ (morning star). What makes you think they are talking about Jesus in the Per-version, you might ask? Well let me show you. <O:p</O:p
Let’s take a look at Revelation, and see what Jesus himself tells, us.<O:p</O:p
Revelation 22:16 (KJV) 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.<O:p</O:p
Wait just a second: If Jesus is the morning star, how can Lucifer be the morning star as stated in the Per-version? These Per-versions have made Jesus Christ; our LORD and Saviour, and Lucifer one and the same. How can this be? It can’t be so because Jesus did not fall from heaven.<O:p</O:p
Jesus himself, speaking again!<O:p</O:p
Luke 10:18 (KJV) 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.<O:p</O:p
Just this one verse alone should be enough for you to run in the other direction from these Per-versions. Even the New King James bible is not to be trusted. It is a bit more subtil then the rest.<O:p</O:p
Genesis 3:1 (KJV) 1 Now the serpent was more suptil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?<O:p</O:p
Genesis 2:16-17 (KJV) 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.<O:p</O:p
WOW! The serpent (Lucifer) did not change much to beguile Eve and convince her into believing a lie! God clearly showed to us in the beginning of the bible how his Word would be perverted by Lucifer, seeking to deceive many into believing a lie.<O:p</O:p
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (KJV) 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.<O:p</O:p
Besides all this, the King James Bible is the only bible without a copy right. These Per-versions are bound by a copy right law. God’s True Word is not bound. Let’s look to scripture to prove this.<O:p</O:p
2 Timothy 2:9 (KJV) 9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.<O:p</O:p
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.<O:p</O:p
Ephesians 5:10-11 (KJV) 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.<O:p</O:p
Galatians 6:7 (KJV) 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.<O:p</O:p

 

[Free]

Mtwildman,

Your posts are what is known as begging the question. Perhaps you are familiar with the term. As to the Jesus/Lucifer, "morning star"/"son of the morning" argument, that has been dealt with, along with several other such arguments, and been proven to be fallacious.

 

[AKJVReader]

The NLT perverts the Godhead

​

1st John 5:7 is a vital Scripture that EVERY Christian should know. This Scripture clearly proclaims that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are ONE. But, the NLT says otherwise...​

KJB - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."​

NLT - "So we have these three witnesses."​

What blasphemy! Many Christians have bought into the lie that 1st John 5:7 wasn't in the originals --IT WAS! It depends on which originals you're talking about. The Textus Receptus (or received text) from which our reliable King James Bible comes DOES contain 1st John 5:7.
​

1st John 5:7 in the NLT greatly contradicts John 10:30...​

"I and my Father are one." -John 10:30 KJB​

It also contradicts Luke 3:22...​

"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."​

The NLT Bible-corrupters even removed the Godhead from Romans 1:20...​

KJB - "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"​

NLT - "From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. ​

One of the most popular attacks that unbelievers launch against Christians is to say that the word "trinity" is not even found in the Bible. The best defense is to show them the multiple Scriptures in the Word of God which teach about the GODHEAD. Tragically, the word "Godhead" isn't even mentioned in the NLT. What? Yes, that is correct...some "accurate" translation huh? This is why I confidently say that the New Living Translation is straight from Hell. Here's Acts 17:29 compared...​

KJB - "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."​

NLT - "And since this is true, we shouldn't think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone."​

Many cults (such as Islamic Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses) acknowledge the existence of a god, but deny the Godhead. It is tragic that so many believers are supporting these modern versions that maliciously attack the Godhead and Jesus' deity. Look what they've done to Colossians 2:9...​

KJB - "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.​

NLT - "For in Christ the fullness of God lives in a human body." ​

I noticed a tiny asterisk mark (*) next to Colossians 2:9 in the NLT. I looked to the bottom to see what the footnote said... "Greek in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Do you see what is happening here? To make everybody happy, the NLT Bible-corrupters completely removed "Godhead" to appease the liberals, but then they've also placed the truth in a little footnote in an attempt to appease conservative protestants. Why in the world would they not place the literal Greek translation in Colossians 2:9, why would they put the correct Greek translation in a tiny footnote at the bottom of the page? Do you know what happens in the making of a new bible? It's kind of like the bargaining table at contract time between the union and company management. All the different religious denominations are invited to the bargaining table and a meeting is held to decide what COMPROMISES must be made to make the "new" bible acceptable to their particular denomination. This is all done in an attempt to reach the largest market base possible. By the time the new corrupted bible is finished, without fail, the Godhead (trinity) and the deity of Jesus Christ are greatly diminished. This is why I love the old King James Bible, it proudly proclaims the Godhead and the deity of our Precious Lord Jesus Christ.


Read more:​

New Living Translation EXPOSED!

Your posts are what is known as begging the question. Perhaps you are familiar with the term. As to the Jesus/Lucifer, "morning star"/"son of the morning" argument, that has been dealt with, along with several other such arguments, and been proven to be fallacious.

Can you please prove that it is fallacious, i dont think you could.

 

[AKJVReader]

Most modern English translations differ with the King James Version and the New King James version on some fairly significant textual issues. The King James Version translators used a Greek text of the New Testament known as the Textus Receptus (which means, “Received Text”), commonly abbreviated as TR. This text came primarily from the compilation work of Erasmus, a noted Catholic textual scholar, who was a contemporary of Martin Luther. The Greek New Testament compiled by Erasmus was the first to be produced on the printing press, thus creating a new standard with multiple copies. (The printing press had only recently been invented.) When Erasmus compiled this text in the 1520s, he used five or six very late manuscripts dating from the 10^th to the 13^th centuries A.D. These manuscripts are far inferior to hundreds of other much earlier manuscripts that have been discovered by archaeologists during the past 200 years.

Some of the most significant, newly-discovered manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus,Codex Vaticanus, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (nearly 50 manuscripts), the Beatty Papyri (P45, P46, P47), and the Bodmer Papyri (P66, P72, P75). These manuscripts, all dated before A.D. 350 (and many dated in the 2nd and 3rd centuries), preserve a text that is closer to the original writings than the later and inferior manuscripts used by Erasmus to compile the Textus Receptus. One of the primary differences is that the later manuscripts contain scribal expansions--that is, through the course of time, scribes added theological explanations, inserted liturgical information, or added verses to one gospel by borrowing from parallel passages in the other gospels. Some of these changes were originally introduced in the margin, but then incorporated into the text by still later scribes. None of these additions could be considered heretical in content, but neither were they part of the original text.

In the past 150 years, scholars such as Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and Aland have produced editions of the Greek New Testament based on the evidence of the earlier and superior manuscripts. In these editions, most of the scribal expansions that appear in the Textus Receptus have been eliminated. Thus, modern translations based on these Greek editions also differ from the King James Version and New King James Version, especially in the gospels, where most of the scribal additions occurred. Seen in this light, the reader must realize that modern translators have not removed anything from the Scriptures. Rather, they have simply translated a Greek text that is closer to the original Greek New Testament. If the translators of the King James Version were alive today, they would have done the same. In their day, they used the best Greek text available to them.

The translators of the New Living Translation used the two presently recognized standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993, often referred to as the UBS⁴ edition), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty-seventh edition, 1993, often referred to as the NA²⁷ edition). These two editions, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent the best in modern textual scholarship. The scholars have painstakingly studied the early manuscripts to reconstruct a New Testament Greek text as close to original as possible.

It is these two standard Greek New Testament texts, or related texts, that have been used by the translators of most modern translations, including:

• New American Standard Bible (NASB), which generally used Nestle’s 23^rd and later editions;
• New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which used the 3^rd and 4^th editions of the UBS text;
• New International Version (NIV), which used an eclectic text similar to UBS⁴ and NA²⁷;
• New American Bible (NAB), which generally used Nestle-Aland’s 25^th edition.

Some of the differences between the ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts are reflected in twenty passages where verses included in the Textus Receptus are not included in the earliest manuscripts. These “extra” verses appear in the King James Version, which based its translation on the later Greek manuscripts. The editors of the UBS⁴ believe--and there is good evidence to support this belief--that these extra verses were not present in the original texts of Scripture. Since the New Living Translation is a translation of the UBS⁴ Greek text and the NLT translators in most instances agree with the UBS⁴ assessment, those verses were not included in the NLT text itself. But since those verses are included in several popular English translations (notably the King James Version and the New King James Version), the NLT translators felt that they should be included in the NLT footnotes.

All of this is refutable.

Erasmus was not a Catholic! The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are Catholic manuscripts! Just because a manuscript is earlier doesn't mean that it is better, The Apostle Paul mentioned those that were corrupting the Scriptures back in his time! The Nestle texts have been corrupted too. You can read all about it at:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com

 

[Free]

Can you please prove that it is fallacious, i dont think you could.

There is a reason for the morning star reference. It has a lot to do with astronomy and them calling planets, stars, for lack of not knowing about planets. Venus is known as the "morning star". Research the relationship between the king being spoken about in Isaiah 14 and Venus, this morning star.

Note this "star" is really a planet; a counterfeit star. ;)

a morning star

THE morning star. :D

Young's literal Translation Bible says:

12 How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.

"Lucifer" is a Latin term carried over from the Vulgate, that means "light-bearing" (both Strong's and Merriam-Webster are in agreement on this). This "morning light-bearer" is Venus and is a metaphor for the king in that passage. It is significant that Isa. 14:12 is the only place in all of Scripture that the word Lucifer is used, at least as a noun.

http://www.christianforums.net/f15/what-wrong-niv-bible-27105/index7.html#post380204

 

[Vic C.]

Hey Free, thanks for quoting me.

You should also note that the KJV and one or two other translations are the only translations to use "morning star. It's because of what you mentioned; it was first used in the Vulgate and the KJV and the others "borrowed" some passages and thoughts from the Vulgate. Jerome's Vulgate was an interesting translation because it attempted to harmonize and clarify verses that "seemed" to contradict each other. A whole lot of cross referencing has to be done to achieve that. :yes

Unfortunately, the Vulgate was revised to the point where it was no longer trusted to be accurate.

This is a good link for determining which is the "best" translation:

Bible Life Ministries - History of the New Testament Bible Scriptures.

It really is worth reading. :yes

 

[Vic C.]

I was tempted to say something before. The presumption is that the newer translations are missing verses when it is just as likely that they perhaps shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Actually, the reference to these "found" manuscripts fails to mention they were found in the trash at St. Catherine's monastery. I guess the Greek monks knew something we didn't know. :D They may be older, but that does not make them accurate at all. Scribes did make mistakes and usually those mistakes were corrected and the previous mms with the error is destroyed.

So they found mms's that should have been destroyed a long time ago. So lets not assume the T, old Vulgate and Byzantine-based translations added anything.

 

[Vic C.]

From my research the Authorized King James Bible is the most accurate Bible. I did read the GNB and NIV for years, but amazingly my spiritual growth took off when i began reading the AKJV! So from my own experience and from my fellow AKJV readers we agree that the AKJV is the true English Bible and we are most pleased with it.

I have studied the NKJV, it is not a new KJV!

To see that i recommend FAQ's Concerning Bible Versions as a kind of start in learning about Bible Versions. Ask me about any other information.

You are referencing Chick!? :bigfrown One has to be really nitpicking to dismiss the NKJV, MKJV and the other translations put out by Green, Young's Literal... not to mention Tyndale and Wycliffe.

 

[TrustGzus]

About Acts 8:37, there has been no Greek manuscript prior to the sixth century that contains it. Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not contain it. On top of that two papyri have been discovered that contain this section of Scripture but lack verse 37: p45 & p74. When both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree about a verse and then throw in not just one, but two papyri (papyri are the oldest manuscripts there are), it's about as slam dunk a situation as one can get. There simply is no reason to believe that Acts 8:37 is original. It is completely orthodox. However, orthodoxy is not what is in question here. Originality or authenticity is the issue. The evidence is horribly lacking.

Grace & peace,

TrustGzus

 

[TrustGzus]

One major flaw with this kind of debate is the circular argument that the KJV is correct. It comes across in various ways.

An example is concluding that modern version omitted, cut out, or removed verses such as Acts 8:37.

Isn't it possible that 8:37 was added in some manuscripts and found its way into the KJV and NKJV?

So the proper question isn't something like "why did the NIV omit Acts 8:37?" The proper question is "What did Luke write?" We don't want to omit 8:37 if Luke wrote it. Nor do we want to add it if he didn't write it. No matter how orthodox the verse may be we don't want to add it if it wasn't written by Luke.

 

[D4Christ]

Actually, the reference to these "found" manuscripts fails to mention they were found in the trash at St. Catherine's monastery. I guess the Greek monks knew something we didn't know.

Discovery

<O:p</O:pThe Codex was probably seen in 1761 by the Italian traveller, Vitaliano Donati, when he visited the Monastery of Saint Catherine at Sinai. His diary was published in 1879, in which was written:<O:p></O:p>
"In questo monastero ritrovai una quantità grandissima di codici membranacei... ve ne sono alcuni che mi sembravano anteriori al settimo secolo, ed in ispecie una Bibbia in membrane bellissime, assai grandi, sottili, e quadre, scritta in carattere rotondo e belissimo; conservano poi in chiesa un Evangelistario greco in caractere d'oro rotondo, che dovrebbe pur essere assai antico".[72]<O:p></O:p>
In this monastery I found a great number of parchment codices ... there are some which seemed to be written before the seventh century, and especially a Bible (made) of beautiful, very large, thin and square parchments, written in round and very beautiful letters; moreover there are also in the church a Greek Evangelistarium in gold and round letters, it should be very old.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>The "Bible on beautiful vellum" is probably the Codex Sinaiticus, and the gold evangelistarium is likely Lectionary 300 on the Gregory-Aland list.[73]<O:p></O:p>
In 1844, during his first visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Leipzig archaeologist Constantin von Tischendorf claimed that he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. He said they were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",[74] although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they were part of the Septuagint, written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point the attitude of the monks changed. They realized how valuable these old leaves were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e. 43 leaves. These leaves contained portions of 1 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Esther. After his return they were deposited in the Leipzig University Library, where they still remain. In 1846 Tischendorf published their contents, naming them the 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus' (in honor of Frederick Augustus).[75] Other portions of the same codex remained in the monastery, containing all of Isaiah and 1 and 4 Maccabees.[76]<O:p></O:p>
In 1845 Archimandrite Porfirij Uspenskij (1804–1885), at that time head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and subsequently Bishop of Chigirin, visited the monastery and the codex was shown to him, together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen.[n 5] In 1846 Captain C. K. MacDonald visited Mount Sinai, saw the codex, and bought two codices (495 and 496) from the monastery.[77]<O:p></O:p>
The codex was presented to Alexander II of RussiaIn 1853 Tischendorf revisited the Monastery of Saint Catherine to get the remaining 86 folios, but without success. Returning in 1859, this time under the patronage of Tsar Alexander II of Russia, he was shown the Codex Sinaiticus. He would later claim to have found it discarded in a rubbish bin. (However, this story may have been a fabrication, or the manuscripts in question may have been unrelated to Codex Sinaiticus: Rev. J. Silvester Davies in 1863 quoted "a monk of Sinai who... stated that according to the librarian of the monastery the whole of Codex Sinaiticus had been in the library for many years and was marked in the ancient catalogues... Is it likely... that a manuscript known in the library catalogue would have been jettisoned in the rubbish basket." Indeed, it has been noted that the leaves were in "suspiciously good condition" for something found in the trash.[n 6]) Tischendorf had been sent to search for manuscripts by Russia's Tsar Alexander II, who was convinced there were still manuscripts to be found at the Sinai monastery. The text of this part of the codex was published by Tischendorf in 1862:<O:p></O:p>

Whether some believe Tischendorf was deceitful in how he found the parchments or he was horrified that the monks did not know the value of what they had, the fact that they may or may not have been found in the trash does not take away from the fact that they were proven to be older than any previously known manuscripts.

 

[Vic C.]

Whether some believe Tischendorf was deceitful in how he found the parchments or he was horrified that the monks did not know the value of what they had, the fact that they may or may not have been found in the trash does not take away from the fact that they were proven to be older than any previously known manuscripts.

As I said above:

... They may be older, but that does not make them accurate at all. Scribes did make mistakes and usually those mistakes were corrected and the previous mms with the error is destroyed.

I firmly believe that the Byzantine text and the Textus Recptus are much more reliable and represent the vast majority of the older texts out there, hence the names the majority and the received text.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I currently have the NKJV."

The NKJV is as good as any Version. I normally use the KJV for reading purposes, and the New World Translation just for "Shock value".

The Bible is the Bible, and Any Bible will tell you what you need to know.

The Catholic Bibles have more books than the present Protestant (although the KJV had the additional books also until the mid-19th century). There's nothing of value in 'em anyway, so whether or not they're there is of no consequence.

 

[Classik]

So the proper question isn't something like "why did the NIV omit Acts 8:37?" The proper question is "What did Luke write?" We don't want to omit 8:37 if Luke wrote it. Nor do we want to add it if he didn't write it. No matter how orthodox the verse may be we don't want to add it if it wasn't written by Luke.

I strongly agree to that!

 

[kiwimac]

ANY reputable English translation is the word of God. When we look at a wide variety of translations we can get as close to the originals as it is possible while still speaking English. Personally I use around 30 or so differing English translations including the Bishop's & Geneva.

 

[TrustGzus]

I agree with kiwimac.

KJV only type thinking only sounds convincing when one takes isolated verses out of their context. If I am selective with my verses, I can also make the KJV sound bad compared to modern translations.

But verses aren't to be read in isolation. They are to be read in context. And once read in context, all major English translations are extremely reliable. The doctrine is the same. Differences are minor.

KJV only preaching relies on a lot of logical fallicies such as begging the question and special pleading and guilt by association and others.