Alter2Ego
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #221
DukeU:Yes, it is a translation, the rest are revised by man, but you read what you want to read.
I'll stick with the KJV.
You can't get it through your head that the King James Version of the Bible is just that--a version aka a mere translation by man. You also are dodging the fact that the KJV has errors. It contains some 16 fabricated verses that do not appear in the oldest manuscripts, including the fabricated word "godhead" which showed up in an English translation some 1,500 years after the Bible was written.
Those 16+ extra verses in the KJV (that are "missing" from other Bibles) were added by copyists over the centuries. The King James translators included these later interpolations in their translation. Modern translations do not include the 16+ extra verses because their translators knew that those verses were not part of the original texts. Below is one of many sources that confirms this.
"Actually these verses aren’t missing. They were never in the earliest manuscripts discovered which is what the newer Bible versions are based off of. They somehow crept into later manuscripts. The not-really-missing verses consist of 17 verses and 2 passages of the New Testament.
. . .
These missing verses weren’t in the ‘Alexandrian family’ of manuscripts (200 to 400 AD), but show up in the medieval ‘Byzantine family’ of manuscripts (500 to 1000 AD) discovered on a different continent. (Just to clarify - earlier fragments/ parts of manuscripts have been discovered - just not "families.") Scholars don't know how these verses got into the text. They believe they were added by the copyists to expound upon a point or to clarify a point. Because the King James Bible is based on later manuscripts, these verses became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands."
You are NOT Missing Verses
I first heard about this from customers back when I worked at the Christian bookstore. They would say something like, “I would never read from the NIV because it is missing verses!” The first time I heard it I was like, “What?!” And the young guy showed me where some verses were not in the NIV...
www.passiontoknowmore.com
So keep up your arrogance, pretending that the KJV is the best translation of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and then to top it off, arrogantly claiming that other Bible versions are mere revisions of the KJV. You've certainly got it twisted.
The reality is that other Bible translations (despite the fact most of them are Trinitarian translations--like the KJV) at least had the decency to remove the fabricated verses from their product.
