Yesterday, 10:27 AM
This post was last modified: Yesterday, 10:42 AM by Doc Apocalypse.
If you follow the textual criticism debate of the King James Only crowd versus those who favor modern Bible translations, it can be enough to make your head spin.
The King James Only people contend that God preserved his Word down through the centuries and that the people who compiled the King James translation of the Bible had the best and most inspired texts on which they based the KJV translation. The thing is: they used texts that were readily available at the time, not texts now considered to be the oldest. They simply did not have the older manuscripts preferred by the Critical Text adherents. The CT adherents argued that their sources are older, and therefore more reliable, even though some verses included in the King James are not included in those manuscripts. This notion sends the King James Only crowd into a tailspin, resulting in wild (maybe true?) theories that the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus--two pillars of the Critical Text--are in fact FAKE. There is allegedly evidence, however, that the Critical Text does not rely solely on those two codices, and that the so-called "missing" verses are supported as "added later" by other manuscripts thought to be the oldest.
King James Only advocates often therefore criticize modern Bibles like the NIV as being heretical. Some translations, like the New King James, get around this by relying on the Textus Receptus, BUT, bracketing the "disputed" verses as possibly not original to the ancient manuscripts.
Bottom line: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Whether the "missing" verses were a part of the original manuscripts or not--the differences in the Textus Receptus versus the Critical Text do NOTHING to change the overall meaning and presentaion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's like if you have the Director's Cut of a movie, and it differs from the theatrical cut, It may in fact not be substantially different. It may just be "interesting" that the Director's Cut has a few more scenes. Similarly, if the Textus Receptus "has a few more verses" than the Critical Text, it doesn't change the overall narrative of Jesus' teachings.
What we have is a "glass half empty" versus a "glass half full" situation. The King James Only crowd moans that the modern Bible translations based on the Critical Text are fake, heretical, or whatever condemnation they want to use; yet the Critical Text is roughly 98 to 99% identical to the Textus Receptus according to Google AI. Indeed, the four gospels only agree with each other 97% of the time according to Google AI.
So pick a good Bible translation that you can read comfortably. Whether it be NIV, KJV, Amplified, NKJV, or other--as long as it's not a heavily paraphrased version like The Message--pick your favorite and go.
The King James Only people contend that God preserved his Word down through the centuries and that the people who compiled the King James translation of the Bible had the best and most inspired texts on which they based the KJV translation. The thing is: they used texts that were readily available at the time, not texts now considered to be the oldest. They simply did not have the older manuscripts preferred by the Critical Text adherents. The CT adherents argued that their sources are older, and therefore more reliable, even though some verses included in the King James are not included in those manuscripts. This notion sends the King James Only crowd into a tailspin, resulting in wild (maybe true?) theories that the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus--two pillars of the Critical Text--are in fact FAKE. There is allegedly evidence, however, that the Critical Text does not rely solely on those two codices, and that the so-called "missing" verses are supported as "added later" by other manuscripts thought to be the oldest.
King James Only advocates often therefore criticize modern Bibles like the NIV as being heretical. Some translations, like the New King James, get around this by relying on the Textus Receptus, BUT, bracketing the "disputed" verses as possibly not original to the ancient manuscripts.
Bottom line: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Whether the "missing" verses were a part of the original manuscripts or not--the differences in the Textus Receptus versus the Critical Text do NOTHING to change the overall meaning and presentaion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's like if you have the Director's Cut of a movie, and it differs from the theatrical cut, It may in fact not be substantially different. It may just be "interesting" that the Director's Cut has a few more scenes. Similarly, if the Textus Receptus "has a few more verses" than the Critical Text, it doesn't change the overall narrative of Jesus' teachings.
What we have is a "glass half empty" versus a "glass half full" situation. The King James Only crowd moans that the modern Bible translations based on the Critical Text are fake, heretical, or whatever condemnation they want to use; yet the Critical Text is roughly 98 to 99% identical to the Textus Receptus according to Google AI. Indeed, the four gospels only agree with each other 97% of the time according to Google AI.
So pick a good Bible translation that you can read comfortably. Whether it be NIV, KJV, Amplified, NKJV, or other--as long as it's not a heavily paraphrased version like The Message--pick your favorite and go.
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." -W.I. Thomas
![[Image: c586b6899871cbbd865f6beae6528cc3.jpg]](https://denyignorance.com/uploader/images/c586b6899871cbbd865f6beae6528cc3.jpg)
