slacker..........
where you think you got your copy of the scriptures from?
God lol where else?
God lol where else?
If you're trying to say I got my copy of the Scriptures from the Catholics, you couldn't be farther from the truth.
I use the KJV, obviously a Protestant translation. Also, it is based off the majority of Greek manuscripts in existence.
However, you are correct that most people are using Catholic translations. All other translations, Catholic or otherwise, are based off two (out of 5500) Greek manuscripts.
One, Codex Vaticanus, was hidden in the recesses of the Vatican library for 1000 years. The other, Codex Sinaiticus, was found in a trash can in a monastery at the foot of Mt Sinai, hence the name. Half of it had already been burned for kindling lol.
So whether you're using the Douay-Rheims, NABre, NASB, ESV, NIV etc you are using a Catholic bible.
The problem I have is those two manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, differ from the the other 95% of Greek manuscripts in over 15,000 places. And the publishers of these translations hold copyrights (the KJV is open source). To keep these copyrights, they go in and make changes to the text every few years. Seems like there's a verse or two that included great curses for those who would seek to "add to or take away" from Gods Word.
God promised to preserve his Word forever, not hide it in a library or monastery.
Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6 also have similar language as the verse in Revelation. The Deuteronomy verse could be applied to just the Law (the five books of the Bible) like you said about Revelation. However, the Proverbs verse is a general command for the Scriptures. Either way, from the beginning, the middle and the end, God seems to have an issue with folks messing with his Word.
As for the "earliest Greek" manuscripts, this is one of those, "it doesn't matter how many times its repeated, it doesn't make it true" statements. When you read that statement "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts say..." They are speaking of Codex Vaticanus/Sinaiticus. These were 4th century documents translated by Eusebius at the behest of Emperor Constantine who was in the process of mixing Christianity and paganism. The only other mss (manuscripts) used are a few 8th century+ fragments that are similar to the above mentioned codices.
These were not the oldest or IMO most reliable. There are plenty of codices found in the early 100 ADs (Syriac Peshitta, Italic etc). Plus just from a scientific viewpoint, which would hold more weight: the 5250+ mss that agree with one another or the few hundred that have more than 15000 differences than the majority?
Plus, Eusebius, the author of these free radicals, was a disciple of Origen. He admitted to making changes to the Scriptures to give them a deeper or more spiritual understanding.
All new translations of the Bible (since 1881) are based off the Westcott-Hort Greek text. 99% of that text is based off Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 90% off of Vaticanus alone. Vaticanus is different than the majority of mss in 7500 different places.
And yes the KJV has had 7 editions. The version we all have today is the 1769. Those changes were updates to the language and spelling. I have no problem with translations. As a language changes, updates are needed. But the KJV was written at time when the English language was at its apex. It was also the time when English most closely resembled Hebrew and Koine Greek, the language of the Bible. Also, the 50+ men that translated the KJV were scholars of many languages. These men could speak 5-10 languages fluently before age 18. By the time they wrote the KJV many spoke, or at least read, 30+ languages. There has never been, nor do I think there will ever be again, a group of scholars with the depth of knowledge in ancient languages to translate the Bible.
The translators were Anglicans and Puritans. Farther apart in their beliefs than most present day conservatives/liberals. Yet they put away their doctrinal differences to translate the KJV. In many cases going against established doctrines of their churches to be pure to the text. 6 groups were formed within the whole of the translators. Each group were given different pieces to translate. Once they were done, the translation was sent to the other 5 groups to get their insight and opinion.
As I said, I have no problem with translations. As long as they are based off of the correct manuscripts. In 1881, when the Westcott-Hort Greek text was published (which was done in secret btw with no oversight) it was heralded as a new translation. And it was. This was supposed to just be the 8th edition of the KJV. They were just supposed to update the language. Take out words we don't use anymore and the verbs ending in 'eth and the like. But they went a totally different direction. They used an aberrant catholic manuscript as the basis of their work. A work that was hidden from the world for over 1000 years.
Add to it the fact that these men did not believe in the fundamental doctrines of the faith ie. Creationism, heaven/hell, the blood atonement, the resurrection and the list could go on and on. For those reasons, I reject their work and choose to stick to what is tried and true, the KJV.
