Sometimes a hot topic, but this comes from a big heart.

[WolfBitn]

Great thread

I have to side with the KJV onliers on this one... with slight exception

I use the kjv as my main source because the manuscripts it is based on are complete. This cant at all be said for the other translations, however i DO compare the other translaitons in order to not just throw out the baby with the bathwater... the way a sentence is phrased can certianly inspire a new thought.

I have studied this fairly much in depth, and the alexandrian manuscripts certinaly leave a lot to be desired

1 the claim that they are the oldest is simply not true.

a, The Western Greek manuscripts predate them.

b, the latin translations predated them

2 the claim that they are the most reliable is simply not so

a, there are trunkated sentences all through the Sinaticus and the vaticanus

b, there are trunkated BOOKS in both

c, sentences are repeated in full

d, sentences begin to repeat and then carry on normally

e, entire books are missing from them

f, they were revised until 1200 and 1600 ad respectively, so how can we even BEGIN to say they date to the 4th century?

g, around 900 ad the inks were completely faded in places, and badly faded in others, and they were both basicly rewritten

h, 4 major scribes and 6 minor scribes were responsible for the workd through a period of over 800 years

i, One scribe, in the text itself BLASTED prior scribes for altering the translation... right there in the very manuscript being called the most reliable

The alexandrian manuscripts arose around the end of the lifetime of Origin from Alexandria. They are called Alexandrian because most of them were found in this area of Egypt, where Origin taught philosophies and such. He was big on greek philosophy but also taught christian philosophy, marrying them together.... He wrote over 6000 works and even states that he learned hebrew in order to 'improve' on the manuscripts. Origin was a VERY early universalist, and taught what he called 'monsterous regeneration'. In short saying that all creation including satan himself would be reconsiled to the Lord in the end. He was eventually declared a heretic along with his doctrines being declared heretical.

The alexandrian manuscripts even reflect Origins philosophies on christian doctrine.

It tends to remove reflections of the diety of Christ. For instance "Godhead" becomes "Diety"... this is a MAJOR change because Godhead iomplies a plurality as we see in the trinity, whereas diety is singular.

1 jn 5:7 is removed and even Jerome who was a contemperary of the sinaticus pronounced his judgement against it by saying 1 jn 5:7 was OMITTED from the newer texts... He lived at a time when Origins followers were in leadership positions. He too had a version omitting it, but it seems this was under GREAT protest because his statement that it was OMMITTED (and apparently to Jeromes disgust) appears in the very forward of his translation.

The plan of salvation is removed

a virgin becomes a young woman

over 16,000 words are ommited

In manuscript comparisons with the writings of Origin, its shown that the alexandrian manuscripts match the writings of Origin, whereas the western texts which predate them, and the byzantine texts after them match nearly perfectly

Theres a lot more i could say but i dont want to go on with it too much in one post

In short though let me reiterate that i use the kjv as my base of understanding, because it contains the most complete text. I also study it using the greek and Hebrew, but i also compare the other translations. If i see a conflict i go with the original greek or hebrew and the kjv... if i see no conflict then i try to glean more understanding by how each is translated... 1 word can strike a fire like any one spark on dry grass

I certainly dont judge someone by the translation they use for the most part... there are exceptions like a homosexual version lol

I do caution though to at least own a kjv and study from it along with any other translation to do your own comparitive studies, making sure you receive the complete text

I hope its not an imposition to ask, but where did you learn these things? I'm curious for my own research.

Ive learned these things by studying critical examinations of the manuscripts, mainstream history sources, and then several mainstream sources of certain characters such as westcott and hort, Origin, the western text (first greek) manuscripts, the early latin, Cyprian, Jerome, Vaticanus, Sinaticus, etc.

I can send you a pretty huge study on it, its just my notes and thoughts and several of my sources if you like

I should add too that not only did Origin have motive to chenge the texts in the same way we see the texts changed and slanted, Westcott and Hort too had very good reason for using these texts in their new greek translation used to translate into the niv and the rest of the modern versions... they seemed to want to actually intentionally undermine doctrine according to their letters back and forth. These were made public by the sons of both WEstcott and Hort, in boooks released BY both sons sharing the correspondance of their fathers.

Neither believed in the infallability of scripture either, and were both early 'new agers'

God bless