A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION

[netchaplain]

To me the footnotes in the modern versions creates doubt concerning God's Word. They are saying these words shouldn't be in the Traditional Bible. The foot notes in the Traditional translation are saying the words should be there.

There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies (there are no extant original manuscripts – Majority Text/Minority Text) which makes it simple to realize which one is correct; they are too different from one another and only one can claim which is the Word of God because He has given us His promise that His Word will be in the correct translation. I say "the translation" because there is only one complete unaltered version of God's Word, which are translations derived from the Majority Text, Ecclesiastical text, Received Text and Byzantine texts (all of these texts are in agreement with one another).

The "omissions" alone in the modern versions disqualifies them because the Lord Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4). The translation is not perfect, but God's Word in the translation is complete (perfect), if it contains all of the Scriptures.

God allowed almost 500 years to pass with His Word to us, which there were only one set of manuscripts available, until they recently found the corrupted manuscripts that no copier would use, mainly because they were missing excessive passages (the modern translators took their liberty to also change this translation via interpolations and transpositions.) Thus, when the footnote that a passage or words should not be there, they are claiming that the Traditional (Majority Text) version is adding words that are not found in the Minority Text. There was no Minority Text before this discovery (1800’s). Why would God allow, at any time, esp. for half a millennium, His children to be without His Word.


"Does the NKJV use the older manuscripts? No, the New King James Version nor the KJV use the older Greek manuscripts" -Google AI (Minority Text, aka, Alexandrian corrupted Text—NC)

"The KJV and NKJV New Testaments are based on the Textus Receptus, a traditional Greek text that reflects the Byzantine manuscript tradition." -Google AI

The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text make up both the KJV and NKJV! —NC

 

[bobinfaith]

To me the footnotes in the modern versions creates doubt concerning God's Word. They are saying these words shouldn't be in the Traditional Bible. The foot notes in the Traditional translation are saying the words should be there.
"Does the NKJV use the older manuscripts? No, the New King James Version nor the KJV use the older Greek manuscripts" -Google AI (Minority Text, aka, Alexandrian corrupted Text—NC) "The KJV and NKJV New Testaments are based on the Textus Receptus, a traditional Greek text that reflects the Byzantine manuscript tradition." -Google AI The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text make up both the KJV and NKJV! —NC

Hello netchaplain;

This thread may help with your other thread, List of Totally or Partially Omitted, Transposed and Interpolated Bible Passages

Thread 'List of Totally or Partially Omitted, Transposed and Interpolated Bible Passages'

Aug 16, 2025

Most Bible studies will not involve one of the most significant issues of the times, which has to do with modern Bible translations. This issue of course cannot effect one’s salvation, but will effect one’s spiritual growth, not receiving all of God’s Word and being exposed to misleading information.

The majority of those who copied scriptural manuscripts (scribes) discarded a small amount of manuscripts that did not agree with the majority of extant copies. Two sources that were rejected for copying were the codex Vaticanus and the codex Sinaiticus. The codex Alexandrinus is included but...

• netchaplain
• Replies: 20
• Forum: Bible Study

• 
• 
• 

"Footnotes" throughout the modern versions are the same as "study notes." These are submitted with all respect by seasoned scholars and theologians. But this doesn't mean they should create doubt concerning God's Word.

I do understand the "doubt" results of the notes for some Christians. Doubt is part of the package when we're growing as Bible studying students.

Remember my doubt from the Plymouth Brethren preachers with 100+ old sermons? I'm not dismissing their calling or gift for preaching, but in my view their message at that time was too advanced for the pew sitting Christian layman.

Their message was directed for the culture of those times which doesn't align with these times, except for the fundamental teachings of Christ, relationships, love, forgiveness and reconciliation.

As far as the footnotes. We are not to arbitrarily agree with every note. I personally don't always agree with the "committee of writers" but I will admit in my personal study the footnotes give me room to reflect and think on what the Scriptures are teaching us.

God bless you, brother.

Bob

 

[Origen]

There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies (there are no extant original manuscripts – Majority Text/Minority Text) which makes it simple to realize which one is correct;

This information is not correct. There are more than two text types. There are:

Category I – Alexandrian text type
Category II – Egyptian
Category III – Eclectic (Caesarean)
Category IV – Western
Category V – Byzantine

Anyone who claims there are only two is woefully misinformed.

they are too different from one another and only one can claim which is the Word of God because He has given us His promise that His Word will be in the correct translation.

Provide the statistical percentages and methodology used for your claim. Evidence, provide the statistical evidence supporting your claim.

I say "the translation" because there is only one complete unaltered version of God's Word, which are translations derived from the Majority Text, Ecclesiastical text, Received Text and Byzantine texts (all of these texts are in agreement with one another).

That is your opinion and not the opinion of the vast majority Greek New Testament scholars.

The "omissions" alone in the modern versions disqualifies them

Not according to trained Greek New Testament scholars who produced those translations.

God allowed almost 500 years to pass with His Word to us, which there were only one set of manuscripts available,

There was not just one set of manuscripts available. Manuscripts were spread all over Europe, Asia Minor, Egypt etc. The problem was one of access, travel.

until they recently found the corrupted manuscripts that no copier would use,

First, the pejorative connotations of "corrupted" are plain to see. It is meant to inflame rather than to educate. That is not a reasoned academic approach to the topic. Second, you automatically assume they are corrupted since they don't match the Textus Receptus.

The fact is those maniscripts were used and the evidence shows it. There is evidence of scribal activity on many manuscripts such as re-inking of the texts. No one re-inks a text that is not being used. There is evidence from the early church fathers in their citations and from early translations of the New Testament.

mainly because they were missing excessive passages (the modern translators took their liberty to also change this translation via interpolations and transpositions.)

Really? Site a primary source that makes that claim? Don't just make a claim with zero evidence.

In order to accept to your claims one would have to believe that every New Testament Greek scholar\translator (literally dozens and dozens and dozens of them over the years) who worked on the RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, CBS, NLT etc. etc. are either ignorant, evil, or both.

There was no Minority Text before this discovery (1800’s).

Clearly the manuscripts existed else we would not have them today. And as pointed out above, there is evidence of scribal activity on many of those manuscripts such as re-inking of the texts. No one re-inks a text that is not being used.

Why would God allow, at any time, esp. for half a millennium, His children to be without His Word.

You mean like when the church used the Latin Vulgate for over 1000 years before Erasmus created the first Greek edition. I guess the Latin speaking church did not get that memo.

The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text make up both the KJV and NKJV! —NC

First, which Textus Receptus? There is more than one edition and no two are exactly alike. Tell us all which editions is the correct one? Second, your claim that the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text are the same is false. Majority Text leaves out verse, phrases, and work found in the Textus Receptus.

 

[netchaplain]

"Footnotes" throughout the modern versions are the same as "study notes." These are submitted with all respect by seasoned scholars and theologians. But this doesn't mean they should create doubt concerning God's Word.

The footnotes are liberal modern translators claiming that the scriptural phrases and words are not part of God's Word and shouldn't be there.

The conservative modern translators footnotes of the Traditional scriptures claim that the phrases and words should be included.

We can use John 3:13 as an example: KJV writes, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

NIV writes, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." Can you see what part of God's Word they omitted? "Who is in heaven" which is not only taking away from the Word (Rev 22:18,19), but eliminates another place of Christ's divinity of omnipresence. Though Rev 22:19 is a warning primarily concerning the Book of Revelation, which can also infer the rest of Scripture, unless one might think the remnant of Scripture is less significant.

This very problem repeatedly results in bringing doubt to the Word of God hundreds of times!

It's a "no brainer."

 

[bobinfaith]

The footnotes are liberal modern translators claiming that the scriptural phrases and words are not part of God's Word and shouldn't be there. The conservative modern translators footnotes of the Traditional scriptures claim that the phrases and words should be included. We can use John 3:13 as an example: KJV writes, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." NIV writes, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man."

Can you see what part of God's Word they omitted? "Who is in heaven" which is not only taking away from the Word (Rev 22:18,19), but eliminates another place of Christ's divinity of omnipresence. Though Rev 22:19 is a warning primarily concerning the Book of Revelation, which can also infer the rest of Scripture, unless one might think the remnant of Scripture is less significant. This very problem repeatedly results in bringing doubt to the Word of God hundreds of times! It's a "no brainer."

Good morning, netchaplain;

The footnotes, or study notes that I'm referring to are on the bottom of the Bible page. They are not absolute, but serve as a secondary or commentary aid to the Bible text.

You and I are looking at this from two different sides and that's ok. I do see it from your point of study - Bible study students can put too much stock in the notes and lead to doubt in God's Word.

One a personal; I'd like to mention learning to understand the 66 Books and their order in the table of contents. The chronological helps us see the progression of God's Work, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. God is a God of order.

Two critiques I have is "pointing and picking" one verse for the day anywhere in the Bible, is a daily devotion, not a Bible study. The second is, it's easy to get the Old and New Testaments all over the place if we don't cross reference correctly. This requires careful study of obtaining more knowledge of His Word.

God bless you, netchaplain.

Bob

 

[netchaplain]

This information is not correct. There are more than two text types. There are:

Category I – Alexandrian text type
Category II – Egyptian
Category III – Eclectic (Caesarean)
Category IV – Western
Category V – Byzantine

Anyone who claims there are only two is woefully misinformed

Sorry, yes there are more than 2: The four major text-types of the Greek New Testament, are the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Caesarean texts." I also wanted to bring attention to the number of manuscripts available. "Of the over 5,800 cataloged Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, it's estimated that about 30 or so manuscripts are considered to represent the Alexandrian text-type of the New Testament." Google AI

.Provide the statistical percentages and methodology used for your claim. Evidence, provide the statistical evidence supporting your claim.

There are hundreds of less Scriptures between the Majority/Received/Byzantium Texts, and the Alexandrian Text base.

First, which Textus Receptus? There is more than one edition and no two are exactly alike. Tell us all which editions is the correct one? Second, your claim that the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text are the same is false. Majority Text leaves out verse, phrases, and work found in the Textus Receptus.

They are close enough to be similar: "The Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text are similar because they both represent the Byzantine family of New Testament manuscripts, which make up the largest percentage of surviving Greek manuscripts." Google AI

 

[Origen]

"Of the over 5,800 cataloged Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, it's estimated that about 30 or so manuscripts are considered to represent the Alexandrian text-type of the New Testament." Google AI

Like many things in Google AI, that information can be misleading without knowing know the whole truth of the matter.

There are hundreds of less Scriptures between the Majority/Received/Byzantium Texts, and the Alexandrian Text base.

You do love the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Numbers do not determine accuracy or truth of a document.

They are close enough to be similar: "The Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text are similar because they both represent the Byzantine family of New Testament manuscripts, which make up the largest percentage of surviving Greek manuscripts." Google AI

They are similar but not the same. When the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text which one should be followed? Which one is correct?

 

[Origen]

The footnotes are liberal modern translators claiming that the scriptural phrases and words are not part of God's Word and shouldn't be there.

So all the scholars who worked on modern translations are liberals? No conservative Evangelical scholars on the ESV or NIV or CSB? Did you check all of the names on the committees?

The conservative modern translators footnotes of the Traditional scriptures claim that the phrases and words should be included.

We can use John 3:13 as an example: KJV writes, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

NIV writes, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." Can you see what part of God's Word they omitted? "Who is in heaven" which is not only taking away from the Word (Rev 22:18,19), but eliminates another place of Christ's divinity of omnipresence. Though Rev 22:19 is a warning primarily concerning the Book of Revelation, which can also infer the rest of Scripture, unless one might think the remnant of Scripture is less significant.

And by the way the NIV has a note making it clear that phrase is to be found in manuscripts.

This very problem repeatedly results in bringing doubt to the Word of God hundreds of times!

I have a very high view of Scripture. That is only your opinion of the matter.

 

[netchaplain]

They are similar but not the same. When the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text which one should be followed? Which one is correct?

It depends on your choice of which source of apparatus you find the most important. Myself, I trust the numbers apparatus, i.e. the most extant manuscript copies, esp. since the Byz-text is much followed by both the Maj. and TR texts!

"Yes, the Textus Receptus differs significantly from the Majority Text, with hundreds or even nearly 2,000 variations. While similar because both favor the Byzantine text-type (which represents the majority of surviving manuscripts), the Textus Receptus is a late, limited, and edited version compiled from a small number of manuscripts by Erasmus, whereas the Majority Text is a more comprehensive scholarly effort to identify the reading found in the largest number of Greek manuscripts.

Like many things in Google AI, that information can be misleading without knowing know the whole truth of the matter.

It's best to research various engines for ensuring accuracy on any subject. "The Alexandrian text-type is represented by around 30 surviving manuscripts." -DuckDuckgo; "The Alexandrian text-type is witnessed by approximately 30 surviving manuscripts, a number that includes both early papyri and later uncial and minuscule manuscripts. This count encompasses around 17 minuscule manuscripts identified as transmitting the Alexandrian text, in addition to the more significant early papyri and major uncials. The earliest witnesses date to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as Papyrus 46 and Papyrus 66. The most renowned manuscripts of this type include Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus" -BraveSearch. Should I continue!

You do love the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Numbers do not determine accuracy or truth of a document.

I would use the word "debate" instead of "argue."

 

[Origen]

It depends on your choice of which source of apparatus you find the most important. Myself, I trust the numbers apparatus, i.e. the most extant manuscript copies,

Thus you believe one should follow the reading that is in the majority of manuscripts, correct?

It's best to research various engines for ensuring accuracy on any subject.

Nevertheless that information can be misleading without knowing the whole truth of the matter.

 

[netchaplain]

Thus you believe one should follow the reading that is in the majority of manuscripts, correct?

Correct, and I always appreciate your replies and comments! God bless!!

 

[Origen]

Correct, and I always appreciate your replies and comments! God bless!!

Thank you.

Now let's examine a test case. What is the manuscript evidence for and against 1 John 5:7? Please provide that evidence.

 

[netchaplain]

Thank you.

Now let's examine a test case. What is the manuscript evidence for and against 1 John 5:7? Please provide that evidence.

As you may know, the KJV translators used italicization to indicate to the reader that these words were not fond in any manuscript. This is something that only the KJV translators did, and is one of the foremost helpful aids in determining text originality. If we notice, we can see that the Comma Johannan is not italicized, because I believe Erasmus eventually found enough Greek evidence to accommodate those who were pressing him to include it in his text.

What I'm showing below is that the CJ was sparsely included in the texts and margins of copiers. It's my opinion that there was enough Greek (even if from Latin to Greek) for Erasmus to make this inclusion (or the KJV translators would not have included it) and accommodate his on-pressers. The evidence I'm attempting to share (by James Snapp, Jr is admittedly minimal, but nevertheless seems to me to be enough proof; after all it wasn't Erasmus that first introduced this passage.

A couple points of Erasmus' interests to me are the fact that though he had access to the Vaticanus and the Sinaitcus he found them of insufficient use:
"Erasmus did not use the Codex Sinaiticus, instead, he relied primarily on later medieval manuscripts, which led him to back-translate the final verses of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate due to a missing leaf in his primary source manuscript. While Erasmus was aware of older texts like the Codex Vaticanus, he did not have access to it for his landmark 1516 Greek New Testament and considered its text inferior when he did have limited contact with it." -Google AI

"Erasmus had contact with and was supplied readings from the Codex Vaticanus through correspondence with scholars like Paul Bombasius and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. However, Erasmus did not consider it a high-quality manuscript, and his annotations confirm he viewed its text as inferior and potentially back-translated from the Latin Vulgate." -Google AI

By the way (if you didn't know), the Alexandrinus Text is the worst of the three codex's that the modern translators used for all their translations!



A blog by James Snapp, Jr:

"Earlier this month over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, Elijah Hixson offered an informative post which included pictures of the few Greek manuscripts which have the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7. The earliest is GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362. I offered some analysis of the text of First John 5:7 in GA 629 in August of 2016 (see the replica of the relevant part of 629 at this link, or a page-view of the manuscript itself at the Vatican Library’s website at this link). The second-oldest manuscript of First John that has the Comma Johanneum in the text of 5:7 is GA 61, which was made in the early 1500s. The third-oldest Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7 is GA 918. Hixson, by a series of simple deductions, narrowed his estimate of its production-date to the 1570s.

"The other manuscripts do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text; the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin instead. Hixson’s post includes pictures of the relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time reviewing them here:

● In GA 221, a manuscript from the 900s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the Comma Johanneum arrived there rather recently, considering that (as Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the manuscript does not have the Comma Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note.
● In GA 177, the Comma Johanneum is written in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which means that the Comma Johanneum was placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550. (Dan Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.) Hixson offers a more precise date, however: the annotator of this manuscript left his name in it: Ignatius Hardt, who was born in 1749. Guided by a little more data about Hardt’s career, Hixson estimates that Hardt wrote the Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no earlier than the 1770s.
● In GA 88, a manuscript from the 1100s, the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or when. Almost no clues: as Hixson observed, whereas copyists routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a manuscript.
● In GA 429, a manuscript from the 1300s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because, as Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.
● In GA 636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin.

 

[Origen]

As you may know, the KJV translators used italicization to indicate to the reader that these words were not fond in any manuscript. This is something that only the KJV translators did, and is one of the foremost helpful aids in determining text originality. If we notice, we can see that the Comma Johannan is not italicized, because I believe Erasmus eventually found enough Greek evidence to accommodate those who were pressing him to include it in his text.

What I'm showing below is that the CJ was sparsely included in the texts and margins of copiers. It's my opinion that there was enough Greek (even if from Latin to Greek) for Erasmus to make this inclusion (or the KJV translators would not have included it) and accommodate his on-pressers. The evidence I'm attempting to share (by James Snapp, Jr is admittedly minimal, but nevertheless seems to me to be enough proof; after all it wasn't Erasmus that first introduced this passage.

A couple points of Erasmus' interests to me are the fact that though he had access to the Vaticanus and the Sinaitcus he found them of insufficient use:
"Erasmus did not use the Codex Sinaiticus, instead, he relied primarily on later medieval manuscripts, which led him to back-translate the final verses of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate due to a missing leaf in his primary source manuscript. While Erasmus was aware of older texts like the Codex Vaticanus, he did not have access to it for his landmark 1516 Greek New Testament and considered its text inferior when he did have limited contact with it." -Google AI

"Erasmus had contact with and was supplied readings from the Codex Vaticanus through correspondence with scholars like Paul Bombasius and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. However, Erasmus did not consider it a high-quality manuscript, and his annotations confirm he viewed its text as inferior and potentially back-translated from the Latin Vulgate." -Google AI

By the way (if you didn't know), the Alexandrinus Text is the worst of the three codex's that the modern translators used for all their translations!

A blog by James Snapp, Jr:

"Earlier this month over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, Elijah Hixson offered an informative post which included pictures of the few Greek manuscripts which have the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7. The earliest is GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362. I offered some analysis of the text of First John 5:7 in GA 629 in August of 2016 (see the replica of the relevant part of 629 at this link, or a page-view of the manuscript itself at the Vatican Library’s website at this link). The second-oldest manuscript of First John that has the Comma Johanneum in the text of 5:7 is GA 61, which was made in the early 1500s. The third-oldest Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7 is GA 918. Hixson, by a series of simple deductions, narrowed his estimate of its production-date to the 1570s.

"The other manuscripts do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text; the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin instead. Hixson’s post includes pictures of the relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time reviewing them here:

● In GA 221, a manuscript from the 900s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the Comma Johanneum arrived there rather recently, considering that (as Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the manuscript does not have the Comma Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note.
● In GA 177, the Comma Johanneum is written in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which means that the Comma Johanneum was placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550. (Dan Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.) Hixson offers a more precise date, however: the annotator of this manuscript left his name in it: Ignatius Hardt, who was born in 1749. Guided by a little more data about Hardt’s career, Hixson estimates that Hardt wrote the Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no earlier than the 1770s.
● In GA 88, a manuscript from the 1100s, the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or when. Almost no clues: as Hixson observed, whereas copyists routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a manuscript.
● In GA 429, a manuscript from the 1300s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because, as Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.
● In GA 636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin.

Now how many don't have 1 John 5:7? Snapp provides that answer as well.

 

[netchaplain]

Now how many don't have 1 John 5:7? Snapp provides that answer as well.

The lack of Greek manuscripts doesn't mean there is no credibility for the Comma Johannan.

Again, manuscripts with the Comma in the main text:

• GA 629: Dated to the 14th century (c. 1362–1363), this is the earliest known Greek manuscript to include the Comma. However, it is a Latin-Greek diglot, and the Greek text of the Comma appears to be a translation from the Latin.
• GA 61 (Codex Montfortianus): A 16th-century manuscript (c. 1520), famously used by Erasmus to include the Comma in his third edition of the Greek New Testament. It also shows signs of being translated from the Latin Vulgate.
• GA 918: A 16th-century manuscript from Spain, likely copied from one of Erasmus's editions.
• GA 2473: A 17th-century manuscript from Athens.