- Sep 2, 2013
Brother Paul this is just propaganda from the KJV folks in large part. The most respected Greek Scholars and respected men of God who have spent time to study out this issue have come to the clear and right conclusion that the older text (1000) years older, clearly represent the intention of the scriptures much more than the modern text, that have been clearly added to. If you have a clear example you would like to discuss in detail, I will be glad to search that out with you, but posting this propaganda that just makes blanket and misleadng statements, has little value.Yes but Mizpa these are one group of modern scholars (2000 years after the fact) most of whom do not believe the most basic Christian doctrines...consider this....
Sinaiticus (a text long discarded for burning, found in an Orthodox library, which you are saying we today should be relying on) and Vaticanus (a Roman Catholic text known to exist and only held and controlled by the Vatican, which you are saying we should be relying on), which disagree with over 90% of all other extant samples (which according to modern liberal scholars must all be incorrect if these are indeed the best), which disagree with each other in over 7,000 places (each adding to and taking away where seems fit), and disagree just in the gospels in over 3,000 places (and not just spelling errors or repetitions but entire passages), are reliable!
Okay then since they are in such stark disagreement (even opposing one another), both cannot be the best or the more correct, so which one is it? The one the Orthodox church threw away or the one the Vatican kept hidden?
Neither the Nestle hodge podge eclectic (he picked and chose as he felt appropriate) or the Westcott/Hort hodge podge eclectic (they picked and chose what they thought appropriate) agree with each other (these also disagree in 1,000s of places), so which of these is the correct or best? Choose!
And no! It has been noted by many Textual Critics that Vaticanus simply has a blank space where these passages of Mark would have been…so which is best? Sin or Vat? Which is the reliable edited version? Or is it neither? Then in that case which modern hodge podges (with personally selected choices from both, with some personal interpretations added) are the best or more correct?
Why did all of Christendom select what we have in the majority of examples that go back even farther if these were the better?
Think about it? Most of the people that are telling you this do not even believe the Bible is true...yet them we should trust in? They (like Sin and Vat) cannot even agree with each other (hence a version for any need to scratch any ear with a particular itch)