"...Even many King James Bibles now have added footnotes referring to what are said to be "better manuscripts" which indicate that certain changes should be made in the King James text. The most famous such changes are the omission of the last twelve verses of Mark and the first eleven verses of John, chapter 8, but there are many other important omissions...
...it is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text...
...whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as the Received Text (also called the Textus Receptus...
...The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus...
...both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism.
Furthermore, the changes adopted by the Westcott-Hort (or Nestle-Aland) Greek texts were predominantly based on two old Greek manuscripts, the so-called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century...
The fact that these two manuscripts are older obviously does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside and not used because of their numerous gross errors...
The Sinaitic manuscript was reportedly rescued from a wastebasket in a monastery on Mount Sinai...
...the fact remains that significant differences do exist, and that practically all modern English translations have been heavily influenced (via Westcott/Hort, etc.) in favor of the former, whereas the King James translation has its basis primarily in the latter.
In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Are we to believe that God would entrust the preservation of His eternal Word to men such as these?"
http://www.a-voice.org/discern/kjmorris.htm
...it is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text...
...whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as the Received Text (also called the Textus Receptus...
...The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus...
...both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism.
Furthermore, the changes adopted by the Westcott-Hort (or Nestle-Aland) Greek texts were predominantly based on two old Greek manuscripts, the so-called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century...
The fact that these two manuscripts are older obviously does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside and not used because of their numerous gross errors...
The Sinaitic manuscript was reportedly rescued from a wastebasket in a monastery on Mount Sinai...
...the fact remains that significant differences do exist, and that practically all modern English translations have been heavily influenced (via Westcott/Hort, etc.) in favor of the former, whereas the King James translation has its basis primarily in the latter.
In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Are we to believe that God would entrust the preservation of His eternal Word to men such as these?"
http://www.a-voice.org/discern/kjmorris.htm
Upvote
0
