I don't understand what the difference is. There's a lot of talk in the KJVO thread and I don't want to start another debate about which translation is accurate but what's the difference and why do some consider one more accurate than the other?
Greek manuscripts can generally be classed into four categories based on similarities.
The overwhelming majority of Greek texts come from places that were part of the Byzantine Empire, where the primary language was Greek. These texts are classified as Byzantine. Because Greek continued to be used as a primary liturgical language in the Byzantine Empire for centuries, these were produced in greater number, but are also generally much younger texts.
The next major group is Alexandrian, or Egyptian. These texts were used by the Church in Egypt, but are generally older because Greek died out as a liturgical language after not too many centuries. When there's doubt over which tradition preserves the correct reading, the Alexandrian text wins more often than not, given that Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are all largely within this category, and these three are among our earliest complete Greek bibles.
The third is the Western Text. "Western" is something of a misnomer - a good number of Western texts come from Syria. The western text tends to gloss and paraphrase, and will give the longer version if a text has a long and short recension.
The fourth is Caesarean. The Caesarean is poorly attested, and not everyone accepts its classification as an independent textual family. Texts which are supposedly Caesarean will often seem to a mix of Western and Alexandrean readings.
What about Antioch text? I spell that wrong, I apologized.
That's not accurate.
The Byzantine text isn't Syrian, it's Byzantine. Certain Byzantine manuscripts come from Syria, most do not.
The Alexandrian text isn't a collection of Egyptian manuscripts either. Many Alexandrian manuscripts are from Egypt, but some are not. Two of the major Alexandrian codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were probably either written in Rome or Caesarea, independent of Egypt.
And modern Bibles do not come from the Alexandrian text, they come from an eclectic text. "Alexandrian" is a text type, not a specific text. There is no "The Alexandrian Text," just like there is no "The Byzantine Text," such that modern Bibles could be translated from them.
The main difference appears in the text style used in the manuscript.I don't understand what the difference is. There's a lot of talk in the KJVO thread and I don't want to start another debate about which translation is accurate but what's the difference and why do some consider one more accurate than the other?
++++++++"Older" doesn't necessarily equate to "more accurate" in terms of biblical manuscripts. Some old texts survived for the simple reason they were not used, whereas the manuscripts which found favor would eventually fall apart from a life of being constantly used. Copies made from the latter would be more favorable than the former.
There's a lot of talk in the KJVO thread
+++There are some problems with the KJV, one of the most noted, is the Comma Johanneum. (1 Jn. 5:7-8)
Prior to Erasmus, it didn't exist.
But, having said that, it does not mean that the doctrine of the "trinity" is not true. There are too many passages that speak of it.
The KJV is somewhere between 97.9%-99.7% true..
+++
That addition does not present neither in Coptic nor in Greek manuscripts, since the very earliest one and until now!
The trinity is very clear in the whole NT, without that addition.
That addition does not support the real dogma of trinity, but in the opposite side, it puts it under questions!
Because after finding that it is false, the faith of many people may be hesitated!
Our God is the true Light and Truth. Everything false, is against the Light and the Truth, and it comes not from our true God. Even if it appears sweet.
Let us serve the Truth, and only the Truth, whatever it is sweet or bitter.
++++++++++Now where have I said any different?
God Bless
Till all are one.
++++++++++
I do not speak as correcting something, but rather to support what you have said about that addition.
It is not false in meaning, but false as unoriginal phrase.
I spoke while in my mind other false additions or cancellations, made against the Septuagint, and some people defend the opposite because it said "mighty God" instead of the Septuagint's words: "the messenger of the great counsel", which appoints directly to the secret of the Incarnation of the Word.
So, we are in the same direction of thinking, to support the original words of God against any additions, even if they are correct in their meaning.
Certainly.I believe the LXX is a great resource because it shows the evolution of the Attic Greek to Koine.
God Bless
Till all are one.