Omissions

no.

 

Should we be worried? No. But I think there is legitimate cause for concern in some cases. How significant is "So significant we should be worried"?

 

no they don't

Changes always result in defferences.

Should we be concerned at the differences between the Geneva Bible and the KJV1611?

 

Should we be concered with the changes between the KJV1611 and other editions of the KJV?

 

(Sorry, this is a response to C4K above. I should have quoted.) Yes, they might. The comparison is apples and oranges. Geneva and KJV came essentially from the same manuscripts and were essentially the same. MV's (with the exception of the NKJV) come from different manuscripts than the KJV - thus the significant differences. E.g. If God did inspire an ending for the book of Mark (which all believers for 1800+ years believed), then it is significant to decide it should no longer be there.

 

Acts 16:31 would be another example. Many MV's leave it out.

As far as significant one could look at Romans 1:16. It is the Gospel of Christ.

Both Geneva and KJV has it but ASV does not. This is significant.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I may be wrong as to my numbers......If I am please correct me.

If I remember correctly, there are (4?) sentences and (1?) paragraph that have been ommitted/footnoted in various versions,(I really haven't counted them in a while); but the numbers aren't really important IMHO. What is important is that none of the textual changes in any way affects the doctrinal integrity of the various versions (mainstream) of the bible.

 

I probably ought to add that I use and compare (normally) the KJV,NKJV,NIV,HCSB,NLT, as well as the Ricker-Berry interlinear.

 

4His_glory: Should we be concered with the changes between the KJV1611 and other editions of the KJV?

Only if one is a KJVO who claims the KJV is perfect, & has been asked WHICH EDITION is THE perfect one, and what criteria are used to determine such perfection.

Ya don't see the KJVOs giving a straight answer to THAT one! The CORRECT answer sounds the death knell of their myth.

 

I've asked that exact question dozens of times - only one man has had the courage to take a stand and say he uses on the Oxford 1769 as the perfect Word of God.

Despite the problems with that answer, at least he gives an answer.

 

Ah, the straw men are erected fast and furiously. Who said anything about a perfect KJV? Only the posters who are attacking "they." "They" have yet to make an appearance in this thread. The thread was about whether we should be concerned about "changes and ommissions" in the MV's as compared to the KJV; an honest question worthy of discussion and open to legitimate differences of opinion, but alas, it must be turned again into KJVO bashing, even though "they" have not spoken on this thread.

 

We really don't know for sure whether the "ommissions" are ommissions in the MV's because of removals from the Alexandrian source type texts or "additions" to the KJV because of the "conflated" Byzantine type texts.

The W&H theory is that the Byzantine type texts were "conflated" and/or "smoothed".

The number of Byzantine extant texts (5000 plus) far exceed the number of Alexandrian texts (less than 100) that we have to examine.

Personally I am biased toward the Byzantine text until we have a better balance to compare with.

HankD

 

Were the verses in your chart added to the Bible, or omitted from the Bible. The very large majority of New Testament scholars believe that they were added by scribes. Each of the verses has been studied in very great detail and the evidence for or against their being genuine scripture has been VERY carefully examined. The NASB includes most of these verses in the margin. Those that most New Testament scholars believe to be OBVIOUS additions to scripture are not included in the NASB in either the text or the margin.

 

There is a little truth in that, yes, most newer Bibles are translated from the CT, but if you read a NASB, for example, most verses that are left out are placed in the margin or marked with a mark with a notation in the bottom of the pages. To make it sound like doctrine has been RIPPED from new MVs is not the case.

Let us take the ending of Mark for example. Considering that there are SEVERAL endings of Mark that we could all choose from. Then we have a problem: do we print every single ending of Mark? It would take more than one page just for the optional endings.

Second, the ending of Mark is not doctrinal for us today. If it was indeed true, it was making promises to those people it was talking to at that specific time in the New Testament era. Paul was bit by a snake and it didn't hurt him. Would it hurt us today? You betcha!

Finally, most of the changes are repetitions. This is why many scholars believe they might have been added by well meaning scholars trying to balance the gospels.

As for your remark about 1800 years believers believe it should be there, then we had better add the apocrypha back to the Bible!

I don't think so.

 

By the way, the NKJV comes from sort of a reverse engineered Greek Text. Or at least a compilation of texts that were NOT necessarily what the KJV was translated from. This is the reason "New" KJV is a little misleading, since the old KJV didn't exclusively use the TR.

The KJV did use Byzantine texts, but it used (GASP) the Vulgate to fill in a lot of places where many of those texts disagreed.

 

The KJV also borrowed heavily from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims.