Originally posted by
The KJB added verses that wern't in the MV's?! WOW! And to think.....they were translated AFTER the KJB!!! Wonder how THAT happened!?
Quite easily actually, because the KJV was translated from *younger* texts than were used for modern versions. In otherwords, there are really really old manuscripts without the verses (which were considered in modern versions), and much younger manuscripts that have the verses in them (which were used for the KJV) - thus it is very likely the verses were added to the manuscripts somewhere along the line, but *before* the KJV was translated. Since the KJV did *not* use the oldest manuscripts, while the modern versions did, the KJV has verses in it that were *added*.
In other words, you look at an "old" KJV and a "new" NIV, and conclude there are verses "missing", because the KJV is "older". Yet if you apply the exact same approach to the manuscripts from which they were translated, comparing the "old" manuscripts to the "new" manuscripts, you have to say "Hey, these 'new' manuscripts have *added* verses."
I'd always heard that the new "versions" took away verses!
You heard wrong. That belief is based on the assumption that the KJV is the starting point, and/or that the KJV was translated with the exact same manuscript information that the other versions were. Both assumptions are wrong.
Oh about Catholics, look back in history....they wern't always so persecuted! It was the other way around, only Christians today don't put Catholics to death like the Catholics did to Christians back then!
Yes, there is some truth to that. But my point is when something is "attacked", that has absolutely no releveance in determining that thing's perfection, or even superiority.
Brian
[ July 14, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]