Oldest and Best, Really??

[Jim B]

To all:

Some have a problem that the chapter and verse numbers were added later as a part of God’s divine hand or providence (Which was clearly a later addition to the originals). But say John 3:16 to another Christian and he knows what you are talking about. God surely knew of their importance of our finding something immediately in His Word because of the chapter and verse references (Of which would be more difficult to do if they were not there). Take for example Exodus chapter 33. How do I know that this is the chapter that God showed His back parts to Moses? Because I also know that we have 33 bones in the back of our spine. Coincidence? Well, if that was the only one (then we would not be saying anything on this topic), but the insanely high number of these coincidental occurrences happening over, and over, and over and over and over and over again in the KJB rules this theory out. But of course those who do not believe any perfect Bible exists will resist these kinds of things and scoff at them (in unbelief).

Just look at…

The Amazing Bible Number 46.

As many of you may be aware of: In the realm of medical science, we know that there are 46 chromosomes in the human body.

We know according to Scripture that under the New Covenant, our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Corinthians 3:16).

1 Corinthians 6:19 also confirms this truth, as well. What is interesting is that 1 Corinthians is the 46th book of the Protestant Bible.

Behold the scene in John 2:


[Jesus said]

“Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up.”

The Jews
then said,

“It took forty-six years to build this temple,
and will You raise it up in three days?”

But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

(John 2:19-22).

Not sure if you caught it or not, but the Jews said that it took them 46 YEARS to build the temple. The Jews were confused and they thought Jesus was going to tear down the literal temple of worship, but Jesus was referring to His body. The body that has 46 chromosomes within it.

In 1 Kings 7:15-16, we learn that the two large bronze pillars which stood at the entryway of Solomon's temple. The shaft of the columns (structural) measured 18 cubits in height, with a capital (Structural top piece) measuring 5 cubits in height; this gives us a total height of 23 cubits. This parallels the pairs (two) of 23 chromosomes in each nucleus of the cell of our bodies. We see in a DNA molecule what looks like a twisted ladder. Two sides to that ladder, and 23 rungs or chromosomes. (Note: There was a flower or fruit like piece mentioned to be at the top of this; But this was merely the adorning feature of the structure). There is even a spiral staircase mentioned in Solomon's temple, and this reflects the spiral nature of the DNA ladder.

The word “the body” is found 69 (23 x 3) times in the Bible.

(Important Side Note: While I do use BlueLetterBible for quick keyword searches, it does not always give you the final accurate count number; Check out King James Pure Bible Search, which is available as a software (PC/MAC/Linux), a mobile app, and or as an online search).

Anyways, we read in 1 Corinthians 10 the following,
"The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

The word “The bread” occurs 46 times in 46 verses of the Bible.

The phrase “temple of” (think about an empty temple or vessel) is found 46 times in the Bible. The phrase “the temple” is found in 23 books of the Bible.

The phrase “the word of God” occurs 46 times in the Bible.

The Word of God was made flesh.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1).

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war." (Revelation 19:11).

"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Revelation 19:13).

In Genesis 2:23-24 Adam speaks exactly 46 words:

“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

“conceived” 46 times in the Bible
“multiply” 46 times in the Bible.
“the flesh” 46 times in the NT
“the seed” found in 46 verses of the OT

“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” (Romans 9:21).

“vessel” 46 times in the Bible
“the vessels” 46 chapters of the Bible.

In Luke chapter 2, we see this in verse 46.

"And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions." (Luke 2:46).

While the text is referring primarily to the physical temple here, the secondary spiritual meaning should not be missed.

"...They found him in the temple, ...." (Luke 2:46).

They found the him [The Living Word of God] in the temple (in His physical body or flesh) (i.e. For the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us - John 1:14).

What is also interesting is that the Bible mentions the words "the doctors" found him [Jesus].

"...the doctors...." (Luke 2:46).

While these were Doctors of what we would call today as: "Doctors of Theology," a secondary metaphorical meaning implies that they were like medical doctors. For a medical doctor's job is to examine the body and to see if everything is working normally and or to treat the sick or injured; And these men were examining the Word made flesh (John 1:14). These men were examining the Word made flesh and his words (Which were also called, "the Word of God.").

Luke who wrote this gospel was a physician, as well. How fitting for the text by which we hold so dear today in our hands and or cherish on our mobile devices (or computer).

What an amazing number we find in our Bible:

The Amazing Bible Number 46.

This number is not a guide to rule our life by like in false numerology, but it is simply a number that speaks to how special God's Word is, and makes us appreciate His Word as being divine and amazing.

I hope that what I said here helps to build up your faith in Jesus Christ, and His word (Which today has taken form as our Holy Bible that we have available to us in so many ways).

Blessings to you all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where are you getting this numerology stuff? (Even if it's bizarre).

BTW, your writing...

While these were Doctors of what we would call today as: "Doctors of Theology," a secondary metaphorical meaning implies that they were like medical doctors. For a medical doctor's job is to examine the body and to see if everything is working normally and or to treat the sick or injured; And these men were examining the Word made flesh (John 1:14). These men were examining the Word made flesh and his words (Which were also called, "the Word of God.").

... is a good description of textual criticism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Some try to say that the Modern Bibles are not based on the Westcott and Hort text. Some will say this because our Modern Bibles are based on the Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek text.

But Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp believes the the Nestle and Alan text is barely different than the Westcott and Hort text.

Here is a quote from Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:

“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation,…”​

You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study here:

N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar?

www.thetextofthegospels.com

But lets just say the Nestle and Aland is not based on the Westcott and Hort text (Which does not match the evidence we have), the Nestle and Aland text says right in the 27th edition that it was supervised by the Vatican.

So I am not sure how this helps a person defending the Modern Translations (Which was based on the Nestle and Aland supervised by Rome).

The Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Words of Jesus are taken away by Modern Translations.

Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35). But in Modern Translations some of our Lord’s words have passed away (or they are missing).

1. The words of Jesus on “Fasting so as to cast out persistent devils” is removed in Matthew 17:21. I can personally testify that this works. So obviously it is a method that the devil does not want believers to know about or it is something he wants believers to doubt such words as being true so as hinder in helping them.
   
   
2. Removal of the words “You know not what spirit you-all are of.” (Luke 9:55). The details of the rebuke towards John and James is missing. One problem is that one can think that the neutered Modern Translation version of this rebuke is teaching that our rebukes need to be only a positive and happy manner. Meaning, that we should only speak only good things towards others. Another problem is that it speaks against the NT teaching on Non Resistance. Yet another problem is that it can lead some people to make James and John out to be men who never made any mistakes (which can lead to idolizing them in some way).
   
   
3. Certain words of our Lord in Acts of the Apostles 9:5-6 are removed. The words in Acts of the Apostles 9:5 that say, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is removed. In Acts of the Apostles 9:6, the words "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" are removed. The removal of the words on Acts of the Apostles 9:5 is wrong because it can make a believer wrongfully think that God does not have anything to do with us if we have not fully submitted to Him yet. However, we see here that God is actively trying to reach Paul even up until He had His vision with the Lord. The removal of words in Acts of the Apostles 9:6 is problematic because it makes it look like Paul may not have been in fear of the Lord when he had this vision, too. It is also problematic to remove such words because Paul is being polite and correct in asking the Lord in what to do. This means we should be seeking and asking God for the direction for our lives, as well. We have to be polite and humble with God and ask, and not make demands of Him, as well. But we need to ask for God's direction for our life. For the enemy would want nothing more than for a believer to be outside of God's will and not asking the Lord for direction in their life.

This is disturbing that the Modern Translations would remove such precious words from our Lord. For we know that these words can benefit our walk with Him. Some who hold so tightly to the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus manuscripts (along with their Babel bibles) as being the Word of God will of course never see such truths that I speak of here. They will just blindly trust the scholar who holds to the corrupted Alexandrian texts that removes these beautiful words from our Lord Jesus Christ. Little do they fully grasp the entire truth of our Lord's words that say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Why is it okay for you to quote Wikipedia but when I posted a link to Wikipedia you said it was run by an atheist and unreliable?

Well, I never said we could never use Wikipedia. It does not mean Wikipedia does not offer some truth that can even support the faith in some cases. However, the article you pointed to in Wikipedia was an untrustworthy article and not accurate to those who truly have done an in-depth study on that topic. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is biased to the world agenda in many cases. So it’s not always going to give information that is accurate to the Christian worldview. I believe the article you provided was not fully informed of all of the facts, and they are more likely to support the world system or ways (Which I believe is a part of Catholic influenced Bibles). Granted, I believe we can use Modern Translations for a greater good in updating the KJB, but Modern Bibles (influenced by the Vatican - which is a FACT) cannot be our final Word of authority because they change doctrine (Which is a FACT I have demonstrated several times on this forum).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Modern Versions make Jesus appear to sin:

In Matthew 5:22, Modern Translations remove the words “without a cause” in relation to being angry with your brother.

The King James correctly includes the words “without a cause,”

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22) (KJV).

Why is this important?

Because Jesus got angry in Mark 3:5.

“And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.”
(Mark 3:5) (KJV).

But if we are to believe the Modern Translations, then Jesus had sinned by getting angry with his fellow brethren or Jews based on Matthew 5:22. For Modern Translations appear to condemn Jesus for just being angry in general as a sin, when in reality Jesus was specifically referring to being angry without a cause.

In John 7:8, the Modern Translations remove the word “yet” which makes it appear like Jesus is lying.

The King James correctly includes the word, “yet,”

“Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.” (John 7:8) (KJV).

The author of the Living Bible (TLB) says in Zechariah 13:6, “What are these wounds? Oh, these I got when I was in a drunken brawl at my friend's house." (This is blasphemous because it is a prophecy about Jesus Christ).

I’ve heard a Christian once tell me about how Jesus lied, and they pointed this section of the Scriptures to me. I have heard other Christians say that Jesus sinned, as well. This is just crazy talk. Jesus had to be our spotless Lamb in order to pay the price for our sins. No doubt they were most likely reading or favoring a Modern Translation that made them think this way.

 

[HIM]

God's original word in fact does not exist, and you did not give it's location as I knew you couldn't. Yes I believe God's word is preserved and protected through copies. What convinces me? The translators of the King James Version of the Bible did their utmost to remove God's name, but were unable, however when Jehovah's name became well known throughout the earth, He did allow them to remove it in it's whole, but even in that Jah still occurs several times in those translations.

Yes the truth is out there, and it can be had Dave.

God's name is not pronounced Jehovah.

 

[RLT63]

Well, I never said we could never use Wikipedia. It does not mean Wikipedia does not offer some truth that can even support the faith in some cases. However, the article you pointed to in Wikipedia was an untrustworthy article and not accurate to those who truly have done an in-depth study on that topic. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is biased to the world agenda in many cases. So it’s not always going to give information that is accurate to the Christian worldview. I believe the article you provided was not fully informed of all of the facts, and they are more likely to support the world system or ways (Which I believe is a part of Catholic influenced Bibles). Granted, I believe we can use Modern Translations for a greater good in updating the KJB, but Modern Bibles (influenced by the Vatican - which is a FACT) cannot be our final Word of authority because they change doctrine (Which is a FACT I have demonstrated several times on this forum).

Okay you seem to be a likable person and earnest in your beliefs, I can even say I agree with some of your material but some of your ideas are conspiratorial and fringe

 

[RLT63]

God's name is not pronounced Jehovah.

And there wasn’t a conspiracy to remove it from the Bible

 

[HIM]

To all:

There is no evidence in the Bible that supports a Textual Critic approach to the Bible.
Do not be deceived. God’s Words were spoken to His people in the moment and they believed them.
God did not have to have His people fish for some ancient manuscripts or to seek out some more pure ancient language to figure out what He said. Scripture teaches God’s words were preserved in copies in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy that were available to the people for them to have faith in.

There is no Bible text that states that a translation of the languages the bible was written in is what we should be looking at. NO TRANSLATION IS PERFECT. There is a reason God chose the Hebrew and Greek to write unto the world. Just as there is a reason He chose the KJV to basically be the first bible in English. And prior to His second coming making it easy for people like you and I to look at the original languages ourselves and see for ourselves and get an even deeper understanding of what He intended through His Spirit.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Source:

27 Miracles in the KJV - By Chance... or by God? - Truth is Christ

Contents The Volume of the Book The First and Last Verses Holy Jerusalem First Mentions of LORD The House of Jeshua The 777 Godhead Mentions of Jesus + Christ The

truthischrist.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

At last!!! Thank you for writing "... which today has taken form as our Holy Bible that we have available to us in so many ways)". So, Bible translations other than the KJV are useful. There is light here!!!

Your taking what I said out of context.
But I am not here to convince you; Only God can do so.

Peace and blessings be unto you in the LORD.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There is no Bible text that states that a translation of the languages the bible was written in is what we should be looking at. NO TRANSLATION IS PERFECT. There is a reason God chose the Hebrew and Greek to write unto the world. Just as there is a reason He chose the KJV to basically be the first bible in English. And prior to His second coming making it easy for people like you and I to look at the original languages ourselves and see for ourselves and get an even deeper understanding of what He intended through His Spirit.

I understand that you feel your correct. But I have 101 reasons for the King James Bible being the Word of God for today with just a few of those reasons being sufficient alone to defend my case here. I believe it is best for me to continue to polish my 101 reasons in a more readable format for another thread. My trying to convince you here with few evidences is limiting. If after you have examined all 101 reasons for the King James Bible from an objective lens, and you are still not convinced… then so be it. We can agree to disagree in love.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay you seem to be a likable person and earnest in your beliefs, I can even say I agree with some of your material but some of your ideas are conspiratorial and fringe

I believe I demonstrated several times openly that the Vatican was involved in the creation of the Nestle and Aland by way of a snapshot from the actual page of the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland. So it’s not really a conspiracy if you go out and buy a 27th edition Neslte and Aland. Amazon and Half Priced Books has it last I checked. You can buy the book and check it for yourself what is taken from the actual Nestle and Aland book. Just make sure it is the 27th edition. It says right in there that the Vatican was involved in the editing of the text (along with United Bible Societies). Wikipedia says that all Modern Bibles are based on this Nestle and Aland. There are Christians I have shown this to and they don’t have a problem with Catholics being involved in the creation of the Nestle and Aland. They said to me: What about Erasmus? Well, Erasmus did not work on the KJB. Erasmus was not a good Catholic, and he went against the higher Catholic authorities at times (but in a subtle or tricky way). It has been said by monks living during his time, "Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it." The Textus Receptus (while significant) is also just ONE of the various sets of manuscripts used in the creation of the King James Translation. There was also the 2nd century witnesses like the Syriac Peshitta, and the Old Latin (among other sources).

I would suggest checking out this video here to see the manuscript line KJB believers believe in.

You may not agree with our line of manuscripts that the KJB comes from, but at least you will know where we stand in the argument.
Note: Please keep in mind that I do not agree with Dr. Gene Kim on his view of salvation and neither do I agree with his unloving attitude at times. But I believe he knows this topic well on a scholarly and biblical level.

In addition I have provided a link several times to you on the biblical proof that there is a change in Modern Bibles that favors Catholic beliefs.

You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

All of this is proof and not a conspiracy by any means. It may sound like one if a person does not look at the evidence presented. But I assure you it is not a conspiracy that is hidden and unproven. It’s verifiable that Catholics used to kill their own people for even having the scriptures. For example: In England, under the Catholic Queen Anne, it was a crime punishable by death to own a copy of the English Bible. Dozens of people in England were burned at the stake. So my theory is that the Catholics changed tactics from killing people for having the Scriptures to altering the text of the Bible to get people to favor scholars (the priest) instead of just reading and trusting the Bible alone is verified by looking at the evidence of history itself. Could I be wrong on my theory by a super small percentage? Sure, but it would also be naive to assume that Catholics don’t want to convert people to their way of thinking (Which is to convince people to trust the priest or scholar instead of the Bible alone). It was their tactic from day 1. The fact of the matter is we see their hands in our Modern bibles and they actually changed doctrines to favor Catholicism in Modern Bibles. These are the facts, and I don’t think Rome is some innocent harmless group today (anymore than they were in the past). If you are strong for the Bible Alone position and a perfect Bible, you can see their attack. It’s like a detective putting the clues together to figure it out. If you think the Catholic church is innocent and harmless, well… your never going to see what I am talking about here.

 

[Davy]

Since you are so opinionated and so wrong, I am putting you on ignore status again.

Not my opinion at all, but scholar's facts. So saying the matter is just my 'opinion' is a cheap cop-out excuse to NOT face the problem of corruptions by later Bible versions that rely on Wescott and Hort's corrupt 1881 new Greek New Testament translation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not my opinion at all, but scholar's facts. So saying the matter is just my 'opinion' is a cheap cop-out excuse to NOT face the problem of corruptions by later Bible versions that rely on Wescott and Hort's corrupt 1881 new Greek New Testament translation.

Today, all Modern Bibles use the Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek Critical Text, but even this is proven to be based primarily on the 1881 Westcott and Hort text.

From Wikipedia:

”Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek) is a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, forming the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism. It is also known as the Nestle–Aland edition after its most influential editors,”​

Source:

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However, one Textual Critic (Eldon Jay Epp) confirms the Nestle and Aland Critical Text is not much different than the Westcott and Hort Critical Text (For the New Testament in Greek) by his own personal study (See here). Many Christians who are into Textual Criticism try to move the goal posts on this issue by pointing to the Nestle and Aland but this really does not help them. Even if the Nestle and Aland was some entirely new text that is different from the Westcott and Hort text (Which it isn’t), that does not really prove the Textual Criticism camp is innocent. It would merely show a pattern of Rome’s involvement at two different periods of time in trying to corrupt the Scriptures and move men away from the Bible Alone position (Note: To be more precise, I prefer to say the Bible Alone + the Spirit to understand it). In the Nestle and Aland 27th Edition we see that the Vatican worked in harmony with United Bible Societies (Which is supposed to be Protestant) In the creation of the Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek Critical Text.

I show this in post #122.

I hope this helps and may the Lord Jesus bless you.

 

[RLT63]

There is a difference between New Testament Bible translations today. Depending on which one you use, it comes from one of two different types of Greek text. And it DOES matter which one you rely upon for The New Testament.

The authors of the Critical text (Wescott and Hort) claimed that the Greek Majority Text, which earlier New Testament translations are based on, are not as old nor as reliable as their Critical text. They claim the Greek Majority Text has additions, which is why their Critical text is shorter, and omits around 2,800 words that the Received Text has. They claim over time words were added to produce the Received Text. And because they allege their Critical text is older, it doesn't have those additions. None of that has ever been proven to be fact though. It was just assumed by Wescott and Hort.

What this means then, is that if you want to use a modern New Testament version, understand that you are relying on a totally different set of Greek manuscripts other than the Traditional texts used in history for the New Testament prior to the 1880s. And that newer Greek text is shorter, because it does not include something like 196 verses that are in earlier New Testament translations, like the KJV.

1. Received Text (Textus Receptus) or Byzantine Text or Majority Text, or Traditional Text -- this Greek text is based on the majority of existing Greek NT manuscripts, which is in the thousands. They make up the Byzantine tradition. This is why it is also called the Majority Text.

The higher critics wrongly claim that the Textus Receptus was created by Erasmus. That idea is false, because Erasmus in the 1500s made a Greek translation from... those Majority Text manuscripts. He only made a translation from existing Greek texts, and published it. These Greek texts were the same ones from antiquity. The title 'Received Text' was coined in the 1600s and thus the Latin name Textus Receptus means Received Text. But the source is from the Majority Text of thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts that exist.

It is what was used for New Testament Bible translations prior to the 1880s, like the 1611 KJV, Bible translations by John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, etc.


2. Critical Text, or Eclectic Text -- this is mainly 2 Greek texts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The conventional theory is that these Greek texts are the 'oldest and best' Greek New Testament manuscripts, as alleged by the 1800s British scholars Wescott and Hort (abbreviated as W&H). Notice the NKJV is in this group also, simply because it has notes of NU in its margin, showing the Critical Text of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies was used which included Wescott and Hort's new Greek text.

However, that oldest and best idea of Wescott and Hort was never established as fact, and discovery of newer manuscript evidence even shows the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus are not the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

Vaticanus was first discovered in the Vatican library in 1475 with nothing to date any previous origin. The Sinaiticus was first discovered in 1859 by Tischendorf at St. Catherine's monastery in Greece. Tischendorf, a German rationalist, is who first claimed Sinaiticus is older than the Textus Receptus without any evidence. A Greek scholar and paleographer of ancient Greek text named Simonides at the monastery claimed he was assigned to write Sinaiticus (under a different title), and that it was to be presented to the Czar in hopes of getting a donation for a printing press. The translation contained many errors that required repair, and overwrites, making the translation unpresentable. All this means it is a modern work created in the 1840s. The white appearance of the Sinaiticus manuscript also gives away its modern authorship. All the ancient Greek texts show oxidation, turning the document to a bronze color.

The Critical text, plus some pieces of other Greek manuscripts claimed to have been found later, are what the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies (UBS) New Testament translations are based upon, making up about 2% of modern New Testament versions, because its main reliance is still upon Wescott and Hort's 1881 new Greek translation.

The modern New Testament translations are based on the Critical Text. NIV, New Living Translation, English Standard Version (ESV), New King James Version (NKJV), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), The Message (MSG), New American Standard Version (NASV). English Revised Version (ERV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), World English Bible (WEB), Updated American Standard Version (UASV). If you have a New Testament that says it's from the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Societies, often abbreviated as NU, then you're using Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation they did from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[Robert Gwin]

God's name is not pronounced Jehovah.

Jehovah is not a pronouncement, it is the way it is translated to English. It is pronounced:
Je·ho·vah
/jəˈhōvə/

To audibly here it tap on this link: How to pronounce Jehovah - Yahoo Search Results

Nice speaking with you HIM, don't recall ever conversing with you before sir.

 

[HIM]

Jehovah is not a pronouncement, it is the way it is translated to English. It is pronounced:
Je·ho·vah
/jəˈhōvə/

To audibly here it tap on this link: How to pronounce Jehovah - Yahoo Search Results

Nice speaking with you HIM, don't recall ever conversing with you before sir.

Hi Robert. Regardless God's name is not Jehovah. And Jehovah is not a good translation. There is no J sound in the ancient Hebrew.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi Robert. Regardless God's name is not Jehovah. And Jehovah is not a good translation. There is no J sound in the ancient Hebrew.

While I don’t agree with JW’s (like Robert Gwin), I do believe this name of God is valid in the Bible.
I know that probably goes against everything you want to be true, but it is the truth (Nonetheless).
Check out this article here:

Build a Free Website | VistaPrint

Design and create a professional website with the Wix website builder. Choose from customizable templates and design, then select the features that your business needs.

brandplucked.webs.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

So how would you reply to a video like this?

While Gene Kim could be a lot more loving in his approach (and I do not agree with his view of Soteriology), he does make some really good points that does not really fit with the Textual Critic viewpoint.

I do disagree also with Gene Kim’s view on all Modern bibles being of no use or benefit to the Christian life (Seeing he thinks corruptions means the whole of the translation is of no value or use). But he does make a good case for at least us having one Bible or one standard of God’s Word in this particular video.

Side Note:

To give further support of how we can use imperfect Modern Bibles:
Well, to give an analogy of how one can use an imperfect Bible, some foods can be eaten if you pick out the bad spoiled parts.
You just have to be really careful to not eat the spoiled parts, though. Even the the devil and unbelieving Jews were used as a part of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Which was the salvation of all of mankind). So I believe we can use Modern bibles unlike Dr. Gene Kim believes. I just don’t believe Modern bibles can be my final word of authority like the KJB, though (Because they change doctrines). But Modern bibles in my view are a necessity because there are many confusing archaic words in the KJB.