This post is not to promote KJV only, but to check the background of modern bible translations.
The arguments between textcritical and Textus Receptus proponents are ongoing.
I found a document that puts those in a chart and at first glance even an unlearned Christian reader can discern that the differences clearly follow a pattern.

You can find it when you google
"Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge"

The TR includes stronger statements on the deity of Christ, the trinity, the blood, eternal judgement and other fundamental truths, whereas the textcritical translations omit or weaken these.

The Comma Johaneum is the most striking one and the last verse of the Lord's prayer another one.

This is no small matter, and it seems that many popular bible teachers promote these modern versions, especially the reformed ones.


I prefer the KJV and NKJV over many modern versions, and there are good TR based bible versions in other languages.

May God give us wisdom and discernment.

Here is a link:

https://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Good grief.

_________________
Todd

Hi narrowpath,

I started with the NIV and switched to the NASB. Most of these omissions are actually also in the NASB but with the notation that they were not in earlier manuscripts or that they were included in a few late manuscripts and versions.

Anyway, HOW have these omissions corrupted the gospel message?

_________________
Jade

[It is not the stronger statements” of the TR but the power of the Holy Spirit that counts.]

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and He will never compromise or overule the written word.

I am not a New Testament Scholar, but I believe it though the Greek TR has stronger statements not because someone edited them to make them stronger but rather the Alexandrian texts were weakened according to gnostic influences the scribes were under.

They call those texts that they base the new translations on
majority text and claim that because they are earlier manuscripts, they are more likely to be original.

This does not convince me.

Here are some striking examples, check for yourself:

Mark 1:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mark 1:2 English Standard Version (ESV)
As it is written in ISAIAH THE prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,

This is actually a citation from Mal 3:1, not Isaiah

---------

and the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4

King James Version (KJV)
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Luke 11:2-4 ESV - cut out a lot:
“Father, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
3Give us each day our daily bread,
4and forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation.

---
Matthew 20:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Matthew 20:16 English Standard Version (ESV)
16 So the last will be first, and the first last.”
---
and as far as references to the Old Testament are concerned, they are missing in Mk 15:28, Mt 27:35 and Mk 13:14

and last not least the textcritical Westcort-Hort text does not include Mark 16:9-20 but most new translations still keep it in the text body and only mention that they are not included in majority Greek texts.

Though most passages are more or less identical, but there are important missing pieces.

It is like a coat with many holes. It is still 99% coat, but would you wear it for business, in winter or to protect yourself from rain?

Certainly not!

//This is actually a citation from Mal 3:1, not Isaiah//

Actually it’s both. Mal. 3:1 and Is. 40:3.

_________________
Todd

The verses are similar, but the citation is definitely from Mal 3:1.

Funny that Matthew Henry, who I assume used the Authorized KJV, disagrees with you.

_________________
Todd

Matthew Henry mentions first Maleachi, and then Isaiah, so he does not disagree with me, you can reference the bible verses for yourself.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Mar/Mar_001.cfm?a=958002

Right- it’s both. So it is not correct to say that versions which mention Isaiah are inaccurate.

_________________
Todd