Thank you. It takes a bit of time to put it together, but I think it helps make the comparison clear. I'm interested in your comments on the doctrine aspect.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now lets make it clear, I am not a KJV-Only person at all, so we can get that out of the way. I like the NIV but after looking at the sources and background I will go to the text of those version from the Majority Text of which the King James Version is one, when it comes to doctrinal or theological points. If I knew Greek/Hebrew I would go to the originals but I havent learned those yet. As to just being different words or better modern translation, I have no problem with. But if it is changes with a purpose then a red flag goes up and we need to be alert to why it was done, and these Alexandrian Codices are a full fledge red flag hurricane warning to any Christian and they need to carefully look to see what has been altered, deleted or changed and understand the purpose behind it...

If there are changes to the Bible a Christian must ask themselves that question, or we end up as other adventist believers did, the Jehovah Witnesses, lost in a Westcott & Hort confusion as that is the source they used then deleted and changed even more.


As to the Septuagint....here is more: The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation."

4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came include:

A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10.
Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.
C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets!
B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/sept.html

The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

Not in this discussion, of course. In this discussion I have been focusing on the Textus Receptus, which has to do with the Greek New Testament.
As to the LXX, I think all should be aware that Paul quoted largely from it.

Yes, nice table format, but it was a total waste. You did exactly what I was arguing against. All you did was show it was different, but nothing about whether it was correct or not.

Where is your proof of that? What is to say he wasn't quoting from other scriptures?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It may have been a waste in your case, then. But seeing the nature of the differences is somewhat self-explanatory as to which is more correct. However, it may be more obvious in another example, which I don't have time for just now. More later.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I am not quiet sure what your trying to say, if as the facts show, the Alexandrian Codices are corruption we have the sure word in the Majority Text so there is no issue if you stay with that........

As I said, I am not a KJV Only advocate, but from the facts we need to be aware and act accordingly... and the facts of the Textus Receptus speak for themselves, we have the Word of God safe in its text.........