By the way Brother Dave, when I said "it wasn't so much a conspiracy as..." in my heart I was attempting to amplify your sentiments, because it's not just a conspiracy it's "an attempt by act of parliament to make the word conform to the Episcopal ecclesiology of the church of England...". It didn't translate in the way I wrote it.

Peace.

I am afraid that you are incorrect in your assertions, the Minority text has over a 1000 changes and alterations but there are only a limited number of manuscripts. Now due to the fact there are many more manuscripts in the Majority Text there may be a few with variations but are more in total, but as a whole they tend to be very close if not exactly worded copies and certanly are in agreement in terms of the diety of Christ and other core beliefs while the few Minority in contrast deviates or changes many of them.

Lets look at Westcott and Hort first..

"It needs to be stated clearly that the text of Westcott and Hort .... deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence."

"Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were Anglican churchmen who had contempt for the Textus Receptus and began a work in 1853 that resulted, after 28 years, in a Greek New Testament based on the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.

Both men were strongly influenced by Origen and others who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and embraced the prevalent Gnostic heresies of the period. There are over 3,000 contradictions in the four gospels alone between these manuscripts. They deviated from the traditional Greek text in 8,413 places.

They conspired to influence the committee that produced The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881 revision), and, thus, their work has been a major influence in most modern translations, dethroning the Textus Receptus."

A few facts to ponder:
There are basically one of either two categories of New Testament manuscripts which all bibles are based upon.

The Majority Text is a manuscript tradition which is reflected in the vast majority of NT manuscripts since the early church.
The Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text, was compiled between 1514 and 1641. The Majority Text has, since then, been made up of thousands of other Greek manuscripts. These later manuscript discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text.

The Minority Text (Alexandrian Text) - is based mainly on just two main manuscripts, the Vaticanus (also known as "B") and the Sinaiticus (also known as "Aleph") and a few others are brought up but these are the basis for many of the changes. These manuscripts not only disagree with the Majority Text, but they disagree with each other. The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors and would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly.

So we can see that there are just a few Alexandrian Texts compared to the Majority Text (Textus Receptus).

The Alexandrian Texts don't match with each other as much as the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) do. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.


The Alexandrian Texts were altered in many places or the meaning tampered with. One quick example in the Alexandrian Texts is they don't have the long ending of Mark, it ends at 16:8. But the TR does have the long ending of Mark. Among the disputed passages are the final verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20). (Look in your own Bible: you are likely to find an annotation that these were "added later.")

The insistence that Mark's Gospel ends at 16:8 leaves the women afraid and fails to record the resurrection, Christ's final instructions, and the Ascension. It is understandable why these verses are an embarrassment to the Gnostics, and why Westcott and Hort would advocate their exclusion, and insist that they were "added later."

However, it seems that Irenaeus in 150 A.D., and also Hypolytus in the 2nd century, each quote from these disputed verses, so the documentary evidence is that they were deleted later in the Alexandrian texts, not added subsequently.

"The evidence in favour of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming. The TBS publication (58) "The Authenticity of The Last Twelve Verses of...Mark" is an excellent summary, drawing mainly from Burgon, (14) p 36-40, 422-4 and Burgon's work cited by Fuller (33) p 25-130. See also Burton (5) p 62-3, Fuller (4) p 168-9, Hills (3) p 161-2, (38) p 133-4, Ruckman (2) p 132.

The TBS publication-see above-states that only 2 Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B) out of a total of 620 which contain the Gospel of Mark, omit the verses. See Burgon, cited by Fuller (33) p 60-1. Moreover, Burgon, ibid p 67, states that a blank space has been left in B, where the verses should have been but where the scribe obviously omitted them.

As further evidence in favour of the verses, Burgon (14) p423, (3) p 169, cites: 2nd Century: Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac versions, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian; 3rd Century: Coptic and Sahidic versions, Hippolytus, Vincentius, 'Acta Pilati'-by an unknown author, Apostolic Constitutions; 4th Century: Curetonian Syriac and Gothic versions, Syriac table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Aphraates, Didymus, The Syriac "Acts of the Apostles," Epiphanius, Leontius, Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine; 5th Century: Armenian version (some copies), Codices A and C, Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator; 6th and 7th Centuries: Codex D, Georgian and Ethiopic versions, Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, Archbishop John of Thessalonica, Bishop Modestus of Jerusalem.

The TBS also cites the Philoxenian Syriac of the 5th century as containing the verses. Hills and Ruckman also cite Tatian (2nd century) as quoting the verses. Hills (3) p 162, (38) p 134, states that besides Aleph and B, the Sinaitic Syriac-from the same source as Aleph, 2 manuscripts of the Georgian version and 62 of the Armenian version omit the verses. The Old Latin manuscript k has the "short conclusion" instead of verses 9-20. See notes for NEB, NWT. Burgon (33) p 81-2, explains how this short ending has been obtained solely from Codex L, an 8th or 9th century manuscript "with an exceedingly vicious text" (ibid). Hills explains the omission of verses 9-20 from the above handful of documents as indicative of the work of heretics, especially docetists who sought to de-emphasise post resurrection appearances of the Lord from the Gospel record, ibid p 166-8, p 138-41.

Burgon (33) p 49-60 also demonstrated that the supposed adverse testimony of ancient writers is spurious, resting on a quotation from Eusebius which does NOT deny verses 9-20. Berry's Greek text supports this passage.

Let's take a look at the two "oldest and best" manuscripts that delete the last twelve verses of Mark 16. The Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph):

The Vatican copy stops short at the end of Mark 16, verse eight. But the copiest left a blank space sufficient to accommodate the twelve missing verses! This is the only vacant column in the whole Vaticanus manuscript! It seems that the copyist knew that there was a portion missing in the copy before him. Dean John William Burgon draws the obvious conclusion that the scribe who prepared Vaticanus "was instructed to leave them out, and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent!" (op. cit., p. 67, "Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark," 1871).

As for the Sinaiticus manuscript, it is written in the same-size letters throughout until you come to the place where the last twelve verses of Mark belong, then the letters become large and spread out, taking up enough extra space to allow the last twelve verses of Mark to appear in the smaller letters that had been used up until this time. The double page containing the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke was removed at an early date and replaced with the four sides rewritten to exclude Mark 16:9-21! By slightly increasing the size of the letters and spaces, the writer was able to extend his shortened version to the top of the column preceding Luke one. Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus copy, alleged that these pages were written by the copyists of the Vaticanus manuscript.

So much for the so-called evidence from the two "oldest" manuscripts; if anything they testify to the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark."
http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Therefore in this and many other texts the Alexandrian Texts shows many texts that been altered, and that part taken out. While the TR kept it, showing it stayed true and is more reliable.


In favor of the Majority or Byzantine text, it is pointed out that the overwhelming majority (perhaps 90%) of Greek manuscripts are of the Majority or Byzantine text.

If you want to go deeper in this subject I came across some sites you may want to check out.


http://kjvbibleforums.com/portal.php

http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

I did not misquote Ellen White. Please look up the statement for yourself, and read its context, examine its wording, and see if I changed a whit of it.

Mrs. White's reference to the Waldensian Bible giving them the "unadulterated truth" necessarily opens up the other option--that of having "adulterated truth." Mrs. White's statement is specifically referencing the lineage of the Waldensian Bible. By contrast, the papal powers had corrupted the truths of the Word of God, had changed His commandments, and had promulgated their errors throughout Europe. As part of their drive to promote their own doctrines, the Jesuit order was put in charge of producing a Bible translation of their own, which Bible was published in 1582. This was but a first step, and its errors were much fewer than those of our modern versions.


Yes, the Critical Texts have been adulterated. No, I am not a KJV-onlier. Yes, Sister White had a special gift of discernment which enabled her to select appropriate passages from other versions and eschew the poorer translations. There were times she insisted on her publishers sticking to the KJV (Authorised Version). It is also noteworthy that the vast majority of her scripture references were from the KJV. She continued to rely more on the KJV than the newer versions after they had come out.



Yes, there are certain verses that are still relatively pure in the newer versions, as I touched on above. W/H's Greek was inferior simply because it had been "adulterated" along the way, and the various Greek manuscripts with which they worked did not agree with each other as the TR texts do.



But that's just the point. How dare the translators choose to teach something from their own opinion in place of faithfully rendering the text as it reads? The Catholic church has little emphasis on Joseph. The "Virgin Mary" is their God. In their belief, when "Mary" speaks, "Jesus" must obey. So they pray to Mary. What happened to Joseph being the head of the home in their thinking? What about God the Father? Why should we pray to Him instead? So this change was necessary to diminish the emphasis on Jesus' real Father and allow Mariology to thrive.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A man could be saved by the book of Matthew alone from any translation, if the Spirit guides them, or the man who wields the sword is endowed with the Spirit that guides them.

Speaking of which...

Greek	Young's Literal Transliteration	KJV	NIV	Scriptural Principle
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγων, Γέγραπται ὅτι Οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ	And Jesus answered him, saying, `It hath been written, that, not on bread only shall man live, but on every saying of God.'	And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.	Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"	And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

The NIV translators are bold enough to subtract the very words of God that tell us "every" word of His sustains us. This is why I cannot trust the NIV to give me the whole truth when it really matters. The Bible's own "copyright" condemns the translators of the NIV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thanks Rick,
The issue isn't so much that the KJV only is correct, (as many nationalities have bibles in their own language) The problem is which Greek Text is it based upon.

In that the KJV has the advantage.

The received Greek text has many "old copies' which are compared one with another.
They agree with each other in an astonishing way. Now if one omits a word or accidently uses a different word, it is quickly discovered because several hundred other copies didn't make that mistake. Thus accrucy is easily established.

The "critical text' is mainly from two "disgarded" manuscript both with some pretty important problems (as noted in Rick's post. There is really no 'check and control" for accuracy when one doesn't have a large selection to compare and cross check.

I can't trust any Bible that tells me that Jesus stated that all meat was clean. Try convincing someone who uses one of the "new" translations that unclean meat is still unclean.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Without this baptism of the Spirit, no translation will suffice to convince or convict anyone in the unadulterated perfect will of the Father.

Any bible in the hands of someone who knows scripture could give an account of any of our fundamental beliefs. In fact if used appropriately it can have added value to give the account from one of the Latin Vulgate derived translations, proving the beast teaching through their own translation etc.

The true counsel is given by the Spirit of Remembrance who causes us to remember what to say at the right moment, to convince and convict. The results are immediate if the Spirit is present to create the circuit.

You can see it in the way they accept the concept and ask questions or quantify the statement.

When God teaches new concepts to men that disagree with their preconceived notions, they usually react indignantly if they are full of themselves. If they truly respect the Spirit of Prophecy the first thing you will see is silent contemplation. The best response is prayer and acknowledgement with thanksgiving. To see this concept in motion try to teach a devoted layman from a nominal christian church, and then compare the result to speaking with their pastor on the subject.

Thank you for defining what Majority and Minority means.

And...?