The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary has some excellent material on the subjects that we have been discussing:

Volume 1, pages 25 - 45, The Languages, Manuscripts and Canon of the Old Testament.

Volume 5, pages 103 - 133, The Language, Manuscripts, and Canon of the New Testament.


Volume 5, pages 134 - 189, "Lower" and "Higher" Biblical Criticism.

Volume 9, SDA Bible Students Source Book, This contains various entries which may be of interest.

This is where you are wrong and you misstate the facts.

The various translations have not edited to fit the understanding of the translators of the doctrines. The reason behind your examples lie in the MSS, not the editing of those who translated the text.

The SDA Bible Commentary, commenting on Acts 8:37 says: "Textual evidence favors the omission of this verse." IOW this omission was not the work of editing. It s the result of the fact that this verse is missing from the MSS

However, note what the SDABC Also says: "It should be noted, however, that the truth expressed in v.37 is set forth in variant forms elsewhere in the Bible."

Folks, our doctrines do not depend upon one verse. If they do, they are weak. They depend upon the overall witness of the Biblical record. So, when you tell us that you cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV, you are simply making a false statement. The doctrine of the Trinity does not depend upon the passage in John.

These results were prophesied in the Bible. Note where all of these "Egyptian," "Coptic," "Alexandrian," etc. codices have come from, then take a look at the following commands of God to the Jews, and the prophecy of what would result when they disobeyed.

First the command:


That command not to enter Egypt was disobeyed. This is the reason we have Hebrew and Greek manuscripts coming out of Egypt today. But what was the prophecy about this? It was this: "ye shall be an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach."

Yet there is another fascinating prophecy about this concerning Egypt. Take a look at this!



What is God's sword? Is it not His Word?


God will plead with us by His Holy Spirit and by His Word.

The sword is the word of God. Why, then, is this sword of God in Pharaoh's hand? The prophecy has come true. The Jews disobeyed, and it is on their account that Pharaoh came into possession of this sword.

Where does God say it will go after Pharaoh? To the king of Babylon. Babylon represents confusion. Indeed, we now have confusion in the biblical world today, with so many versions and perversions of God's word abounding--a prophecy fulfilled.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Its not a verse or two, it is completely wholesale change of verses concerning the divinity of Christ and insertions of text or omissions purposely done to put their ideas into the manuscript. Here are the changes just on the two main Alexandrian manuscripts.

The Vaticanus (B):

The use of recent technology, such as the vidicon camera, reveals that the Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the 12th century. The Vaticanus agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek in nearly 8,000 places, amounting to about one change per verse. It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substitutes or modifies nearly 2000 and transposes word order in about 2000 places. It has nearly 600 readings that do not occur in any other manuscript. These affect almost 1000 words.

Linguistic scholars have observed that the Vaticanus is classical and Platonic Greek, not the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Codicologists note that the Vaticanus was written on vellum scrolls (skin obtained from animals not yet born), and not papyrus codices, as were used among "the early Christians." The Vaticanus omits crucial parts of Mark and Luke. Theologians question its lack of use by anyone for 1300 years, then its "sudden" discovery in the Vatican in 1481. Protestant researches have never been permitted to examine the actual manuscript and work only from copies provided by the Vatican.



The Sinaiticus (Aleph):

The Sinaiticus, was so poorly executed that seven different hands of "textual critics" can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on this already corrupt manuscript. They twisted it like a nose of wax to meet their purposes at the time. It is no wonder that it was discarded, finally found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. Because of its blatant omissions and alterations, it lapsed into a wastebasket in a monastery, where it was "discovered" by Constantine von Tischendorf in the mid 1800's. It was kept by the Russian government from 1859-1933. Eastern Germany and Russia still retain parts of it. The fact that some pages were written on sheepskin and some on goatskin is a telling sign of its part Christian, part Heathen character.

There are 9000 changes from the Majority Text, amounting to one difference in every verse. It omits 4000 words from the Gospels, adds 1000, reposits 2000 and alters another 1000. It has approximately 1500 readings that appear in no other manuscript, this affects nearly 3000 words.

Not only do the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts disagree with the Majority of manuscripts, but they do not agree with each other! The 8000 changes in Vaticanus and the 9000 changes in Sinaiticus are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority Text in 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify 2000.

Here is a good explanation of who and how these corrupted manuscripts were brought in to the new versions...

"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.

Detractors of the traditional King James Version regard the Westcott and Hort as a more academically acceptable literary source for guidance than the venerated Textus Receptus. They argue that the disputed passages were added later as scribal errors or amendments.

Defenders of the Textus Receptus attack Westcott and Hort (and the Alexandrian manuscripts) as having expurgated these many passages, noting that these disputed passages underscore the deity of Christ, His atonement, His resurrection, and other key doctrines. They note that Alexandria was a major headquarters for the Gnostics, heretical sects that had begun to emerge even while John was still alive.2

(It is also evident that Westcott and Hort were not believers and opposed taking the Bible literally concerning the Atonement, Salvation, etc...."

"...The Last 12 Verses 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.)

But there is even more astonishing evidence for their original inclusion that is also profoundly instructive for broader reasons..."

Take a look at the complete explanation and this is not from a Adventist....

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/

I have gone to your URL. I thank the LORD that the person who wrote there is not a SDA.

If you have to stoop to that level of scholarship to defend your position, I suppose that I can next expect you to reference a book of fairly tales.

Well, all can read your reference for themselves.

I am not defending a position, the history shows who wrote the Alexandrian manuscripts and why, its that simple. All you have to do is follow what changes were made and you will see the results...

Well, you are quoting him, in places.

You can do so much better for a source.

Gregory, Do you only accept Adventist sources? I didn't know you held such a position as that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If we accept the Bible as a valid source, the prophecies have already informed us of our modern confusion of Bible versions. (See my earlier post in this thread.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.