I've had my feet in and out over the years of really starting my journey into the words of Jesus Christ, but haven't fully accepted it. I finished watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ4NTdSK5ac] and my mind is blown. Especially the part he says towards the end that "why should god show himself to me if I won't continue banging on the door over and over?"
It's like I've been waiting for proof, but if I knock once or twice, don't get proof and give up, why should god present himself?
I encourage you all to watch this video. For those of us who were on Voat, it says a lot of what we already knew, but he provided sources, citations, photos. It's quite remarkable the work he put into this video.
Anyways, I would like to get myself a bible and I am curious what the most accurate version is?
I am also curious if the words of the bible today can be trusted? Who is to say the satanists didn't take over publication and tweak words, remove verses, etc? This is a legitimate concern of mine.
This is the most serious post I've ever made and I am genuinely looking forward to responses so I can proceed to the next step of this journey.
I apologize in advance for the post length. This post might not make me any friends, but this is what I would want someone to tell me. I am a non-denominational Christian who has been saved for over twenty years. I read the bible in Greek and Hebrew and have studied the bible version issue for several years. First of all, you are on GreatAwakening, so you should understand the concept of the Deep State. Archbishop Carlo Vigano mentioned in his letters to Donald Trump that there is also a Deep Church. The New Testament says to watch out for false prophets and false teachers who will be in the church.
What does this have to do with bible versions? Well the New Testament was written in Koine ("common") Greek. We have around 5,000 copies of it in Greek manuscripts that are older than a few hundred years. About 99% of them are basically identical except for very small spelling mistakes and occasional transpositions of words, etc. However there are a few copies that are radically different from the rest. Specifically two of them are worth knowing about. They are the "Sinai" and the "Vatican" codexes (Codex basically means book).
They are both dated to around 350 AD, and because of this date they are often referred to as the "oldest and best manuscripts". However, we should not judge things by their appearance, but do our own research. Here are some quick items of note:
These two codexes ( "codices" for the pedantic ) omit a disturbing amount of verses in the New Testament, not to mention tons of omissions of individual words.
There is a pattern to these omissions. They focus on the divinity of Christ, references to the blood of Jesus, references to fasting, detecting demons, and other topics such as faith before baptism.
There are tons of evidence of editing of these codexes. One of them had two additional authors go over sections of the manuscript and edit it. When quoting these parts, you have to specify which editor you are quoting.
These codexes constantly contradict each other. They often have divergent changes in the same verse.
One of my favorite facts, that I verified myself, is in the Vatican codex. This codex has 3 columns per page. In every book in the New Testament, when that book ends on one column, the next book starts on the next column. Except, that is, for one transition. The book of Mark ends on one column, and then there is AN ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN and then the book of Luke starts after the blank column. Why is this worthy of note? Many people now teach that Mark chapter 16 verses 9-20 are not in the original manuscripts because Vatican and Sinai codexes omit them. However the scribe who wrote the Vatican codex left a big fat piece of evidence that something was missing. This is even more interesting when it is claimed that Mark was the first gospel. Without verses 9-20 there is no real evidence of resurrection, and you can imagine how atheists have a field day with that fact. Modern scholarship unironically believes that the gospel of Mark literally ends with the words "and they were afraid".
Other important sections changed or left out of these two codexes are "the woman caught in adultery", someone being told that they should only be baptized if "they believe with all their heart", a verse that says "God was manifest in the flesh", and teaching that some demons only come out "through prayer AND FASTING".
Why would oldest not be the best? Well, I have a couple of bibles that I don't like and some that I love. Guess which books are in better shape? The ones I don't like stay preserved perfectly on the shelf. The good copies get used until they break. The same thing happened throughout history. The sketchy copies stayed on shelves and the good copies were used until they wore out.
More importantly, we should look at the fruit. The traditional manuscripts, often called "the received text", were the bibles of the Protestant reformation that caused peoples hearts to burn for the word of God. Also Catholics ended up having to go back to the word to fortify their beliefs. Ever since the teaching that "the oldest manuscript is the most accurate", which really caught on in the early 1900s, we have had dozens of new bibles in English, and the church has arguably become more and more watered down and lost its power and influence. The average christian that I know almost never reads the bible on their own because their bibles are not empowering them.
This is a very deep rabbit hole and the information overload can be overwhelming, so feel free to dm me for further conversation.
Also, for Catholic and Orthodox frens (God bless you!), the Orthodox new testament is very close the protestant received text. The older catholic bibles such as Douay Rheims also used the received text. Church fathers who wrote before 350 AD often quote verses that are omitted in the Vatican and Sinai codexes.
I haven't even mentioned Wescott and Hort, who led the push to abandon the received text, and their membership in a seance club and association with Madame Blavatsky, the occult theosophist. That is a worthy dig for any Christian anon who is curious.
In summary, this knowledge took me years to research on my own, and I feel that the Greek received text is the purest form of the word of God. It has done a very good job sustaining me in several horrible life events. The Old Testament manuscripts are way more uniform, and that debate, in my opinion, is nowhere near as serious as the New Testament issues.
Available bibles based on the received text are the old and new king james bibles. I am not "King James Only". I can point out places where I disagree with the translation, but it is as good as things currently get.
Final fun note, the Sinai codex was discovered by a guy who saw monks using it to start fires because they thought it was a corrupted copy. The Vatican codex appeared MYSTERIOUSLY with no history in the vatican library. Gotta love that.
Here is a list of changes in Vatican and Sinai: ( Warning, this site IS kjv only )
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html
NKJV in the new testament is in general is focused on the received text, but some of their translation choices are sort of questionable. If I recall correctly, some of the verb tense translations are debatable and different from the older king james.
I am used to the older king james maybe out of reading it for a long time and getting used to the older english, but I don't typically quote it without paraphrasing it to make it sound more modern, or giving an explanation of the older words to whoever I am talking to.
There are a handful of versions with names like "modern king james version" and "21st century king james version", but I have personally found that they don't provide enough of an advantage to either the KJV or NKJV to be worth a lot of time. Also, they have a lot smaller circulation, so any translation mistakes are going to probably exist longer without anyone noticing. The old KJV has been around for hundreds of years, so people like myself who choose the "received text" but are not committed to thinking that the KJV is the most perfect translation possible can find resources to discuss all the specific verses that might have problems. To me it is just a very well-known foundation. You can compare it with the earlier Geneva bible published in the 1560s (not the 1590s version) and the Catholic Douay Rheims of 1610 (not later Douay Rheims that were revised to be a little closer to kjv) for a nice contrast.
My biggest issue with NKJV is that many copies have footnotes that completely contradict the received text, so be aware of that and look for a version without a ton of footnotes, if you like the received text. Anecdotally some of the people on the translation committee for NKJV were rumored to be against the received text.
The footnote issue can also happen with old king james editions too. I prefer to use a version with no footnotes, or for those who don't mind doing a bit of digging, you can find 1611 reprints that include the footnotes from the original KJV translations, and those are very interesting. For commentary I recommend Matthew Henry (more predestination) and Adam Clarke (more free-will).
The French speakers are actually way more blessed than the English speakers with a modern received text translation. They have the modern Ostervald versions. There is a modern Spanish "Reina Velera Gomez" received text as well. It is actually getting to the point where non-English speakers have more received text options than English speakers.
I missed this comment yesterday, and I'm kicking myself for it now. I'm reading Obedience of a Christian Man, by William Tyndale, and it is hard to put down. I request that you recreate this same post over at https://communities.win/c/Christianity/new because it has such great and well written information in it. I will also DM you with this request. Thanks
Ask, and ye shall receive... :)
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/12igYIndqb/