Been around long enough to have seen this happen in real time: dictionary word meanings, encyclopedia entries, history books, the Bible and so much more. Those of us old enough to know, know it's been going on for a few hundred years at least, if not more.
The idea of an "evil cabal" manipulating and changing the canonical books of the Bible to deceive is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers. The biblical text is incredibly well-preserved due to the vast number of manuscripts spanning various geographical locations and time periods. Additionally, the early church fathers extensively quoted and referenced biblical passages in their writings.
The sheer volume of manuscripts, along with the geographical spread and diverse sources, makes it virtually impossible for any secretive group to alter the text without detection. Scholars and researchers compare these manuscripts, employing rigorous methods of textual criticism to ensure the accuracy of the biblical text. If any significant alterations had been attempted, the discrepancies would have been readily apparent in the multitude of manuscripts and early citations.
In essence, the collaborative efforts of countless scribes, the geographic distribution of manuscripts, and the vigilance of early church writers make the idea of a covert manipulation of the biblical text implausible and inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.
While I can appreciate your perspective, it's essential to distinguish between translation revisions and alterations to the biblical text itself. The changes you're referring to in newer editions of the KJV often involve updates to language, grammar, punctuation, and formatting for readability and clarity. However, these revisions do not affect the underlying meaning or content of the biblical message.
When Biblical scholars discuss the preservation of the biblical text, they focus on the accuracy and integrity of the original manuscripts and their faithful transmission over time, rather than changes made in subsequent translations or editions for linguistic or stylistic reasons.
Again, wrong. You should do a self-project and do as I offered: find an old Bible, then a new. Plenty has been changed to dilute, convolute, or outright change the context/meaning.
If that's too much for you, because it is quite the time consuming ordeal, I know there are a couple channels on YouTube that covers this as well...and they're spot on.
Been around long enough to have seen this happen in real time: dictionary word meanings, encyclopedia entries, history books, the Bible and so much more. Those of us old enough to know, know it's been going on for a few hundred years at least, if not more.
Nothing is what they tell you.
The idea of an "evil cabal" manipulating and changing the canonical books of the Bible to deceive is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers. The biblical text is incredibly well-preserved due to the vast number of manuscripts spanning various geographical locations and time periods. Additionally, the early church fathers extensively quoted and referenced biblical passages in their writings.
The sheer volume of manuscripts, along with the geographical spread and diverse sources, makes it virtually impossible for any secretive group to alter the text without detection. Scholars and researchers compare these manuscripts, employing rigorous methods of textual criticism to ensure the accuracy of the biblical text. If any significant alterations had been attempted, the discrepancies would have been readily apparent in the multitude of manuscripts and early citations.
In essence, the collaborative efforts of countless scribes, the geographic distribution of manuscripts, and the vigilance of early church writers make the idea of a covert manipulation of the biblical text implausible and inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.
Well, thanks for the essay, but it's wrong. Take any KJV bible from just 50 yrs ago and take notes.. lots of changes.
Go back another 50 and you'll see more but the most have been in the last 50.
'Twould appear you are indeed "Late To The Show".🤷♂️
Wow. 3 paragraphs are an "essay" now, huh?
While I can appreciate your perspective, it's essential to distinguish between translation revisions and alterations to the biblical text itself. The changes you're referring to in newer editions of the KJV often involve updates to language, grammar, punctuation, and formatting for readability and clarity. However, these revisions do not affect the underlying meaning or content of the biblical message.
When Biblical scholars discuss the preservation of the biblical text, they focus on the accuracy and integrity of the original manuscripts and their faithful transmission over time, rather than changes made in subsequent translations or editions for linguistic or stylistic reasons.
Again, wrong. You should do a self-project and do as I offered: find an old Bible, then a new. Plenty has been changed to dilute, convolute, or outright change the context/meaning.
If that's too much for you, because it is quite the time consuming ordeal, I know there are a couple channels on YouTube that covers this as well...and they're spot on.