The Biblical world has in its possession a large collection of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. These ancient copies of the Bible were written in
different locations around the world and in different ages. We are told that in our current age there are up to 24,000 such ancient copies of the
Bible. These are the manuscripts that the scholars go to in order to produce our modern Bibles (such as the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, etc.). In most
cases the most ancient copies of the Bible are the ones held in the highest regard and considered to be the most accurate. This, however, is not a
hard and fast rule.
All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six
hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most
ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source
the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James
Version" (KJV) of the Bible? In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:
"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."
They go on to caution us that:
"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"
The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:
"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of
many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to
call for revision."
Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which
are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers
themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:
"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"
Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and
then again in 1971):
"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)
"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)
"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)
"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)
"Bias" In NT Development
A balanced look at the status and authenticity of the New Testament texts.
Some examples of these grave defects in the Bible:
So if these highly esteemed 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations tell us that through their study of
recently discovered manuscripts of the Bible they have found many grave and serious defects in the King James Version of the Bible then where are some
examples of these "defects"? A good question, let us have a look:
In 1 John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (John 5:7)"
As we have already seen in much greater detail in section 126.96.36.199, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity.
However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the RSV by these thirty two Christian scholars of the
highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the "most ancient manuscripts." However, we find
that the noble Qur'an (the Muslims' Holy Scripture) did not need to wait for 2000 years for these Christians to discover this fact. Indeed God
revealed it to us fully fourteen hundred years ago:
"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a
Messenger of Allah, and his Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three"
desist It will be better for you for Allah is one God Glory be to him Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens
and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs. (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"
Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..(John
This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up
massive signs declairing:
But as seen in section 188.8.131.52, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible
revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an we read:
"And they say 'Allah Most Compassionate has begotten a son!'. Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such
a claim), and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most Compassionate. But
it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most Compassionate that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must
come to the Most Compassionate as a servant. He has taken account of all of them and has numbered them all exactly. And every one of them will come to
him singly on the day of judgment. On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will Allah most gracious bestow love. Verily, We have made
this [Qur'an] easy in your tongue [O Muhammad] that you might deliver glad tidings to those who seek refuge [in Allah] and warn with it a people who
are contentious. And how many a generation before them have we destroyed! Can you find a single one of them or hear from them so much as a
The reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version and to compare it to the King James Version. Specifically, notice that
the following 17 verses have been omitted outright in the newer and more faithful translations:
Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 John 5:7.
Further, in the NRSV Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 are also marked as highly questionable since they do not appear in the most ancient copies of
the Bible. This Bible also questions four other verses with footnotes-- Matt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of 45 entire verses
which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing (eg. Rev 1:11 etc.).
Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of
his ascension into heaven. This great event is mentioned in only two places in the NT. They are:
"So then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19)"
and once again in Luke:
"While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (Luke
In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this later). Similarly, in the commentary on
the verses of Luke 24, we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible "Other ancient authorities lack "and was carried up into heaven'" and "Other
ancient authorities lack 'and worshipped him'". Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in its original form only said:
"While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
It took centuries of "inspired correction" to give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.
As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read:
"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain
others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came
to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their
faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he
was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. (Luke
Once again, in reference to verse 5, the footnotes say: "Other ancient authorities lack 'He is not here but has risen'" Also, please read entries 16
and 17 in the table in section 2.2.
The examples are far too numerous to list here, however, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for
yourself and scan through the four gospels. You shall be hard pressed to find even two consecutive pages that do not contain the words "Other ancient
authorities lack..." or "Other ancient authorities add..." etc. in the footnotes..
See: The Creep Show Bible
Well, the R.S.V. is just one Bible:
So is the revised Standard Version of the Bible the only one that makes these changes? Is it just a matter of the KJV vs. the RSV? Far from it. These
very same changes have become so widely acknowledged by the scholars of Christianity that we find the very same changes made to most other modern
versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), etc.In conclusion the geneology cannot
be verifible genuinely. Go to your local library and have a look.
edit on 20-4-2012 by DumbTopSecretWriters because: (no reason given)