Evidence for God from Science

Revelation 22:19 says: 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.
Therefore, even removing a single word from the Bible is violating this law.

NKJV: 2289 words removed
NIV: 5219 words and 16 verses removed
NASB: 3561 words and 17 verses removed
NRSV: 3890 words and 18 verses removed
RSV: 6985 words and 25 verses removed
NCV: 11114 words and 16 verses removed
LIV: 17003 words and 7 verses removed

Which Bible has zero words and zero verses missing? The King James Bible. Even if you're not a KJV-only person, it's still better to use the KJV seeing as it is a word-for-word translation and it is therefore the most accurate.

What about the words that the KJV added from the earliest manuscripts we have found?

miller wrote:What about the words that the KJV added from the earliest manuscripts we have found?

Those "early manuscripts" are not reliable. 95% of ancient manuscripts support it the KJV. Most of the remaining 5% do not even agree with each other.
Another thing I should add is that the Latin texts used for translating the NIV, NASB, etc. were Catholic manuscripts.

smrpgx wrote:Another thing I should add is that the Latin texts used for translating the NIV, NASB, etc. were Catholic manuscripts.

Wha? I've heard many different arguments against Catholic bibles, virtually all of them are centered around the deuterocanonical books. This is the first time I know of that a case is being made for 'catholic' Latin manuscripts. I'd be most interested to read some of the proof you have. Would you mind providing some?

smrpgx wrote:Revelation 22:19 says: 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.
Therefore, even removing a single word from the Bible is violating this law.

NKJV: 2289 words removed
NIV: 5219 words and 16 verses removed
NASB: 3561 words and 17 verses removed
NRSV: 3890 words and 18 verses removed
RSV: 6985 words and 25 verses removed
NCV: 11114 words and 16 verses removed
LIV: 17003 words and 7 verses removed

Which Bible has zero words and zero verses missing? The King James Bible. Even if you're not a KJV-only person, it's still better to use the KJV seeing as it is a word-for-word translation and it is therefore the most accurate.

I like the KJV too, but I don't think that passage in Rev is talking about literal words being taken away or added. I would say it is anything that takes away or adds to the true meaning of the message in the book.

Revelation 22:19 says: 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.
Therefore, even removing a single word from the Bible is violating this law.

I can't believe Im seeing this. This is the oldest trick in the book, and unfortunately, it is just plain false.

The "book" referred to in Rev 22:19 is not talking at all about the bible. It is merely speaking of the book of Revelations.

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

And don't worry, this is the KJV. John was commanded to write the vision in a book, and it was to this book and this book alone he referred to at the end of the book.

The bible as we know it wasn't even put together yet. The NT list of books never became universally agreed upon until hundreds of years later. Furthermore, the book of Revelations wasn't the last book written in the bible, chronologically speaking.

John knew that his "book" would be copied and re-copied and circulated throughout the Christian world. He feared some would alter his words, or take out or add to what he had written. He warned against this, and nothing else.

We find a similar command in Deut. 4:22

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Moses didn't want anyone to add to his words. This doesn't mean future prophets couldn't speak, but he just didn't want anyone to alter HIS words.


But as for the superiority of the KJV, I tend to like it the most also.


Sargon

1) According to reliable textual criticism, Mark originally had a different ending, and Mark 16:9-20 was not in the original Bible.
2) You cannot translate 'word for word'. For instance, the Greek has a frequently used word, an, which influences the meaning of a sentence, but does not mean anything by itself. Hence, you cannot translate that word.
3) Languages may employ idiomatic expressions that become ridiculous or incomprehensible when you translate them (i.e. 'it's raining cats and dogs').

smrpgx wrote:

miller wrote:What about the words that the KJV added from the earliest manuscripts we have found?

Those "early manuscripts" are not reliable. 95% of ancient manuscripts support it the KJV. Most of the remaining 5% do not even agree with each other.
Another thing I should add is that the Latin texts used for translating the NIV, NASB, etc. were Catholic manuscripts.

Have you been listening to Chuck Smith?

Turgonian wrote:3) Languages may employ idiomatic expressions that become ridiculous or incomprehensible when you translate them (i.e. 'it's raining cats and dogs').

Has anyone here quit smoking cold turkey?

...or drinking cold duck?

Weren't the deuterocanonical books in the original KJV?

Yet most KJV-only-ists nowadays reject those. Hmm.

When you quit drinking are you off the wagon or on the wagon?

puritan lad wrote:

Turgonian wrote:3) Languages may employ idiomatic expressions that become ridiculous or incomprehensible when you translate them (i.e. 'it's raining cats and dogs').

Has anyone here quit smoking cold turkey?

No - tried once but the feathers made my throat tickle...made me go Hog wild raise'n cane from here to ten buck too…

Then I met an old flame. She was one hot tamale; then, I got burned after reading her dear John. After she left, I became snug as a bug in a rug minding my peas and Q's…

Oh well all's well that ends well…

THis is way off topic, but you put me in mind of an old cartoon made in the 40's/50's where a man who dies is explaining his life to Peter at the gates of Heaven. His use of cant and slang to describe how he lived and died is portrayed as Peter understands it. So it becomes quite ridiculous as it rains cats and dogs, a tear runs down his face, or he "carries on". Quite laughable.

Wow, I remember that cartoon. The guy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he saw his old girl going out with a flame and she gave him the cold shoulder and he couldn't touch her with a ten-foot pole and I don't remember the rest.