Codex Vaticanus (AKA Codex B) is considered (by dumb “academics”) to be the most authoritative of the Minority Texts, although it is responsible for over 36,000 (bad) changes that appear today in the new versions.
This manuscript was “found” in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held, and from whence it received its name. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.
The corrupt and unreliable nature of Codex B is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: “The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact…In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…”
According to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, “It should be noted . . . that there is no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in (Codex) B.” — Taken from http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_vaticanus.html/
And yet, all modern English translations are based from that corrupt manuscript?! — a manuscript written by Roman Catholics and yet now used by today’s Protestants?! I think Protestant Christians need to read up a bit on the history of the Protestant Reformation, for if they did, they wouldn’t touch any Roman Catholic publication with a 10 foot pole!
Did you know that the Ethiopian eunuch’s statement of faith in Jesus Christ — is omitted in most modern English translations?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. – Acts 8:37 KJV
That scripture is not in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) English Standard Version (ESV) New American Standard Bible (NASB), New International Version (NIV), Good News Translation (GNT), and other modern translations that were not translated from the Greek manuscript called Textus Receptus as the King James Version (KJV) was.
Other verses such as are John 5:4, and 1 John 5:7 are also missing. Why? Because modern translations are based on manuscripts that are full of errors!
From http://www.gotquestions.org/missing-verses.html:
“Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on.”
Is that really so? Just because they are older does not make them more accurate. Older manuscripts were in better shape physically and therefore lasted longer than copies of the Textus Receptus simply because they were unused by translators who knew them to be inaccurate. How much wear and tear do documents get after being thrown in the trash bin?
Moreover, the KJV translators were better led by the Holy Spirit when translating the Bible. Proof? Ask any little kid who went to church Sunday school, “Who killed the giant Goliath?” He or she will answer, “David did!” But that’s not what modern translations say in 2 Samuel 21:19:
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, wthe shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (ESV)
There was another battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jair from Bethlehem killed Goliath from Gath, whose spear had a shaft as thick as the bar on a weaver’s loom.(GNT)
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (NASB)
These and other modern translations say that Elhanan killed Goliath.
2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.(KJV)
“The brother of” is missing in the Hebrew text which is why modern tranlations didn’t include it. But the KJV translators knew it could not have been Elhanan who killed Goliath, not only because 1 Samuel chapter 17 clearly states that David killed him, but also because of,
1 Chronicles 20:5: And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam. (KJV)
So the KJV translators knew to include “the brother of” in verse 2 Samuel 21:19 because 1 Chronicals 20:5 clearly says so, and even included the name of Goliath’s brother.
Conclusion: Modern translations are not as accurate or as trustworthy as the KJV.
This post was inspired by the sermon of Danny Castle, a pastor in North Carolina.
Also see, more reasons why the 1611 King James Version is the best English translation of the Bible.
Ronald Reagan eloquently explains why the English of the KJV is superior to modern translations.
You might like this one. Actually you might like the whole site.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/Only-Begotten.html
James, here’s a link to a rare find I haven’t read the contents – about 120mb file. The Works of King James: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/workes.pdf
The site http://www.jesus-is-lord.com has lots of info re King James Bible,
Roman Catholicism, and many other things besides. This is not an endorsement of everything on the site…
James, I know that Martin Luthers translation is an accurate translation for the German people. Do you know much about reliable translations for the Japanese, Chinese, Korean?
Sam, the most reliable translation in Japanese is the Bungotai. It correctly translates 2 Samuel 21:19.
I’m not familiar with Chinese or Korean translations.
Hi James, You and others may find this link interesting as some of the info comes at things from another angle, i.e. it looks at other translations based on the same manuscripts that the KJV is based upon.
(a-voice.org/bible.htm)
It is also good for people to read what is in the preface that used to be included in the KJV, as it has how the translators themselves vewed their translation. I remember the preface being included in Bibles that I had many moons ago.
(watch.pair.com/preface-kjv.html)
Sorry Sam, but I cannot agree with what http://a-voice.org/bible/nkjv.htm is saying about the NKJV verses the KJV. Please check out what http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp has to say about it.
I haven’t looked at that page in depth on the NKJV but I gather from other pages on the site he does recognise that NKJV has its problems. I believe it does also and there is also some deceitfulness that I detected in the information given re the translation in the preface of the NKJV that I read in the past.
But what I was mostly interested in on the site was the VW edition of the Bible which corrects some mistranslations (there are some) in the KJV from the same texts that KJV is translated from. (I also consult Greens Literal and Youngs Literal sometimes which are translated from the same texts as KJV)
Unfortunately I have found some very unbalanced veiws amongst the “KJV only” people which haven’t been helpful in the debate! Perhaps you have too? I got sucked in by Gail Riplinger for a while until I did a bit more background checking.
Some of these waco people would correct the Hebrew and Greek texts from the KJV because they believe it to be infallable. People like that can’t give a reasoned debate it as far as I am concerned.
I certainly believe the KJV to be more reliable than the versions based upon the corrupt stream of manuscripts used for the modern versions. But I don’t believe it’s perfect. What did the people before the KJV came along do for word of God? I seem to recall you referring to tyndales version in something I read of yours, so I gather you do recognise previous versions. I do try to be honest and balanced about things James.
To be honest I don’t trust Jack Chick he’s a false teacher.
Anyway perhaps you may like to have a look at the VW edition and compare it with Strong’s and/or other lexicons. I am keeping an open mind on it at the moment anyway
and if find it doesn’t sit right then I’ll decide what to do from there.
Oh and have a good new year James!
For those people who have a problem with the old language of the KJV, you might want to consider the American King James Version (AKJV) which you can find on
http://www.angelfire.com/al4/allenkc/akjv/
Unlike the NKJV, the AKJV is in the public domain. It is a simple word for word update from the King James English with only updated spelling and vocabulary changes. There are no changes in the grammar because that could alter the doctrine. — Paraphrased quote from the AKJV website.
At the top of the page on the NKJV is the following statement:
Note (March, 2003): This “discussion” was written and submitted several years ago before I got involved in ‘translation/proofreading’ work. While the new VW-Edition is now finished, and as a result of seeing the various translations side-by-side and word-for-word, the NKJV is now no longer recommended (please read: What Bible Translation to Choose?), this discussion, nonetheless, contains useful information about the NKJV, text origins and such informative issues that are still valid for their own intrinsic worth. However, to be clear: I no longer use the NKJV.
James, here’s a video I came accross recently about a translation being promoted with a Jewish slant. The wickedness of the translator and the host of the show Sid Roth is staggering. Such liars! False Witnesses! You can be sure this translation is not to be trusted. (youtube.com/watch?v=cf5cImBf8WA)