Manuscript KJV vs Modern
 

Hello Guys,
Good forum to discuss.
as many are newbie in these forums can we start with the basic of differences
I mean deal with roots will make easier to deal with the problem.As long as I know;Manuscripts for OT and NT makes different bible versions. Some are openly $versions, some are devilSION and some are hard to say!
Being very honest Let us discuss all Available OT/NT Manuscripts to reach the conclusion!!
Ev. Steve.

For the Old Testament, yuou basically have:
The Septuagint, written in Egypt by Phillip II suring the 400 years of silence.
The Masoretic Text

For the New Testament, you hav these collections:
Codex Sinaiticus- found in a Monastary in the 1800s near Mt. Sinai
Codex Vaticanus-released from the Roman Catholic Institution recently
Codex Alexandrius-found in Alexandria
The Textus Receptus-manuscripts mostly from Antioch, but also have manuscripts from as far away as Britain
Receptus was assembled and "revised" by Erasmus, a Catholic scholar during the Reformation.

Those are the facts I know off the top of my head.

In the gospels alone, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3,000 times.
Alexandrius is the only Codex that has Revelation (Receptus does)

gtg, it's time for the Sabbath meal, just remember that Receptus was used by Christendom for 1800 years before the new Codexes were found.

The LXX was made under Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

There are multiple sources for the OT, including rabbinical commentaries, etc.

The issue is about the method in which the OT is compiled. The KJB translators used multiple sources. So do the modern version makers. The KJB heavily used the Masoretic as presented by Bomberg, the modernists use Biblia Hebraica. The problem with Biblia Hebraica is that it relies too heavily on "minority" readings. As far as I am aware, the Dead Sea Scrolls already showed that there were several sub-families of the OT. But Dr Thomas Holland has shown how the KJB OT is faithful with the correct witnesses as are found in the DSS.

No, there are Textual Families, which are broad groups of similar MSS, and there are critical or gathered printed editions based on these. We have the Western Family, which is represented by the Vulgate. We have the Byzantine family, which is represented by the TR and Majority-Critical Text, and we have the Minority family, which represented by modern Critical Editions.

There is no specific link with the TR to merely Antioch. In fact, the TR is based on a wide amount of witness from a variety of places, from the east to the west, etc. Moreover, the TR takes into account the Latin witness. The problem with the Majority-Critical Text is that it limits itself to the Traditional Text alone, and sheer numerical superiority, which means that it would have to reject 1 John 5:7, etc.

The TR was assembled and edited in various different forms by different persons. However, Erasmus was uncatholic in fairly much bypassing the Catholic tradition for his work. Also, Erasmus was sympathetic to various Protestant ideals.