Steven Avery

Let's go back to this for a bit. There are dozens of major differences between the KJB and Vaticanus, including the missing section of the ending of Mark, and dozens of omitted verses and phrases taht are in the KJB that are simply absent from Vaticanus. Now, I will take just one difference, of one letter, and assert that it is more significant that all the differences between the KJB and the TR combined. The difference of a letter in 1 Timothy 3:16 where "God was manifest in the flesh" is a preposition in Vaticanus .. which/who/he. All of the differences I have ever seen in between the TR and the KJB, including translation concerns, are not anywhere near as significant as that one change.

Your thoughts ?

Shabbat Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

"Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/V.../note1512.html

================================================== ==
>Peter- True, there are differences in wording and even at the level of verses between Erasmus' reconstruction and the fourth century manuscript. This can be measured with statistics. But there is also the more difficult to measure, but quite real, differences of a translation... Metzger or Robinson has a chance of getting the original text of a given verse right. King James does not.