Which version of the bible is best to read?

[tulsa 2011]

However, there are differences between the three earlier English translations - the Tyndale, Geneva and KJV - and the recent Bible versions that are due to the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort Greek texts.

Look at Romans 8: 1.

"There is then no damnation to them which are in Christ Jesu, which walk not after the flesh: but after the spirit. " Tyndale Bible, Romans 8: 1

" Now then there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, which walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Geneva Bible, Romans 8: 1

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." King James Version, Romans 8: 1

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." New Revised Standard Version

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," New International Version

What happened to "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?"

The Westcott-Hort Greek is the problem. It says "ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου." "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." But the Textus Receptus says "ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα." μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα, not according to the flesh (sarka), but according to the Spirit (pneuma) is left out. Westcott and Hort claimed that the shorter verse wordings are the best because they are older.

This is a change in a doctrine in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. Yet the church Christians conditioned to prefer the new Bible versions will argue that the new versions are right and the King James is wrong. One problem is the tendency to rely upon single verses, which can be a compartmentalized kind of approach to understanding the doctrines of scripture. Although Romans 8: 4 does say, in the NIV, "In order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," some will still use Romans 8: 1 alone, which does not say anything about not walking in the flesh and about being led by the Holy Spirit.

For many verses, though not for all, the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text has shorter verse wordings than the Textus Receptus. Romans 8: 1 is one of those verses which is shorter in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The shorter verse wording, in this case, presents a different doctrine than does the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus for Romans 8: 1 does not just elaborate on the doctrine that there is no condemnation for one who is in Christ, but it adds to that doctrine in saying that to not be in condemnation one must also walk after the Spirit, or have the Holy Spirit and not walk after the flesh.

Westcott and Hort made assumptions to justify replacing the Textus Receptus and the three early English translations from it.
They made assumptions to justify their replacement of the Textus Receptus by a text they made from the Alexandarian Greek texts called the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus.

Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is
to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than
other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible
is inspired by God.

A summary of the assumptions of Westcott and Hort that they used to
select the Alexandrian Greek texts and reject the Textus Receptus can
be found in the book by Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D.
Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual
Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/King James/believes_westcott_hort.htm




ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT:



1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of
the Apostles
2. A scribe usually went about
blending the texts available to him
trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call
conflation.
3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions.
4. Shorter readings are preferred.
5. More awkward sentence grammar is preferred.

Westcott and. Hort claimed that a shorter
reading of a New Testament verse is closer to the original autograph
should be used in translation.

But what they did, in effect, was set up their critical rules to
reject many longer verse readings in the Textus Receptus and accept
the shorter readings of the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Vaticanus

and Sinaiticus.

They assumed, to justify their use of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that these texts, supposedly from the fourth century A.D., were superior to the existing Byzantine copies then in existence, some of which Erasmus used to create the Textus Receptus, because these Byzantine copies were not nearly as old as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The Byzantine texts that Erasmus used were from the 11th to the 15th century.

But assumptions without facts behind them may not tell the truth. Other assumptions can be made about the differences between the 4th century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the copies of the Byzantine texts from the 11th to 15th centuries. Since Vaticanus and Sinaiticus survived in fairly good condition, it can be assumed these manuscripts survived because they were not used very much. In other words, Christians thought these were inferior manuscripts and read others instead.

It is a fact that manuscripts survived better in the dry climate of Egypt than in the somewhat more humid climate of what is now Syria, Turkey and other parts of the Byzantine empire.

Since the many Byzantine copies in existence agree well with each other, it can be assumed that the Byzantine scribes were faithful in making copies down through the centuries. In other words, contrary to the assumption of Westcott and Hort the Byzantine scribes did not make major changes in verse wordings over the centuries.

And - at the time Westcott and Hort wrote, in 1881, evidence from more recent
Papyri findings was not known to Bible scholars.


Majority Text vs. Critical Text: Part One

Many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings,
that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek
text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort for
their 1881 Greek text, and from which almost all recent New testrament
versions were translated.


"Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his
book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism."

"The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)."


What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with
the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text
more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text.

"Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the
papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings
were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence
before the end of the second century and that, because of this,
Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)."

"Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt
where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries."
Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate
in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any
papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)."

The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early
papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this
text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as
mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings."

Translations and the Greek Text

That is, in the second century A.D. there were Byzantine type verse
wordings in existence as shown by a few Papyri from that period. This
does not necessarily mean that the Byzantine wordings, probably
originating in Antioch, Syria, did not exist in ever earlier times.

The writer of this site then points out that "When one considers that
there are only a minority of the various text-types that vary, they
all must have a common ancestor. Thus those who reject the Byzantine
text do not have an easy task to prove their position. Their position
is much more difficult than Hort thought."

"Early Church Fathers' quotations do not support Westcott-Hort's text
either. This is even recognized by those who do not support the TR.
(Textus Receptus) Price, who does not support the TR, when writing
about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort
'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the
earliest fathers.

So, more recent papyri findings show that the usually longer Byzantine
verse wordings existed before the 4th century when Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
were created . This evidence shows that the Byzantine text type is
as old as the Aledxandarian text type with its generally shorter verse wordings.

 

[lawrenceb]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Westcott and Hort made assumptions to justify replacing the Textus Receptus and the three early English translations from it.
They made assumptions to justify their replacement of the Textus Receptus by a text they made from the Alexandarian Greek texts called the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus...

and

What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with
the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text
more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text.

... The writer of this site then points out that "When one considers that
there are only a minority of the various text-types that vary, they
all must have a common ancestor. Thus those who reject the Byzantine
text do not have an easy task to prove their position. Their position
is much more difficult than Hort thought."

Indeed! You cannot casually detect a land mine, but it is deadly. Many today are too casual with Bible reading. Dr. Logsdon, who renounced his involvement with the New American Standard Version, said the reason few notice the changes is that, “It is done so subtily that very few would discover it.” Dr. Hort, the man who helped sculpt the New Greek text behind the new versions, described the changes (and his philosophy) best by saying,

“I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood. It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of first...The difference between a picture, say of Raphael and a feeble copy of it, it made up of a number of trivial differences...”It i, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment.”

Hort elsewhere said,

“At present very any orthodox (but rational) men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if the process is allowed to go on quietly.”

He said the changes are ‘significant’ and have “important bearings” but appear “trifling” and “trivial.” He notes that people were being “acted upon,” but were “unaware” of it. The “few” who are pointing to the changes in new versions are disturbing plans for the deception to “go on quietly.” For many more details about the seldom seen views and sometimes sinister beliefs of new version editors, see New Age Bible Versions, Chapters 29-33.

 

[DHC]

Hello all.

I was wondering how you KJV folk deal with the following.

The Chester Beatty New Testament papyr.

Are the earliest surviving copies of Paul's letters, the Gospels and Revelations.

They have been dated to a period between 150-221 AD.

Do you disregard the oldest New Testament manuscripts known?

 

[tulsa 2011]

Any assertion made by those who promote the new Bible versions based upon the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text has to be checked for accuracy.

Papyrus 46, the Chester Beatty New Testament papyri, was given a probable date of 175 to 225 A.D.

The Sinaiticus is supposed to be dated about 330 to 360 A.D., and Vaticanus at about 400 A.D.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.<wbr>org/CriticalTexts/date.htm

"Dr. Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, gives the following information: "These 150 readings (Byzantine) are early. They go back to the second century, for they are supported by papyri which range from the third to the second century in date." (p. 62) "...it is startling from the standpoint of the WH theory to find that the so-called Byzantine' readings not only existed early but were present in Egypt before the end of the second century." (Sturz, p. 62)"

"Burgon says, "For the 76 Church Fathers examined, [Fathers that died before A.D. 400] there were 2,630 references to the Traditional Text and only 1,753 to the Neologian [Westcott-Hort type of ] text. The Traditional Text was definitely in existence well before 400 A.D. In other words, not only is the Traditional Text present in these church fathers' time, who lived and died prior to 400 A.D., the Traditional Text predominated over the Neologian [W-H] 3 to 2."

"Edward Miller (Dean Burgon's editor) wrote, "As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review." (David Otis Fuller, Which Bible, p. 116) "

"After a thorough study of p 46, Gunther Zuntz states: "A number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as late,' are anticipated by p 46." (The Text of the Epistles, p. 55) E. C. Colwell agreed with Zuntz, (What is the Best New Testament, p. 70). These men agreed that most of the readings of p 46 were from the second century."

"Floyd Jones gives the following: "Hills declared that the Chester Beatty readings vindicate distinctive Syrian readings' twenty-six times in the gospels, eight times in the Book of Acts, and thirty-one times in Paul's Epistles. Hills goes on to state that Papyrus Bodmer II (Papyri 66) confirms 13% of the so-called late' Syrian readings (18 out of 138)."

"The Traditional Text" and the "Syrian readings" refer to what is called the Byzantine text type, which generally has longer verse wordings. The Textus Receptus is from the type Westcott and Hort called the "Syrian" type.

Some Bible scholars have said that the Alexandarian text type came into existence in Alexandria, Egypt at about the time of Origen, who lived from about 184 to 253 A.D. The probable date of the Chester Beatty NT papyri of about 175 to 225 A.D. does not make this impossible. It is also possible that the Alexandarian text type originated in Alexandria, Egypt earlier than the time in which Origen himself was capable of playing a role in its creation. And I know of no certain evidence that Origen or his disciples created the Alexandarian text type. That it was created in Alexandaria, Egypt is not certain either, though the text type has been called by that name.

What the study of the papyri discovered since Westcott and Hort write in 1881 shows is that the Byzantine text type - the longer verse wordings especially - existed at about the same time as did the Alexandarian text type. Günther Zuntz and Harry A. Sturz are two Bible scholars who have written on this topic.


See: http://www.uv.es/~fores/<wbr>programa/majorityvscritical.<wbr>html


Go down the page to "Lateness" of Byzantine Text Type"

 

[DHC]

Papyrus 46, the Chester Beatty New Testament papyri, was given a probable date of 175 to 225 A.D.

The Sinaiticus is supposed to be dated about 330 to 360 A.D., and Vaticanus at about 400 A.D.

Hello Tulsa.

While some may argue for a slightly earlier or later date, no one will dispute that P46 (Chester Beatty papyr)
is significantly earlier than the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices. No matter how you approach the problem the
outcome is the same, P46 is the older manuscript. Why would you disregard the older manuscripts, this is a
simple question Tulsa.

 

[lawrenceb]

Rather, in exposing a falsehood being put forth in reply to some comments in this thread, note that the KJV matches the oldest manuscripts, as well as the majority of manuscripts. Only the King James Bible matches the oldest New Testament fragment, the Magdalene papyrus - written while Matthew was still alive.

(source: Thiede, Carsten Peter & D'Ancona, Matthew, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996; also, Chuck Missler makes it easy to understand here --> http://www.khouse.org/articles/2001/333/ )

In any case, the "oldest" argument is a red herring because "oldest" is not necessarily equivalent to "best."

Today, what passes for 'the original Greek' is indeed both modern and corrupted.

An intellectual knowledge of the bible is so distant and far removed from knowing 'him', that Paul shouts across the chasm:

Where is the scribe?...hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? I Corinthians 1:20

If you are an NIV proponent, you will likely not want to believe what you are about to read. Much of this information has not been widely published and thus is largely unknown. Before moving on to the next paragraph, please stop and ask God Almighty to protect you, to remove the scales from your eyes, and to grant you discernment and wisdom as you read this article.

There is much more that could be revealed in this expose`. Yet for the sake of brevity, we will focus our efforts on answering the following question. Why do the world’s leading paleographers and scholars reject versions such as the NIV and NASB and their foundation (Aleph [Sinaiticus] and B [Vaticanus])?

We’ll provide a general overview, followed by primary source documentation.

Constantine, the Roman Emperor in the fourth century A.D., wanted to unite the pagans and the Christians; therefore he needed a religious document that appeased both. He called for the creation of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which now underlie new versions.

The new versions (including the NIV) follow the exact same Greek manuscripts that the Catholic church has used since Constantine (A.D. 330). The true church throughout history never used those Alexandrian-type manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, P75, et al.). They always knew that these manuscripts were corrupt. But now, in these last days of the prophesied "falling away", these manuscripts have been resurrected to prod the fall and finally to usher in the one-word 'church' of Satan.

The manuscripts Constantine created disappeared from use from the fourth century until the late nineteenth century, even as the Roman Catholic Pope put the Majority Greek New Testament text, then called the Textus Receptus, on “The Index” of forbidden books.

In 1881, liberal churchmen, Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, and other spiritualists and liberals in England, saw in the Alexandrian manuscripts the same ecumenical spirit that Constantine liked sixteen hundred years earlier. Westcott and Hort modified the historical Greek New Testament text to match those manuscripts.

[Y]e have perverted the words of the living God. (Jeremiah 23:36)

Echoing this one-world religion theme, New Agers today say, "We need to synthesize the major religions with a world religion." New Age religion is not simply Hinduism, or simply Buddhism, or simply Christianity. It is a synthesis containing elements of all religions. One New Ager writes, "Eastern mysticism must be incorporated into traditional Christianity."

The New Age movement’s expressed goal of infiltrating the evangelical church and gradually changing the bible to conform to its One World Religion is evident in the current new versions. Their words and doctrines prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, image, and religion--Lucifer worship.

This has taken place because the editors of the new versions, as well as the authors of the Greek editions, manuscripts, lexicons and dictionaries used in their compilation, hold beliefs which an orthodox Christian would find shocking. Research opens the door exposing them in seance parlors, mental institutions, prison cells and courtrooms for heresy trials. A few examples include:

The Greek text used to translate the NIV, NASB and others was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seances), who believed he was in the “new age.” (Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol II (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1903), p. 252.)

The NIV’s chief editor vaunts his version’s heresy saying:

"This [his own translation] shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles, namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior." (Edwin Palmer, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1974), p. 83.)

"[F]ew clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God." (Kenneth Barker, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1986), p. 143.)

The NASB’s progenitor, called “the mediator between East and West” by his colleagues, was an instrumental member of the ‘gathering’ which East-West Journal calls the kick off event for the New Age movement and “East West Synthesis.” (David Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897), p. 467; Alex Jack, The New Age Dictionary (Brookline, Mass.: Kanthaka Press, 1976), p. 11.)

This new version editor referred to his alterations of the articles of faith saying:

"The changes thus far...are in the right direction...and should contain the germs of a new theology." (The Life of Schaff, pp. 427-428.)

A surprising number of new version editors have permanently lost their ability to speak (five and still counting).

Insanity marked another prominent new version editor whose commitments to mental institutions served as bookends to a life fraught with derangement and hallucinosis.

The reference dictionary used by new version editors to research Greek etymology was edited by Hitler’s propaganda ‘high priest’, who was later tried and found guilt of war crimes as an accessory to the death of millions.

Contrary to advertising claims, the new versions are more difficult to read than the KJV, according to research using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicators.

A ‘new’ Christianity is emerging from the new versions which substitute riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation.

The few Greek manuscripts underlying new versions contain yet unreleased material which is an exact blueprint for the antichrist’s One World Religion. A complete translation of these is being called for by new version editors and New Agers alike. This ‘new’ version could be the final “universal bible” called for by U.N. Assistant Secretary General Robert Muller.

The reason the King James Bible does not match, for example, the translation of the NASB/Nestle Greek Interlinear is because, as the preface to the Nestle's Greek text admits: ”This is not the traditional Greek text" (emphasis mine). Most book stores do not carry any of the editions of this type of traditional Greek text, called the Textus Receptus (Latin for Received Text).

If you compare the NASB to this good Greek text you will find the NASB in error thousands of places. Dr. Wilbur Pickering, in his thesis work at Dallas Theological Seminary, said: "New versions differ from the originals in some six thousand places. They are several times further removed from the originals than the King James Version." He is saying this because the recent collation of the earliest papyri has now proven that King James readings are early, not late, as was previously supposed.

Embarrassed scholars have now thrown out that Nestle's twenty-first edition interlinear and produced a Nestle's twenty-sixth edition with 470 changes back to the King James readings. Many pastors do not know this. (See The Reintroduction of the Textus Receptus Readings in the 26th Edition and Beyond of the Nestle/Aland Novum Testamentum-Graece, Adams and Gipp, p. 14, et al.).

What have the paleographers seen when actually collating Aleph [Sinaiticus] and B [Vaticanus] that cause these scholars to reject versions such as the NIV and NASB and their foundation Aleph & B?

Vaticanus (B)

1. The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, recording it on a magnetic tape and reproducing it by an electro-optical process, reveals that B has been altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the twelfth century. Metzger admits, “A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of the first hand.” The corrector “omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect.” (Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 74).

2. B agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek text in nearly 8000 places, amounting to about one change per verse. It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substitutes or modifies nearly 2000 and transposes word order in about 2000 places. It has nearly 600 readings that do not occur on any other manuscript. These affect almost 1000 words.

3. Linguistic scholars have observed that B is reminiscent of classical and Platonic Greek, not the Koine Greek of the New Testament. (see Adolf Deissman’s Light of the Ancient East).. Nestle concedes he had to change his Greek text when using Aleph & B, to make it ‘appear’ like Koine.

4. Codicologists (scientists who study the make-up of ancient book forms) note that B was written on vellum scrolls (skin “...obtained from animals not yet born”), not papyrus codices, as were used among “the early Christians.” (Metzger, Manuscripts, p. 14; Phillip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale Publishing House, 1990), p. 5; see also Cambridge History of the Bible Vol. I, “Books in the Graeco-Roman World and in the New Testament.”)

5. B does not consider the following as part of the bible: Revelation, Phil., Titus, I and II Timothy, large parts of Samuel, Kings, Nehemiah, the Psalms, and Genesis. B omits crucial parts of Mark and Luke. In their place it adds apocryphal books such as Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith and the Epistle of Barnabas. In Job, for example, it has 400 ‘half-verses’ of Theodotian, a follower of Luciferian Blavatsky’s ’friend’ Marcion. (Manuscripts of the Bible, p. 74)

6. Protestant theologians question its lack of use by anyone for 1300 years -- then its sudden ‘discovery’ in the Vatican in 1481. Its immediate use to suppress the Reformation and its subsequent release in 1582, as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible, are logical, considering the manuscript’s omission of anti-Catholic sections and books (i.e., Hebrews 9:14, Revelation, etc.). Its Catholic ‘tone’ is evidenced by the fact that at Vatican Council II, each bishop was given his own copy with an introduction by Jesuit priest, Carlo Martini. (Manuscripts, p. 74). Protestant researchers have never been permitted to examine the actual manuscript and work only from copies provided by the Vatican.

7. It agrees essentially with Origen’s Hexapla, omitting the deity of Christ frequently and making other Gnostic or Arian alterations.

Sinaiticus (Aleph)

1. Princeton Professor, Bruce Metzger’s recent Manuscripts of the Greek Bible reveals:

“In the light of such carelessness in transcription, it is not surprising that a good many correctors (as many as nine) have been at work on the manuscript...Tischendorf’s edition of the manuscript enumerates some 14,800 places where some alteration has been made to the text...[With] more recent detailed scrutiny of the manuscript...by the use of ultra-violet lamp, Milne and Skeat discovered that the original reading in the manuscript was erased...[in places].” (Manuscripts, p. 77).

2. F. H. A Scrivner’s Full Colation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament and other researchers (see Dean Burgon’s The Revision Revised) find:

a) There are about 9000 changes in this text from that of the Majority and Traditional Text, amounting to one difference in every verse. It omits some 4000 words from the Gospels, adds 1000, repositions 2000 and alters another 1000. It has approximately 1,500 readings that appear in no other manuscript; this affects nearly 3000 words.

b) The following omissions are just a few examples:

- The end of Mark and John.
- Thirty-nine words from John 19:20, 21; twenty words from John 20:5, 6; nineteen words from Mark 1:32-34; fourteen words from Mark 15:47.
- John 5:4, Matthew 16:2, 3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, I John 5:7, Acts 8:37, Genesis 23:19-24, 46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, I Chron. 9:27-19:27.
- Exodus, Joshua, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Judges.
- In Luke 8, for example, 19 out of 34 words are changed. In Matthew chapter one, sixty words are changed.
- It adds Apocryphal books, such as Bel and The Dragon, Tobit, Judith, The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas, among others.

For many bear false witness against him but their witness agreed not together. (Mark 14:56)

False witnesses spoke against Jesus Christ, the living Word, but as history tells us, their ‘versions’ did not correspond. The written word had two such witnesses against it and they too do not agree with the Majority of manuscripts, or with each other.

1. Metzger says that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with the majority of manuscripts. (Manuscripts, p. 78).

2. Not only do they disagree with the Majority of manuscripts, but they do not agree with each other. The 8000 changes in B and the 9000 changes in Aleph are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority text in about 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify 2000.

3. They disagree with each other a dozen times on every page.

4. Colwell says they disagree 70% of the time and in almost every verse of the gospels. Burgon says, “It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these manuscripts differ than two in which they agree.” (The Revision Revised, p. 12; The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 220).

 

[DHC]

Rather, in exposing a falsehood being put forth in reply to some comments in this thread, note that the KJV matches the oldest manuscripts, as well as the majority of manuscripts. Only the King James Bible matches the oldest New Testament fragment, the Magdalene papyrus - written while Matthew was still alive.

(source: Thiede, Carsten Peter & D'Ancona, Matthew, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996; also, Chuck Missler makes it easy to understand here --> http://www.khouse.org/articles/2001/333/ )

In any case, the "oldest" argument is a red herring because "oldest" is not necessarily equivalent to "best."

Today, what passes for 'the original Greek' is indeed both modern and corrupted.

Hello Lawrence.

Do you disregard the oldest New Testament manuscripts known?

This was your reply;

Rather, in exposing a falsehood being put forth in reply to some comments in this thread,
note that the KJV matches the oldest manuscripts, as well as the majority of manuscripts.
Only the King James Bible matches the oldest New Testament fragment, the Magdalene papyrus
- written while Matthew was still alive.

It is a mighty stretch to call a question a falsehood Lawrence.

I asked you why you disregard so many early manuscripts.You replied with reference to the
Magdalene papyrus, and this example only contains a few lines from the Gospel of Matthew.
The dating of the Magdalene papyrus is approximately 200 AD. I asked why you disregarded
certain manuscripts such as the Chester Beatty papyrus Lawrence.

No scholar on earth could disregard the Chester Beatty manuscripts, that is not possible.

Here is an extract on the Magdalene papyrus which disagrees with your claim.

THE DATE OF THE MAGDALEN PAPYRUS OF MATTHEW (P. MAGD. GR. 17 = P64)
A RESPONSE TO C.P. THIEDE. By Peter M. Head

We agree with Thiede when he wrote ‘Caution is always the best approach in the dating of manuscripts’.In this
article an attempt has been made both to hear and to critically investigate his claims regarding the date of P. Magd. Gr.
17 = P64. Although we recognise the service that he has performed in facilitating a reexamination of methodological
presuppositions, our verdict on his claims is a negative one. The very early manuscripts to which Thiede appealed for
close parallels to P64 turned out to be not as close as the somewhat later ones which he had overlooked. Although
there is no absolutely definite evidence by which P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P 64 can be dated with certainty, the available
evidence points to a date around AD 200. To be on the safe side I would suggest plus or minus fifty years as the possible
range.

There are different opinions among scholars of course. To attempt to use the Magdalene Papyrus of Matthew
to show that very old manuscripts support a certain position is weak. The Magdalene papyrus contains a few verses from
the Gospel of Matthew and that's all!

Then you said;
In any case, the "oldest" argument is a red herring because "oldest" is not necessarily equivalent to "best."
Today, what passes for 'the original Greek' is indeed both modern and corrupted.

This is your claim Lawrence, 'The oldest is not necessarily equivalent to "best"'. Perhaps in your
church the KJV is essential to support your theological ball and chain. Not mine Lawrence, I can
choose any Bible translation that I choose, no theology. You cannot make the claim that modern
translations are corrupt. Because you could never prove that extravagant claim.

Seriously Lawrence would you reject a papyrus dated late in the first century, possibly an original manuscript?
Just because the papyrus disagrees with your selected translation.

The Cheaster Beatty papyrus is not just a few lines, it contains whole letters of Paul.

Even the dating of the Chester Beatty papyrus 46, may have been far to late and may belong to the first century.

Please read the following;

Scholar Young Kyu Kim in a thorough and highly technical paper concluded that Papyrus 46 should be dated to the
later 1st century before the reign of Domitian [1]. Kim compared handwriting styles and linguistic changes from papyri
of various known dates and found that Papyrus 46 matched much more closely those found in late 1st century
documents than those of the 2nd century.

[1] Kim, Young Kyu. “Paleographical Dating of 46 to the Later First Century.” Biblica 69 (1988): 248-257.

Food for thought Lawrence, if Young Kyu Kim is correct, then we may have virtually the original
letters that Paul wrote at our fingertips.

 

[lawrenceb]

You cannot make the claim that modern
translations are corrupt. Because you could never prove that extravagant claim.

It's already been proven, and with merely a dozen documented references.

Food for thought Lawrence, if Young Kyu Kim is correct, then we may have virtually the original
letters that Paul wrote at our fingertips.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Obviously, God doesn't care about any "original letters;" thus, neither does his born again remnant.

Inspiration, or perspiration? You're suffering for the wrong thing.

 

[ccfromsc]

Notice how the KJV Only avoid when you mention problems with the KJV but yet attack any and all other translations?

 

[lawrenceb]

Notice how the KJV Only avoid when you mention problems with the KJV but yet attack any and all other translations?

"Notice how" there's been no "attack" but simply a posting of the facts. Truth seekers are not bothered by the facts; rather, they seek them out.

If you have questions about the KJB, then post them here so we can sort them out, or forfeit your claim.

 

[Veracity]

I compare all of them. We are to search for truth and when I look for answers to something I use every resource. I do notice The NIV is easier to understand, but some scriptures compared to other versions is diluted I think. Online bibles make it so easy to find things. That is why I don't understand in this day and age why Christians are not closer to the Lord. (another subject altogether).

 

[lawrenceb]

Well, Veracity, that's a fair response, and also fairly typical. It sounds good, but is it wise?

I compare all of them. We are to search for truth...

"compare all of" what? For a "search for truth" to be successful, one must first discern what truth is ala the spirit of truth versus the spirit of error. And where does that discernment come from?

...and when I look for answers to something I use every resource.

A deception, a lie, is not a "resource."

I do notice The NIV is easier to understand...

Rather, "easier" for your flesh to "understand." And who/what grants us true understanding? God's Holy Spirit, or the world's merchants/marketers?

...but some scriptures compared to other versions is diluted I think.

Yes, even the unsaved, the hell-bound, can see that. But we're supposed to come out from among them and touch not that unclean thing.

Online bibles make it so easy to find things.

Is man's versions of "easier" also better? Obviously not. Thus you are being ripped off by the modern copyrighted deceptions.

That is why I don't understand in this day and age why Christians are not closer to the Lord. (another subject altogether).

BINGO! Not "another subject altogther", but PRECISELY the problem today with the leaven of modern so-called "versions" of the truth.

For example, we hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts, but we aren't hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text (representing over 99% of all known manuscripts) from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text (representing less than 1% of all known manuscripts) from which the new perversions come. (Never mind Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.)

The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2: 8, and allegorical foolishness (not believing God's word literally). The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what God's word says about these two places! Notice, in the Word of God, how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive.

The NIV is printed by Zondervan Publishing, which is owned and copyrighted by Rupert Murdoch. If you want to use more than 500 words from Murdoch's "version," you'll need to get his permission in writing. Murdoch also owns Reuters News Service (#3, behind UPI and AP), and a third of the telecom satellites now circling the globe. He is a billionaire who has publicly stated he wants to rule the world. Murdock also owns Fox Broadcasting (the NIV is known as the "Bart Simpson bible"). He's a purveyor of erotica (i.e. a convicted pornographer). The stylist on his NIV translation committee was Virginia Mollencott, an admitted lesbian and witch coven supporter. She authored a book titled "Sensual Spirituality: Coming Out of Fundamentalism." The NIV omits 64,000 words and 17 complete verses from the AV (i.e. "Authorized Version," - the official title of the King James Bible). THIS is the fruit of the corrupt NIV tree...

The scam is to get everyone to buy into the lie that what they already possess, i.e. the AV, is somehow insufficient, archaic, or not understandable. So what we have now is the conditioned "shopping mall bibles" mentality, where we see people actually BRAGGING about the number of volumes in their "collection" of "per-versions." They've bought the conditioned worldly peer pressured lie that "more is better." They look Godly, but God says they are POWERLESS - "...from such TURN AWAY."

In America, the Fleish-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator is the main tool used by public school administrations to slot submitted textbooks to the appropriate age/grade level, where the NIV reads at the 6th grade level, and the AV reads at the 5th grade level.

The NIV's introduction gives an address:

International Bible Society
144 Tices Lane
East Brunswick, New Jersey, 08816

I am not sure if that is still a current address. The book, The NIV Story, by NIV member Burton Goodard, can be had through inter-library loans. It has a list of the members of the NIV committee. George Orwell's book, 1984, talked about "Big Brother," and warned that there would be a rewriting of history; this is happening. The NIV is now downplaying the role of stylist Dr. Virginia Mollenkott since she made a public disclosure of her homosexuality, goddess worship theology, use of spirit guides, tarot cards, and the I Ching. The NASB's Lockman Foundation is also denying the foundational role played by Dr. Logsdon because he came out publicly against the NASB.

A recent James Dobson newsletter tells of a lesbian who realized that the new bible versions were easier on homosexuality and were actually hindering her need for repentance. The question, "Why does the NIV omit all censuring of the sodomite or effeminate?" is answered by NIV translation stylist Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. Her recent book, Sensuous Spirituality, mentions the "great number of lesbian or gay clergy" who have confided in her "secretly." She readily admits:

1. Her "homosexuality" (p. 12, et al).
2. Her views about "working secretly within the system" (p. 48).
3. Her belief in "lying... deviousness, and downright subversiveness.... Subversion means a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine..." (pp. 47 - 48).

Is it any wonder that the particulars of homosexual sin are omitted by a version that employed a closet homosexual stylist? In Pat Robertson's February 1994 issue of Christian American, Dr. Mollenkott calls the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition an "abusive parent." Why does she call God an "abusive parent"? She says:

"I can no longer worship in a theological context that depicts God as an abusive parent and Jesus as the obedient trusting child."

Mollenkott refers to god as "she" and her religion as "monism."

"The monism [Hinduism] I'm talking about assumes that god is so all inclusive that she is involved in every cell of those who are thoughts in her mind and embodiment of her image."

Her pro-homosexual book, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, echoes her NIV's assertion (in 1 Cor. 6:9, Deut. 23:17, 1 Kings 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7) that the bible censures only criminal offenders or prostitutes, not "sincere homosexuals... drawn to someone of the same sex." Few "effeminate men" (KJV) are prostitutes or commit criminal offenses of a homosexual nature. Young people desperately need the bible's warning that the "sodomite" (KJV) is engaged in a potentially deadly activity. "Shrine" or "cult prostitution" (NIV, NASB, et al.) is archaic, it is not a translation of the Hebrew, but a subjective interpretation of its meaning.

The book, New Age Bible Versions, documents four new version stylists or translators who admitted, in their own books, their involvement with spiritism, that is, trying to make contact with the dead.

The last and most recent revelation of giving heed to seducing spirits, concerns Dr. Virginia Mollenkott of the NIV. Her book, Sensuous Spirituality, tells tales of her spirit guide and contact with her dead mother. The subtitle, "Out from Fundamentalism," rings like 1 Timothy 4:1 - 2, "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits." The doctrines of devils which follow includes her admitted involvement with divination through the use of Tarot cards and the I Ching.

Acts 16:16 - 17 tells of another woman "possessed with a spirit of divination." She actually preached the gospel saying, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." Paul did not say, "Well, this is wonderful. This girl must have gotten saved because she is preaching the gospel." Rather, he was grieved and cast the spirit out of her. Evidently, God is not impressed when evil spirits preach the gospel; it is possible for someone to have a spirit of divination, "giving heed to seducing spirits," and also have an "intellectual" understanding of the bible.

The Word of God has been under attack since the beginning. "satan commeth immediately and taketh away the word..." (Mark 4:15 KJV)

As a born again believer of Jesus Christ, I believe that the words of the uncopyrighted King James Authorized Version are the pure and preserved words of God for the English speaking people. The wicked Laodiceans and Alexandrians do not believe that any human being should have a printed final authority to guide him through this wicked world of darkness and deceit.

The Alexandrian apostates work endlessly in their efforts to replace your two-edged sword with a toothpick. These people take great delight in ridiculing and intimidating people like you and me, and far too often they win because we do not know the answers. With a good basic knowledge, you CAN know the answers and you can win a few battles of your own.

satan wants to be LIKE the Most High God. His followers can be transformed into ministers of righteousness and his counterfeit "bibles" (400+ modern per-versions and counting) into The Holy Bible.

Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

Today's per-versions and lexicons, copyrighted by unsaved men who claim ownership of them, are easily spotted by the discerning.

If I were to distill all the arguments, this one fact tells it all:

There are about 5000 extant (existing) manuscripts and autographs from which we get our Holy Bible. The Holy Bible (KJV) is based on over 99% of that 5000 (commonly known as the Majority Text or Received Text). However, ALL modern versions are based upon the remainder (less than 0.5% i.e. less than 20) and which were rejected by the translators as CORRUPT.

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," or "originals," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that mystics Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which today's new versions are based.

Vaticanus is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that!

Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

The wanna-be scholars absolutely hate it when these irrefutable facts are presented, because these facts totally eliminate the wiggle room they require to play "scholar" with plain folk like you and me.

When seeking the Truth ala the King James Bible, be prepared to be set upon by the enemy. The priests and Pharisees are the same today as then. They are afraid of the truth, afraid of the light, afraid of losing their status. They say, "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death." (John 11:48, 53 KJV)

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Timothy 1:7 KJV)

 

[tulsa 2011]

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Timothy 1:7 KJV)"

A sound mind is not one that is dumbed down by the major institutions which deal with giving out information, the controlled media, the schools and universities, and the church, yes, the church is also an institution of society which has been dumbing people down since about the mid about 20th century. If the church had been leading its people to a sound mind, then what Paul describes in II Timothy 3: 4-5, 7-8 would not occur. But those who claim to be Christians now do love fleshly pleasures more than God, they have a form of godliness, but deny the power of that, they are always learning but not able to come to the knowledge of the truth, and they resist the truth. Verse 6 say they are the kind of people who creep into houses to lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with diverse lusts. This sounds like verse 4, they love fleshly pleasures.

 

[lawrenceb]

Indeed.

Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Rev. 3:11 KJB

 

[ccfromsc]

LOL Both texts in y'alls own words come from Egypt. The KJV has the book of Jeremiah. IN fact the version of the book is from the so-called by you "corrupted" manuscripts! The KJV is not the only true and preserved version there is. And it is not the only Authorized Version, the Bishop's Bible was way before the KJV but for some reason you avoid that. FACT When the KJV was done the translators only had approximately 2-300 texts of what comprised the "Majority" text, yet there were and are over 3000 texts that make up the "Majority Text" Yet you avoid that, why? Do you realize that even before Jesus was born, the OT was translated into Greek in Egypt So the synagogues could have a copy for new converts? Still I bet I get no straight answers, just rhetoric.

 

[lawrenceb]

My reply is in red text.

LOL Both texts in y'alls own words come from Egypt. Where did I say "both texts" "come from Egypt"? Where's your documentation? The KJV has the book of Jeremiah. IN fact the version of the book is from the so-called by you "corrupted" manuscripts! Where's your documentation? And the KJB is not the only true and preserved version there is. No one said it is. And it is not the only Authorized Version, the Bishop's Bible was way before the KJV The Lord has always provided his vernacular (i.e. common) Bible to the common man in the common language of the day. Today's vernacular Bible for English speakers is the KJB. Simple. but for some reason you avoid that. Nothing has been avoided FACT When the KJV was done the translators only had approximately 2-300 texts of what comprised the "Majority" text, Where's your documentation for your claim? Hint: there isn't any! yet there were and are over 3000 texts that make up the "Majority Text" No, there are over 5000! Yet you avoid that, why? Do you realize that even before Jesus was born, the OT was translated into Greek in Egypt So the synagogues could have a copy for new converts? Where's your documentation? Still I bet I get no straight answers, just rhetoric. Again, all we've heard from you is your opinion and unsubstantiated claims. The "rhetoric" is all yours.

 

[Veracity]

Whoa! Hold up there Larr!
I admit to seeking the face of God and I get attacked? what is up with so called Christians today anyway?
I could care less how much money someone made off their "Version". You think God had nothing to do with it??

Proverbs 2 My son,if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heartto understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice forunderstanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hidtreasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of theLord, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For theLordgiveth wisdom: out of his mouthcometh knowledge and understanding.
7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler tothem that walk uprightly.
8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of hissaints.
9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, andequity; yea, every good path.
10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasantunto thy soul;
11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:(KJV)
There are a lot of Baby Christians who will not get this, and will fall asleep and will grow slower than the infant raised with a different formula.

Proverbs2 My son,if you receive my words,
And treasure my commands within you,
2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding;
3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
And lift up your voice for understanding,
4 If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of theLord,
And find the knowledge of God.
6 For theLordgives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
7 He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk uprightly;
8 He guards the paths of justice,
And preserves the way of His saints.
9 Then you will understand righteousness and justice,
Equity and every good path.
10 When wisdom enters your heart,
And knowledge is pleasant to your soul,
11 Discretion will preserve you;
Understanding will keep you, (NKJV)
This is much easier and probably the best for new Christians.

Proverbs 2 My son,if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding—
3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
6 For theLordgives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
7 He holds success in store for the upright,
he is a shieldto those whose walk is blameless,
8 for He guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful ones.
9 Then you will understandwhat is right and just
and fair—every good path.
10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.
11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you. (NIV)

Nothing wrong with this either.

Many Scriptures are not changed, but rearranged.
You read that 3 different ways correct?
Did any of them help you? Some people are set in thier ways.
I judge a translation on a few scriptures, one mainly Acts 2:38. I have been told baptism is nothing so it really doesnt matter.
It does to me. Must be there for a reason one would think.
I have found no translation that over all these years has changed this, not even the newer Complete Jewish Bible. Well not sure about the greek. I don't read Greek
Then I get called names, put down etc etc. Love it.

So see, God preserves what needs to be preserved. Sometimes it does not make a difference. You can lead an eye to scripture but you can't make it see.
I trust the Lord to lead His people into all truths. He nudges who He nudges.


1 Corinthians 2

New King James Version (NKJV)

2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
The GNT does not have an equivalent to proverbs On he Gateway
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

 

[james1523]

If God thought the Bible version was that important He would have had His Son Jesus Christ write a pure and perfect and irrefutable Bible while he was on Earth, and ensure it remained protected throughout the ages, just as He did with the stone tablets for Moses.
Don't you think?

The Bible version is not so important - it's how you use it.

 

[tulsa 2011]

Verse wordings are very important for teaching doctrine. But it takes a long attention span to go through several Bible versions and many verses to gather up those verse wordings in the new Bible versions which diminish a doctrine. Romans 8: 1 is one verse to look at, but there are many more. Here the difference is in the longer wording of the Textus Receptus and the shorter wording of the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits "who walk not in the flesh, but after the Spirit."

II Timothy 3: 16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

II Peter 1: 21: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Proverbs 3: 5: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

Scripture is given by God, by the Holy Spirit, and it is not to be understood according to man leaning to his own understanding.

Making a text that is in metaphoric language into a literal statement is man leaning to his own understanding, just as much as the broad, sweeping allegorical method of Origen and of the Catholics and Calvinists. To teach that prophecy must always be interpreted literally when it is in metaphoric language is a systematic error, and part of the strong delusion.

Usually, when a text is metaphoric, there is some statement that does not make sense if seen to be literal and other statements which give you an idea that the text is metaphoric.

Matthew 13: 34: "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:"

Hosea 12: 10: "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."

A similitude is an imaginative comparison, in other words, a metaphor.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12: 6-7

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119: 89

 

[lawrenceb]

Amen, tulsa 2011.

If God thought the Bible version was that important He would have had His Son Jesus Christ write a pure and perfect and irrefutable Bible while he was on Earth, and ensure it remained protected throughout the ages, just as He did with the stone tablets for Moses.

In other words, you believe we don't have a "pure and perfect and irrefutable Bible...on Earth....protected throughout the ages," 'so why not make use of all versions of it that are available today?'

Rather, either one believes God has kept his promise (Psalm 12), i.e. he has given us his pure, inspired preserved for ever word, or he believes God has not kept his promise.

Did you know that The Holy Bible actually mentions several “translations” of itself, within itself? God does not care a bit about “translations,” per se. The “translations issue” is a red herring, designed to move you away from the truth that God has left us with his inspired, pure, perfect, preserved word, and move you toward the domain of man and his textual criticisms.

The Word of God has been under attack since the beginning. "satan commeth immediately and taketh away the word..." (Mark 4:15 KJV)

As a born again believer of Jesus Christ, I believe that the words of the uncopyrighted King James Authorized Version are the pure and preserved words of God for the English speaking people. The wicked Laodiceans and Alexandrians do not believe that any human being should have a printed final authority to guide him through this wicked world of darkness and deceit.

The Alexandrian apostates work endlessly in their efforts to replace your two-edged sword with a toothpick. These people take great delight in ridiculing and intimidating people like you and me, and far too often they win because we do not know the answers. With a good basic knowledge, you CAN know the answers and you can win a few battles of your own.

satan wants to be LIKE the Most High God. His followers can be transformed into ministers of righteousness and his counterfeit "bibles" (400+ modern per-versions and counting) into The Holy Bible.

Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

Today's per-versions and lexicons, copyrighted by unsaved men who claim ownership of them, are easily spotted by the discerning.

If I were to distill all the arguments, this one fact tells it all:

There are about 5300 extant (existing) manuscripts and autographs from which we get our Holy Bible. The Holy Bible (KJV) is based on over 99% of that 5000 (commonly known as the Majority Text or Received Text). However, ALL modern versions are based upon the remainder (less than 0.5% i.e. less than 20) and which were rejected by the translators as CORRUPT.

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," or "originals," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that mystics Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which today's new versions are based.

Vaticanus is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that!

Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

The wanna-be scholars absolutely hate it when these irrefutable facts are presented, because these facts totally eliminate the wiggle room they require to play "scholar" with plain folk like you and me.

When seeking the Truth ala the King James Bible, be prepared to be set upon by the enemy. The priests and Pharisees are the same today as then. They are afraid of the truth, afraid of the light, afraid of losing their status. They say, "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death." (John 11:48, 53 KJV)

God told us his word is pure, inspired and preserved, so the relevant question is this: Is what you have in your hands now the genuine article (i.e. do you have the scriptures)?

Regarding the "dialects" question, Spanish folks, for example, have the inspired word of God in their vernacular ("common") Bibles. Likewise, the Portuguese, German, French, etc. This has always been God's pattern: give the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing -- evangelize the world.

God has preserved His words through the broad flow of history. People today say, "How dare you King James-only people! You just want to force people to translate the KJV into other languages!" But look at the NIV: That perversion is being translated all over the world, and it is STILL the NIV! The NIV in Spanish, for example, is not very different at all from the NIV. The Dutch, French and other versions are still NIVs! And the NIV is most definitely an English Bible.

So the question is not "Shall we translate the Bible from English into other languages?" The question is "Which Bible shall we use to translate God's words into the various languages of the world?" I know the King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. So my choice is made. May God help the translators of the world to use God's words, and not a perversion that will only bring them into judgment before our Almighty God.

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Timothy 1:7 KJV)

Those who want to appropriate a work of men, e.g. any copyrighted book, are certainly able to do so - as long as they give proper worldly attribution to the copyright holder.

Conversely, those who want to appropriate the pure, inspired, preserved for ever word of God via his vernacular Bible(s) such as the KJB (for English speakers), are certainly able to do so - it remains completely unbound, as per God's promise. There’s nothing of men's copyrighted "dynamically equivalent" writings which can compare with the inspired, pure preserved Word of God, today’s vernacular Bible, the King James Bible. People don’t know what the Word of God is. They don’t understand inspiration or preservation, nor do they want to know, because the power of the lie is strong.

Thus the point which has been long in documenting and clearly made manifest is this: only a liar, a deceiver, would now continue to attempt to conflate those two options in his 'approach.'