MissGarfield Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I use the Joao ferreira de almeida in portuguese, and i use the KJV in english. The kj was a bit hard at first especially because english is not my first language, but i wouldn't trade for any of those modern english ones,... And I got quickly used to it... Quote Enfant racheté.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scar Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I read the King James because it's a translation of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text. This was the Bible the "church in the wilderness" died for. The "archaic" language in the KJV was actually archaic in 1611 as well. They stopped using "thee" and "thine" and "you" and "ye" in the 13th century. The reason those forms were used was because they most closely parallel the Hebrew and Greek, which has singular and plural forms of "you". Here's a video which will tell you everything you need to know about the different Bibles- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8000050340026696207 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 Do you know when it was first published? I like the idea and think it's long overdue. I've never seen it at the Loma Linda ABC but I'll go and ask them about it today. It hasn't been out that long, I would say we've had it just in the last year or so. They are published by Whitaker House. But I loved it on first sight once I leafed through it. As you already know, I bought that Bible and really enjoy it very much. I was expecting it to have the obsolete English words replaced, but the editor simply underlined the obsolete English words and put modern ones under the verse. I noticed, though, that they didn't underline some words that they should have, but they got the major ones. Have you ever heard of King James II ? It is using the same Greek text (the Received Text), but it gives it in modern English. It's more accurate and literal than the New King James. It is translated by Jay P. Green and is published by Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc. Grand Rapids, Mich. 49501. I would love to get another copy of it, this time in leather. I got the first edition (1971) and it has a few printing mistakes. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scar Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 This generation has a hunger for perversion. What was perversion just a few years ago, is now "normal". What was "hiding" in the closet is now "parading" in our streets. Perversion has found a welcome home - from the living room, to the White House; from our churches - to even the word of God! Our friend Webster, defines "pervert" as 1. to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true... 2. to twist the meaning or sense of: misinterpret (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977, p.856). A perfect definition of The New International Version (NIV): "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true" and "to twist the meaning or sense of". If you doubt that, before you start reading this tract - get the NIV and check it as you read this tract! The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ! I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense! PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV perverts the virgin birth! LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43. The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ! COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!" The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18. The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES! The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE! Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44! The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath? Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"! The NIV and sexual perversion! Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" ". . . the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ." Verses 26-27 says "FOR THIS CAUSE (vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE") God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, . . ." The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry! A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS". The NIV & Zondervan A little known fact: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality described as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,. . . Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships. . .the intricacies of love play. . ." and many other pro-homosexual books! HarperCollins is a subsidiary of the global media empire, The News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock. The News Corporation empire include Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. Fox Broadcasting produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups. VERY IMPORTANT! For the REAL PROOF Check out this link to HarperCollins- http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0380015390&tc=cx Now where is Don Wildmon when we really need him? Don was quick to boycott Kmart because subsidiary, Waldenbooks sold Playboy and Penthouse. Kmart can't "hold a candle" to the "filth" spewed by The News Corporation. Why isn't Don boycotting Zondervan and the NIV? Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — AND THE SATANIC BIBLE! "Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?" Amos 3:3 Jesus Christ plainly said in Matthew 7:17-18: Even so every GOOD tree bringeth forth GOOD fruit; but a CORRUPT tree bringeth forth EVIL FRUIT. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a CORRUPT tree bring forth GOOD FRUIT. (Matthew 7:17-18) Do you think Jesus Christ was LIEING? Do you really believe God would ALLOW His HOLY word to be "owned" by that group? ". . .for what fellowship hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? and what communion hath light with darkness?"2 Cor. 6:14 Do you actually believe God would ALLOW His Holy Word to published by the same ungodly people who publish the Satanic Bible? Being born again, not of CORRUPTIBLE seed, but of INCORRUPTIBLE, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23) Isn't it EQUALLY amazing that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not OWNED by men? That's right! The King James Bible has no COPYRIGHT ownership! It's copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which ALLOWS it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME! Without asking ANYBODY for permission! ". . .but the word of God is NOT BOUND." 2 Timothy 2:9 The NIV robs Jesus Christ of worship! In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 "worshipped him" is removed in the NIV! Why doesn't the NIV want Jesus Christ to be worshipped? Hint: see Luke 4:7, Matt. 4:9. The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer! Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High." And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish! ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR". BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR? Doesn't Revelation 22:16 say, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR". The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"! ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell? The NIV removes and perverts the place of hell! The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the NIV it occurs - ZERO! The word "hell" is NOT in the Old Testament of the NIV! And what do they do with "hell"? Take PSALM 9:17 for example: The King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL. . ." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE. . ." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"! By removing "hell" the NIV perverts Psalm 9:17 into nonsense! In the New Testament the NIV zaps out "hell" 9 times. And what "clearer" "easier to understand" word does the NIV "update" hell with? Five times they use - HADES! (Matt 16:18, Rev 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14) What "common person" understands HADES? Everybody knows what HELL is! Do you know what HADES is? Hades is not always a place of torment or terror. The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines HADES: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". The NIV perverts your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! The NIV perverts The Lord's Prayer into The Devil's Prayer! LUKE 11:2-4: The KJB reads, ". . .Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." The NIV removes everything that refers to a Holy God in heaven -"WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Everything that distinguishes God from the Devil is REMOVED! "OUR FATHER" of the NIV is "NOT IN HEAVEN" and "DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!" I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44) The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God! Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ." Proverbs 30:6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words . . ." And just in case you missed it, GOD'S LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, ". . . If any man SHALL ADD unto these things. . . 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 Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:12, gives a clear aim of Satan, ". . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word . . ." The NIV completely "TAKETH AWAY" 17 verses! Wonderful and precious verses like: MATTHEW 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.". ACTS 8:37: "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." The NIV PERversion completely "TAKETH AWAY" Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7! After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses! And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will! After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" ZAP-There goes another 12 verses! Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes! That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes! The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words! Don't look for the "mercyseat" in the NIV - GONE! Don't look for "Jehovah" in the NIV - GONE! Don't look for the "Godhead" in the NIV - GONE! The NIV removes wonderful Bible "terms" like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others! Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words! Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"! That equals REMOVING the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more - COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible! In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses! Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV! Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive." Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen." Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with" Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh." Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots" Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." Mark 10:21, "take up the cross." Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women" Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God" Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan" Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted" Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil" John 1:27, "is preferred before me" John 3:13, "which is in heaven" John 3:15, "should not perish" John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid" John 16:16, "because I go to the Father" Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do" Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works" Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me" Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God" Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's" I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken" II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God" Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth" Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones" Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing" I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself" Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec" I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit" I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified" I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh" I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever" Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God" Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved" Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"! And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3??? The LIES used to promote the NIV. . . LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed. FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words! LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand. FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209) LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible. FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible! LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate. FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ." Source- http://www.av1611.org/niv.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmin M. Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 NIV has some important facts taken out so I stick to a Romanian Bible or a NKJV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 Briefly, it is not a matter of taking things out of the Bible. It is a matter of the Greek text that is used to make the translation. The NIV and most other modern translations are based on the text printed by the United Bible Societies. This is called "the Critical Text." The KJV and NKJV are both based on the reading of the Received Text. This text is similar in most places to the Majority Text. The editors of the United Bible Societies' text is based on the reading given by only a handful (sometimes only 2 or 3) ancient Greek manuscripts, and they often ignore many hundreds of manuscripts if the Vaticanus and Sianiaticus manuscripts agree with each other and conflict with the rest of the manuscripts. The best way to study the Bible is to use 3 or 4 good translations. My favorites are the KJV (or NKJV), New American Standard, New Revised Standard, and English Standard Version. The bottom line is that a Seventh-day Adventist can find support for all Seventh-day Adventist beliefs in both the Critical Text and the Received Text. The most accurate translation of the Critical Text (United Bible Socieites' text) is the Catholic translation, The New American Bible. The best translation of the Majority Text (which is slightly different from the text used by the KJV translators) is the New King James Version. Also Robert Young's Literal Translation is an excellent literal translation of the Majority Text. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed. FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words! Of course things are changed in the NIV from what you find in the KJV. I don't think anyone who's knowledgeable in the texts would deny this fact. I am no great fan of the NIV, and I do see some problems with it-- primarily at Hebrews 9-- but it is not true that the NIV denies the deity of Jesus Christ. I'm a very strong believer in the deity of Christ and have examined all these translation in minute detail. If anyone thinks that the NIV denies the deity of Christ, let them compare the NIV with the KJV at Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1. In both those verses the NIV calls Jesus "God," whereas the KJV merely calls Jesus "Savior." The only correct way to translate those verses is that Jesus Christ is "our great God and Savior," and "our God and Savior." You can prove from the NIV that Jesus is God in many ways, including John 8: 58. The bottom line is that the NIV has problems, but denying that Christ is God is not one of them. I use the NIV quite a bit, but I never use it by itself. I always compare it to the Majority Greek Text and to many other good translations. In the vast majority of verses, the NIV is a good and reliable translation, but it's always best to use 3 or 4 translations. There is no perfect translation. It doesn't exist. But the important point is that if a person studies any of them (even the NWT) the Holy Spirit can use that text to bring a person to faith in God and to salvation. All of them-- despite some real differences in detail-- tell the same 'old, old story of Jesus and His love." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scar Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Briefly, it is not a matter of taking things out of the Bible. It is a matter of the Greek text that is used to make the translation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 You can be saved using any Bible, but for doctrinal purposes, these new translations just don't cut it.[/quote'] Not speaking of translations but of the underlying Critical Text itself. Can you name any basic belief of SDAs that can't be supported by an accurate translation of the Critical Text? What doctrine of the Bible is fundamentally affected by studying from the New American Bible or the English Standard Bible, for instance? (By the way, when I study with people, I prefer using the KJV. Why? Because it is still my favorite Bible and I find that it's the translation that many people trust or rely on.) Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted February 19, 2009 Author Administrators Share Posted February 19, 2009 Interesting note re: the NKJV. I had one as my principal Bible for 2 years, while the binding lasted. Funny but I just didn't like it as much as my regular KJV that I was used to. It is not merely in updated language, it is a different translation. For me it just didn't work, but I couldn't really put a finger on why. Quote Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 Isn't one of the 3 Angels' messages to come out of Babylon? Why would a Seventh-day Adventist read a Catholic Bible? [/quote'] Seventh-day Adventist study lessons written for Catholics use the Catholic Bible. I've studied with Catholics, using their Catholic Bibles, and all of the fundamental teaching of their Bibles is the same as a Protestant Bible. Did you know that all of the SDA colleges and universities train our ministers by using the United Bible Societies Greek text? I am just saying that the New American Bible is the most faithful translation of the New Testament's Critical Greek text. So if anyone who does not know Greek wants to compare the Critical text with the Received Text, the New American Bible is useful in helping them see the differences between those major texts. Coming out of Babylon does not mean that the Catholics have not produced good translations of the Bible. As Ellen White has said, God still has many honest, good people in the Catholic church. Do you know of any part of the New American Bible that is not accurately translated? Of course the Catholic Bible contains the Biblical Apocryphal books, which I do not believe are inspired of God, but then the original KJV also included these books. Again, I am not arguing that we ought to change from using the KJV to using the Catholic Bible. I am simply pointing out that Catholic scholars have produced an excellent, accurate translation of the Critical text. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 I feel the same way. In spite of having over 60 different translations, and reading them often, I keep coming back to the KJV. Actually-- and I wouldn't want this to be misunderstood-- I feel a spiritual blessing when studying the KJV that I don't experience when I study out of the others. I'm really not sure why. Strange isn't it? I don't know how to account for it but do have some ideas. Just not sure if they are valid. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted February 19, 2009 Author Administrators Share Posted February 19, 2009 I know what you mean, although as I said, I don't know why. There seems to be a certain "je ne sais quoi" about it. And, like you, I have a collection of other translations that I mainly use when writing for others because of simplicity or clearness of a certain verse. But the main Biblical principle of a verse seems to "stick" better with me in the old familiar KJV. I remember it better. I don't know why it does. It just does. Quote Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The Vaticanus ( in Hebrews stops at the end of Hebrews 9: 14. It contains James through Jude. It does not contain the Apocalypse. No one knows why it does not contain these sections of the Bible. It is not unusual for ancient manuscripts to be deficient. It should be kept in mind, though, that many other ancient manuscripts of the NT in the Vatican contain the whole book of Hebrews as well as the book of Revelation. You will notice below (#5 to 8) that many Roman Catholic Bibles translate Hebrews 10: 10-12 exactly the same as the KJV-- (1) Hebrews 10:10-12 (King James Version) 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; (2) NASB-- 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, (3) Roman Catholic Confraternity translation (from the Latin text)-- 10 It is in this "will" that we have been sanctified through this offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest indeed stands daily ministering, and often offering this same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but Jesus, having offered one sacrifice for sin, has taken his seat forever at the right hand of God. (4)The New American (Catholic) 10 By this "will," we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11) Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12 But this one offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God. 5) Christian Community Bible (Roman Catholic): v. 12 Christ has offered for all times a single sacrifice for sin and has taken his seat at the right hand of God. 6) Revised English Bible (Roman Catholic Edition): v. 12 Christ, having offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, took his seat at God's right hand. 7) New Revised Standard Version (Roman Catholic Edition): v. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat sat down at the right hand of God. 8) Good News Bible (Roman Catholic Edition): v. 12 Christ, however, offered one sacrifice for sins, an offering that is effective forever, and then he sat down at the right side of God. In Westcott's commentary on this verse, he wrote, "The sacrifice was efficacious forever, through all time, being appropriated by each believer (v. 14). The connection of eis to dienekes with the following ekathisen (for ever sat down) is contrary to the usage of the Epistle; it obscures the idea of the perpetual efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice..." (The Epistle To the Hebrews, The Greek Text With Notes and Essays, Brooke Foss Westcott, p. 314.) See also Henri Alford's commentary where he argues well that "forever" should be placed in connection with the last phrase of the verse rather than with the first part. Both readings are grammatically correct, so as far as the rules of translation are concerned, it could read either way. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribe who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD! ... I am very interested in textual studies and translation. For about 10 years, I've been making a word-for-word comparison of about 15 different printed Greek texts, and looking carefully at the manuscript evidence for all the variants. Give me several examples on the basis of the Critical text, or the original ancient Greek manuscripts, which demonstrate that these Egyptian scribed altered the NT in regard to Jesus being the Son of God. Please give the manuscript name or number, and give the verse. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 19, 2009 What do you believe concerning 1 John 5: 7 as given in the KJV? Also John 5: 4? In your estimation, are these texts part of the original manuscripts as written by the apostle? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 20, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2009 The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ! I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense! PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV perverts the virgin birth! LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43. The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ! COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!" The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18. The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES! The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE! These, as well as the others that are cited as examples, deserve to be looked at carefully and individually in order to see what the manuscript evidence is. Would you like to examine the manuscript evidence and see the reasoning behind some of the most significant changes that have been made? I prefer the readings of the KJV, so I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else to oppose the KJV or to believe that the NIV is correct. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scar Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 In the past wars have been fought over the Bible. The church of the middle ages banned the Bible. Today, it seems that everyone is satisfied and has a Bible. Matt 4:4, Is. 8:20, Rev. 22:18. With modern Greek scholarship many of the verses in the modern versions have better translation than in the older versions. But, if the grammar is improved does that necessarily mean that the context has to be improved. The original manuscripts have been lost and all we have is copies of copies. The oldest manuscripts originate from the Alexandrian texts. However, there are thousands (1900) of versions in almost every language from the traditional texts. Therefore, it should be possible to bring together the texts from every language and compare them to see what what the majority of them agree. In the Alexandrian and Western versions there are verses missing that are in the traditional texts. There are letters written between church fathers that are older than the Alexandrian and Western texts and include these missing verses. This is another verification of the traditional texts of which the King James 1611 originated. Every single Bible in the world that was written before 1940 except the Catholic and Jesuit Bible came from the traditional Received Texts that led to the King James Version. The Pope has declared that the Latin Vulgate version is infallable. The Douay (Jesuit) version was written to counteract the reformation. The Alexandrian texts has led to the host of new Bibles in all languages. The Codex Aleph is one of the oldest, as with the Latin version & vulgate. But old does not necessarily mean good. Kurt Aland, who is coeditor of both of the most widely used critical Greek texts and who is certainly the leading textual scholar on the European continent, proposes that the text of p75 and B (of the Alexandrian texts) represents a revision of a local text of Egypt which was enforced as the dominant text in that particular ecclesiastical province. - Aland in "The Bible in Modern Scholarship', p.336. Cf. also 'Novum Testamentum, IX (April 1967), p.91. David Otis Fuller, D.D., says fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles. The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian and the churches of the Reformation. These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even enemies of the Received Text (Textus Recepticus) admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are of this class. - Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? Christian Centre Press, p.64. The original manuscripts came from Syria, Jerusalem where the Apostles preached. The Christians in northern Italy previously received their manuscripts from the middle east and not from Rome. This caused a problem between the Ostrogoths and Roma. The second stream is a small one of a very few manuscripts. These last manuscripts are represented: a. In Greek:- The Vatican MS., or Codex B (prominent for counter-reformation), in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph (found in 1844, yougest find and oldest document). b. In Latin:- The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome (383 AD). c. In English:- The Jesuit Bible of 1582, which later with vast changes is seen in the Douay, or Catholic Bible. d. In English again:- In many modern Bibles. So the present controversy between the King James Bible in English and the modern versions is the same old contest fought out between the early church and rival sects; and later, between the Waldenses and the Papists from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries; and later still between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century. - "Which Bible" and "True and False", edited by David Otis Fuller. "We need to understand, that many of the new translations are taken from old manuscripts. People think that these are more reliable. In actual fact they are saying, that a manuscript found in a waste paper basket in a cave in Mt. Sinai and questionable manuscripts from Alexandria in Egypt, are more reliable than the Received Text."- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.15. Origen, being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt.- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.16. Origen, who believed that man is divine, is praised in Masonic writing. 1) From the birth of Christ to 400 AD Gnostic gospels and other writings were written. Paul makes mention of this in: 2 Cor. 2:17. 2) In 331 AD Constantine ordered that an 'ecumenical Bible' be written. Eusebius, a follower of Origen, was assigned to direct this task. Eusebius rejected the deity of Christ and claimed that Christ was a created being. This error is called the Arian heresy(pantheism,etc). The early Christians rejected these manuscripts and were placed in a library only to be dug up as ancient manuscripts. There were about 50 copies made by Eusebius and were distributed and ended up in mainly to areas - Rome and Alexandria. Rome claims to be anti-arian and has said to have fought wars against the arians. There is no evidence that the nations that were destroyed because they were arians were actually arian because we have none of their writings. Only Roman Catholicism claims that they were arian. The gospel to the gouyim (Catholicism) is not arian but the insider esoteric gospel is arian. We know this because the Pope has declared the Latin Vulgate an infallable bible but this version is arian - it removes the deity of Jesus Christ. 3) In 1481 AD the Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican library. This manuscript repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done by Eusebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the 'ecumenical Bible' of Constantine. Interesting, it was found just in time to counter the reformation. The reformation was using the Received Text. If this is true, then the truth had been kept from virtually all generations since Christ up until 1481. 4) In 1844 AD The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimizes the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. These two manuscripts were probably two of the fifty that were written for Constantine. 5) In 1881 AD The Westcott and Hort Greek Text was introduced. This text departed from the Textus Receptus and follows the Vatican and even more than the Sinaitic corruptions. The Jehovah's Witness Bible entitled the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures' was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort. The JW's had the KJV and modified it. "It must be emphasized that the argument is not between an ancient text and a recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one of which was rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries." - Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.46. Tyndale used the Received Text in his Bible and said to the Pope, "If God spare my life, before many years I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." - God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper James Ray. *****The argument is not a KJV versus other versions, it is the "Received Text" versus other manuscripts (the Vatican Codex B and the Siniatic Codex Aleph).***** In Bible in any language in the world that existed before 1900 was based on the Received Text. The Jesuits were called to help and they said, "We must undermine the Bible of the Protestants and detroy their teachings." ...The Queen of England realizing the damage the Jesuit Bible would do, sent to Europe for Beza, who was with JohnCalvin, to help...Thomas Cartwright...With one hand he took hold of all the Greek manuscripts and with the other hand he took hold of all the Latin manuscripts from the Received Text, and he hit the Jesuit Bible blow after blow...Finally the Spanish Armada came against England with 136 armed ships, some with 50 cannons...England could only gather thirty ships and these were lead by Sir Francis Drake. Freak storms came down the English Channel and the Spanish ships were found wrecked right up to the Scottish coast and England became a great sea power."- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.60. Jesuit View of the Bible: "Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it... for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no response. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." - The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, 1997 originally published 1900, ap.1. Jesuit Catechism: Q. What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it? A. The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside. Q. What is the Pope? A. He is the Vicar of Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope. -Roy Livesey, 1998, Understanding the New Age:World Government and World Religion, p.104. Regarding the Bible, Albert Pike writes: "...the absurd reading of the established Church, taking literally the figurative, allegorical, and mythical language of a collection of Oriental books of different ages ... the folly of regarding the Hebrew books as if they had been written by the unimaginative, hard, practical intellect of the England of James the First and the bigoted stolidity of Scottish Presbyterianism." "The better to succeed and win partisans, the Templars sympathized with regrets for dethroned creeds (pagan religions) and encouraged the hopes of new worships, promising to all liberty of conscience and a new orthodoxy that should be the synthesis of all the persecuted creeds." - Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 818. "Going back to the time of the early church we find the Coptic Versions, the Latin Versions, and the Syrian Versions. These Bibles were in circulation before the Vaticanus was written. It is hard to see how God would allow the true text to be hidden in the Vatican library and in a waste paper basket in a cave for one thousand five years and to be brought to the light of day by two Cambridge professors [Westcott & Hort] who did not even believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures." - "Which Bible" and "True and False", edited by David Otis Fuller. "How could Helvidius have accused Jerome of employing corrupt Greek manuscripts, if Helvidius had not had the pure Greek manuscripts?"- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.61. "These revised versions are based on manuscripts from Egypt that were definitely corrupted. Both Augustine and Tertullion testified that the scribes in Africa corrupted and changed the manuscripts." - Christian Handbook of Manuscripts, Peter S. Ruckman. "No sooner," writes Dean Burgon, "Was the work of Evangelists and Apostles recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of God's ancient Scriptures and became the 'New Testament,' than a reception was found to be awaiting it in the world closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the subject of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, persecution and muderous hate, assailed Him continually. And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not only was it confused through human infirmity and misapprehension, but it became also the object of restless malice and unsparing assualts." - Dean Burgon, Traditional Text, p.10. In connection with Westcott and Hort's theory Dean Burgon writes: "We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt B and Aleph and D8 because in their own opinions those copies are the best. They weave ingenious webs and invent subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the many requires ingenuity and subtely for its support. Dr. Hort reveled in finespun theories and technical terms, such as 'Intinsic Probability,' 'Transcriptional Probability,' 'Internal evidence of Readings,' 'Internal evidence of Documents,' which of course connote a certain amount of evidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy structure....Even conjectural emendation and inconsistent decrees are not rejected. They are infected with the theorizing which spoils some of the best German work, and with the idealism which is the bane of many academic minds especially at Oxford and Cambridge....In contrast with this sojourn in cloudland, we are essentially of the earth though not earthly. We are nothing if we are not grounded in facts: Our appeal is to facts, our test lies in facts, so far as we can we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on facts. We imitate the procedure of the courts of justice in decisions resulting from the converging product of all evidence, when it has been cross-examined and sifted....In the balances of these seven Tests of Truth the speculations of the Westcott and Hort school, which have bewitched millions are 'Tekel,' weighed in the balances and found wanting. "I am utterly disinclined to believe," continues Dean Burgon, "so grossly improbable does it seem - that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four, or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired." What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides - those deluded ones - who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself?", The Revision Revised, p.334-335. Burgon, utterly rejected the claims of Tischendorf (1815-74), Tregelles (1813-75), Wescott (1825-1901), Hort (1828-92), and other contemporary scholars, who insisted that as a result of their labours the true New Testament text had at last been discovered after having been lost for well-nigh fifteen centuries. "Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping?"- Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.91. Dr. Hoskier quotes the following from Dr. Salmon in his book Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament... "Naturally Hort regarded those manuscripts as most trustworthy which give the readings recognized by Origen; and these no doubt were the readings which in the third century were most preferred at Alexandria. Thus Hort's method inevitably led to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text."- Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, 1996. "You will always be my friend but I can no longer ignore the criticisms. I cannot refute them, and dear brother I have not a thing against you, but the only thing I can do under God, is to renounce every attacment to the New American Standard Bible." Dr. Frank Logsdon to F. Lockman, - Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? p.236. The Alexandrian library was world famous for its occult documents. The early Christians who were bible based burned the old library and was a diaster to the occult world. UNESCO decided to rebuild it in 2002 exactly as the original. "Index of Prohibited Books" (Pope Paul IV 1599) The early Church at Antioch used the Syrian Bible translated from Hebrew and Greek and is older than the Masoretic text. The Waldenses had access to these writings and in 1453 when the Turks captured Constantinople Greek scholars brought their manuscripts to the West. - Septuagint made for Alexandria Library in 285 BC, Vulgate 383-405. Apocrypha (Hidden things): Council of Trent, fourth session, 1546 "Whoever shall not receive as sacred and canonical all these books and every part of them, as they are commonly read in the catholic church, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, or shall knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed." Bewitching art: Tobias 6:4-8. Rebuke: Mark 16:17, Acts 16:18. Works: Tobias 12:9 Rebuke: 1 Pet. 1:18-19. Prayer for dead: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 Rebuke: John 1:7. Council of Trent (1545-1563) proposed the Vulgate Latin Bible as the only authentic translation. Pope Sixtus V declared the Vulgate infallible but Clement III in 1592 ordered a better edition and 2000 changes were made. Errors in the Vulgate 2 Tim. 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed. Douay- All scripture inspired of God is profitable. Heb.11:21 - Jacob worshipped as he leaned on top of his staff. Vulgate- Jacob adored the top of his rod. Rev. 22:14 - Blessed are they that wash their robes (Codex Vaticanus) KJV - Blessed are they that do his commandments. Ebionites Basic Tenets: You must be a Jew to be a follower of Jesus and accept him as the Jewish Messiah. He wasn't divine at birth, but God valued his righteousness and allowed his sacrifice to redeem humanity's sins. Requirements: Ebionitans contiuned to obey Jewish law. They kept kosher and took ritual baths and men had to be circumcised. Appeal: The faith allowed Jesus' early Jewish followers in Palestine to embrace him without making a break from their birth identity. Marcionites Basic Tenets: Our world was created by the Jewish God of the Old Testament. But he was impossibly strict and condemned all humanity. Christ, who was absolutely unrelated to him, release Christians from his clutches. Requirements: Marcionites had to jettison? the Old Testament and believe in two separate Gods. Appeal: Believers could replace the old admonitions about judgment and damnation with a new message of love and salvation. Gnostics Basic Tenets: The world and our bodies were created by an incompetent lesser God, but we contain a spark of divinity, and Jesus provided us with the knowledge to free it. Requirements: Followers had to have the time to pursue and incorporate this special knowledge. Literacy may also have helped. Appeal: Gnosticism explained the world's hardships and people's feelings of not belonging in it but at the same time assured them that redeemption is within their power. Thomasines Basic Tenets: Since creation, we have all shared divinity, Jesus teaches us to rediscover it in us. Understanding that is more important than believing in his atoning sacrifice. Requirements: Thomasines were fascinated with the arcane and probably were ascerbic and abstinent. Appeal: The sect offered rejection of hierarchy, greater freedom of personal expression, an openness to the role of women and a dramatically decreased sense of guilt. "Whenever the so-called Counter-Reformation, started by the Jesuits, gained hold of the people, the vernacular was suppressed and the Bible kept from the laity. So eager were the Jesuits to destroy the authority of the Bible - the paper pope of the Protestants, as they contemptuously called - that they even did not refrain from critizing its genuineness and historical value." Von Dobshutz, The Influence of the Bible, p.136. Before the English people could go the way of the Continent and be brought to question their great English Bible, the course of their thinking must be changed. Much had to be done to discredit, in their eyes, the Reformation - its history, doctrines, and documents - which they looked upon as a great work of God. This task was accomplished by those who, while working under cover, passed as friends. In what numbers the Jesuits were at hand to bring this about, the following words, from one qualified to know, will reveal: "Despite all the persecution they (the Jesuits) have met with, they have not abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits than in Italy; there are Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among the English clergy; among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. I could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest, or how a Protestant priest could be a Jesuit; but my Confessor silenced my scruples by telling my, omnia munda mundis, and that St. Paul became a Jew that he might save the Jews; it was no wonder, therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant, for the conversion of Protestants. But pay attention, I entreat you, to discover concerning the nature of the religious movement in England termed Puseyism. The English clergy were formed too much attached to their Articles of Faith to be shaken from them. You might have employed in vain all the machines set in motion by Bossuet and the Jansenists of France to reunite them to the Romish Church; and so the Jesuits of England tried another plan. This was to demonstrate from histoy and ecclesiastical antiquity the legitimacy of the usages of the English Church, whence, through the exertions of the Jesuits concealed among its clergy, might arise a studious attention to Christian antiquity. This was designed to occupy the clergy in long, laborious, and abstruse investigation, and to alienate them from their Bibles." - Desanctis, Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, pp.128, quoted in Walsh, Secret History of Oxford Movement, p.33. Descantes was Priest at Rome, Professor of Theology, official Theological Censor of the Inquisition. Tractarianism (1833-1841) "Romanism is known to have recently entered the Church of England in the disguise of Oxford Tractarianism; to have drawn off no inconsiderable number of her clergy and members; and to have gained a footing on British soil, from which the government and public together are unable to reject her." Newman (Leader of the Oxford movement who later went over to the Chuch of Rome) wrote in 1841 to a Roman Catholic, "Only through the English Church can you act upon the English nation. I wish, of course, our Church should be consolidated, with and through and in your communion, for its sake, and your sake, and for the sake of unity." Newman, Apologia, p.225. He and his associates believed that Protestantism was Antichrist. Faber one of the associates of Newman in the Oxford Movement, himself a brilliant writer, said: "Protestantism is perishing: what is good in it is by God's mercy being gathered into the garners of Rome...My whole life, God willing, shall be one crusade against the destable and diabolical heresy of Protestantism." - J.E. Bowden, Life of F.W. Faber, 1869, p.192. Pusey (well known member of the Oxford movement and author of "Minor Prophets" and "Daniel the Prophet" said: "I believe Antichrist will be infidel, and arise out of what calls itself Protestantism, and then Rome and England will be united in one to oppose it," - Walter Walsh, Secret History of the Oxford Movement, p.202. Based on the ancient manuscripts (Codex Sinaticus), Wescott and Hort wrote the Greek text upon which all modern versions is based. Most of the following quotes are from books written by the sons of Westcott and Hort (published in 1896): The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort. Hort as well as Westcott rejected the idea of the infallibility of the Bible, and Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral", Westcott denied the historicity of Genesis 1 through 3 and Hort praised Darwin, denied the divinity of Christ, and called the Textus Receptus 'villainous' and 'vile'. Both were members of the Broad Church (or High Church) Party of the Church of England. They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University. They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament. Wescott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University. "The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which support such a view as Darwin's...But it seems to me the most probable manner of development, and the reflections suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that some kind of development must be supposed." - Life, p.430. Nov.9th 1860-Hort to MacMillan: "Another last word on Darwin...I shall not let the subject drop in a hurry, or, to speak more correctly, it will not let me drop. It has completely thrown me back into natural science, not that I had ever abandoned it either in intention, or altogether in practice. But now there is no getting rid of it any more than of a part of oneself." (Life p.433). Hort to Westcott: "Have you read Darwin? How should I like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book." (Life, vol.1, p.416). Apr.3rd, 1860-Hort to John Ellerton: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period." (Life, vol.1, p.416). Dec 20, 1851-Hort to John Ellerton: "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on later MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones" (Life, vol.1, p.211). Apr.19th-Hort to Rev. John Ellerton: "One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachman and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions." (Life, vol.1, p.250). Sept 29th-Westcott to Hort: "AS to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use...With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable - after Griesbach's manner? They suggested small changes with comments in the margin so that the public would not be alarmed with drastic and immediate changes. "I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of Holy Scripture (a reference to the AV?) and am most anxious to provide something to replace them. This cannot be any text resting solely on our own judgment, even if we were not too inexperienced to make one; but it must be supported by a clear and obvious preponderance of evidence. The margin will give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles...my wish would be to leave the popular received text except where it is clearly wrong." - Life, vol.1, p.228. The statement which immediately follows Hort's describing the sacred text as "vile" is most revealing. "Westcott, Gorham, C.B.Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc. and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances, and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the '[censored] and Bull Club;' our own temporary name is the "Ghostly Guild." - Life, vol.1, p.211. In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. In effect it was a combination of those groups already working independently in the investigation of spiritualism and other pyshic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc). Of these the most important was that centered round Henry Sidgwick, Frederic Myers and Edmund Gurnery, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and deriving its inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury. Darwin also attended. The Society For Psychical Research is also the society that runs the esoteric side of th new age movement today.The Society For Psychical Research directly succeeded the Cambridge Ghost Society. The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, written in 1948 by the President, W.H. Salter, provides the following record: "Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his on A.C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph: "Among my father's diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a 'Ghost Society,' the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he cared to admit." "Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society." - W.H.Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, 1948, p.5. "The evolution from traditional mediumship to contemporary channeling has been gradual. The original spiritualism had its start in 1848...Organizations like the Society for Psychical Research in Britain were formed...When Russian-born Helena Petrovna Blavatsky found Theosophy in 1875, the slow transition toward modern channeling began... her two chief works, Isis Unveiled, and The Secret Doctrine laid the foundation for the modern New Age belief system." - Elliot Miller, 1989, Crash Course on the New Age. Hort a member of a Secret Society? "Yet he found time to attend meetings of the various societies, and in June joined the mysterious company of the 'Apostles.' He remained always a grateful and loyal member of the Secret Club, which has now [ca. 1896] become famous for the number of distinguished men who have belonged to it. In his time the Club was in a manner reinvigorated, and he was mainly responsible for the wording of the oath which binds the members to a conspiracy of silence." - The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, vol.1, p.170. 1854-Hort to Rev. John Ellerton "I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: 1)that eternity is independent of duration; 2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; 3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I suppose had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be named." - ibid, p.275. While advising a young student he wrote: "The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended. "I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important truth." - ibid., vol.2, p.336. Hort on the atonement: "I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." - Life, vol.1, p.322. Oct. 15th, 1860-Hort to Westcott: "I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." - Life, vol.1, p.430. May 14 1870 - Hort to Rev. J.L.I. Davies: "No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favour of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory. I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years." - Life, vol.2, p.128. (1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.) Aug.14th 1860-Hort to Wescott "It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." Oct.17th-Hort to Westcott: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results. Perhaps the whole question may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation, which is almost universally corrupted in one or both of two opposite directions. On the one hand we speak and think as if there were no real bringing near, such as the NT tells of, but only an interposition between two permanently distant objects. On the other we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the one, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." - Life, vol.2, p.49. Sept.27th 1865-Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles". Nov.17th-Westcott to Rev. Benson: "As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." - Life, Vol.1, p.251. 1858 Oct. 21st-Hort to Rev. Rowland and Williams: "There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible...If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme... The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quitely; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism." - Life, vol.1, p.400. May 29th-Westcott to Hort: "though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as 'we three' are together it would be wrong not to 'make the best of it' as Lightfoot says. Indeed, there is a very fair prospect of good work, though neither with this body nor with any body likely to be formed now could a complete textual revision be possible. There is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in the margin." - Life, vol.1, p.390. Sometimes 'alternative' translations (traditional TR) are found in the margins. Then, in following versions those marginal notes are axed away. And so the Bible changes. From the middle of the book of Acts in an NIV bible and the number of words till the end of revelation, that will roughly equal the number of words gone - 60,000. June 4th-Westcott to Lightfoot: "Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should agree. The rules though liberal are vague, and the interpretation of them will depend upon decided action at first." - Life, vol.1, p.391. July 7, 1870 - Hort: "It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first...The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences...We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked... It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." - Life, p.138. Arthur Balfour, who was a member of Hort's Apostles, Westcott's Eranus (Hort called this group a senior Apostles club), as well as President of the S.P.R., soon became the Prime Minister of England and instrumental in the first League of Nations. Balfour not only headed the S.P.R., holding seances at his home, but initiated a group called 'The Synthetic Society' whose goal was to create a 'one world religion'. He invited Frederic Myers of the S.P.R. to join and together they created "The preamble of all religions." It included the dogma, "departed spirits can communicate." - www.historist.com. The following extracts are from the book 'Which Bible' by Dr. David Otis Fuller:- Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858: "Further I agree with them (authors of Essays and Reviews) in condemning many specific doctrines of the popular theology... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible." Westcott writes from France to his fiancee, 1847: "After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill...Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)... Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." Wescott writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did." Hort writes to Mr. John Ellerton: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants." Hort writes to Mr. John Ellerton, July 6, 1848: "The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...We should bear in mind that that hard and unspiritual medieval crust which enveloped the doctrine of the sacraments in stormy times, though in measure it may have made it unprofitable to many men at that time, yet in God's providence preserved it inviolate and unscattered for future generations... We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us." Hort writes to Westcott, September 23, 1864: "I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary." "Perfect Catholicity has been nowhere since the Reformation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scar Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 It is possible to start with some of the lesser quality Bibles until we grow in our Christian walk and learn more about the differences. If there are differences that cannot be resolved, then we become unable to establish doctrine and are basically left with an relativistic-ecumenical document. Rev.22:18-19 Recommended Book... Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Bejamin G. Wilkinson, 1996 Which Bible Can We Trust? - Les Garrett, 1982 New Age Bible Versions - G.A.Riplinger, 1993 Verses Effected (Which Bible Can We Trust? - Les Garrett, 1982) New American Standard-909 Revised Version-788 New World Translation-767 NIV-695 Good News-614 Amplified-484 Douay-421 Old Jehovah's Witnesses-120 NKJV ignored the textus recepticus 1200 times Code: New World Translation Missing Verses Revisions Additions/Omissions Matt. 16:3 John 1:1 Mark 9:46 Mark 16:9-20 John 8:1-11 Acts 8:37 1 John 5:7 NIV Missing Verses Revisions Additions/Omissions Luke 9:55,56 2 Samuel 23:5 2 Samuel 21:19 Matt.27:35 Hosea 11:12 Matt. 25:13, 24:36, 13:51 Rev. 22:14 Mark 2:17, 10:21, 10:24, 7:19 Acts 13:42, 15:23 Luke 4:4, 4:8, 1:72, 2:33 1 Pet. 1:22, 4:6 Rev. 14:5,5:14 2 Tim. 4:1 Acts 16:7, 24:15, 9:29,22:16 Matt. 18:2,3 1 Cor. 5:7, 11:29, 11:24 Heb. 11:3, 1:2 Heb. 7:21 Heb. 9:27, 10:21 Eph. 3:9 Col 1:14 John 5:39, 2:11, 16:16 2 Thess. 2:2 Mark 15:3 John 9:4 1 John 4:3 James 5:16 Matt. 6:13 Job 26:5 Luke 11:2-4 2 Pet. 2:9 Rom. 1:3 1 Cor.15:3,4 1 Tim 3:16 (Paul's battle cry) Prov. 8:22 1 John 5:7 RSV Missing Verses Revisions Additions/Omissions Matt. 18:11,27:35 Rev. 22:14 Matt.5:44, 20:16, 25:13, 24:3 Matt. 20:22,23 Acts 13:42, 15:23 Mark 2:17, 6:11, 10:21, 10:24, Matt 2:15 (Hosea 11:1 is now not a fulfillment of prophecy) Mark 15:28 1 Pet. 1:22, 4:6 Mark 13:14, 7:19, 15:3 Luke 9:55,56 2 Tim. 4:1 Luke 2:14, 4:4, 4:8, 23:44, 1:72 Luke 22:43,44 John 2:11 John 10:14, 5:39, 3:13, 6:33 Acts 28:29 Matt. 18:2, 16:22 1 Cor. 10:28, 5:7, 7:5, 11:29 Mark 16:9-20 John 1:3,4,9:4,7:8 Rev. 14:5 Luke 24:40 Heb. 11:3, 1:2, Acts 16:7, 24:15, 2:30, 8:36,22:16 Heb 10:21, 9:27 Phil. 3:20,21 Col 1:15,16, 1:14 Heb. 7:21 2 Thess. 2:2 Matt. 1:25, 1:16, 13:51, 19:16-17 Titus 2:13 Luke 2:33, 11:2 Rev. 1:7, 13:8 1 John 4:3 James 5:16 Matt. 6:13 Job 26:5 John 6:47, 16:16, 16:23 1 Cor.15:3,4 Rom.1:3,9:5,14:10 Is. 7:14 1 Cor.15:47 Ps. 45:6 & Heb. 1:8 1 Tim 3:16 (Paul's battle cry) Prov. 8:22 1 Pet. 4:14 Dan. 3:25 Rev.1:11,5:14 Micah 5:2 ASV Missing Verses Revisions Additions/Omissions 2 Tim. 3:16 Mark 10:21, 15:3 Rev. 22:14, 1:7 Phil. 3:20,21 1 Cor.15:3,4 Titus 2:13 Dan. 3:25 Matt.2:15 NASV Missing Verses Revisions Additions/Omissions Job 19:26 Luke 24:51,52 Douay Missing Verses Revisions Additions/Omissions Acts 13:42 Luke 4:8, 2:33, 11:2-4 2 Tim. 4:1 Acts 16:7 Col 1:14 1 Cor. 5:7 Heb. 7:21 Matt 6:13 Moffat Revision Luke 23:44 "...till three o'clock, owing to an eclipse of the sun." Look up the following verses Mt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28 Lk. 6:48, 17:36, 23:17 Jh. 5:4 Acts 8:37,9:5-6, 15:34, 24:6-8, 28:29 Rom. 8:1, 11:6, 16:24 Gal. 3:1, 3:17, 4:7, 6:17 Eph. 3:14 Col. 1:2, 1:14 1 Tim. 2:7, **3:16** 2 Tim. 4:22 Jehovah's Witnesses was the first to change, early in the 1900's when Westcott and Hort produced their document. The JW's didn't have their own version because there had been no other version except the Jesuit Douay version which had been rejected totally by the reformation. More modern versions have emulated the JW's by casting doubt in the margins of the authenticity of the verses that the JW's removed. There was a huge cry after the revisions of the JW bible became known but today there are even greater changes with less complaint. "By the sole authority of textual criticism these men have dared to vote away some forty verses of the inspired Word. The Eunuch's Baptismal Profession of Faith is gone; and the Angel of the Pool of Bethesda has vanished; but the Angel of the Agony remains - till the next Revision. The Heavenly Witnesses have departed, and no marginal note mourns their loss. The last twelve verses of St. Mark are detached from the rest of the Gospel, as if ready for removal as soon as Dean Burgon dies. The account of the woman taken in adultery is placed in brackets, awaiting excision. Many other passages have a mark set against them in the margin to show that, like forest trees, they are shortly destined for the critic's axe. Who can tell when the destruction will cease?" - Dublin Review, July 1881. German Bible Society "When Eberhard Nestle, in 1898, presented the first edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, he had achieved a work of which the consequences were not only unknown to him at the time, but also to the Wurtenberg Bible Society that made the edition possible. If the Textus receptus at that time still had a number of defenders, the science of the 19th century had however, finally proved it to be the worst text of the New Testament. There the editions of Tischendorf (since 1841, the finalized edition of editio octava critica maior of 1869/72), Tregelles (1857/72) and Westcott/Hort (1881) controlled the field. But in practiced terms at the level of university, church and school, the edition of the Textus receptus was still largely used internationally as for example by the British Bible Society till 1904. Only with the release of the Nestle text did the rule of the Textus receptus come to an end here also. The received text is the old Byzantine text with hundreds of copies in agreement. It was written in koine Greek of which hundreds of words cannot be translated into classical Greek. The early Church used koine Greek manuscripts and rejected the Alexandrian versions which were based on corrupt version with Origen and other Gnostic revisions. Origen taught that Jesus was a created being who did not have eternal existence as God - Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.16, 1936, p.900-902. "This doctrine of transmigration of souls obtained, as Porphyry informs us, among the Persians and Magi. It was held in the East and the West and that from the remotest antiquity. Herodotus found it among the Egyptians, who made the term of the circle of migrations from one human body, through animals, fishes, and birds, to another human body three thousand years... The Curds, the Chinese, the Kabbalists, all held the same doctrine. So Origen held, and the Bishop Synesius, the later of whom had been initiated, and who thus prayed to God: "O Father, grant that my soul, reunited to the light, may not be plunged again into the defilements of earth!" So the Gnostics held; and even the Disciples of Christ inquired if the man who was born blind, was not so punished for some sin that he had committed before his birth. - Morals and Dogma, p.399. Origen gives much information as to the Mysteries of the Ophites; and there is no doubt that all the Gnostic sects had Mysteries and an initiation. They all claimed to possess a secret doctrine, coming to them directly from Jesus Christ, different from that of the Gospels and Epistles, and superior to those communications, which in their eyes, were merely exoteric. Origen, born AD 134 or 135, answering Celsus, who had a concealed doctrine said: "Inasmuch as the essential and important doctrines and principles of Christianity are openly taught, it is foolish to object that there are other things that are recondite; for this is common to Christian discipline with that of those philosophers in whose teaching some things were exoteric and some esoteric: and it is enough to say that it was so with some of the disciples of Pythagoras." The Mysteries were open to the Fideles or Faithful only; and no spectators were allowed at the communion. Tertullian, who died about AD 216, says in his Apology: "None are admitted to the religious Mysteries without an oath of secrecy. We appeal to our Thracian and Eleusinian Mysteries; and we are especially bound to this caution, because if we prove faithless, we should not only provoke Heaven, but draw upon our heads the utmost rigor of human displeasure. And should strangers betray us? They knew nothing but by report and hearsay. Far hence, ye Profane! Is the prohibition from all holy Mysteries." Clemens, Bishop of Alexandria, born about AD 191, says, in his Stromata, that he cannot explain the Mysteries, because he should thereby, according to the old proverb, put a sword into the hands of a child. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, was born in the year 315, and died in 386. In his Catechesis he says: "The Lord spake in parables to His hearers in general; but to His disciples He explained in private the parables and allegories which He spoke in public. The splendor of glory is for those who are early enlighted: obsurity and darkness are the portion of the unbelievers and ignorant. Just so the church discovers its Mysteries to those who have advanced beyond the class of Catechumens: we employ obscure terms with others. St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who was born in 347, and died in 430, says in one of his discourses: "Having dismissed the Catechumens, we have retained you only to be our hearers; because, besides those things which belong to all Christians in common, we are now to discourse to you of sublime Mysteries, which none are qualified to hear, but those who, by the Master's favour, are made partakers of them... To have taught them openly, would have been to betray them." St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine speaks of initiation more than fifty times. St. Ambrose writes to those who are initiated; and initiation was not merely baptism, or admission into the church, but it referred to initiation into the Mysteries.- Morals and Dogma, p.544-546. Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, was born in 354, and died in 417. He says: "I wish to speak openly: but I dare not, on account of those who are not initiated. I shall therefore avail myself of disguising terms, discoursing in a shadowy manner... Where the holy Mysteries are celebrated, we drive away all uninitiated persons, and then close the doors." He mentions the acclamations of the initiated: "which," he says, "I here pass over in silence; for it is forbidden to disclose such things to the Profane." St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was made Bishop in 412, and died in 444, says in his 7th Book against Julian: "These Mysteries are so profound and so exalted, that they can be comprehended by those only who are enlightened." - Morals and Dogma, p.542-546. compare with Matt.13:35; Is.45:19, 48:16; Amos 3:7; Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17, 11:33; John 7:4, 18:20 "The word 'miracle' is found, singular and plural, thirty-two times in the Authorized Version of the New Testament. Alas! What desolation has been wrought by the Revised! In twenty-three of these instances, the word 'miracle' has entirely disappeared. In the case of the other nine, although the term is used in the text, its force is robbed by a weakening substitute in the margin." - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, 1996. "In this connection we see the full meaning of the words used of creation in Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (the ages, i.e. the universe under the aspect of time) have been formed by the Word of God... The whole sequence of life in time, which we call 'the world' had been 'fitted together' by God. His one creative word included the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the last issues of all that was made. That which is in relation to Him 'one act at once' is in relation to us an evolution apprehended in orderly succession." - Westcott, Some Lessons, p.187. "The Douay is like the Revised. On this change R. George Milligan says: "Acts 16:7,... the striking reading, 'the Spirit of Jesus' (not simply as in the Authorized Version 'the Spirit') implies that the Holy Spirit had so taken possession of the Person of the Exalted Jesus that He could be spoken of as 'the Spirit of Jesus." - Milligan, Expository Value, p.99. One writer thus registers his indignation upon the change made in 1 Cor. 5:7: "Mad? Yes; and haven't I reason to be mad when I find that grand old passage, 'For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us' - a passage which sounds the keynote of the whole doctrine of redemption - unnecessarily changed into, 'For our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ'? And we have such changes everywhere. They are, I believe, called improvements in style by their authors - and certainly by no one else." - Rev. E.B. Birks in Dr. Warfield's Collection of Opinions, vol.2, p.30. Bishop Westcott himself states: "All the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him in penitential sorrow, and not, as the Authorized Version, shall wail because of Him, in the present expectation of terrible vegeance." - Westcott, Some Lessons, p.196. Dr. Alexander Roberts, a member of the English New Testament Committee writes on Acts 3:19,20: "Acts 3:19,20. An impossible translation here occurs in the Authorized Version, in which we read:... For eschatological reasons, it is most important that the true rendering of this passage should be presented. It is thus given in the Revised Version:..." - Roberts, Companion, p.80. "This passage [Acts 15:23] is used as a foundation on which to base an argument for a clergy separated by God in their function from the lay brethren. It makes a vast difference, in sending out this authoritative letter, from the first council of the Christian Church, whether it issued from the apostles and elders only, or issued from the apostles, elders, and the brethren. Here again to effect this change the Revisers omitted two Greek words." - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, 1996. "This name then of 'priest' and 'priesthood' properly so called, as St. Augustine saith, which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to His heavenly Father for us, to preach and minister the sacraments, and to be the pastors of the people, the wholly suppress their translations." - Fulke's Defense, p.242. Canon Farrar claims the change [in Heb.9:27] was deliberate: "Canon Farrar ought to know, because he was a member of that brilliant organization the "Apostles Club"...Farrar said on this change: "There is a positive certainty that it does not mean 'the judgment' in the sense in which that word is popularly understood. By abandoning the article which King James translators here incorrectly inserted, the Revisers help, as they have done in so many other places, silently to remove deep-seated errors. At the death of each of us there follows 'a judgment,' as the sacred writer says: the judgment, the final judgment, may not be for centuries to come. In the omission of that unauthorized little article from the Authorized Version by the Revisers, lies no less a doctrine than that of the existence of an Intermediate State." - Canon F.W. Farrar, Contemporary Review, March 1882. "For the text was one which, if rendered literally, no one could read without being convinced, or at least suspecting, that the 'fathers' already dead needed 'mercy'; and that 'the Lord God of Israel' was prepared 'to perform' it to them. But where were those fathers? Not in heaven, where mercy is swallowed up in joy. And assuredly not in the hell of the damned, where mercy could not reach them. They must therefore have been in a place between both, or neither the one nor the other. What? In Limbo or Purgatory? Why, certainly. In one or the other." - Mullen, Canon, p.332. Cardinal Wiseman exults that the Revision Movement vindicates the Catholic Bible: "When we consider the scorn cast by the Reformers upon the Vulgate, and their recurrence, in consequence, to the Greek, as the only accurate standard, we cannot but rejoice at the silent triumph which truth has at length gained over clamorous error. For, in fact, the principal writers who have avenged the Vulgate, and obtained for it its critical preeminence, are Protestants." "From the Very Rev. Thomas S. Preston, of St. Ann's (R.C.) Church of New York: 'The brief examination which I have been able to make of the Revised Version of the New Testament has convinced me that the Committee have labored with great sincerity and diligence, and that they have produced a translation much more correct than that generally received among Protestants. It is to us a gratification to find that in very many instances they have adopted the reading of the Catholic Version, and have thus by their scholarship confirmed the correctness of our Bible." - Dr. Warfield's Collection of Opinions, vol.2, p.21. A Catholic magazine claims that the Revised Version is the death knell of Protestantism: "On the 17th of May the English speaking world awoke to find that its Revised Bible had banished the Heavenly Witnesses and put the devil in the Lord's Prayer. Protests loud and deep went forth against the insertion: against the omission none. It is well, then, that the Heavenly Witnesses should depart whence their testimony is no longer received. The Jews have a legend that shortly before the destruction of their Temple, the Shechinah departed from the Holy of Holies, and the Sacred Voices were head saying, "Let us go hence." So perhaps it is to be with the English Bible, the Temple of Protestantism. The going forth of the Heavenly Witnesses is the sign of the beginning of the end. Lord Panmure's prediction may yet prove true - the New Version will be the death knell of Protestantism - Dublin Review (Catholic), July 1881. "The Revisers had a wonderful opportunity. They might have made a few changes and removed a few archaic expressions, and made the Authorized Version the most acceptable and beautiful and wonderful book of all time to come. But they wished ruthlessly to meddle. Some of them wanted to change doctrine. Some of them did not know good English literature when they saw it... There were enough modernists among the Revisers to change the words of Scripture itself so as to throw doubt on the Scripture." - Heal and Presbyter (Presbyterian), July 16, 1924, p.10. Rabbi Balfour Brickner of Temple Sinai, Washington: "I am delighted to know that at least this great error of translation has been finally corrected, and that at least some elements of the Christian world no longer officially maintain that Isaiah 7:14 is prediction that Jesus was to be born of the Virgin Mary." - "Which Bible Can We Trust", Les Garrett, p.49 A huge Bahai temple is on top of Mount Carmel. Both the Penteteuch was given by God at Sinai and another text was also found at Sinai (Sinaticus) that has been used for the modern corruptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 20, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2009 David Otis Fuller, D.D., says fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles. The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian and the churches of the Reformation. These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even enemies of the Received Text (Textus Recepticus) admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are of this class. - Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? Christian Centre Press, p.64. The original manuscripts came from Syria, Jerusalem where the Apostles preached. The Christians in northern Italy previously received their manuscripts from the middle east and not from Rome. This caused a problem between the Ostrogoths and Roma. These are claims that are made. What is the evidence to support it? I have read this before, but I need evidence. Do you make a distinction between the Majority Text and the Received Text, or Textus Receptus? Have you studied these things personally or are you just going by what you have read? Give me an example of an ancient Greek manuscript which you believe came out of Syria? The Ostrogoths were Arians. Did they have manuscripts that supported Arianism? What manuscripts did the Arian Ostrogoths prefer? Can you name a particular manuscript that came from the middle east and which the people of Northern Italy had? How do you trace it to them? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scar Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 What do you believe concerning 1 John 5: 7 as given in the KJV? Also John 5: 4? In your estimation, are these texts part of the original manuscripts as written by the apostle? 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. {8} And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (NIV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (ESV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (CEV) 7 In fact, there are three who tell about it. 8 They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree. (1901 ASV) 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. (HCSB) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood;and these three are in agreement (RSV) [7] And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. [8] There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. (NAB-Roman Catholic) 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. (NWT) 7 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement. (NKJV) Footnote - NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek. (The NKJV is a notorious version with their doubt casting footnotes which have the same devastating effect as if they just mutilated the text itself. Do you see they claim only 4 or 5 late manuscripts have the verse in them? We saw a lot more evidence than 4 or 5 which means they are deceiving their readers which means the NKJV also qualifies as a false version.) Textus Receptus 1 John 5:7 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiV en eisin 1 John 5:8 kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin Hort Westcott 1 John 5:7 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV 1 John 5:8 to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin Corrupted Manuscripts These verses are corrupted in the following manuscripts: Aleph - Sinaiticus - Fourth Century B - Sinaiticus - Fourth Century A - Alexandrinus - Fifth Century These three manuscripts are the primary manuscripts where 1 John 5:7-8 have been corrupted. There are many other later manuscripts which are ancillary to these three because they were copied from them. Like begets like and when you copy from a corrupted manuscripts the lineage of corruption will continue. 1 John 5:7-8 has been attacked by the pro modern version crowd as being a scribal addition later on in years. However, 1 John 5:7-8 is found in the Old Latin Vulgate and Greek Vulgate (90-150 A.D.), plus the Syriac Peshiito (150 A.D.) It is also found in many first century church lectionaries. Lectionaries were used in churches for readings and liturgy for church services especially for special days of the year. They are akin to the responsive readings which we find in today's hymn books. Tatian's Diatesseron which was a harmony of the four gospels written about 150 A.D. When Taitian was writing the book of John, he had referenced 1 John 5:7 which proves that 1 John 5:7 antedates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, by 200 years, where the verse is omitted. Dr. John Overall, who was one of the King James translators was a scholar in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. His contribution concerning 1 John 5:7 was vital since manuscript evidence was lacking because of the Alexandrian school where it was mutilated. He knew that the early church fathers had referenced those verses quite frequently. The modern version proponents only look to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as their authorities and reject the massive amount of other evidences such as the church lectionaries. If 1 John 5:7-8 did not exist in the originals, then how could they have been quoted by the church fathers if it was non-existent? A simple question of logic. Erasmus was a Greek scholar who was used of the Lord mightily as a precursor to the Reformation. He printed a Greek New Testament in 1516 and the Reformation took place in 1517. There is no such thing as a coincidence in the Kingdom of God, only a God-incident. Now Erasmus in reference to 1 John 5:7 originally did not want to include that portion unless a Greek manuscript could be found as evidence of its authenticity. He claimed that Greek manuscripts and even some Latin manuscripts did not have this verse in it. In due time Erasmus was presented with Codex Montfortianus which is in Dublin, Ireland and Codex Britannicus which both contained 1 John 5:7 and with this proof, he confidently placed these verses in his third edition of the Greek in 1522 and his last one in 1535. Erasmus died in 1536 but God had set the stage for the translation of the final true Bible in the English language which would be used of Christians until the Lord returned on the last day. Some of the other evidences where 1 John 5:7-8 can be found are as follows: Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan's Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible. Early Latin witnesses include: 1) Tertullian who died in 220 A.D. 2) Cyprian of Carthage who died in 258 A.D. 3) Priscillan who died in 358 A.D. 4) The Speculum - Fifth century 5) A creed called Esposito Fidei - Fifth or sixth century 6) Old Latin - Fifth or sixth century 7) A Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage (484 A.D.) 8) Cassiodoris of Italy (480-570 A.D.) Nine Manuscripts which contain 1 John 5:7-8: #61 - Sixteenth century #88 - Twelfth century #221 - Tenth century #429 - Fourteenth century #629 - Fourteenth century #535 - Eleventh century #636 - Fifteenth century #918 - Sixteenth century #2318 - Eighteenth century The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs. Affected Teachings The mutilation of 1 John 5:7-8 in the second century was an attack upon the Trinity. The rejection of the Trinity is alive and well today in the Jehovah's Witnesses camp and is alive and well in the modern versions which agree totally with their New World Translation. Trinitarian theology is totally disbelieved by the Gnostics and many cult groups including the Jews. For any Theologian, Pastor, or Christian to endorse a version which attacks the Trinity, means they too disbelieve the Trinity or else they would not be defending the Gnostic view. These verses are the most hotly contested by the modern version proponents simply because they disregard all the evidence that is available. This section of Scripture has been named the Johannine Comma. 1 John 5:7-8 is as much a part of the original autographs as Jesus Himself was. Therefore, we can claim these verses as authentic without hesitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 20, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2009 Have you read what the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary says about 1 John 5: 7? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 20, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2009 Please tell me: 1) How many Greek manuscripts of the NT exist? 2) How many Greek manuscripts dating to before the 10th century AD contain 1 John 5: 7 as given in the Textus Receptus? 3) Is it quoted by any of the Greek Fathers? If so, who are they? 4) What ancient version include it? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scar Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Originally Posted By: Scar David Otis Fuller, D.D., says fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles. The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian and the churches of the Reformation. These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even enemies of the Received Text (Textus Recepticus) admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are of this class. - Les Garrett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? Christian Centre Press, p.64. The original manuscripts came from Syria, Jerusalem where the Apostles preached. The Christians in northern Italy previously received their manuscripts from the middle east and not from Rome. This caused a problem between the Ostrogoths and Roma. These are claims that are made. What is the evidence to support it? I have read this before, but I need evidence. Do you make a distinction between the Majority Text and the Received Text, or Textus Receptus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 20, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2009 1 John 5:7-8 has been attacked by the pro modern version crowd as being a scribal addition later on in years. Would you say that the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (1957) is one of the pro modern version crowd who is telling untruths about the Bible? The SDA BC says that 1 John 5: 7 was not part of the original text. Based on my study of textual history the SDA BC had very good reason for saying what it did. I'm a conservative Seventh-day Adventist who believes strongly in all 28 of the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs and in the Spirit of Prophecy. I love and use the KJV, but enjoy using the other translations. I'm not against the KJV by any means. But I do believe in good scholarship and in dealing with the Bible texts according to valid scholarly principles of research. Quote: However, 1 John 5:7-8 is found in the Old Latin Vulgate and Greek Vulgate (90-150 A.D.), plus the Syriac Peshiito (150 A.D.) What is the oldest text of the Old Latin Vulgate in which it occurs? What "Greek Vulgate" manuscripts do you refer to? What is the oldest Greek manuscripts it occurs in? What manuscript from 80-150 AD contain it? Can you name it? All Greek manuscripts are numbered-- please give its number. Can you show evidence that it occurs in the Peshitta Syriac version? You say that it is in the Peshitta dating all the way back to 150 AD. What is the source of that information? Do you know the manuscript number? Quote: It is also found in many first century church lectionaries. Can you find out for sure if this true? What is the source of this information? The question is whether the line was being quoted as if from the Bible, because the simple fact that those words can be found in a church lectionary does not by itself prove that it was part of the Bible. If it was part of the NT manuscripts at that time, and was an accepted part of the churches' teachings, how do you account for our being unable to find any ancient Greek manuscripts containing those words? Quote: Tatian's Diatesseron which was a harmony of the four gospels written about 150 A.D. When Taitian was writing the book of John, he had referenced 1 John 5:7 which proves that 1 John 5:7 antedates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, by 200 years, where the verse is omitted. What is your evidence that Taitian referenced 1 John 5: 7 in 150 AD? What is the source of this information, and who are they quoting? Check out this information, none of which I have had time yet to verify: Quote: Trail of EvidenceBut during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse: 200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas 250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin) 350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.] 350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.] 350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione 398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism 415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ) 450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.] 500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.] 550 AD Old Latin ms r has it 550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.] 750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it 800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [it was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] 1000s AD miniscule 635 has it 1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin 1300s AD miniscule 629 has it 157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse 1500 AD ms 61 has the verse Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r. Source: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.