Bible Problem

[Davy]

I enjoy the ESV Bible due to its ease of reading. However, when reading the New Testament, I often check their verses against the Concordant Literal New Testament, which can be found online here:

Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern

www.concordant.org

Let's see, Ease of Reading vs. Reading The Actual Truth, hmm...., I'll choose the latter.

 

[Davy]

But it has helped people come faith for the last 400 yrs.. It is the Bible of choice for every preacher in the great revival of the 1800's. It was the bible of choice in 2 world wars. The NKJV and ESV are close to each other.

Those who argue in support of the modern Bible versions (like the ESV, NIV, etc.), which instead used the post 1880's 'Critical text', eventually try to bring up the idea of 'KJV only' in their attempt to downplay the Greek Majority text which the KJV used.

The real fact is that all previous Bible translations prior to the 1800's used the Greek Majority text, even back to the early Christian Church. And there were many. So the 1611 KJV translation was only one of many that used the Greek Majority text (called Majority text because it makes up the majority of existing Greek New Testament manuscripts).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think we either have Bibles with missing Scripture, or we don't. Thus, one of the differing manuscript sources (only 2 primary sources--the Majority Text or the Minority Text) are grievously in error; and why not, Satan has to attack the written Word to attemt to get to the living Word.

Well given the fact that the "omitted verses" do not harm doctrine at all, which is the main reason we study, it is more an argument that is a tempest in a teapot.

I will stay more concerned with the dynamics and paraphrase which actually alter doctrine. when missing verses destroy biblical doctrine then it becomes an issue. Other than that I am not worried too much if 1 JOhn 5 does not appear in many manuscripts.

 

[Jack]

Let's see, Ease of Reading vs. Reading The Actual Truth, hmm...., I'll choose the latter.

Patrick loves picking out parts of the Bible he likes and totally ignoring the rest. Judgment Day isn't looking good for Patrick.

Revelation 22
19 If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life,

 

[Netchaplain]

I will stay more concerned with the dynamics and paraphrase which actually alter doctrine.

There are hundreds of altered passages, words and phrases that do not give the same meaning as the Traditional Text. A good example is "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:6).

Its language states that Christ did not consider it stealing from God when He considered being equal with Him.

All the modern translations have "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

Here, its saying that Jesus did not want to use the advantage of being equal with God, when there is no reason to think this is what it means. It's actually the opposite of one another. One says He considered being equal with God; and the other, that He did not desire using the advantage of being equal with God.

There are hundreds of this type of "interpolation" (adding Scripture thought).

Another example of interpolating Scripture is Luk 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

All the modern versions have, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (or "peace on earth to people he favors").

I could show you probably more than you would care to see.

Wanted to let you know I appreciate your replies while we are seeking the truth about this issue. God bless!

when missing verses destroy biblical doctrine then it becomes an issue. Other than that I am not worried too much if 1 JOhn 5 does not appear in many manuscripts.

The missing Scriptures are often reiterations for encouragement. But the worse is not reading "every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4)

 

[Jack]

There are hundreds of altered passages, words and phrases that do not give the same meaning as the Traditional Text. A good example is "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:6).

Its language states that Christ did not consider it stealing from God when He considered being equal with Him.

All the modern translations have "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

Here, its saying that Jesus did not want to use the advantage of being equal with God, when there is no reason to think this is what it means. It's actually the opposite of one another. One says He considered being equal with God; and the other, that He did not desire using the advantage of being equal with God.

There are hundreds of this type of "interpolation" (adding Scripture thought).

Another example of interpolating Scripture is Luk 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

All the modern versions have, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (or "peace on earth to people he favors").

I could show you probably more than you would care to see.

Wanted to let you know I appreciate your replies while we are seeking the truth about this issue. God bless!



The missing Scriptures are often reiterations for encouragement. But the worse is not reading "every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4)

All Bibles I know of insist that Jesus is God.

John 20 Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God".

 

[Netchaplain]

All Bibles I know of insist that Jesus is God.

John 20 Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God".

All the modern translations are missing much of the Word of God. I think that should mean a lot to a Christian (Mat 4:4), but something is awry with many. Probably due to being "babes Christ" (1Co 3:1), and still a bit "carnal" (v 3); but they will definitely grow to maturity (Phl 2:13).

​

 

[Jack]

All the modern translations are missing much of the Word of God. I think that should mean a lot to a Christian (Mat 4:4), but something is awry with many. Probably due to being "babes Christ" (1Co 3:1), and still a bit "carnal" (v 3); but they will definitely grow to maturity (Phl 2:13).

​

What does that have to do with John 20? John 20 isn't missing. I think your agenda is showing. Do you also deny the eternal Hell fire?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

There are hundreds of altered passages, words and phrases that do not give the same meaning as the Traditional Text. A good example is "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:6).

Its language states that Christ did not consider it stealing from God when He considered being equal with Him.

All the modern translations have "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

Here, its saying that Jesus did not want to use the advantage of being equal with God, when there is no reason to think this is what it means. It's actually the opposite of one another. One says He considered being equal with God; and the other, that He did not desire using the advantage of being equal with God.

I get this may be another ignorant thing I say. But I don’t see those two translations opposite of one another but instead the way we view and most often enforce His being equal to God is what is opposite.

I can’t prove it but to me His thinking it not as robbery to be equal to God. Means when He said “not my will, but Your Will be done Father.” “It is not robbery”. How He counted to be made like unto one among you as One who serves as not robbery of his image but glorifying His Heavenly, the image of God who is humble and patient, and easily intreated, first pure and kind and full of mercy. A comforter to those who need comfort. A Father to the fatherless. Strength to those who have no strength. God who does all things for our sake and not His own that we be partakers of His Divine Nature. We are instructed what His Divine Nature is …don’t be as those who love the best seats over others as lords over the heritage of God …but instead be you as those who serve. You said: All the modern translations have "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
So instead He considered equality with God something to use to his own advantage? Where? Where is that His Nature …using equality with His Father for his own advantage?

Is there any reason whatsoever to think the nature of God, equality with God…is something to be used to his own advantage? Did Jesus Christ use the nature of God …equality to God..to his advantage? No. For our advantage He was made (become)weak, so that we be made (become) strong. For our advantage He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh to put away sin in the flesh. Paul said it countless times that the Spirit entrusted unto Paul was not for his own taking advantage of the body (warning against “using the Spirit of God for own advantage” but always instead “for you”. For “your edification”, “you’re building up in Christ.” Which is the Nature of God. This is laid out in “you have had fathers after the flesh that correct you after their own desires” But God corrects for our profit.” Why do we claim it is against God’s Nature to say Jesus Christ did not think equality with God was something to use for his advantage? When that is totally not against God’s Nature. Another passage that supports his not taking advantage of “equal unto” or “as the Nature of God” is if the Master has suffered then so does the servant suffer as His Master, equality, equal unto …all in the context of being “alike” not the servant above his master but “as” His Master, Father. Why does He think it isn’t robbery to be like His Father? For the Joy set before Him …He did not consider it thievery to be Christ. When the thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy …there was no offense in “I must Go” even rebuking Peter who tried to prevent Him from Going to the cross. Paul is another example of not using the message of God to his own advantage, seeing it Not as robbery but “I count it all dung that is loss that I may win Christ” “not being found in Him having my own righteousness but The Righteousness of Christ.”

You said: Here, it’s saying that Jesus did not want to use the advantage of being equal with God, when there is no reason to think this is what it means.
^Really? “The doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me, the Doctrine belongs to Him. If any speaks of himself you will know it is not true, for he speaks of himself” …his own advantage. This should be well seen in seeking your own advantage or not abusing the word of God for your own advantage.

You said: It's actually the opposite of one another. (No WE enforce it is the opposite of He didn’t desire to use equality with God for his own advantage). Saying that sounds like stealing from God, robbery from God to suggest His nature is to not desire to use it for his own advantage. That sounds weak. Where is His Power, His Authority in not using equality with God for his own advantage? Go talk to Benny Hinn or some prosperity teachers. They might agree it is robbery to even consider it wasn’t for his own advantage.

You said: One says He considered being equal with God; and the other, that He did not desire using the advantage of being equal with God.
…show where He desired to use being equal to God, His Father, to his advantage. If you can then what is the Nature of God? Are we still stuck there in “Give unto us a Lion! We do not want nor desire a Lamb!” Suggesting it is in opposition to the Nature of God to not desire it for his advantage but for the profit of others where Christ said “I am lowly and of a humble Spirit” is to say (Imo) one version says Christ is equal to God In authority and Lordship to His advantage like a Lion who is King! The other version presents a humble submissive Lamb not after His own advantage but instead seeking after the advantage of others therefore Glorifying His Father and not himself in being made like unto —equal—to God. Not like satan who very much took it and ran desiring to be better than God. Above God in for satans own advantage and certainly not for others or us.

That is just one text we say is poorly translated because something is lost. What is lost? Saying it is wrong that He didn’t see being equal with God as something to use for his own advantage? Hmm…our desire to use it for our own advantage? We consider that robbery. Something stolen, robbery, removed, or taken out from by the translation “He did not see being equal unto God as something to use for his own advantage.” What was lost in this modern translation that we say is in error? I guess I’m really struggling with why this is in error : “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

All the modern translations have "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

This sentence is why I have a hard time taking you seriously. I checked 38 English translations and only 4 used this language. Your penchant for over exaggeration does you poorly.

and while this is a dynamic translation and not a literal translation, if you spend a few minutes thinking on it, it does no harm to the passage. Jesus did not use His equality to His own advantage. He used it for others, not himself.

 

[Netchaplain]

This sentence is why I have a hard time taking you seriously. I checked 38 English translations and only 4 used this language. Your penchant for over exaggeration does you poorly.

Not sure what versions you're talking about, but 10 of the most popular modern translations interpolated it.

NLT
NIV
ESV
CSB
NASB20
NASB95
LSB
NET
RSV
ASV

The omissions are the worse offense, but interpolating and transposing result in a different meaning and thought; of which there are many.

 

[Netchaplain]

I get this may be another ignorant thing I say. But I don’t see those two translations opposite of one another but instead the way we view and most often enforce His being equal to God is what is opposite.

I can’t prove it but to me His thinking it not as robbery to be equal to God.

But the interpolation says something that is not even in character. Saying that He did not consider it an advantage to be grasped has nothing to do with the text. No idea where that cam from. It's a scholar's fancy and whim!

 

[Netchaplain]

What does that have to do with John 20? John 20 isn't missing. I think your agenda is showing. Do you also deny the eternal Hell fire?

What does what have to do with Jn 20?

 

[Jack]

What does what have to do with Jn 20?

Are you denying that Jesus is God the Creator?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

But the interpolation says something that is not even in character. Saying that He did not consider it an advantage to be grasped has nothing to do with the text. No idea where that cam from. It's a scholar's fancy and whim!

To me it is in His Character. He did not consider it an advantage to be grasped…what follows should clarify “but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant…can’t deny this.

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” error then?

 

[Netchaplain]

To me it is in His Character. He did not consider it an advantage to be grasped…

No reason for this thought to even be there!

 

[Netchaplain]

Are you denying that Jesus is God the Creator?

What verse are you referring to!

 

[Jack]

What verse are you referring to!

Yes or no? My question is simple. Do you believe that Jesus is God the Creator?

 

[Netchaplain]

Yes or no? My question is simple. Do you believe that Jesus is God the Creator?

Defiantly yes! The Father used His Son to create everything, thus God is the Creator, He just used Jesus to do it! But all the modern translations omit it in Ehp 3:9. It's suppose to say "God Who created all things through Jesus Christ." It's another passage of Christ's creative powers, but they won't be reiterating that one! There are quite a few omission that detracts from the reiterations of the Lord Jesus Deity.

Another serious omitted reiteration of Christ's Deity is the reveling of His omnipresence. Jhn 3:13 suppose to say, "the Son of man who is in heaven." It shows He is in heaven and earth simultaneously. All the modern translation omit this entire phrase. There are many of such omitions.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

No reason for this thought to even be there!

not that it matters but my mother is 92 and she taught me something the other day that I will never forget. To me it was a valuable lesson. We were sitting outside, her on the swing under her porch. The sweat was pouring off me. While my mother had a jacket on.

I asked her, “can we go inside, mom? I’m smothering….it is too hot.”

She kept swinging, simply asserting, “It is not hot.”

We started this back and forth. My, “mom, I’m hot. See, I’m sweating the heat is so bad.”

She shook her head over and over, saying, “I don’t know what is wrong with you, but it is not hot.”

I’m sweating horribly. her in her jacket saying “it feels cool.”
Finally I stopped. Realizing from her perspective of 92 …she was fully convinced, her perspective was …jacket and all … “It is NOT hot. It IS cool.”
From my 54 years perspective and menopausal “I’m dying here…It is so hot I can’t breathe!”

Point is. Just because you tell me you are a hundred percent right from your perspective. I get it. But that does not mean I do not have a perspective also. I thought a lot about that exchange with my mom. For starters I got agitated trying to force her to agree with me and to agree that it is hot. But she sincerely being 92, her perspective remained different. And no matter how much I tried to force my perspective onto her…it didn’t change her “it is cool, and not hot.”

I thought about it …trying to communicate with others here on this board or about God’s word. And sometimes the exchanges are just like the exchange with my mother. “It is hot.” “No, it is cool.”