THE REASON THE NEWER BIBLES DIFFER FROM THE KJV IS DUE TO GNOSTIC CHANGES

[Justified]

I never expected I or anyone could claim proof of any manuscript being better than another because we dont have the originals.

But that is precisely what you're doing by continually arguing against modern versions and in favour of the KJV.

However we can exercise discernment as to which translation we deem reliable

We do this by examining if the translators are faithful to the Word if possible ******** [1 Corinthians 4:2 KJV] "Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful."

We examine if the translators were diligent in comparing verses from a variety of manuscripts to determine if they are in agreement

We examine how scriptures compare to each other to determine if verses are corrupted

Case in point. You're arguing here that some manuscripts are better than others.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The NIV and others uses the Alexandrian family of texts. These were texts I believe originated with Gnostics who manufactured them. They reflect their beliefs.
The compilers of the NIV decided to rely on this corrupt family of manuscripts

And you have evidence to back up your belief they were gnostic? The gnostics would not have copied the Scriptures as they were a very heretical group of people.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I can observe that there are omissions in the newer Bibles and after some research discover which Bible/manuscripts are the most reliable

I looked up Mark in the NIV and here is waht it said

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]​

Do you seriously think nothing of this? Thats a huge chunk of missing verses. I hardly think I would deem the NIV and their manuscripts reliable

See you scream at teh NIV people, but are more guilty of faulty hermeneutics than they are! The earliest manuscripts do not have them, much of teh works of the ante-nicene church fathers do not wriote of these verses, but you say they were there in the originals. What is your proof?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

We do have available a preponderous of copies including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

This is a bold face lie. The dead sea scrolls only have Isaiah and four other OT books. No NT books.

And as the other thread is closed- Erasmus used only 5 manuscripts. that was found on google within 4 seconds. But given yopur propensity to cite other horrendous sources for your "facts" this does not surpise me.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Alexandrian family was written by someone. Who is most likely? I am not inclined to delve into extrabiblical content to support my claims, I have been there. I did my research and am presenting my view, which you can reject. You can search for yourself to prove or disprove it. I contend it was either Gnostics who wrote, or had input into the writings of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts

And without presenting evidence all you are doing is blowing verbal methane. I am incline3d to believe you have no support for your claims.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Its all part and parcel to textual criticism. Dynamic equivalence allows an individual to subjectively tell us what the scripture means. What they believe and want it to say is contradictory to what God has said. Its not wanting what scripture says that leads also for choosing to use a manuscript that changes the Word of God

YOu are such an uneducated waif! You vomit out foolish statments that are untrue! You make claims then slink away when asked for proof.

No Translation is word for word exact. That is impossible.

I will give one example:

Heb 10:14
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

"perfected" is the perfect active indicative and is exact translation.

"sanctified" is the present passive participle and is mistranslated in the KJV.

This passage should read in English....."He has perfected once for all time, those who He is sanctifying.

 

[Justified]

More reliable

Which is the very same as saying better, without saying it.

 

[Justified]

I can observe that there are omissions in the newer Bibles and after some research discover which Bible/manuscripts are the most reliable

I looked up Mark in the NIV and here is waht it said

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]​

Do you seriously think nothing of this? Thats a huge chunk of missing verses. I hardly think I would deem the NIV and their manuscripts reliable

Again, you are fallaciously begging the question. You are assuming that those verses were in the autographs, the very autographs you admit we don't have, so we can't really know. And then you conclude the very thing you assumed. This is a serious error in reasoning on your part.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

All of the Alexandrian texts came out of Alexandria Egypt. Alexandria was an epicenter for Gnosticism.

Your extreme ignorance is astounding. Your arrogance in promoting your ignorance is even more so. The gnostics did not write any biblical manuscripts. they wrote their own .

1. 
   
   
   Did the Gnostics Write Their Own Biblical Manuscripts?
   Yes — the Gnostics did produce their own religious writings, but these were not the same as the New Testament “Bible” we know today. They created distinct scriptures in the 2nd–4th centuries AD that expressed their unique theological vision, often in the form of “Gnostic Gospels” and other treatises Christianity+1.
   

   What the Gnostics Wrote​

   The most famous surviving examples are found in the Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of 12 papyrus codices discovered in 1945 near Nag Hammadi, Egypt Wikipedia. These include works like:
   • Gospel of Thomas – a sayings gospel focusing on Jesus as a teacher of hidden wisdom.
   • Apocryphon of John – a mystical text with a different view of Jesus’ identity.
   • Gospel of Philip – containing teachings on spiritual knowledge and sacraments.
   • Gospel of Truth – attributed to Valentinus, emphasizing secret knowledge as the path to salvation Christianity.
   These writings were original compositions by Gnostic communities, not copies of the New Testament. They often used the names of apostles or other Christian figures to lend authority, but scholars generally agree that the texts were not authored by those figures Gnosticism Explained+1.
   

   Language and Format​

   Most Gnostic texts were originally written in Greek, the common language of early Christianity Gnosticism Explained. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts are in Coptic, a later translation. Many were treatises rather than narrative gospels, emphasizing esoteric teachings over historical biography.
   

   Relationship to the Bible​

   The Gnostics did not write “their own Bible” in the sense of a canon like the New Testament. They had no unified Gnostic canon, and their writings were rejected by the early Church as heretical Gnosticism Explained. However, they did produce independent religious manuscripts that circulated among Gnostic groups, often in monastic settings Wikipedia.
   In summary: The Gnostics did write their own religious manuscripts — the Gnostic Gospels and related treatises — which were distinct from the New Testament and reflect their unique theology. These works were preserved in collections like the Nag Hammadi Library and remain important for understanding early Christian diversity Wikipedia+2.
   Read less
   https://www.christianity.com/wiki/b...nd-why-werent-they-included-in-the-bible.html
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=62e6...leS1pbmNsdWRlZC1pbi10aGUtYmlibGUuaHRtbA&ntb=1

YOu are woefully ignorant and should not fancy yourself as anyone who can inform people of reality on this forum! You ahve been caught in lie after ad infinitum ad nauseum.


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8653...ub3JnL3dpa2kvTmFnX0hhbW1hZGlfbGlicmFyeQ&ntb=1






https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=1c13...jLWdvc3BlbHMtYXJlLXRoZXktYXV0aGVudGljLw&ntb=1



https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=1c13...jLWdvc3BlbHMtYXJlLXRoZXktYXV0aGVudGljLw&ntb=1

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So your ok With Mark 16:9-20 being removed?

Like
Dislike

Earliest Manuscript Evidence for Mark 16:9–20​

The earliest complete Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark that include Mark 16:9–20 date to the 5th century. The two oldest and most important manuscripts that omit the passage are Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360) and Codex Vaticanus (c. 325–350), both of which end at Mark 16:8 Bible Hub+1.

Earliest Witnesses with the Longer Ending​

• Codex Alexandrinus (~400–440) — includes the full longer ending Wikipedia.

You make me laugh!!! The only old manuscript that includes Mark 16:9-20 is one you provcalimed came from the gnostics!

 

[MonoBiblical]

Like
Dislike

Earliest Manuscript Evidence for Mark 16:9–20​

The earliest complete Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark that include Mark 16:9–20 date to the 5th century. The two oldest and most important manuscripts that omit the passage are Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360) and Codex Vaticanus (c. 325–350), both of which end at Mark 16:8 Bible Hub+1.

Earliest Witnesses with the Longer Ending​

• Codex Alexandrinus (~400–440) — includes the full longer ending Wikipedia.

You make me laugh!!! The only old manuscript that includes Mark 16:9-20 is one you provcalimed came from the gnostics!

All the given "witnesses" are not old and are pathetic. They are in Coptic script and copy Nag Hammadi script. The script has no accent marks or no consonantal Iota. They don't agree with each other most of the time either. It is like the scribes were trained on a printing press.

 

[rockytopva]

I would venture to say the Gnostics came out of Smyrnaean times...

1. Ephesus - Messianic Jewish Church
2. Smyrna - Oriental Orthodox - The Roman persecutions were ten
3. Pergamos - Greek Orthodox - Pergos... A tower... Needed in the dark ages
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Middle ages
5. Sardis - Protestant - A sardis is a gem... Beautiful,,, Not much spiritually
6. Philadelphia - Wesleyan - Too bad the revivals didn't last longer
7. Laodicean - Word of Faith - Rich and have need of nothing?

The ten persecutions...

"Ye shall have tribulation ten days..." - Revelation 2 :10

67 AD Nero The Smyrna Church Age begins with Nero setting fire to Rome, and then blaming the Christians
81 AD Domitian Declaration that no Christian should be exempt from punishment, Paul’s Timothy died in 97 AD.
108 AD Trajan and Adrian Severe persecution against Christians from 108 to 138 AD during the time of the Bishop Ignatius
162 AD Marcos Aurelius Marcos Aurelius, commendable in study of philosophy, sharp and fierce towards Christians.
192 AD Severus This persecution was carried out by the will and prejudice of the people and extended into Africa.
235 AD Maximus Numberless Christians were slain without trial and burned indiscriminately in heaps
249 AD Decius Began because of the amazing increase in Christianity, and with the heathen temples forsaken.
257 AD Valerian The martyrs that fell during this persecution were innumerable, their tortures and deaths painful.
274 AD Aurelian A brief persecution that ended with the emperor’s assassination.
303 AD Diocletian The last persecution ended with Constantine’s triumph against Rome in 313 AD

It is hard to tell all the teachings that came out of this church age. I would imagine a lot of truth mixed in with a lot of error. Having a Bible in hand these days is a good idea!

 

[Wick Stick]

This is bearing false witness. Read your quote from the preface again; you have gone much further here than what they actually state.

If that's what you think, then I don't think you understood what you read there.

Here is a quote from the 1984 NIV Preface:

"The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the through of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because through patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words."

Takes a bit of hubris to think you have the thought of every Biblical writer all the time.

Speaking of prefaces, let's look at the 1611 KJV preface, written by its translators:

"Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. . . . They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

The Translators to the Reader

Even the KJV translators weren't sure of the accuracy of some of what they translated due to notes in the margins. So why are so many of you more sure than they were?

I'm not in the King-James-Only camp. I'm not tearing down the NIV to prop up the KJV.

I'm tearing down the NIV because it's bad and deserves to be torn down.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Alexandrian mauscripts came out of Alexandria. Who wrote them?

Wasn't the Gnostics.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Alexandrian stream came out of Alexandria, but if not the Gnostics who do you say wrote them?

They remain unknown. Just some early writers. Remember though Alexandria was a big center for Gnostics, there were lots of Christians there as well.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

All the given "witnesses" are not old and are pathetic. They are in Coptic script and copy Nag Hammadi script. The script has no accent marks or no consonantal Iota. They don't agree with each other most of the time either. It is like the scribes were trained on a printing press.

If you are saying "iota", you are correct, because iota is a verb., most uncial have no accent marks.

And what "witnesses" are you referring to that are pathetic.

Are you saying that the alexandrian, Sinaitcus and Vaticanus MSS NTs disagree with each other most of the time?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I would venture to say the Gnostics came out of Smyrnaean times...

1. Ephesus - Messianic Jewish Church
2. Smyrna - Oriental Orthodox - The Roman persecutions were ten
3. Pergamos - Greek Orthodox - Pergos... A tower... Needed in the dark ages
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Middle ages
5. Sardis - Protestant - A sardis is a gem... Beautiful,,, Not much spiritually
6. Philadelphia - Wesleyan - Too bad the revivals didn't last longer
7. Laodicean - Word of Faith - Rich and have need of nothing?

The ten persecutions...

"Ye shall have tribulation ten days..." - Revelation 2 :10

67 AD Nero The Smyrna Church Age begins with Nero setting fire to Rome, and then blaming the Christians
81 AD Domitian Declaration that no Christian should be exempt from punishment, Paul’s Timothy died in 97 AD.
108 AD Trajan and Adrian Severe persecution against Christians from 108 to 138 AD during the time of the Bishop Ignatius
162 AD Marcos Aurelius Marcos Aurelius, commendable in study of philosophy, sharp and fierce towards Christians.
192 AD Severus This persecution was carried out by the will and prejudice of the people and extended into Africa.
235 AD Maximus Numberless Christians were slain without trial and burned indiscriminately in heaps
249 AD Decius Began because of the amazing increase in Christianity, and with the heathen temples forsaken.
257 AD Valerian The martyrs that fell during this persecution were innumerable, their tortures and deaths painful.
274 AD Aurelian A brief persecution that ended with the emperor’s assassination.
303 AD Diocletian The last persecution ended with Constantine’s triumph against Rome in 313 AD

It is hard to tell all the teachings that came out of this church age. I would imagine a lot of truth mixed in with a lot of error. Having a Bible in hand these days is a good idea!

Laodicea is not rich in faith Rocky, Jesus said they were naked poor and blind! Also they were luke warm and god is going to spew them out of His mouth if they do not repent. That perfectly describes this time in the church age. so many "professing churches are apostate and lukewarm.

 

[MonoBiblical]

If you are saying "iota", you are correct, because iota is a verb., most uncial have no accent marks.

Proof that the cursives are older. Consonantal iota doesn't not exist in the Coptic script.

And what "witnesses" are you referring to that are pathetic.

The Papyri and Codices which have the Coptic script.

Are you saying that the alexandrian, Sinaitcus and Vaticanus MSS NTs disagree with each other most of the time?

Yes. But where is the radiocarbon dating.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I just thought of another factor. These texts arent duplicates. Each Gnostic sect had their own doctrines which were reflected in their texts. Sects concentrated on certain books of the Bible as well

Try 19th century liberal heretics.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Proof that the cursives are older. Consonantal iota doesn't not exist in the Coptic script.

The Papyri and Codices which have the Coptic script.

Yes. But where is the radiocarbon dating.

1. Sorry but the cursives are younger and are very very limited. Cursive writing was mostly for everyday use and not copying large mss.

2.Wrong again. there are only a few ancinet coptic mss and they date concurrent with koine mss.

3. Unless the parchment written on or the ink was organic material C-14 dating is impossible.