Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[reformed1689]

That this Bible was considered to be the sole English Bible for over 300 years speaks for itself.

That wasn't because of the translation itself, that was because of the Crown.

 

[reformed1689]

The reason why Christians today in the 21st century should continue with this translation is very simple -- all modern Bible versions in English since 1881 have been corrupted, because they used corrupted Hebrew and Greek texts (known as *critical texts*).

And how do you figure those texts are corrupted? This is the ignorant and asinine arguments used by KJVO nutjobs.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

Interesting! Never noticed that Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (to name two biggies) do not have the clause "has come in the flesh." This is likely a later addition, but a good one in this instance, intended to specify with greater detail exactly which Jesus the spirits are referring to when they speak of "Jesus."

 

[reformed1689]

Interesting! Never noticed that Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (to name two biggies) do not have the clause "has come in the flesh." This is likely a later addition, but a good one in this instance, intended to specify with greater detail exactly which Jesus the spirits are referring to when they speak of "Jesus."

You think it is good to add to Scripture??

 

[Hidden In Him]

What these people never tell you (perhaps they don't actually read the whole of the modern version) is that the 'missing' bit is still there - in the verse before!
"This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." (I John 4:2, NIV)
The NIV doesn't diminish Christ's deity in any way; it upholds it.

Aha! And just when I was starting to put a little more faith in textual additions, LoL.

Thanks for posting this, sister. I'm a little ashamed of myself for not reading the surrounding context first.

 

[Hidden In Him]

You think it is good to add to Scripture??

I take the position that if an addition witnesses to the Spirit within me, I have no problem with it. Creates problems with those for whom it does NOT witness, of course, but then that's just another thing that is left up to interpretation, which comes into play even in verses where no additions are used.

In the end, it always comes down to interpretation anyway, and additions to the text reflect and clarify particular interpretations. One either agrees with those interpretations and sees no problems with them, or they do not.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Wrong. How could a verse be quoted a hundred years BEFORE the Alexandrian manuscripts were created. They were subtracted.

Well that's interesting... what source quoted the Receptus reading 100 years before Alexandrinus was written?

 

[101G]

LORD does not mean Father in the translations that use all caps for Lord. And "Lord" does not equal son. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

(smile) so you're saying that the "LORD" and the "Lord" is the title of the same person? yes or no?

PICJAG

 

[reformed1689]

(smile) so you're saying that the "LORD" and the "Lord" is the title of the same person? yes or no?

PICJAG

I'm saying that your argument is stupid and not reality. You need to study as to WHY the REAL REASON for all caps on LORD exists in some translations. It has nothing to do with the three persons of the Trinity. It has to do with when certain names of God are used.

 

[Episkopos]

And this is about the most ridiculous thing I have heard. And it also shows you do not believe Scripture is sufficient. How dare you?!

The all-sufficiency of a book? How dare you elevate the bible over God and His presence. I see you that ridiculous reaction and raise that to an even more ridiculous level.

 

[101G]

I'm saying that your argument is stupid and not reality. You need to study as to WHY the REAL REASON for all caps on LORD exists in some translations. It has nothing to do with the three persons of the Trinity. It has to do with when certain names of God are used.

since this topice states, "Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions", well modern version use the title "LORD" and "Lord". when making doctrine, the title must match the doctrine. if a translation uses the titles "Son" and "Father" and apply the titles "Lord" and "LORD" to the Son and to the Father, and a Doctrine say the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father then the translation must say this. is this not correct? so I ask is the title "LORD" and "Lord" separate person are the same person.

or would you mind telling us who is speaking in Zechariah 12:10 and who is he "SPEAKING ABOUT". is it the LORD, and or the Lord? that's a reasonable question

PICJAG,

 

[Truther]

He most certainly did. He also taught the KJV corrected the Greek, was double inspired.

Baloney. There are several ways of translating each book and still retain the intentions of God and His word.

So, it's only the Word of God in the Queen's English in the 1611?

As far as the authentic/Divinely inspired English translation of the word of God?

Absolutely.

 

[101G]

As far as the authentic/Divinely inspired English translation of the word of God?

Absolutely.

I wouldn't Go that far with the 1611 (kjv), for the pen of the scribs tried to corrupt it. but as said, it have a built in self correcting mechanism.

PICJAG

 

[CharismaticLady]

Well that's interesting... what source quoted the Receptus reading 100 years before Alexandrinus was written?

Both Tertullian and Cyprian in the 200's.

 

[Enoch111]

Interesting! Never noticed that Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (to name two biggies) do not have the clause "has come in the flesh." This is likely a later addition

You have assumed that two of the MOST CORRUPT manuscripts are the best and therefore additions have been made. But the opposite is true. There have been deliberate omissions in the corrupt manuscripts not once but hundreds of times.

Christians should know that the so-called scholars and critics have been promoting A HOAX since the 19th century. They have deliberately cast the most corrupt manuscripts as the best, and the best as the worst. So people should educate themselves by reading the extensive works of Burgon and Scrivener (as well as several others).

 

[Truther]

I wouldn't Go that far with the 1611 (kjv), for the pen of the scribs tried to corrupt it. but as said, it have a built in self correcting mechanism.

PICJAG

It is not corrupt, but uniquely non doctrinal. The modern versions are pro doctrinal per the translators preference

 

[101G]

It is not corrupt, but uniquely non doctrinal. The modern versions are pro doctrinal per the translators preference

Well not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this. Exodus 6:3 "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them”.

Ok God said, Abraham didn’t know him by the name “Jehovah” right. Now this, Genesis 22:13 "And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Genesis 22:14 "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen”

Ok, how did the name Jehovah get into Abraham mouth then? Because God said, “but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them”. now who is lying? God the Spirit, or the written record of the KJV 1611?

but as I said, the KJV 1611 have a built in correcting mechanism, so if the pen of scribs try to corrupt it, it will testify to the TRUTH.

so here we have Exodus written after Genesis, surely the translators should have known better.

PICJAG.

 

[Netchaplain]

Though all versions contain Christ's incarnation in 2Jhn 1:7, it is no less a change in the Word if it doesn't always appear when it supposed to be present, which still an omission of the Word; and there are thousands of omissions in the Minority Text of nearly all modern translations. The Minority Text (as opposed to the Majority Text) was written by Gnostics who were generally involved with Greek philosophy and often entered admixture to it with the Word.

The Minority Text contains much less manuscript copy evidence than the Majority Text, because early scribes and copiers would destroy them; and the reason why they are the oldest copies is because they did not ware out from much copying, for they were always rejected because they were mostly inconsistent with the majority of extant copies in content and doctrine, which did ware out from much copying!

One check in the OT and NT Bibles will reveal of which Text (Minority or Majority) the version is translated. 2Sam 21:19 reads that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath. This is an error in the Hebrew copies because somehow it was not included in any copies, but the Minority adherents left it as it is found instead of correcting it to parallel the correct reading in the 1Chron 20:5 re-accounting.

1Jhn 5:7 is omitted, and thousands others in the NT, and nearly address the deity of Christ! There are quite a few good books that reveal this with evidence.

 

[reformed1689]

since this topice states, "Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions", well modern version use the title "LORD" and "Lord". when making doctrine, the title must match the doctrine. if a translation uses the titles "Son" and "Father" and apply the titles "Lord" and "LORD" to the Son and to the Father, and a Doctrine say the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father then the translation must say this. is this not correct? so I ask is the title "LORD" and "Lord" separate person are the same person.

or would you mind telling us who is speaking in Zechariah 12:10 and who is he "SPEAKING ABOUT". is it the LORD, and or the Lord? that's a reasonable question

PICJAG,

My point is that you are wrong to even think that is what the distinctions in the way the word Lord is written. That is NOT the distinction they are making. You really need to do your research because you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

 

[reformed1689]

The all-sufficiency of a book? How dare you elevate the bible over God and His presence. I see you that ridiculous reaction and raise that to an even more ridiculous level.

It is not just a book, it is the WORD OF GOD. How dare you call it "just a book"