A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT THE NEW BIBLES

Doug · Apr 7, 2026

I don't have a deep extensive knowledge of the origins of the Bible. I have delved into the Alexandrian family of Biblical manuscripts. This family consists of the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, and the Alexandrinus texts. These manuscript's came out of Alexandria Egypt, which was an epicenter of Gnosticism. These manuscripts were used to create the newer Bibles. I believe they were coopted to counter belief in scripture alone as the basis of faith and practice. These manuscripts along with higher textual criticism cast doubt as to whether we have the Word of God, or not. You have a will and can continue to use and defend these newer Bibles, but you might want to consider if contributing to their popularity, along with under minding the KJV furthers their aims.

Paul said there were letters circulating purported to be from him. ( 2 Thessalonians 2:2) so forgeries are nothing new for scripture.
There were Gnostics in Alexandria, Egypt,
These Gnostics may have created the Alexandrian manuscripts (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus/Alexandrinus)
The Catholic church in Rome placed the Vaticanus in the Vatican library to make it available to scholars and the public
The reformation promoted scripture only for faith and practice, which eroded the authority of the Catholic church.
Textual criticism further eroded confidence in the Bible. Catholic priests were instrumental in fostering Biblical criticism. Richard Simon was a Catholic priest in the 17th century and was called one of the fathers of textual criticism.
Catholic priests were involved in some of the new Bible translation committees
Ecumenical movements continue to erode the exclusivity of scripture, and the KJV in particular.

[Romans 10:17 KJV] "So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." ********** Some knew if you take away the Word you take away faith

rockytopva · Apr 7, 2026

We are all into studying the word of God together. Along with all the pros and cons as to the interpretations. Even the Book of Enoch as to the whys and why nots it was not included in the European versions. I would think there are many lost Old Testament Books as well.

Wick Stick · Apr 7, 2026

Doug said:
I believe they were coopted to counter belief in scripture alone as the basis of faith and practice.

That doesn't make much sense. Sola Scriptura wasn't even proposed til the 16th century.

You want me to believe that translators who lived a thousand years before that were trying to undermine that idea?

Rockerduck · Apr 7, 2026

Ask God like I did. He told me to use the 1977 NASB.

Behold · Apr 7, 2026

Rockerduck said:
Ask God like I did. He told me to use the 1977 NASB.

Your particular unfortunate version mistranslated "God" as "he".......in 1 Tim 3:16.

So, this means that the revelation of the "TRINITY" is lost in your version's verse., and God would not want that hidden. lost, or removed.

Your version also classifies God's Holy Spirit as no different then an unclean spirit, and no different then the Devil's spirit, in John 4:24, when it says that "God is spirit"
Most of the New Bibles are exaclty the same, which is one of the reasons that most of them are JUNK.
So, your horrible NASB does not capitalize "spirit" when it wrongly teaches that "God is spirit".
So, that is not just a mistake or a mistranslation, that is a spiritual issue with this particular version and with those who created it.

Consider now for example the : KJV.......which teaches the verse correctly as : God is "A" Spirit"....so, in this version, God's OWN Spirit is shown to be the "Holy Spirit", by Capitalization, vs just "spirit" as your bible @Rockerduck wrongly declares...., as if God's Spirit is no different then what you find as a demon's unclean spirit.

So, my advice, is that you pray about that horrible "bible version"some more, and perhaps the real "God" will help you with your long standing mistake.
You should really get this worked out.
Or, if you just dont want to care, then you have that option also.
You get to choose and today is the day.

Rockerduck · Apr 7, 2026

Behold said:
Your particular unfortunate version mistranslated "God" as "he".......in 1 Tim 3:16.

So, this means that the revelation of the "TRINITY" is lost in your version., and God would not want that hidden. lost, or removed.

Your version also classifies God's Holy Spirit as no different then an unclean spirit, and no different then the Devil's spirit, in John 4:24, when it says that "God is spirit"
So, this horrible "bible" does not capitalize "spirit" when it wrongly teaches that "God is spirit".
So, that is not just a mistake or a mistranslation, that is a spiritual issue with this particular version and with those who created it.

Consider for example the KJV.......which teaches that God is "A" Spirit"....so, in this version, God's OWN Spirit is shown to be the "Holy Spirit", by Capitalization, vs just "spirit" as your bible @Rockerduck wrongly declares...., as if God's Spirit is no different then what you find in a demon.

So, my advice, is that you pray about that "bible "some more, and perhaps the real "God" will help you with your mistake.

I'll follow Christ, not you. The Holy Spirit made it very clear to not use the KJV I was using.

PS95 · Apr 7, 2026

Doug said:
Dont you think everyone having a different Bible with different scripture fosters divisiveness? A lot of time is spent on justifying which translation of a verse is right and not exegesis

No I don't. they are not that different. But I do think that you, Doug are the KING of attempting to cause divisions.

Wick Stick · Apr 7, 2026

Doug said:
I am not talking about the reformation, but when scripture started to circulate.

Sola Scriptura wasn't an idea back then. Authority within the church was invested in apostles first, and then bishops.

It is frequent within the early writings of the church for someone to seek to undermine a certain PERSON, but not THE BIBLE, which wasn't really canonized til the late 3rd or 4th century

Behold · Apr 7, 2026

Rockerduck said:
I'll follow Christ, not you. The Holy Spirit made it very clear to not use the KJV I was using.

Actually that's not what you originally wrote, but you are allowed to rewrite a post and change it anyway you like @Rockerduck .

I showed you 2 verses from your false bible that concluded that its anti-God, and as i told you, "you dont have to care" and of course, as i expected of you....... you dont.

Also, whatever voice you heard in the room or inside your own head that you claim told you not to use a KJV, is not the Holy Spirit.
And the more you chant your KJV dislike, the more you reveal yourself as a deceived person, exactly as you did the last time you got on your :
""" "i was told not to use the KJV" rant.
And the next time you get on this same dead horse rant..... it will only prove the same.

Wick Stick · Apr 7, 2026

Doug said:
Paul said there were letters circulating purported to be from him. ( 2Thess 2"2) so forgeries are nothing new for scripture.

Pseudepigraphs don't try to undermine Scriptural authority. They try to co-opt its authority for themselves.

Doug said:
There were Gnostics in Alexandria.

Yes.

Doug said:
These Gnostics may have created the Alexandrian manuscripts (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus/Alexandrinus)

Unlikely. Where these manuscripts diverge from orthodoxy, they don't promote core gnostic ideas. The issue is a defective Christology.

Doug said:
The reformation came along and promoted scripture only for faith and practice, which eroded the authority of the Catholic church.
The church in Rome placed the Vaticanus in the Vatican library to make it available to scholars and the public

You have these chronologically backwards. Codex Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican Library BEFORE the Reformation started.

Doug said:
Textual criticism further eroded confidence in the Bible. Catholic priests were instrumental in this.

Textual criticism of the Bible didn't enter the mainstream until the 19th century, in Germany. You seem to be missing a few centuries.

Doug said:
Catholic priests were involved in some of the new Bible translation committees

The Catholic church vehemently opposed the translation of the Bible into English, German, etc, for centuries. When they finally relented, they were NOT involved in many translation committees, but instead sought to create a single standard Bible for themselves. In English, that's the Douay Rheims Bible.

Doug said:
Ecumenical movements continue

Yes, and the Catholic church is going along with them. It was not always so.

Rockerduck · Apr 7, 2026

Behold said:
Actually that's not what you originally wrote, but you are allowed to rewrite a post and change it anyway you like @Rockerduck .

I showed you 2 verses from your false bible that concluded that its anti-God, and as i told you, "you dont have to care" and of course, as i expected of you....... you dont.

Also, whatever voice you heard in the room or inside your own head that you claim told you not to use a KJV, is not the Holy Spirit.
And the more you chant your KJV dislike, the more you reveal yourself as a deceived person, exactly as you did the last time you got on your :
""" "i was told not to use the KJV" rant.
And the next time you get on this same dead horse rant..... it will only prove the same.

Okay I see the 1977 doing a better job than the KJV.

1 Timothy 3:16 -1977 NASB -He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit.

I see no problem here. He is capitalized and so is Spirit. I think anybody reading this knows what this verse talks about.

John 4:24- 1977 NASB -God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

John 4:24 - KJV - God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must must worship him in spirit and truth,
Notice how him is not capitalized and spirit is not capitalized at the end.

So you don't believe the Holy Spirit speaks, therefore you are speaking from a sin nature of man, listening to the devil saying the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to His chosen. good luck in you prayers tonight.

Lambano · Apr 8, 2026

Behold said:
Your particular unfortunate version mistranslated "God" as "he".......in 1 Tim 3:16.

And once again, we let our theology determine our "bible" rather than letting the bible determining our theology.

Here is NET Bible's translators' note on 1 Timothy 3:16:

tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א A C D Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vg) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: θς vs. ός. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

Deborah_ · Apr 8, 2026

Doug said:
Dont you think everyone having a different Bible with different scripture fosters divisiveness? A lot of time is spent on justifying which translation of a verse is right and not exegesis

That's not my experience. For one thing, in the UK very few people use the KJV here days. And where translations differ, it's often positively useful to compare them in order to get a fuller understanding.

Lambano · Apr 8, 2026

If you read the NET translators' note on 1 Timothy 3:16 in post #19 (yeah, I know; too long, didn't read), you'll notice that their analysis is not that the "gnostics" were attempting to get their views into scripture. Rather, the scribes either thought a verse didn't flow right and changed or added words to make it make sense, or were particularly motivated to add support for Trinitarian Christology.

That is just as bad as changing the text to support Gnosticism.

Lambano · Apr 8, 2026

Doug said:
There wouldnt be divisions if we were all likeminded and acknowledged the truth of scripture dispensationaly

That's equivalent to saying, "There wouldn't be divisions if y'all just agreed with me." Uh, yeah.

Dispensationalism brings a strange set of presuppositions to the table. I don't think the underlying assumptions dispensationalism are correct.

Lambano · Apr 8, 2026

Doug said:
Good theory lacking proof.

How many NIV verses have you objected to because you think they DON'T support Trinitarian Christology?

Wick Stick · Apr 8, 2026

Doug said:
I dont know how prevelant it was but I saw a video which showed a Catholic priest at the table of one of the New Bibles. will get back and thanks for being courteous and respectful

So, the thing is, for several centuries, if you were Catholic and you participated in translating the Bible into the common language, the church ex-communicated you. Martin Luther was a Catholic priest... right up until he wasn't.

Wick Stick · Apr 8, 2026

Doug said:
I said there was a Catholic priest who was on the Bible committee
Bruce Metzger, a textual critic, was on the committee for the New Revised Standard version which included a priest named Carlo Martini and a Jesuit named George Mcrae. This was an ecumenical Bible approved by the Catholic church

The NRSV is quite recent - it came out in 1989.

Also of note, is that a separate version of it was made for Catholics: the NRSV-CE. The CE stands for Catholic Edition.

Lambano · Apr 8, 2026

Doug said:
I follow Paul

12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Lambano · Apr 8, 2026

Doug said:
[Luke 18:22 KJV] "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." ******** please tell me then, does this apply to you?

If Jesus Christ came up to you face-to-face and told you to do that, would you do it?

A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT THE NEW BIBLES

Well-Known Member

Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads