Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

David Taylor said:

What makes you think modern translations (not paraphrases) change the meaning?

Click to expand...

Because they are predisposed to mans 'doctrines' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth. They use gnostic changes and basically corrupt Alexandrian text to say the least for most of these 'modern' versions.

Here is a bit of background on these Alexandrian manuscripts...
"The Minority Texts were corrupted by Egyptian Gnosticism mostly in Alexandria with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The Gnostics were a group that did not believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins.

There are many alterations in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures and contradict themselves throughout."

Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written...." http://www.ecclesia.org...

Westcott & Hort picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts and created a version based on them, and this is the source of many of the Modern Versions. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Alexandrian texts as they supported views prevalent in their time from Darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. Most of the new modern translations have picked this corrupted version and so are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT).

These corrupted Alexandrian texts were used by Westcott & Hort's as they knowingly made a translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Alexandrian translation of a Greek original.

Here is some of the issues with these men which is more than troublesome...
Westcott and Hort

Deborah_ said:

And yet the modern versions teach all these doctrines as robustly as the KJV. Christians who use modern versions exclusively are not led to deny these doctrines as a result.

Click to expand...

The changes are subtle and the deletions could be argued away, but this was just the start and they would have continued in the later versions to change it, but too many people knew the Bible.

Here is a good analysis on one which most everyone is familiar..
"Since the bible was written, unscrupulous men men have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. It’s sad, but true. For some reason some copiers thought it was fine to change scripture to fit their personal bias. Some did it because they thought they were right, and some did it for personal gain. But whatever the reason, copiers have occasionally changed the words.

In fact, one of the early church fathers says this EXACT thing has been done to the Comma.

The following is a quote from Jerome. Jerome was born in 347 and died in 420. He is best know for translating the original Latin Vulgate bible, which is the official bible of the Catholic church to this very day.

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.”

(Jerome in the prologue to the Canonical Epistles appended to Codex Fuldensis, Translated by T. Caldwell.)" The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? - Berean Patriot

Thus the 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' deletion and many others were challenge and kept it from initially being accepted, but as time went on, fewer people were aware of the changes. Here is a site that catches the subtleness they used...THE NIV HATES THE LORD JESUS

Here is a great explanation of the problem...

"let’s review some of the things the translators have said as well as some who are strong critics of the New International Version (NIV).

The NIV Translators Themselves

The greatest proof of what is wrong with this version is found in their own defense of the NIV Bible. Kenneth Barker, whom I met on the set of the John Ankerberg Television Program, is editor of a book entitled, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. In a chapter of this book entitled, “When ‘Literal’ is not Accurate,” the writer makes the following statement: “In the Preface to the NIV, the Committee on Bible Translation states that sometimes it was necessary to modify sentence structure and to move away from a word-for-word translation in order to be faithful to the thought of the biblical writers and to produce a truly accurate translation. Since its publication, however, a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV and have pointed to “interpretational intrusions” foisted on the text. While it may be that at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into the text, I would contend that overall this version has achieved a high level of accuracy by its philosophy of translation. By occasionally moving away from a literal translation, they have produced a more accurate translation that captures the meaning of the original languages with greater precision.” (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 128.)

Please note several ideas in this exceptional quote.

• “…it was necessary….to move away from a word for word translation.”
• “While it may be true that at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into a text…”
• “By occasionally moving away from a literal translation, they have produced a more accurate translation…”

My observation suggests several problems with these statements. One, they are admitting that the NIV is a paraphrase and not really a translation. Yet, no one who buys a copy of this text has any warning of it being a paraphrase. If someone is seeking the mind of God in this Bible, they are not getting God’s mind at all but rather what someone thought the mind of God to be. It absolutely reduces the NIV to the opinion page rather than the voice of God...

The willing admittance that at times they had been guilty of taking liberties with the text is a serious indictment. Not a court in America would allow testimony on record where such liberties were allowed. Would a juror include such testimony in making a decision on a capital case? Never would an honest judge tolerate such a thought. What would we do with a doctor’s report of our physical health that admitted taking liberties with his description of our need for major surgery? Seek a second opinion without a doubt. Yet, these translators have admitted taking liberties with the eternal words of God Himself spoken by the Holy Spirit. A serious fact, my beloved.

Who can decide when moving away from a literal translation is producing a more accurate one? There is no possibility of such action not reflecting the theological bent of the translators. We ministers are constantly using texts of scripture to prove a point in our sermons. Yet, we disagree seriously on what the doctrinal point may be. That’s why there are so many different opinions among us. This is the reason that every Christian is told to search the scripture. But translating the Bible is different than preaching sermons. Where would the text of the Bible be today if for 2000 years every translation from language to language and from generation to generation had followed this procedure? That would be insane.

Translation versus interpretation is really where the primary problem has become in this generation. A translator, if true to his intellectual profession, never touches what he perceives the meaning to be. An honest translator leaves that to interpretation. A pastor or teacher must begin with a text that has been untouched and then from such a pure foundation, proceed to search for the proper interpretation themselves.
" The Corrupt New International Version Bible (NIV): Apostasy In Print | Paw Creek Ministries