Search results

I at least partly agree, because many loose their interest in a Bible that says many things that the Traditional Bibles say. It causes disunity with one another, and we loose interest with one another in spiritual truths. The Alexandrian is so briefed in its test that it's more corrupted that...

One of many changed, or forged doctrines is Phl 2:6: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Here, the language thought is that the Lord Jesus does not see it stealing from God (Father) to consider Himself to be equal with God, which He is in essence and...

Yes, but you also need to grow "by every Word out of God's mouth" (Mat 4:4). They change much Scripture, without readers realizing it (because most haven't read enough frequently to see it), by omissions (worst), transpositions and interpolations. Many passages do not retain the original meaning...

Ture, Jehova is the Father, and Christ is His Son.

No explanations for detracting from the Word. I believe this is Satan's greatest smokescreen against spiritual growth in Christ.

Yes it took a little time for the modern translations to have an effect, from 1881 to the early 90's, little over a century.

It doesn't make sense to use a translation that actually omits much Scripture. That's the most important to me. I also notice that Church membership started dwindling (early to late 90's) not long after the modern translations were produced. I believe it's due to lack of unity in the Word, which...

To me, the main error of the modern translations are the omissions. If one nit-picks at omissions in the Majority Text, one could also bulk-pick from the Minority Text. I would be spending my time in a translation that I know contains the entire Word. That's not beyond possible with the Minority...

I think we have exchanged enough opinions on this subject to end our communication on it. After so long it just becomes repetitious and not necessary to carry on the discussion. Thanks though for the sincere replies, and may the Holy Spirit eventually "guide us into all truth" (Jhn 16:13). God...

What are you trying to say here? Thanks! Most readers of the modern translations are unaware of the transpositions, interpolations and omissions (producing thousands of differences from the Traditional Text, which is the goal of the Gnostics that wrote them), which effects the meaning of...

What are you trying to say here? Thanks!

3rd--4th centuries. The age of these three manuscripts (Vaticanus/Sinaiticus/Alexandrinus) they primarily use is due to the fact that they were so corrupt that most scribes would not use them for copying purposes, and thus did not wear out like most did, from repetitious use and copying. They...

Yes, but there's no explanation than can excuse detracting from the Word; and it's a serious amount omissions, which there should be none. The NKJV is best for reading because it and others like it retain the entire Word. All the other modern translations have briefed the Word of God a great...

Hi, and like what you said here. The antiquity of these two manuscripts (Vatcanus/Sinaiticus--I don't count the Alexandrinus because it's shortened more and more corrupt than the other two) is why many are so ignorantly swayed to the corrupt texts. These are the primary manuscripts used for the...

I know your concern, but the notes only say "some manuscripts say," meaning that some manuscripts are not enough to retain a reading. One manuscript is a manuscript, but it's never one but "a few," which is enough. If the detractors went by too little manuscript evidence, then they have the...

Hi, and just wanted to let you know, and not to pick on the NET, but the NET also omits scripture like all the other modern translations do, verses like 1Jn 5:7, the verse is entirely omitted, along with hundreds of other Scriptures.

Yes, the modern translations (except NKJV) have detracted a great deal from the Traditional Text, and have not added what the majority of existing manuscripts contain. The two Cambridge professors Wescott and Hort were the primary scholars who produced what Nestle, Aland and the United bible...

The Vaticanus and Sinaitcus both fell into disuse from 381AD to 1881AD due to being to inconsistent with most of extant manuscripts, and so were never use by anyone for copying purposes for 1500 years, until they recently found them.

The majority of modern translations omit the same passages, only a few retain some of them but still omit much; but all omit entire passage of 1Jn 5:7--the primary Trinity Scripture. I am a big fan of the KJV and the Textus REceptus, but they are not infallible. (No translation is infallible...

I think we're too far apart from any use of continuing on this subject.