Search results

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.

You presented what the modern translations have, but not what the Traditional translation have, which are the missing Scriptures.

Even 1 manuscript would be enough, but there are always at least a few. The modern translations use only 2 manuscript copies, because they are the oldest. The Traditional translation uses 3000 plus manuscript copies.

It's verse 37 that is entirely omitted. Also, the foot notes don't mean much when they try to explain why they didn't include Scripture. They usually just say that "some manuscripts say," as if there weren't enough manuscript evidence. It could be 1 or two manuscripts, it doesn't matter how...

"Incarnate" means to be born in the flesh. I agree on this one. God, which is the Father did not come but sent His Son, Who is as the Father in what He said and did for the Father, for They are one in everything ("These Three are One" 1Jn 5:7). God saw it was a greater sacrifice to send His Son...

The NKJV is best of all for reading and it contain the entirety of God's Word, which the detractors of the modern translations cannot claim. They are missing hundreds of phrases and some omit entire passages, few of which I have shown in post #67.

But these are Three separate Deities representing a triune God. "These Three are One" means they all are in one accord or in agreement.

Though there are times when there may be only a few manuscript evidence of a passage, it doesn't matter how many manuscripts that do not have a certain reading. If you think the number of manuscripts matter, then the detractors have only 2 primary manuscripts--the Vaticanus (codex B) and the...

What do you mean by "one God formula?"

All translations have to use many words that were not found in the manuscripts (the translation isn't perfect but the Word of God in it is). The King James translators were laborious enough to indicate to the reader what were not in the manuscripts by italicization. A highly significant advantage!