Search results

Many the omissions are due to the Gnostic writers of these manuscripts attempts to distort the Deity of Christ, e.g. discredits to Christ's omnipresence: the phrase "even the Son of man which is in heaven," showing He's present in heaven while on the earth, is omitted. Eph 3:9 omits "who...

Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to...

"God" is correctly used in the translation, for it is the Greek word "theos." If one doesn't truly know that Christ, the Son of God did not came in the flesh, he is an antichrist (not suspecting you of course, unless you don't believe this truth -1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7).

Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to...

Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to...

I agree with much of your reply, but it's my opinion that one will not grow as much reading translations that mix true Scripture with the false readings, and esp. the omitted Scriptures; of which there are hundreds. For thirty years of my 47 years of studying the Bible I use to mark where I left...

I'm finding more all the time that many Christians are not concerned with translations that change and omits Scripture. That's because many Christians do not read the Word much.

Regardless Brother, I find more security in translations that use the Majority Text for the translation. It consists of three-thousand plus manuscripts, as opposed to the detractors three, but mainly two manuscripts, which were written by Gnostics and is why many of the hundreds of omitted...

"God was manifest in the flesh" by natural birth (1Ti 3:16). "Manifested" here means Jesus was a presentation (not the Father Himself) of the Father as if it were the Father Himself. This is the truth of what is meant by Col 2:9: "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." He...

Of course the detractors will make false accusations. It's the Majority Text in question, which consists of three-thousand plus manuscript copies, against two false witnesses, namely the Vaticanus and the Sianiticus manuscripts. Two (and sometimes three with the Alaxandrinus, which is very...

Using the Blue Letter Bible shows all the comparisons at the little window to the right after you do a search. You can change it to any translation to see the comparison. Let me know if you have have problems doing this.

Most do not read much of the Word, and the reason why many choose a modern translation is because it's something new.

Hi, and appreciate the encouraging and accurate reply! There were even men, within 100 years after the death of John, writing manuscripts and claiming that they were actually correcting them.

The modern translations are technically at best paraphrases. Here is one example of an "interpolation," of which there in these Bibles many: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:6). Here, it's saying that Jesus did not think it is stealing from God...

Don't see how manuscripts that take away from the Word of God are better sources. Even the producers of the modern versions (Wescott and Hort) were "occultists": Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and...

Amen, and it will eventually be found out to be of Satan, because God will show us all.

That's the only modern translation that recently corrected it in their reading (within the last decade), but for many years it had the error. But the primary problem with the NIV is the same as all the other modern translations, which is omitting much Scripture. Plus, memorizing a translation...

It's hard to prove that the translation that uses the majority of manuscripts is better than one using only a couple; and that couple of manuscripts are errant (2Sam 21:19) and corrupt (1Jn 5:7).

Easy to say, hard to prove! God bless!

That's pretty good evidence about the corrupted Text of the Minority group! Appreciate the support and God bless!