Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[reformed1689]

What worries me more is the influence of denominations. For example, one church that I was attending needed a formal process to be a member which included reading their doctrinal booklet and agreeing with it. So I read it and found 31 errors in it which were contrary to scripture. Before I got back to them on it they said I couldn't be a member because I did not attend communion enough times. I told them apart from the pastor, I attended communion more times than anyone else in the church. Seems as though they made up the rules as they went along.

Where in the world do people find churches like these? I hear about them, but have never seen one.

 

[Enoch111]

I said that your foolishness is offensive, attempting to discredit such scholarly works like the UBS, Nestle/Aland & Westcott & Hort critical Greek publications.

In a court of law the only thing that matters is evidence. And the evidence establishes the corruption of the critical texts by establishing the corruption of the Greek manuscripts (Aleph A B C D and a few others) supporting those texts.

All these textual critics chose to ignore the evidence and believe a theory concocted by Westcott & Hort. It is like a prosecutor in court who presents the jury with a fine theory about why the accused (who is actually innocent) should be convicted as guilty. But the defense attorney presents the evidence -- hard evidence -- to prove that the prosecutor is simply blowing smoke. Thus the accused is acquitted.

So you could start by investigating what actually went on to allow W & H to succeed in their false narrative.

"The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER'S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “Revised Greek Text of the New Testament” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and
their “New Greek Text.”

(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing
structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground
of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige
of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the
views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must
either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our
consideration as precarious and even visionary.”

(2.) “DR. HORT'S System is entirely destitute of historical
foundation.”

(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever
our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he
has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of
historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from
the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would
force upon us.”

(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that
S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’
[Notes, p. 68.]—Nor can we, on our part, doubt,”
(rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “that the System which entails
such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.”
SCRIVENER'S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531,
537, 542, 604.

From the Preface of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon.

 

[ReChoired]

Notice every one of those versions is not the current (with maybe an exception being the NKJV as I really don't keep up with that one) version of that translation.

NRSV still says "milch" - Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 32:14-16 - New Revised Standard Version

It's (NRSV) own statement of purpose, lies:

"... Improvements over the RSV are of four different kinds:

• updating the language of the RSV, by replacing archaic forms of speech addressed to God (Thee, Thou, wast, dost, etc.), and by replacing words whose meaning has changed significantly since the RSV translation (for example, Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 11.25 that he was "stoned" once)
• making the translation more accurate, ..."

"Thee, Thou" have nothing to do with "archaic forms of speech addressed to God". They have to do with 'singular' identification and 'person' identification, just as "Ye, "you", etc deal with plural identification and person identification. They are not archaic forms of speech, and not merely addressed to God, but are correct forms of speech, in English, when dealing with singular to plural, and perspective of persons. Modern day "you" simply makes everything nebulous. For instance, "You will need to do the homework!" Am I speaking to singular or plural persons? If I said instead, "Thou wilt need to do thine homework!" it is clearly singular. If I said, "Ye wilt needs do your homework!" it is plural. Their goal was to replace archaic forms? "Milch" (Genesis 32:15 NRSV) in 1999 to current? Even their current revision run for this, as announced in 2017, will still carry archaisms. It is impossible for all such to be eliminated, even when it is a stated goal. One of the issues is the binding of their own selves by copyright, but this is not the only reason.

The NRSV still uses the word "stoned" in its pages. Do I think the cows are high on meth? Their 'reasoning' is simply ridiculous and false - Exodus 19 - NRS Bible - Bible Study Tools

 

[brakelite]

For those exalting the Alexandrian line of MSS allow me to quote B G Wilkinson, from his book, The Authorised Bible Vindicated (available freely online in pdf format)...
The year in which the apostle John died, 100 A.D., is given as the date in which Justin Martyr was born. Justin, originally a pagan and of pagan parentage, afterward embraced Christianity and although he is said to have died at heathen hands for his religion, nevertheless, his teachings were of a heretical nature. Even as a Christian teacher, he continued to wear the robes of a pagan philosopher. In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical sects fifty years after the death of the apostle John. It was in Tatian, Justin Martyr’s pupil, that these regrettable doctrines were carried to alarming lengths, and by his hand committed to writing. After the death of Justin Martyr in Rome, Tatian returned to Palestine and embraced the Gnostic heresy. This same Tatian wrote a Harmony of the Gospels which was called the Diatessaron, meaning four in one. The Gospels were so notoriously corrupted by his hand that in later years a bishop of Syria, because of the errors, was obliged to throw out of his churches no less than two hundred copies of this Diatessaron, since church members were mistaking it for the true Gospel.fa19 We come now to Tatian’s pupil known as Clement of Alexandria, 200 A. D.fa20 He went much farther than Tatian in that he founded a school at Alexandria which instituted propaganda along these heretical lines. Clement expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy. All the writings of the outstanding heretical teachers were possessed by Clement, and he freely quoted from their corrupted MSS. As if they were the pure words of Scripture.fa21 His influence in the depravation of Christianity was tremendous. But his greatest contribution, undoubtedly, was the direction given to the studies and activities of Origen, his famous pupil. When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries. It was he who mightily influenced Jerome, the editor of the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate. Eusebius worshiped at the altar of Origen’s teachings. He claims to have collected eight hundred of Origen’s letters, to have used Origen’s six-column Bible, the Hexapla, in his Biblical labors. Assisted by Pamphilus, he restored and preserved Origen’s library. Origen’s corrupted MSS. of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have seen much of the so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen. Origen had so surrendered himself to the furore of turning all Bible events into allegories that he, himself, says, “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.”fa22 In order to estimate Origen rightly, we must remember that as a pupil of Clement, he learned the teachings of the Gnostic heresy and like his master, lightly esteemed the historical basis of the Bible. As Schaff says, “His predilection for Plato (the pagan philosopher) led him into many grand and fascinating errors.”
He made himself acquainted with the various heresies and studied under the heathen Ammonius Saccas, founder of Neo-Platonism. He taught that the soul existed from eternity before it inhabited the body, and that after death, it migrated to a higher or a lower form of life according to the deeds done in the body; and finally all would return to the state of pure intelligence, only to begin again the same cycle as before. He believed that the devils would be saved, and that the stars and planets had souls, and were, like men, on trial to learn perfection. In fact, he turned the whole law and Gospel into an allegory. Such was the man who from his day to this has dominated the endeavors of destructive textual critics. One of the greatest results of his life, was that his teachings became the foundation of that system of education called Scholasticism, which guided the colleges of Latin Europe for nearly one thousand years during the Dark Ages.

 

[DNB]

In a court of law the only thing that matters is evidence. And the evidence establishes the corruption of the critical texts by establishing the corruption of the Greek manuscripts (Aleph A B C D and a few others) supporting those texts.

All these textual critics chose to ignore the evidence and believe a theory concocted by Westcott & Hort. It is like a prosecutor in court who presents the jury with a fine theory about why the accused (who is actually innocent) should be convicted as guilty. But the defense attorney presents the evidence -- hard evidence -- to prove that the prosecutor is simply blowing smoke. Thus the accused is acquitted.

So you could start by investigating what actually went on to allow W & H to succeed in their false narrative.

"The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER'S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “Revised Greek Text of the New Testament” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and
their “New Greek Text.”

(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing
structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground
of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige
of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the
views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must
either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our
consideration as precarious and even visionary.”

(2.) “DR. HORT'S System is entirely destitute of historical
foundation.”

(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever
our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he
has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of
historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from
the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would
force upon us.”

(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that
S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’
[Notes, p. 68.]—Nor can we, on our part, doubt,”
(rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “that the System which entails
such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.”
SCRIVENER'S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531,
537, 542, 604.

From the Preface of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon.

Please, ....because you cited one opinion, and that, without even the explanation behind their accusations, you expect someone to accept the testimony? The only thing that you cited that had any veritable proof, was your court analogy, ...and even that could be mutually used against you as it was so generalized.

Enoch111, there are no conspiracy theories pertaining to our Bible manuscripts. For they come from such a geographically dispersed tradition, surviving the centuries, that again, why are they 90% similiar just to begin with?
For, it stands to reason that, in time, more & more manuscripts will be found, and techniques to analyse them will develop. This is just a historical fact that pertains to almost all things of antiquity, on earth. For even the authors of the KJV would never, ever, claim that their translation was inspired, and, it itself, went through revisions. This is natural and expected of any translated work, for one, and two, that is derived from an incomplete, diverse and variant source, ...obviously.

How in the world to you get so narrow minded and utterly deluded in your reverence of the KJV? These men may have been astute as linguistic technicians, but claiming them to be inspired, that's verging on blasphemy.

 

[ReChoired]

... why are they 90% similiar just to begin with?...

90% similar:

God:

"thou shalt surely die"​

Serpent:

"Ye shall not surely die:"
​

Yep, 90% similar. ... They must be the same thing.

 

[ReChoired]

... why are they 90% similiar just to begin with? ...

90% similar:

KJB:

Joh_7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
Joh 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.​

NIV:

8 "You go to the festival. I am not [b.] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”
9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.​

Yep, 90% similar. Yet are they saying the same thing? Clearly not. In the KJB, Jesus is specific about "yet" (meaning later He would go when He was ready). In the NIV, Jesus is contradictory in what He was doing, "not going", "he went also".

 

[ReChoired]

Let's play the the multiple modern version game with concordance, you too can play along!

1 Samuel 13:1

1 Sam 13:1 KJB - Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

1 Sam 13:1 HOT - בן־שׁנה שׁאול במלכו ושׁתי שׁנים מלך על־ישׂראל׃​

The Geneva, Young's Literal, The Living Bible, etc, and even Jerome's Latin Vulgate gets this right.

Yet:

NIV:

1 Sam 13:1 NIV [©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011] - Saul was thirty[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.

Acts 13:21 NIV - Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years.

a. 1 Sam 13:1 A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint; Hebrew does not have thirty.
b. 1 Sam 13:1 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Acts 13:21); Masoretic Text does not have forty-.​

Contradiction. 42. 40. No Hebrew for 30.

In fact the so-called LXX, LXX+ [Strong's and Robinson's Morphological Analysis codes], and Brenton's LXX, I have on E-sword does NOT list 1 Sam 13:1, it is MISSING, DELETED as in the GNT.

ESV:

1 Sam 13:1 ESV - Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel,[a]
​

NASB:

1 Sam 13:1 NASB - Saul was [a]thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty two years over Israel.

Acts 13:21 NASB - Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.​

Contradiction. 42. 40. No Hebrew for 30.

DRA:

1 Sam 13:1 DRA - Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

Acts 13:21 DRA - And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years.​

Saul was an infant as King?

NEB:

1 Sam 13:1 NEB - Saul was fifty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for twenty-two years.

Acts 13:21 NEB - Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for forty years ...​

Contradiction. 22. 40. No Hebrew for 50.

CEV:

1 Sam 13:1 CEV [Bible Gateway] - Saul was 30 years old[a] when he became king, and he ruled over Israel forty-two years.

1 Sam 13:1 CEV [E-Sword] Saul was a young man when he became king, and he ruled Israel for two years.

Acts 13:21 CEV - but the people demanded a king. So for forty years God gave them King Saul, the son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin.

a. 1 Sam 13:1 LXXL; Syr twenty-one; MT lacks a number; 13:1 is omitted in LXXB.

b. 1 Sam 13:1 Part of the number is missing in MT (… and two years) and all ancient witnesses. Acts 13:21 says Saul ruled forty years, as does Josephus (Ant. 6.14.9 [378]), though Josephus also says Saul ruled twenty years (Ant. 10.8.4 [143]).​

Contradiction. 42. 2. 40. No Hebrew for 30, or "young man".

NWT:

1 Sam 13:1 NWT - Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, a and for two years he reigned over Israel.

Acts 13:21 NWT - But afterward they demanded a king,+ and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin,+ for 40 years.​

Contradiction of 2. 40.

MSG:

1 Sam 13:1 MSG - Saul was a young man when he began as king. He was king over Israel for many years.​

Hahahahahaaaha ... they didn't even try to attempt an accurate translation and just fudged it.

MEV:

1 Sam 13:1 MEV - Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty-two years over Israel.[a]

a. 1 Sam 13:1 Lit. “The son of a year was Saul in his ruling and two years he ruled over Israel.” Most translations read in Saul’s age and length of reign from external evidence (Josephus) or from the New Testament (Paul, who mentions a forty-year reign for Saul in Ac 13:21).​

GNT:

1 Sam 13:1 GNT - MISSING, DELETED​

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge [E-Sword]:

"... reigned one year: Heb. the son of one year in his reigning, This verse is variously interpreted; but probably it only means, according to the Hebrew idiom, that, during the first year nothing remarkable occurred; but after two years (or in the second year of his reign), the subsequent events took place. Exo_12:5; Mic_6:6 *marg. ..."​

 

[ReChoired]

Ok, NIV, and multiple versions, once again, here we go:

Galatians 5:12 KJB - I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Galatians 5:12 GNT TR - οφελον και αποκοψονται οι αναστατουντες υμας​

Sounds clear, right? Paul desired to have those meddlesome persons separated from the flock. Spiritual.

Let's see the filthy carnal minds of the more modern translators...

Galatians 5:12 NIV - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 ASV - I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.

Galatians 5:12 CEV [E-Sword] - I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more!

Galatians 5:12 ESV - I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 CEB - I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 GNT - I wish that the people who are upsetting you would go all the way; let them go on and castrate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 ISV - I wish that those who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 HCSB - I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves castrated!

Galatians 5:12 NASB - I wish that those who are troubling you would even [a]mutilate themselves.

Galatians 5:12 NLT - I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.​

Wow, those 'renderings' are really 'spirit' filled, just not of the Holy Spirit. Filled with retaliation, and mutilation, and castration.

Paul, what should "cut off" mean?

Romans 11:22 KJB - Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.​

Moses, what should "cut off" mean?

Exodus 12:19 KJB - Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

Leviticus 7:21 KJB - Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Leviticus 7:25 KJB - For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.

Leviticus 22:3 KJB - Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.​

Joshua, what does "cut off" mean?

Joshua 3:16 KJB - That the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.​

Chronicler, what does "cut off" mean?

1 Kings 9:7 KJB - Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:

2 Chronicles 32:21 KJB - And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.​

Zechariah, what does "cut off" mean?

Zechariah 11:16 KJB - For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.​

A new problem...

Now:

Judges 1:14 KJB - And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou?​

Let's compare another modern [per]version:

New English Bible - "... The New English Bible expresses no denominational or doctrinal viewpoint. It is not a revision of any previous version, but a completely new rendering, which seeks to achieve [1] clarity, [2] dignity, and in many places [3] true poetry. ..."​

Judges 1:14 NEB - When she came to him, he incited her to ask her father for a piece of land. As she sat on the ass, she broke wind, and Caleb said, 'What did you mean by that?​

There you have it folks:

[1] clarity
[2] dignity
[3] true poetry​

The parallel is also repeated in the same manner in Joshua 15:18 NEB.

Those who change and alter and "cut" away, and add into the Bible such things, are writing into them their own judgment.

 

[ReChoired]

Ok, NIV, and multiple versions, once again, here we go:

Galatians 5:12 KJB - I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Galatians 5:12 GNT TR - οφελον και αποκοψονται οι αναστατουντες υμας​

Sounds clear, right? Paul desired to have those meddlesome persons separated from the flock. Spiritual. ...

The text themselves explain the word and what it means. To 'cut off' is indeed to separate, to amputate. No issue. The problem is the carnal mind versus the spiritual mind.

Do any really think Paul meant a retaliation, to cut off the male reproductive, rather than to simply be 'amputated', 'separated from', 'cut off' from the body of Christ? [Matthew 5:29,30; Mark 9:43,45; Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15, 12:12,18,20 KJB]? If so, I pity such, really.

However, let's read it 'their' way, anyway, from an OT perspective which deals with the Physical:

Deuteronomy 23:1 KJB - He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
​

Ought not we think that the NT is the Spiritual, and that Paul understood this?

1 Corinthians 15:46 KJB - Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.​

John Gill [Baptist]:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... I would they were even cut off which trouble you. These words are a solemn wish of the apostle's with respect to the false teachers, or an imprecation of the judgment of God upon them; that they might be cut off out of the land of the living by the immediate hand of God, that they might do no more mischief to the churches of Christ: this he said not out of hatred to their persons, but from a concern for the glory of God, and the good of his people. The word here used answers to the Hebrew word קפח, and which is often made use of by the Jews in solemn imprecations; we read (o) of a righteous man, מקפח את בניו, "that cut off his children": the gloss upon it is, ..."​

Adam Clarke [Methodist]:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... As the persons who were breeding all this confusion in the Churches of Galatia were members of that Church, the apostle appears to me to be simply expressing his desire that they might be cut off or excommunicated from the Church. Kypke has given an abundance of examples where the word is used to signify amputating; cutting off from society, office, etc.; excluding. ..."​

Treasury of Scripture Knowldge CROSS-references:

"... cut: Gal_5:10, Gal_1:8-9; Gen_17:14; Exo_12:15, Exo_30:33; Lev_22:3; Jos_7:12, Jos_7:25; Joh_9:34; Act_5:5, Act_5:9; 1Co_5:13; Tit_3:10 ..."​

B. W. Johnson:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... I would they were even cut off. These men are seeking to make the mark of bondage by cutting your flesh. I would that they would cut themselves off (see Revision). I take it that he means "Cut themselves off from the church so as to have nothing more to do with it." ..."​

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "...were even cut off — even as they desire your foreskin to be cut off and cast away by circumcision, so would that they were even cut off from your communion, being worthless as a castaway foreskin (Gal_1:7, Gal_1:8; compare Php_3:2). The fathers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom, explain it, “Would that they would even cut themselves off,” that is, cut off not merely the foreskin, but the whole member: if circumcision be not enough for them, then let them have excision also; an outburst hardly suitable to the gravity of an apostle. But Gal_5:9, Gal_5:10 plainly point to excommunication as the judgment threatened against the troublers: and danger of the bad “leaven” spreading, as the reason for it. ..."​

 

[Hidden In Him]

Do you have access to the Ante-Nicene Fathers? Volume 5, page 423, footnote 5.

Finally had a chance to look. That footnote lists 1 John 5:7, which Cyprian quotes verbatim. But there are no discrepancies in any of the manuscripts for that verse... you sure this is the one you were saying proves that the received text predates Alexandrinus? If it's the same in all mss, how can you be certain they're not actually quoting something other than the TR?

 

[reformed1689]

NRSV still says "milch" - Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 32:14-16 - New Revised Standard Version

It's (NRSV) own statement of purpose, lies:

"... Improvements over the RSV are of four different kinds:

• updating the language of the RSV, by replacing archaic forms of speech addressed to God (Thee, Thou, wast, dost, etc.), and by replacing words whose meaning has changed significantly since the RSV translation (for example, Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 11.25 that he was "stoned" once)
• making the translation more accurate, ..."

"Thee, Thou" have nothing to do with "archaic forms of speech addressed to God". They have to do with 'singular' identification and 'person' identification, just as "Ye, "you", etc deal with plural identification and person identification. They are not archaic forms of speech, and not merely addressed to God, but are correct forms of speech, in English, when dealing with singular to plural, and perspective of persons. Modern day "you" simply makes everything nebulous. For instance, "You will need to do the homework!" Am I speaking to singular or plural persons? If I said instead, "Thou wilt need to do thine homework!" it is clearly singular. If I said, "Ye wilt needs do your homework!" it is plural. Their goal was to replace archaic forms? "Milch" (Genesis 32:15 NRSV) in 1999 to current? Even their current revision run for this, as announced in 2017, will still carry archaisms. It is impossible for all such to be eliminated, even when it is a stated goal. One of the issues is the binding of their own selves by copyright, but this is not the only reason.

The NRSV still uses the word "stoned" in its pages. Do I think the cows are high on meth? Their 'reasoning' is simply ridiculous and false - Exodus 19 - NRS Bible - Bible Study Tools

For the record, according to the dictionary that word is not archaic. And as far as stoned, that is also not an obsolete word. Stonings still go on in the world today and people do know what it means.

 

[reformed1689]

And the evidence establishes the corruption of the critical texts by establishing the corruption of the Greek manuscripts (Aleph A B C D and a few others) supporting those texts.

Prove it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Finally had a chance to look. That footnote lists 1 John 5:7, which Cyprian quotes verbatim. But there are no discrepancies in any of the manuscripts for that verse... you sure this is the one you were saying proves that the received text predates Alexandrinus? If it's the same in all mss, how can you be certain they're not actually quoting something other than the TR?

How do you explain this:

1 John 5:7

(KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(GNV) Geneva Version 1599
For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(WYC)
For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost

(NASB)
For there are three that testify:

(NIV)
For there are three that testify:

MOUNCE
For there are three that testify:
NOG
There are three witnesses:
NABRE
So there are three that testify,
NCV
So there are three witnesses:
NET
For there are three that testify,
NIRV
There are three that are witnesses about Jesus.

 

[Hidden In Him]

How do you explain this:

1 John 5:7

(KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(GNV) Geneva Version 1599
For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(WYC)
For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost

(NASB)
For there are three that testify:

(NIV)
For there are three that testify:

MOUNCE
For there are three that testify:
NOG
There are three witnesses:
NABRE
So there are three that testify,
NCV
So there are three witnesses:
NET
For there are three that testify,
NIRV
There are three that are witnesses about Jesus.

Not sure what you are showing me.

Hope you're having a nice Christmas Eve afternoon, btw : )

 

[reformed1689]

How do you explain this:

1 John 5:7

(KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(GNV) Geneva Version 1599
For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(WYC)
For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost

(NASB)
For there are three that testify:

(NIV)
For there are three that testify:

MOUNCE
For there are three that testify:
NOG
There are three witnesses:
NABRE
So there are three that testify,
NCV
So there are three witnesses:
NET
For there are three that testify,
NIRV
There are three that are witnesses about Jesus.

Well, are you aware that the earliest manuscript that has the KJV reading of these verses was from the 10th century?

Are you aware that only 8 manuscripts have that reading and of those 8 four of them the addon is in the margin and not the text (including the one from the 10th century)?

Why do you assume that this rendering goes back to the original autographs when the first sign of it in manuscript form isn't until the 16th century?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Not sure what you are showing me.

Hope you're having a nice Christmas Eve afternoon, btw : )

That there is a big discrepancy between Textus Receptus and the modern versions taken from the Westcott and Hort translation.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Well, are you aware that the earliest manuscript that has the KJV reading of these verses was from the 10th century?

Are you aware that only 8 manuscripts have that reading and of those 8 four of them the addon is in the margin and not the text (including the one from the 10th century)?

Why do you assume that this rendering goes back to the original autographs when the first sign of it in manuscript form isn't until the 16th century?

It was quoted in the 200's. (third century)

 

[DNB]

90% similar:

God:

"thou shalt surely die"​

Serpent:

"Ye shall not surely die:"
​

Yep, 90% similar. ... They must be the same thing.

Meaning, that there is no conspiracy if they left 90%+ intact. You have to come up with another motive behind the variances. You sound silly!

 

[DNB]

90% similar:

KJB:

Joh_7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
Joh 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.​

NIV:

8 "You go to the festival. I am not [b.] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”
9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.​

Yep, 90% similar. Yet are they saying the same thing? Clearly not. In the KJB, Jesus is specific about "yet" (meaning later He would go when He was ready). In the NIV, Jesus is contradictory in what He was doing, "not going", "he went also".

Discrepancies and variances are expected in any copyist process, especially when it's not a controlled environment. In other words, 90%+ is a great score, this does not shows signs of a concerted effort to corrupt the text. Marcion bastardized a substantial amount of scripture, 50% +-, that is induced as a veritable conspiracy.

What you are proposing, based on your marginal facts, is utterly absurd, ...do you see why? 90% does not imply controlled tampering. And I'm being conservative with 90%. Like all scholars say, the total number of variances are truly large, but so insignificant, that they barely affect any doctrine, in any substantial way.

You need to rethink your accusations against the modern translations, your testimony does not fit the crime.