Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[amadeus]

Many people make up the 'body', and each has a differing mind, a differing past. It is our relationship to God, even Jesus Christ, by the Holy Ghost/Spirit through the word, that binds these differing 'parts' together into one, just as the Bible (KJB) is a perfect example of this - many writers, differing stations in life, men and women, high and low, king to commoner, prophet to priest, shepherd to scribe, and so on, yet all united ('one') with 'one' voice of many waters. If you will not begrudge my methods, I will not begrudge yours. I do however point out error of theology in faith or practice when I see it, such as in this thread. If you will notice, I did not begin this thread, and was in another thread berated by another certain individual for not participating in more threads, and merely sticking to the ones I made ('babies' do need care after all, until they grow, after which they look more after themselves).

Since I am Seventh-day Adventist, I do not drink coffee (because of caffeine - a neuro-toxin), though there are purely herbal replacements that have no such thing in it, such as TeaChino, Roma, etc.

I do not mind talking about my Father in Heaven, or His Son or His Holy Ghost/Spirit, but that is not really so much the purpose of this thread, unless it comes up in relation to the topic, of 'modern versions' affecting such doctrine (which some do, such as the NWT of the WTS/JW, etc).

People might come to this thread looking for conversation on other subjects, or short response, but I came looking for evidence of persons claims, and to also be able to provide evidence, and/or documentation for those interested in the subject. I have several very thick books on the subject, yet even so, I spend a lot of time chasing 'rabbits' down, and it took me some time to track that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss references. Reading Lexicon or Interlinear or Concordance koine Greek, etc is nothing like actually looking at mss, codice, papyrus mss and their Hebrew, Syriac or koine Greek, as "B" and "aleph" are both Majescule (all caps) and crammed together with little to no spacing, in generally, 3 or 2 (in Psalms) columns and the headings are very faint. It took awhile looking through, but was able to procure and link to the evidence.

When people type, I take it personally to read through and respond as needful, and at times to everything.

In the past I really liked reading every post on a forum and when I responded I tried to cover every detail of the post to which I responded. A measure of my own decline became apparent to me a number of years ago when I kept getting farther and farther behind. At that time I was active on several forums and staying on top all of them. Gradually I reduced the number of forums and began only scanning threads and leaving some alone completely. For quite a while now I have been down to just this one forum and even on it I read only a small fraction of the posts and respond to even a smaller number.

Sorry about the coffee error on my part. I knew the Mormons refrained, but was unaware of the SDA'S position on that point. That is something to remember if I visit one of your meetings. Many years ago I was hooked badly on the caffeine because of my massive intake. Because of its adverse affects on my system I weaned myself off of it completely. A few years later missing not the coffee itself, but something... I went back to decaffeinated only. Now I drink either/or, regular or decaf, but I drink it too weak to satisfy the tastes of most people and only drink it 2 or 3 days per week and no more than 2-3 cups a day. On the other days I drink no coffee of any kind. I developed this routine on purpose.

You are effectively really studying other people's beliefs with regard to God and their lives along with your in depth studies on things scriptural. I hope it produces good fruit for you. I will try not to do a critique of your methods any more...

 

[amadeus]

This thread is not about communication with God, per se. It is about versions of Bibles, and their source material, which requires documentation, evidence, history, citation, reference, details. Those uninterested in it, or unable to handle the detail, should refrain from interrupting, or de-railing (such as this present conversation (it is not on OP - at all, and frankly, and yet kindly, I would ask, to such, "Please step aside, and just listen or find another more suitable topic to your mind.")).

This is not the OP topic and should be discussed elsewhere.

Isaiah 8:20; Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20; Isaiah 28:10,13, etc. Scripture itself defines how it ought be understood. Therefore, it is not 'my' method. I am simply following that which scripture instructs me to do, even as I would read and follow the instructions on a complicated project.

Only the day to come (and soon) will reveal all our work, whether it will have been with God, or against God. Everything I type will burn. Yet, that which may last forever, are the people that are brought into a saving relationship with the Truth (Persons, not a concept).

Consider me as "stepped aside"!

 

[amadeus]

It's a two-edged sword, one side for you, and another for me. So, when I post, it speaks to mine own heart also, by the Holy Ghost.

Mutual. Yet, it does not mean that I hate you, as a person. I actually like you (more so than others here in their arrogance and superiority complex (you, I actually think are not like that at all)). Might just be an 'age' difference thing though, and I do acknowledge your advancement on the road of life, ahead of myself therein, though I also think the background contributes to our present 'friction', more than that.

Undoubtedly our present 'friction' has to do with our different backgrounds. You have me smiling. It is hard for me to dislike anyone. Do suppose being a native Oklahoman the statement made famous by Will Rogers has infected me? ["I never met a man I didn't like."]

For the sake of the topic, and to also be kindly to our present conversation, so as not to derail, might I ask you, what 'version' of Bible/s do you daily (in morning) read, or devotion from? I am curious about that, and would you be interested in the backgrounds of said book/s and their translators, in what they believed, etc? Who backed the translation, where did the funds come from, etc, especially when involved in that which is to be copyrighted (as the love of money is the root of all evil).

From the beginning of my Bible reading in 1976, my primary English Bible has been the KJV [not the 1611 edition, but I also have a copy of a reprint of that for my own information]. I got to know a man on the job who was an Anglican and we often discussed things biblical and of God during our breaks. He was fluent in Russian and served as a translator of documents for SSA. I did the same for both German and Spanish documents, but to that point I had never even thought about trying read the Bible in anything but English. My friend went out bought as a gift for me two Bibles, which I still have. One was a German Bible from the Martin Luther translation [1967 reprint] and the other was a Spanish Bible, Antigua Version de Casiodoro de Reina (1569) Revisada por Cipriano de Valera (1602) [printed in 1977]. That was the beginning of my reading the Bible in those languages. Both of them are worn badly so I don't use them anymore.

Now I still read a KJV as my primary English Bible. My present primary Spanish Bible is another Reina Valera revised in 1960 which I have used since 2014. My daughter bought me a new German Bible for my birthday a couple of weeks ago. It is the first one I have ever used that was not according to a Martin Luther translation. It is a newly revised 2000 version translated originally by Franz Eugen Schlachter, printed in 2018. Since my only German reading for many years has been a Luther Bible, the transition for me is surprisingly difficult. It uses many new words which I have to look up or check against my KJV. I guess my German, which I rarely ever use for conversation has become very much old in the style of Luther. One might see the difference in the two German Bibles as similar to the difference between a KJV and one of the modern English translations. This could be a hindrance for some people, but after so many years, it will simply force to look even deeper into what I am reading.

As a small for instance, many persons use Vine's Expository, but most do not know that W. E. Vine was unitarian, in belief, and tainted his definitions. James Strong of the Strong's Concordance was tried for Heresy in the American Heresy trials. Consider the backgrounds of Westcott and Hort, Lightfoot, Tragelles, etc., and then compare these to those of the 47ish translators of the KJB, while comparing all to the life of Jesus. Powerful witness.

While I was never a Unitarian, I was certainly "Oneness, Jesus Only" for 11 years. I left the last one of those assemblies in 1987 as drawn away by God, but I know that my beliefs are still influenced [would you say 'tainted'?] by that background. They started me reading Bible for the first time in my life at age 32 so in spite of the problems I encountered with them they did me some good. They only used the KJV but were Not "KJV Only".

 

[mjrhealth]

Well, what will happen to all those 'scholars' pushing evolution, need to be careful when it comes to things of God. But the scribes where very precise and took great in not changing the word, and I think most Bible scholars doing translations understood this responsibility, but its clear Hort and Westcott had a different purpose and thus the use of the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Now the real issue is why would any "scholars" make changes and deletions, especially when you could see it when compared to those manuscripts not from Alexandria. Well it becomes apparent, that when they made their copies, they made "corrections" that they thought better presented what the Scriptures should say. Some of their errors were clearly wrong, but others were more subtle like the slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ. Instead of just transcribing, they removed verses they didn't like and a word here and there as they tried to impose their views from Gnosticism. Now you can see the corruption of the text, as their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but these writers differ even from the other Alexandrian Text, so they couldn't agree even with each other.

Because no one takes things to teh Lord, we are just to smart for Him.

Act_17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Too much study not enough Jesus

 

[reformed1689]

That singular sermon your neighbor was referring to:
- does not hold canonical "thus saith the Lord" status even to LDS Christians
- Is not actually discussed in lessons at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
- You'll find a million different views/interpretation on the matter, all sitting on the same pew. Zero of which are what you (a Creedal Christain) are probably thinking. There's a lot of weeds here with deeper level of Creeds and religious philosophy.
- And with most deep religious philosophy, it doesn't play into day-to-day living.

You know what else doesn't hodl this status? The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price etc etc.

 

[amadeus]

Okay, now I'm blushing. And I also hope that should you visit one of our assemblies you will find a welcome there.

Thank you! I am certain that I will visit. I found two here on the Internet. One is Spanish and one not. I will have to wait for some mild weather. This winter the old man is super sensitive to the cold weather and it has been quite cold lately.

 

[Hobie]

Because no one takes things to teh Lord, we are just to smart for Him.

Act_17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Too much study not enough Jesus

Very true..

 

[ReChoired]

Undoubtedly our present 'friction' has to do with our different backgrounds. You have me smiling. It is hard for me to dislike anyone. Do suppose being a native Oklahoman the statement made famous by Will Rogers has infected me? ["I never met a man I didn't like."]

Only you can know that uso amadeus. As for myself, there are some people I just plain ol' don't like, though I am bound, by Jesus, to love them. Some of them include, specific Seventh-day Adventists, but they are still my uso and tuafafine.

From the beginning of my Bible reading in 1976, my primary English Bible has been the KJV [not the 1611 edition, but I also have a copy of a reprint of that for my own information]. I got to know a man on the job who was an Anglican and we often discussed things biblical and of God during our breaks. He was fluent in Russian and served as a translator of documents for SSA. I did the same for both German and Spanish documents, but to that point I had never even thought about trying read the Bible in anything but English. My friend went out bought as a gift for me two Bibles, which I still have. One was a German Bible from the Martin Luther translation [1967 reprint] and the other was a Spanish Bible, Antigua Version de Casiodoro de Reina (1569) Revisada por Cipriano de Valera (1602) [printed in 1977]. That was the beginning of my reading the Bible in those languages. Both of them are worn badly so I don't use them anymore.

Good bibles. Especially those that are older, as they are more faithful to the TR text type underlying the KJB moreso than anything which modernity has offered.

Now I still read a KJV as my primary English Bible.

Since that is so, it ought be easier for us to come to a closer agreement, since the foundational text is the same.

My present primary Spanish Bible is another Reina Valera revised in 1960 which I have used since 2014. My daughter bought me a new German Bible for my birthday a couple of weeks ago.

Just for your own study, you may want to compare it to the older Spanish Bibles you have, and you ought to see a marked difference. Generally speaking the Reina Valera's (modern) aren't too bad compared to the English moderns, but there are some changes, depending on who translated and published. I hear that the Purificada is good (though my primary language is not Spanish, and take it upon the word of another), as well as another Reina Valera, whose sub-title, or translation, escapes me at the moment is also good.

It is the first one I have ever used that was not according to a Martin Luther translation. It is a newly revised 2000 version translated originally by Franz Eugen Schlachter, printed in 2018.

I would caution on any modern non-English translation, and rely upon the older translations pre-1900, or pre-1881. They are safer, doctrinally, and textually speaking.

Since my only German reading for many years has been a Luther Bible, the transition for me is surprisingly difficult. It uses many new words which I have to look up or check against my KJV.

Good man, best thing to do.

I guess my German, which I rarely ever use for conversation has become very much old in the style of Luther. One might see the difference in the two German Bibles as similar to the difference between a KJV and one of the modern English translations. This could be a hindrance for some people, but after so many years, it will simply force to look even deeper into what I am reading.

Luther's is good, not perfect, but very useful when used with KJB. Modern German Bibles not so much.

While I was never a Unitarian, I was certainly "Oneness, Jesus Only" for 11 years.

I take it that you are no longer?, or are you still? If so, that might be discussed elsewhere.

I left the last one of those assemblies in 1987 as drawn away by God, but I know that my beliefs are still influenced [would you say 'tainted'?] by that background. They started me reading Bible for the first time in my life at age 32 so in spite of the problems I encountered with them they did me some good. They only used the KJV but were Not "KJV Only".

Most mis-define 'KJV Only', caricaturizing it, and substitute a definition which has nothing to do with the actual position, but do not say that you do this, just stating it from experience. As you can see, I believe that the KJB is the inspired and preserved word of God in English, but that doesn't mean that I (or others, classed as KJV Only) do not cite TR when necessary, Luther Bible, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Latin,, Hebrew, koine Greek, or even use historical citations such as the so called ECF (easily confused fellows), or non-christian source materials etc.

As a thought on the subject of OP, in connection, there have been shown in this thread that modern versions do affect doctrine, and even on a greater scale that has yet to be seen, as we have been primarily focusing on this or that single version of translation of this or that text type, but when persons today have access to multiple modern versions, that come up with doctrines that are not found in any one single modern version, but came about through piece-mealing several modern versions together. Such doctrines are truly heresy on a whole 'nother scale. A collective, ecclectic type. Something never before witnessed on the stage of history until present. It is scary what is happening.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You know what else doesn't hodl this status? The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price etc etc.

*rolls eyes*

If you want to have a respectful discussion wherein you learn more about what I believe, feel free to ask. If you want to spew the same bad information that "anti-cult" folks have been for decades... well, you certainly have the right to do that, but no one is going to pay any to it.

 

[reformed1689]

*rolls eyes*

If you want to have a respectful discussion wherein you learn more about what I believe, feel free to ask. If you want to spew the same bad information that "anti-cult" folks have been for decades... well, you certainly have the right to do that, but no one is going to pay any to it.

Ok, so do you put the BOM and POGP on same level as the Bible?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Ok, so do you put the BOM and POGP on same level as the Bible?

As I've said many times, including on the thread:

God >> ALL other things.

Too many people try to put scripture above God or worse limit Him by their interpretation of scripture.

David, if your goal here is to "prove" that the "Mormon" doesn't agree with everything you believe, I'll save us both the trouble and say: no, I don't agree with you on every point. Along with >99.9% of other Christians. And while theology is very important, it is acceptance of Christ and discipleship in Him that makes a person a Christian.

 

[brakelite]

And while theology is very important, it is acceptance of Christ and discipleship in Him that makes a person a Christian.

That is very true. And correct theology would lead us to the correct Christ would it not?

 

[reformed1689]

As I've said many times, including on the thread:

God >> ALL other things.

Too many people try to put scripture above God or worse limit Him by their interpretation of scripture.

David, if your goal here is to "prove" that the "Mormon" doesn't agree with everything you believe, I'll save us both the trouble and say: no, I don't agree with you on every point. Along with >99.9% of other Christians. And while theology is very important, it is acceptance of Christ and discipleship in Him that makes a person a Christian.

But God will not contradict Scripture because He cannot lie.

 

[amadeus]

Only you can know that uso amadeus. As for myself, there are some people I just plain ol' don't like, though I am bound, by Jesus, to love them. Some of them include, specific Seventh-day Adventists, but they are still my uso and tuafafine.

Throwing in a little Samoan I see. During my last years working at the Richmond Calif Social Security Program Center [late 1970's to early 1980's] my unit serviced, among others, all Social Security claims coming in from American Samoa. I remember after sometimes lengthy investigations concerning the adoption of children in American Samoa under the law in effect on those islands. On relationships, there were few federal laws in place. We were bound by local laws [American Samoa in this case] to make our decisions. If a Samoan court had ruled on a relationship, we used that, but frequently there was no court case and we simply needed to assure the essentials of the local laws were correctly followed. In that case the final decision was mine. They were interesting to me even though I have never been to the Islands. I understand that you still live there.

I seldom really dislike anyone, but my wife is another case in point. She is nice about it to him, but she cannot stand my only present Christian friend off the Internet. Fortunately he lives 50 miles away now and only visits every few months. She disappears to her room for most or all of his visits.

Good bibles. Especially those that are older, as they are more faithful to the TR text type underlying the KJB moreso than anything which modernity has offered.

Since that is so, it ought be easier for us to come to a closer agreement, since the foundational text is the same.

Nothing and no one has ever convinced me to change from the KJB to another... although some certainly have tried.

Just for your own study, you may want to compare it to the older Spanish Bibles you have, and you ought to see a marked difference. Generally speaking the Reina Valera's (modern) aren't too bad compared to the English moderns, but there are some changes, depending on who translated and published. I hear that the Purificada is good (though my primary language is not Spanish, and take it upon the word of another), as well as another Reina Valera, whose sub-title, or translation, escapes me at the moment is also good.

Regular in depth studies of that type I have not made although what I do as part of my daily reading/study sometimes amount to that. Frequently I do compare the usages in my three primary Bibles. Sometimes that comparison causes me to check them against other translations I have [I have several Bibles in each language from different time periods including two KJB / Reina Valera parallel Bibles. I have never been able to find such a parallel Bible for German and English.] or a lexicon of the original languages. Both my Luther and my Valera follow much of the time fairly closely the literal meaning of the KJB.

My very different new German Bible is already, since receiving it, making me check almost every verse I read in it against KJB and Luther. Though I cannot quote much from any Bible, somewhere in me is a store of information which alerts me to differences that need to be checked. I am certain that God is in that alert system. When I backslid for about 10 years from early 1990's to about 2002, I lost my ability to hold verbatim quotations in my mind, but God has not left me with nothing. On the contrary, but that is another subject.

I would caution on any modern non-English translation, and rely upon the older translations pre-1900, or pre-1881. They are safer, doctrinally, and textually speaking.

I agree for myself. I am cautious about advising others unless they ask for an honest opinion or I see that they are open to such an opinion.

I take it that you are no longer?, or are you still? If so, that might be discussed elsewhere.

I've been away from Oneness/Jesus Only since 1987. I had hoped to leave them in 1985, but that is the year I moved to Rock Springs, Wyoming and there was nothing else there in which I could be comfortable so I stayed with them until moving to Oklahoma in 1987.

Most mis-define 'KJV Only', caricaturizing it, and substitute a definition which has nothing to do with the actual position, but do not say that you do this, just stating it from experience. As you can see, I believe that the KJB is the inspired and preserved word of God in English, but that doesn't mean that I (or others, classed as KJV Only) do not cite TR when necessary, Luther Bible, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Latin,, Hebrew, koine Greek, or even use historical citations such as the so called ECF (easily confused fellows), or non-christian source materials etc.

I without hesitation prefer the KJB but as I said I do not insist upon it for others. I only come across a couple of people over the year identified as hard core KJB Only believers. Not one understood what I believe that I do. Already I understand where you are coming from on this subject. Some, as you already know, on this forum will condemn you for even hinting that the KJB is the best or even better than that. I am very slow to adopt any absolutes including this one. That does not mean that I don't believe I am right. Most everyone here does.

As a thought on the subject of OP, in connection, there have been shown in this thread that modern versions do affect doctrine, and even on a greater scale that has yet to be seen, as we have been primarily focusing on this or that single version of translation of this or that text type, but when persons today have access to multiple modern versions, that come up with doctrines that are not found in any one single modern version, but came about through piece-mealing several modern versions together. Such doctrines are truly heresy on a whole 'nother scale. A collective, ecclectic type. Something never before witnessed on the stage of history until present. It is scary what is happening.

I certainly agree that different Bible versions do affect people's held doctrines. I won't go into that here as I believe we would essentially agree on most points and your knowledge on the Bible translations from the originals from what I have seen would likely surpass my own.

Perhaps in the future we may have some limited discussions of mutual interest and benefit to both of us. As I have already told @brakelite I do still plan sometime in the near future to visit an SDA service. When and if that happens I may share with you and him what I understand from it

 

[Jane_Doe22]

But God will not contradict Scripture because He cannot lie.

But He can contradict a man's interpretation of scripture.

 

[amadeus]

That is very true. And correct theology would lead us to the correct Christ would it not?

Does theology, even correct theology, lead us to the correct Christ... or are we drawn by the Father to Jesus because of what the Father sees in our heart?

 

[reformed1689]

But He can contradict a man's interpretation of scripture.

So do you think it is possible to know the correct interpretation of a passage?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

That is very true. And correct theology would lead us to the correct Christ would it not?

I would suggest it's folly for man A to judge man B's relationship based on how man B's ability to "correctly" pass a theology test posed by man A.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

So do you think it is possible to know the correct interpretation of a passage?

Any correct interpretation is told & testified of by to that individual by the Holy Spirit. Even then, the mortal's understanding is still much smaller & flawed compared to God's.

Not by some other sinner "informing" them. Which so many men try to do.

 

[reformed1689]

Any correct interpretation is told & testified of by to that individual by the Holy Spirit.

So then how do you know that what the Holy Spirit is telling one person is correct if another person said the Spirit told them something different?