Yes. The son of man is in heaven and on earth at the same time. I’m talking about Mary’s son.
Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Netchaplain
Ordained Chaplain
Ok, thanks and got ya; but not sure what you mean, because Mary's Son is the Lord Jesus. Appreciate your replies.
Youre welcome.
I mean that the man Christ Jesus existed from the foundaion of the world as a man.
He was not a divine Spirit that turned human.
He, as a man, preexisted the creation of the earth by the will of God.
Everything was made by, for and through the man Christ Jesus....by God.
God, now "God's" us through the body of His omnipresent son that was changed to an omnipresent body after God raised him from the dead.
All the manuscript differences together cannot do the same rotten damage your gross heresy of a <correct understanding (of) Christ's future Millennial reign>has had on the Christian Faith. Christ's 'Millennial Reign' is now and is amillennialism through and through -- Reformed, Protestant, amillennialism! Never any 'Evangelical' American nonsense, Textual differences or no Textual differences!
This happened already?...
Isa. 2. [4] And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Well, its not just a bit of adjusting for 'translation' or 'older manuscripts', but wholesale changes from Gnosticism that came from the Alexandrian manuscripts. Here is a good explanation on the affects of Gnosticism..
While the church at Rome was allowing ancient religious ideas and paganism to creep into its teachings, the church in Alexandria was being corrupted by Greek philosophy and constructing doctrines influenced by Plato and the Stoics:
It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God.
He arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature which it seems he used to develop his doctrines. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen who followed him as head of Alexandria's Catechetical School and interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen like his teacher Clement, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. He did not believe in the ressurection and taught against that the soul died along with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep).
His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism and fought against it. He was correct facts were to show, as Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen. Eusebius of Caesarea Ember Days - Chapel Homily
So lets look at what Simon Magus, who Peter encountered, formed, as the Gnostics was basically a mixture of Greek Philopsophy and Ancient Mystery religion, Zoroastrianism which was from Simon's magi background, and came to be known as Gnosticism. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. If as they thought, matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down and we see where rigid asceticism came from. So following this line, if the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, man could sate his appetites and man could use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. A common characteristic was the teaching that the realization of gnosis or the esoteric or intuitive knowledge, is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They mixed truth with falsehoods and Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth and the Gnostic sects develop the belief that Jesus was merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.
Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially strong in Egypt, but the one thing that they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the truth, and the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.
The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially in Rome and Egypt, and here is where it gets interesting. From Egypt we get some of their ideas and beliefs that were put into corrupted manuscripts and years later two of these manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.
So we see where the twisting of the nature Christ begins and the mindset of who was changing the meaning, and the sources that it came from..
While the church at Rome was allowing ancient religious ideas and paganism to creep into its teachings, the church in Alexandria was being corrupted by Greek philosophy and constructing doctrines influenced by Plato and the Stoics:
It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God.
He arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature which it seems he used to develop his doctrines. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen who followed him as head of Alexandria's Catechetical School and interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen like his teacher Clement, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. He did not believe in the ressurection and taught against that the soul died along with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep).
His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism and fought against it. He was correct facts were to show, as Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen. Eusebius of Caesarea Ember Days - Chapel Homily
So lets look at what Simon Magus, who Peter encountered, formed, as the Gnostics was basically a mixture of Greek Philopsophy and Ancient Mystery religion, Zoroastrianism which was from Simon's magi background, and came to be known as Gnosticism. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. If as they thought, matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down and we see where rigid asceticism came from. So following this line, if the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, man could sate his appetites and man could use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. A common characteristic was the teaching that the realization of gnosis or the esoteric or intuitive knowledge, is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They mixed truth with falsehoods and Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth and the Gnostic sects develop the belief that Jesus was merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.
Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially strong in Egypt, but the one thing that they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the truth, and the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.
The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially in Rome and Egypt, and here is where it gets interesting. From Egypt we get some of their ideas and beliefs that were put into corrupted manuscripts and years later two of these manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.
So we see where the twisting of the nature Christ begins and the mindset of who was changing the meaning, and the sources that it came from..
They were changed because of the views of the Gnostics were mixed into the Coptic text. And now it becomes even more interesting, as the Anglican theologians Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language and the differences changes and deletions, to say nothing of context being gone, came in. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark. Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time frame are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) in fact almost all the new version have picked up the Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts with its 'alterations'...
And these 'alterations' were not to 'improve' the translations, but for what were what I would call misrepresentation of the truth. Look at a just a small part of Westcott and Hort ideas...
1. Westcott's Views:
He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following:
"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."
2. Hort's View:
…Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book
that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."
3. Hort's View:
He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.
"I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly
agrees."
4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.”
"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.”
5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
from his séance club he writes:
“As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
not in one form, but in many.”
Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions.
6. Hort believes in the Sacraments.
"I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of
F.J.A. Hort, p. 99)
7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts.
"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.
That time has happily gone by.”
8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend.
"I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1,
P. 233)
9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary.
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in
common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50)
10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith.
A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.”
B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as
expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.”
C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly
Father.”
D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.”
(The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p.428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co.,Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976).
And these 'alterations' were not to 'improve' the translations, but for what were what I would call misrepresentation of the truth. Look at a just a small part of Westcott and Hort ideas...
1. Westcott's Views:
He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following:
"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."
2. Hort's View:
…Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book
that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."
3. Hort's View:
He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.
"I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly
agrees."
4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.”
"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.”
5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
from his séance club he writes:
“As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
not in one form, but in many.”
Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions.
6. Hort believes in the Sacraments.
"I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of
F.J.A. Hort, p. 99)
7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts.
"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.
That time has happily gone by.”
8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend.
"I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1,
P. 233)
9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary.
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in
common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50)
10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith.
A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.”
B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as
expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.”
C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly
Father.”
D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.”
(The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p.428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co.,Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976).
Here is a basic list which shows what version they were based on...
American Standard Version
Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
American King James Version
Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version
Amplified Bible
Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version
An American Translation
Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text
An American Translation
Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
Berkeley Version
Modern English 1958
Bible in English
Modern English 1949
The Bible in Living English
Modern English 1972
Bishops' Bible
Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Catholic Public Domain Version
Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate
Children's King James Version
Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version.
Christian Community Bible, English version
Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek
Clear Word Bible
Modern English 1994
Complete Jewish Bible
Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).
Contemporary English Version
Modern English 1995
Concordant Literal Version
Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.
A Conservative Version
Modern English 2005
Coverdale Bible
Early Modern English
1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)
Darby Bible
Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)
Douay-Rheims Bible
Early Modern English
1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts
Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate
Easy English Bible
Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)
Easy-to-Read Version
Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text
Emphasized Bible
Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894)
English Jubilee 2000 Bible
Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)
English Standard Version
Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)
Ferrar Fenton Bible
Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text
Geneva Bible
Early Modern English
1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
God's Word
Modern English 1995
Good News Bible
Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text
Great Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.
The Inclusive Bible
Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
International Standard Version
Modern English 2011
Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
Jesus' Disciples Bible
Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.
Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text
Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).
Modern English1963 Masoretic Text
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
King James 2000 Version
Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.
King James Easy Reading Version
Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text.
King James Version
Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.
King James II Version
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Knox's Translation of the Vulgate
Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Lamsa Bible
Modern English 1933 Syriac Pesh*tta
A Literal Translation of the Bible
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)
Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
The Living Bible
Modern English 1971
American Standard Version (paraphrase)
The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
Matthew's Bible
Early Modern English1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].
The Message
Modern English 2002
Modern King James Version
Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Modern Language Bible
Modern English 1969
Moffatt, New Translation
Modern English 1926
James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh*tta
Modern English Syriac Pesh*tta
New American Bible
Modern English 1970
New American Standard Bible
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text
New Century Version
Modern English 1991
New English Bible
Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament
New English Translation (NET Bible)
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament
New International Reader's Version
Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)
New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.
New International Version
Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).
New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text
New King James Version
Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)
New Life Version
Modern English 1986
New Living Translation
Modern English 1996
New Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
The Orthodox Study Bible
Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.
Quaker Bible
Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Recovery Version of the Bible
Modern English1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.
Revised Version
Modern English1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
Revised English Bible
Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.
The Scriptures
Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text
Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research
Simplified English Bible
Modern English.
The Story Bible
Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck
Taverner's Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible
Thomson's Translation
Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament
Today's New International Version
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.
Third Millennium Bible
Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.
Tyndale Bible
Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament) 1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).
Updated King James Version
Modern English 2004
A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Webster's Revision
Modern English1833 Revision of the King James Version.
Westminster Bible
Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew
The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]
Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)
Wycliffe's Bible (1380)
Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate
Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate
Young's Literal Translation
Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
With those using the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament basically being the Westcott and Hort Alexandrian text.
American Standard Version
Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
American King James Version
Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version
Amplified Bible
Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version
An American Translation
Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text
An American Translation
Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
Berkeley Version
Modern English 1958
Bible in English
Modern English 1949
The Bible in Living English
Modern English 1972
Bishops' Bible
Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Catholic Public Domain Version
Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate
Children's King James Version
Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version.
Christian Community Bible, English version
Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek
Clear Word Bible
Modern English 1994
Complete Jewish Bible
Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).
Contemporary English Version
Modern English 1995
Concordant Literal Version
Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.
A Conservative Version
Modern English 2005
Coverdale Bible
Early Modern English
1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)
Darby Bible
Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)
Douay-Rheims Bible
Early Modern English
1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts
Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate
Easy English Bible
Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)
Easy-to-Read Version
Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text
Emphasized Bible
Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894)
English Jubilee 2000 Bible
Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)
English Standard Version
Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)
Ferrar Fenton Bible
Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text
Geneva Bible
Early Modern English
1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
God's Word
Modern English 1995
Good News Bible
Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text
Great Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.
The Inclusive Bible
Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
International Standard Version
Modern English 2011
Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
Jesus' Disciples Bible
Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.
Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text
Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).
Modern English1963 Masoretic Text
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
King James 2000 Version
Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.
King James Easy Reading Version
Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text.
King James Version
Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.
King James II Version
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Knox's Translation of the Vulgate
Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Lamsa Bible
Modern English 1933 Syriac Pesh*tta
A Literal Translation of the Bible
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)
Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
The Living Bible
Modern English 1971
American Standard Version (paraphrase)
The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
Matthew's Bible
Early Modern English1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].
The Message
Modern English 2002
Modern King James Version
Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Modern Language Bible
Modern English 1969
Moffatt, New Translation
Modern English 1926
James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh*tta
Modern English Syriac Pesh*tta
New American Bible
Modern English 1970
New American Standard Bible
Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text
New Century Version
Modern English 1991
New English Bible
Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament
New English Translation (NET Bible)
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament
New International Reader's Version
Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)
New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.
New International Version
Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).
New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
New Jerusalem Bible
Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)
Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text
New King James Version
Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)
New Life Version
Modern English 1986
New Living Translation
Modern English 1996
New Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
The Orthodox Study Bible
Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.
Quaker Bible
Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Recovery Version of the Bible
Modern English1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.
Revised Version
Modern English1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
Revised Standard Version
Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
Revised English Bible
Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.
The Scriptures
Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text
Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research
Simplified English Bible
Modern English.
The Story Bible
Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck
Taverner's Bible
Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible
Thomson's Translation
Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament
Today's New International Version
Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.
Third Millennium Bible
Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.
Tyndale Bible
Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament) 1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).
Updated King James Version
Modern English 2004
A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Webster's Revision
Modern English1833 Revision of the King James Version.
Westminster Bible
Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew
The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]
Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)
Wycliffe's Bible (1380)
Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate
Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate
Young's Literal Translation
Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
With those using the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament basically being the Westcott and Hort Alexandrian text.
Netchaplain
Ordained Chaplain
Hi, and thanks for the instructional reply and comments! Also, Wescott and Hort were part (I think established) of a cult called The Ghostly Guild, which was evil in all it's doings!
(Westcott and the Ghostlie Guild)
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
From which I can only conclude that you have never read the NIV as a whole - all you ever do is compare isolated verses. And verses should never be taken out of their context.
But if you insist on looking at isolated verses, you must also include those where the KJV diminishes or ignores the Deity of Christ, while the NIV proclaims it clearly. For example: John 1:18, Titus 2:13, II Peter 1:1
In order to make your case, you have to be very selective in which verses you quote - because these other verses contradict it. This is why you don't convince me.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Go FISH. I'm not going to get into your stupid argument.
And you should have included your false statement which what you quoted I said was in response to:
You said:
"The NIV doesn't diminish Christ's deity in any way; it upholds it."
That statement is SO LUDICROUS, and has been PROVEN FALSE many times! even on this forum! You should look them up.
Yes, so it was with a hidden purpose that they brought these Alexandrian manuscripts for acceptance with the idea that they were older so unchanged, although that as can be seen was untrue.
Netchaplain
Ordained Chaplain
True Brother, the Critical Text (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexzandrinus manuscriptes) was too corrupt for copying purposes, which is still unknown to the majority of Christians. They were abandoned from 600 ad to 1844, and their recent discovery has earned them a popularity merely due to age.
Nearly all the modern translations are derived from these codices and are misleading many Bible believing readers of God's Word. The true source of Scripture must contain the entire Word, but the modern translations omit hundreds of entire and partial passages (Mat 4:4).
Behold
Well-Known Member
And according to the NT, ( a real one) if you deny that Jesus Messiah has come "In the FLESH", then you are of the "anti-Christ".
That's interesting isn't it?
And that is yet another reason to put your NIV in the dumpster., as its one of the worst Christ offending versions, ever created.
And its one of the most popular bibles.......
That's a real problem.
Davy
Well-Known Member
And a reading of the personal letters from the two 19th century British scholars Wescott and Hort, who presented their 'new' Greek New Testament from those corrupt manuscript sources, does verify their plan to target the Traditional Greek texts which New Testament Bibles had used up to their day in the 1880s. They instead followed the textual criticism of German scholars like Johann Griesbach.
Netchaplain
Ordained Chaplain
Amen Brother, the attack on God's Word, which nothing will ever avail anything against It, began with the Enemy's first attack when he said, "Yea, hath God said" (Gen 3:1). Most Christians will never know (but it's ok, it will only affect their spiritual growth) that the Enemy is still attacking the Word by these modern translations, which are a distraction due to a lot of truth missing in them (Mat 4:4). Most do not read and study anyway, and it's my opinion that the majority of the Church and Body will be at its lowest maturity at the Lord Jesus' final advent!
A resounding yes!
These type of errors started in the very early church.. remember that the wolves were in the flock before the end of the apostolic age.
In the KJV the Catholics changed elohim to angels multiple times.
There are multiple places even back then that are biased to prove the nicene creed.
Then after the vulgar the johness comma 1 john 5.7 was added to again enhance doctrine. Back then to only had 1 or two word to interpret into. Now there are ~20 different translations from Hebrew for the word evil, etc.
Just compare using the blue Bible of the verse Isaiah 45.7. Protestants and Catholics have been lead astray by believing God couldn't create evil. When He himself created all things. Another good error is to know who the good and faithful witness is and who the Amen is. Then read rev 3.14 in the vulgate. It should change your whole belief in who God is
The list of man's traditions thar added to and took away has not stopped. They have emasculated our faith and remove the power of God from most of us.
Read the KJV. Read about each book and verse. But beware. When the verse fragments were accepted as doctrine and what year. Fast and prayer as Satan has put all doctrine and believers asleep
These type of errors started in the very early church.. remember that the wolves were in the flock before the end of the apostolic age.
In the KJV the Catholics changed elohim to angels multiple times.
There are multiple places even back then that are biased to prove the nicene creed.
Then after the vulgar the johness comma 1 john 5.7 was added to again enhance doctrine. Back then to only had 1 or two word to interpret into. Now there are ~20 different translations from Hebrew for the word evil, etc.
Just compare using the blue Bible of the verse Isaiah 45.7. Protestants and Catholics have been lead astray by believing God couldn't create evil. When He himself created all things. Another good error is to know who the good and faithful witness is and who the Amen is. Then read rev 3.14 in the vulgate. It should change your whole belief in who God is
The list of man's traditions thar added to and took away has not stopped. They have emasculated our faith and remove the power of God from most of us.
Read the KJV. Read about each book and verse. But beware. When the verse fragments were accepted as doctrine and what year. Fast and prayer as Satan has put all doctrine and believers asleep
Similar threads
