Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[OzSpen]

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

Hobie,

What does 1 John 4:3 state in the Greek texts?

Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text (Byzantine) reads:

και παν πνευμα ο μη ομολογει τον ιησουν χριστον εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα εκ του θεου ουκ εστιν και τουτο εστιν το του αντιχριστου ο ακηκοατε οτι ερχεται και νυν εν τω κοσμω εστιν ηδη (Beza 1598).
The TR was compiled from a very small number of MSS available to Erasmus.

The 1611 KJV translated this as: 'And euery Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you haue heard, that it should come, and euen now already is it in the world.'.

The United Bible Societies/Nestle-Aland Greek text was used for the NIV. It is a critical text that compares a large number of manuscripts to determine which reading is most likely to be closest to the original.

This is based on the earliest Greek texts (Alexandrian) for which the Greek reads for this verse:

καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη (Tyndale House Greek New Testament).

The NIV translation of this verse is: 'but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world'.

I read and have taught NT Greek. I conclude that the NIV is a faithful translation from the Nestle-Aland Greek and Tyndale House Greek NT.

Instead of concluding that the NIV has taken out that Jesus had come in the flesh, I'm of the view that the TR and KJV have added to the earliest (Alexandrian) MSS. 'Jesus Christ has come in the flesh' is not in the earliest MSS.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

What is interesting is that back then when speaking of "Scripture," Paul was referring to the Old Testament. It was the rabbis who were corrupting Scripture, like divorcing for any reason.

CL,

I agree, but there is one exception, 2 Peter 3:16:

He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (NIV).​

So Peter regarded Paul's writings as Scripture when compared with 'other Scriptures'.

Oz

 

[Truther]

Well not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this. Exodus 6:3 "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them”.

Ok God said, Abraham didn’t know him by the name “Jehovah” right. Now this, Genesis 22:13 "And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Genesis 22:14 "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen”

Ok, how did the name Jehovah get into Abraham mouth then? Because God said, “but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them”. now who is lying? God the Spirit, or the written record of the KJV 1611?

but as I said, the KJV 1611 have a built in correcting mechanism, so if the pen of scribs try to corrupt it, it will testify to the TRUTH.

so here we have Exodus written after Genesis, surely the translators should have known better.

PICJAG.

You assume a lot. You think ancient translators are not as smart as modern ones.
That is non explainable.

The older the translators, the closer to the scripture.

The greatness of the 1611 translation is the election process.

All other ancient translations were single translators.

Modern translations are biased and coming out yearly. They all differ by about 50,000 words per copyright laws.

They don’t register as the word of God at all, but mere commentary books for the KJV.

 

[reformed1689]

You assume a lot. You think ancient translators are not as smart as modern ones.
That is non explainable.

The older the translators, the closer to the scripture.

The greatness of the 1611 translation is the election process.

All other ancient translations were single translators.

Modern translations are biased and coming out yearly. They all differ by about 50,000 words per copyright laws.

They don’t register as the word of God at all, but mere commentary books for the KJV.

Another ignorant post.

 

[CharismaticLady]

CL,

I agree, but there is one exception, 2 Peter 3:16:

He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (NIV).​

So Peter regarded Paul's writings as Scripture when compared with 'other Scriptures'.

Oz

Did Paul say that about everything he wrote? Somethings he said were not the Lord, but his own opinion. What do we do with those?

 

[Truther]

Another ignorant post.

Do you think you understand Ancient Greek better than the KJV translators of 1611?

 

[reformed1689]

Do you think you understand Ancient Greek better than the KJV translators of 1611?

Did I make that claim? No. But here are the ignorant parts of your post:

1. Assuming that closer to the original (in time) means more accurate. This is not true.
2. Modern translations being biased, as if the KJV was not biased at all. Nonsense.
3. They don't register as the word of God at all? That's just a stupid comment. Forget ignorant, it's stupid. You just make yourself look a fool when you say junk like that.

 

[101G]

My point is that you are wrong to even think that is what the distinctions in the way the word Lord is written. That is NOT the distinction they are making. You really need to do your research because you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

so we can take this as you have no reproof to what I posted. Oh well.

But to show my belief in a quick way, the LORD, all caps, "Father", is the Lord "DIVERSIFIED" in flesh, the "Son"
now, that was quick and to the point. and with that one statement, that puts an end to any three persons in any Godhead. and at the same time perserve the plurality of God as "ONE".

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

You assume a lot. You think ancient translators are not as smart as modern ones.
That is non explainable.

The older the translators, the closer to the scripture.

The greatness of the 1611 translation is the election process.

All other ancient translations were single translators.

Modern translations are biased and coming out yearly. They all differ by about 50,000 words per copyright laws.

They don’t register as the word of God at all, but mere commentary books for the KJV.

first thanks for the reply, second, we take it that you cannot reconcile Exodus 6:3 and Genesis 22:14?

PICJAG.

 

[Enoch111]

2. Modern translations being biased, as if the KJV was not biased at all. Nonsense.

The King James translators cannot be compared to the modern translators in any way, shape, or form. That is if you wish to be objective and impartial and accept the facts.

1. It was primarily the Calvinistic Puritans within the Church of England who petitioned James I at the Hampton Court Conference for a new English translation.

2. There were 54 translators selected originally, but eventually they were down to 47. However all were not Puritans, therefore there was no Calvinistic bias.

3. Each one of these men was an outstanding scholar in his own right, but at the same time they were devout, godly Christians with an extremely high regard for the Word of God. Therefore they made sure that any words added by the translators themselves (where necessary) were clearly distinguished from the actual translation (a word-for-word translation). All italicised words in the KJV are from the translators.

4. They regarded their work to be the task of faithfully translating the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the OT and the traditional Greek (Received) text of the NT (no matter how long it took).

5. "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."

It is obvious that you are not very well versed in the matter, therefore you might want to be careful about what you say regarding the translators and the translation itself.

 

[reformed1689]

so we can take this as you have no reproof to what I posted. Oh well.

You did get reproof. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[reformed1689]

It is obvious that you are not very well versed in the matter, therefore you might want to be careful about what you say regarding the translators and the translation itself.

You realize nothing you said actually contradicts anything I said right? I AM versed on the matter. I've studied the matter extensively. The idea of KJVO for the English language is not just nonsense, it is ignorant and stupid. It is idolatry.

 

[Truther]

first thanks for the reply, second, we take it that you cannot reconcile Exodus 6:3 and Genesis 22:14?

PICJAG.

Looks good to me, along with the word "Easter" in Acts.

The KJV translators were God sent for the last days, then remained unopposed for 300 years.

The modern versions are an end time phenomenon to baffle saints and sinners.

 

[101G]

You did get reproof. You have no idea what you are talking about.

your opinion or the scripture. if I'm in error according to you, post scripture that prove me in error?

now here's your big chance to correct me. John 1:3 the Lord, the Son Made all things, who is the same one Person in Isaiah 44:24 that said he was "alone" and BY HIMSEL, who is the LORD, all caps that MADE ALL THINGS.

so dave is the LORD all caps the same one Person who is the Lord? if not please post scripture to reproof me? but first check your translation to be sure of your answer.

the floor is yours.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

Looks good to me, along with the word "Easter" in Acts.

The KJV translators were God sent for the last days, then remained unopposed for 300 years.

The modern versions are an end time phenomenon to baffle saints and sinners.

well how is it good, when God said that Abraham didn't know him by the name Jehovah and according to the scriptures Jehovah was in Abraham mouth, so it's not good there is a lie here. did you read both verses?

PICJAG.

 

[Truther]

The King James translators cannot be compared to the modern translators in any way, shape, or form. That is if you wish to be objective and impartial and accept the facts.

1. It was primarily the Calvinistic Puritans within the Church of England who petitioned James I at the Hampton Court Conference for a new English translation.

2. There were 54 translators selected originally, but eventually they were down to 47. However all were not Puritans, therefore there was no Calvinistic bias.

3. Each one of these men was an outstanding scholar in his own right, but at the same time they were devout, godly Christians with an extremely high regard for the Word of God. Therefore they made sure that any words added by the translators themselves (where necessary) were clearly distinguished from the actual translation (a word-for-word translation). All italicised words in the KJV are from the translators.

4. They regarded their work to be the task of faithfully translating the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the OT and the traditional Greek (Received) text of the NT (no matter how long it took).

5. "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."

It is obvious that you are not very well versed in the matter, therefore you might want to be careful about what you say regarding the translators and the translation itself.

I am very well versed in YOUR kind of criticism of the KJV.

Your kind of folks fight tirelessly to redefine God's perfect word to your liking.

Your kind of folks are educated by modern translators that think they are wiser than ancient translators.

They also become fascinated with multiple meanings found in anti-KJV frauds like Strongs etc.

They are taught in seminary to attempt to debunk the English words of the KJV then add 20 new word possibilities per verse to appear "educated" and "elite".

Fact is, God's word in English is now a crossword puzzle of modern ideas, with no end in sight.

Seminary has destroyed the 1st century concept of salvation per Acts 2:38 also.

What a mess....

 

[Truther]

well how is it good, when God said that Abraham didn't know him by the name Jehovah and according to the scriptures Jehovah was in Abraham mouth, so it's not good there is a lie here. did you read both verses?

PICJAG.

Love it.
You trying to outsmart the ancient translators tonight?

 

[reformed1689]

your opinion or the scripture. if I'm in error according to you, post scripture that prove me in error?

Post Scripture to prove that the english renditions of LORD and Lord are not to distinguish between Father and Son? Just look at the Greek. Or better yet, read this article: What do LORD, GOD, Lord, God, etc., stand for in the Bible? Why are they used in place of God's name? | GotQuestions.org

so dave is the LORD all caps the same one Person who is the Lord? if not please post scripture to reproof me? but first check your translation to be sure of your answer.

You do know the entire Trinity was involved in creation right?

 

[101G]

Love it.
You trying to outsmart the ancient translators tonight?

(smile) ...lol. I got to give it to you, keepup a good attitude, I like that, my.my.my, my, my. oh well, but did you see the implication of these scriptures?. if not and it's still good to you. don't answer...... just stay as you are.

thank you.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

Post Scripture to prove that the english renditions of LORD and Lord are not to distinguish between Father and Son? Just look at the Greek. Or better yet, read this article: What do LORD, GOD, Lord, God, etc., stand for in the Bible? Why are they used in place of God's name? | GotQuestions.org

You do know the entire Trinity was involved in creation right?

if so, meaning that there is a trinity, then reconcile John 1:3 with Isaiah 44:24 and then we'll Get to Genesis 1:26... (smile).

Now, reconcile will you please, John 1:3 and isaiah 44:24 as a trinity if you can. you don't have to use the titles LORD or Lord, you can use Father, or Son... (smile).

the floor is yours.

PICJAG.