Bible Problem

[Aunty Jane]

Planting seeds of doubt is a work of satan!!!

Or it could be God warning about the apostasy that was beginning before even the turn of the first century....
Planting seeds of doubt is what the devil does best, so how far back does he go? All the way back to Eden.....and he has no new tricks. Why? Because he doesn't need any....humans keep falling for the old ones.

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

God will show those who are open to the truth, even if its not what they want to hear.....e.g. the lies in connection with the nature of God began not long after Jesus left the earthly scene. Eager to pin a charge of blasphemy on Jesus, the Jews accused him of claiming to be God....or so it says in most modern English translations. But reading those verses in Greek, shows that they never did....nor did any of the apostles call Jesus "God" in the sense that many Christians have been led to believe they did. Failure of the Jews to obey the directive they were given in Exodus 3:15 means that the divine name was lost, and a title was substituted for The Almighty almost 7,000 times in fact.

In the KJV, Psalm 83:18 says..."That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."
Yet in Exodus 3:15, the verse where the divine name appears in the Hebrew text, it is missing in the English translation. Moses asked what he should tell Israel with regard to God's name? (Exodus 3:13)
"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Here is what the Tanakh says....

"And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."

טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:

The divine name (יְהֹוָ֞ה) is there in the Hebrew text but substituted with his title "LORD" (in capitals)....in English, which is the equivalent of "Sir" or "Master". Yet if the Jews had retained God's name (they never had a directive that countered the one in Exodus 3:15) they would never have confused Jehovah with Jesus as being the same "Lord".

What has been the result of this omission? "The LORD God" has been equated with "the Lord Jesus", assuming that the title "Lord" applies only to God......when it does not.

Add to that the translation of Exodus 3:14 is also of interest, since the way it is rendered in English is again in error, somehow linking it to John 8:58, when there is no connection.
See how the Tanakh translates this....

"Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"		יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:
14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"		ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:

The Jewish Bible translates the divine name as "I will be what I will be"...not "I AM". So again the English translation gives a false impression. God's name was never "I AM".....he was not telling Israel that he existed because they had been crying out to him under their harsh yoke of slavery. (Ex 3:9) He was telling them what he would "be" or "become" as their deliverer. They would go on to see his miracles in connection with Moses' repeated requests to allow Israel to leave, and Pharaoh's prideful determination that he would keep them.
They would experience the final blow of the 10 plagues to Pharaoh, when the angel of death would strike in one night so that all of Egypt's firstborn would perish.....and Pharaoh would lose his own firstborn son and heir. Israel had to follow God's instructions on this night when the angel "Passed Over" the homes of those who had the lamb's blood on their door posts. A commemoration they would continue to celebrate throughout their generations.

Then there was the crossing of the Red Sea, and the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire at night to guide them through the wilderness.
Jehovah would provide manna to eat and water to drink in that waterless country.....and their clothing and footwear did not wear out in 40 years of traveling largely on foot through hostile country. He did indeed "Become" what they needed him "to be", as the time of their wandering in the wilderness continued for the allotted time.

This is a big topic and it needs addressing because lives depend on the truth being told....there are so many more examples of where the English translators took liberties with the truth to promote their own adopted ideas.
It will not be what most want to hear, but the truth is the truth, and it doesn't need us to believe it, in order to be true. What we want to believe doesn't alter any of it. How many will see the truth in spite of it being very different to what they have been taught all their lives? Just like the first century Jewish Christians had to separate themselves from the orthodox traditions that they had been taught all their lives, making their worship "in vain". (Matt 15:7-9) The majority stuck with what was comfortable, but the disciples of Jesus made the adjustment, embraced the truth, and faced the backlash from friends and relatives. (Matt 10:34-38)

The challenge is on......will we do the same in this time of our testing?

 

[Netchaplain]

Well, the evidence is that modern translations are based on better sources and better scholarship than older translations.

Don't see how manuscripts that take away from the Word of God are better sources. Even the producers of the modern versions (Wescott and Hort) were "occultists":

Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and super- natural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsvchologv, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.

This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of It's History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.

Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew..

Westcott's son refers to his father's life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson's son re- ferred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered un- seemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescott's son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently. - The Dean Burgon Society, "About Westcott and Hort," paragraph Xl.

deanburgonsociety.org

 

[Netchaplain]

I don't see the problem. What is it to you if I use and memorise a different translation (which I do)? The meaning doesn't change! And nobody that I meet 'in the flesh' uses the KJV anyway!

The modern translations are technically at best paraphrases. Here is one example of an "interpolation," of which there in these Bibles many: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:6). Here, it's saying that Jesus did not think it is stealing from God to be equal with Him, which He was, in essence. The change of wording (interpolate) berefts the reader with something like this: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

This in no way says the same as the Majority reading; and there are hundreds of this type of change in their texts, because the manuscripts they use read this way. Many are unaware that the two manuscripts they use (Vaticanus and Sianiticus) are corrupt. But that's ok, because proponents of these Bibles are getting some of the essential doctrine in them, but not all doctrine, as these versions have a great deal of less of the Word of God from the many detractions of the Word.

Many are also unaware that most the writers of these manuscripts were Gnostics!!

 

[Netchaplain]

God will show those who are open to the truth, even if its not what they want to hear.....

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

 

[Netchaplain]

And nobody that I meet 'in the flesh' uses the KJV anyway!

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

 

[Cassandra]

@Netchaplain Do you have a pdf available of the comparisons?

 

[Jim B]

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

Then why do you try to prove otherwise. The KJV is based on a limited number of Medieval manuscripts, is based partly on earlier translations, and was ordered by a secular king to bolster his claim to be a ruler. Modern translations are created by scholars from a large collection of sources and reviewed by a committee of people from various denominations to make sure that there is no sectarian bias.

That is the difference.

 

[Jim B]

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

What do you know about "most" and "many"? Have you surveyed Christendom or, as is more likely, you are just expressing your personal (unfounded) opinion.

 

[Netchaplain]

@Netchaplain Do you have a pdf available of the comparisons?

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

 

[Patrick1966]

Planting seeds of doubt is a work of satan!!!

I wish I had your infallible understanding of God and all his ways. Obviously, anyone who differs with you is doing Satan's work.

 

[Patrick1966]

I've never met anyone who struggles with the differences between translations.

LOL really? Bad translations gave us the false doctrine of eternal punishment.

 

[Patrick1966]

If you recite The Lord's prayer in church, everyone knows the KJV. Any modern translation will garble up the works. Recite John 3:16 and you'll have the same in any group. The King James reads Majestically and poetically like know other translation. That's why people like to memorize and recite the KJV. It just sounds better.

The KJV is chock full of translational errors.

King James Bible Errors

What errors exist in the King James Bible? Which verses are not translated correctly?

www.biblestudy.org

 

[Patrick1966]

I enjoy the ESV Bible due to its ease of reading. However, when reading the New Testament, I often check their verses against the Concordant Literal New Testament, which can be found online here:

Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern

www.concordant.org

 

[Rockerduck]

The KJV is chock full of translational errors.

King James Bible Errors

What errors exist in the King James Bible? Which verses are not translated correctly?

www.biblestudy.org

But it has helped people come faith for the last 400 yrs.. It is the Bible of choice for every preacher in the great revival of the 1800's. It was the bible of choice in 2 world wars. The NKJV and ESV are close to each other.

 

[Patrick1966]

But it has helped people come faith for the last 400 yrs.. It is the Bible of choice for every preacher in the great revival of the 1800's. It was the bible of choice in 2 world wars. The NKJV and ESV are close to each other.

I know. It's good for faith, but not so good for doctrine.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The modern translations are technically at best paraphrases. Here is one example of an "interpolation," of which there in these Bibles many: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:6). Here, it's saying that Jesus did not think it is stealing from God to be equal with Him, which He was, in essence. The change of wording (interpolate) berefts the reader with something like this: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

I have seen this passage used to prove something that Jesus never once said or did.....
Both translations you quote are in error and support the belief that Jesus was God incarnate, when that is not what this scripture says at all.

The NASB more correctly translates this verse...
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”.
IOW despite his divine origins and supernatural abilities, he never once claimed equality with his God and Father.....he gave all credit to Jehovah as the source of his power, in all that he said and did.

There were even men, within 100 years after the death of John, writing manuscripts and claiming that they were actually correcting them.

Paul warned that the foretold apostasy was beginning (“already at work”) before the last of the apostles died. As you said, John was the last apostle, and within a short period of time, the apostasy flourished because the last remaining “restraint” was taken away. (2 Thess 2:7)

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

For myself, I personally found the KJV very hard to understand. It’s outdated language does not convey what modern English does now.....it did not convey what the Bible said in easily understood English.
As 1 Cor 14:8-9 says.....
“For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air.”

We are in a battle right now....so we cannot afford to use speech that has lost its meaning in the 21st century. The KJV is a translation, but many treat it as if it was flawless, somehow directly from God.....unfortunately it has many errors and as linguistics have improved over time, those errors become manifest. Consulting a number of translations and comparing with a concordance where original language words are examined and seen where they are placed in context in other verses is a good study habit.

I am an avid researcher and enjoy the challenge of digging for the spiritual truths that are sometimes camouflaged in the way a passage is worded. Phrasing is so very different in various languages and must be taken into account by translators who should not allow bias to creep in by the way they word things as the scripture in Phil 2:5, 6 demonstrates. By wording this passage incorrectly, they convey the opposite to what was actually stated. Jesus “did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”.

There are many more examples. We do not want to be the victims of scriptural manipulation and be led down a wrong path......it is satan who wants us to be misled. He can only do that if we fail to do our homework.....a lazy Christian is good for nothing....God blesses effort, so without effort, there is nothing to bless. We have to dig for the treasure that satan’s agents have buried.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine.

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC

The older Alexandrian Text omits words, indicating that later versions may have *added* words to the original autographs. This may be debatable--however, most versions preserve the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. The vast majority of differences are of little effect. All of the texts contain errors--there is no absolute "inspired" version, as a result. God has preserved what was needed to perpetuate the Christian ministry to the end. Involvement of Man does bring errors but cannot cause God's overriding purposes to fail.

 

[Aunty Jane]

God has preserved what was needed to perpetuate the Christian ministry to the end. Involvement of Man does bring errors but cannot cause God's overriding purposes to fail.

Can I ask you what was “preserved”? No two denominations in Christendom agree on anything but the core doctrines inherited from Roman Catholicism....if those core doctrines are in error due to the foretold apostasy, I have to ask, on what foundation is Christendom built? Does the Christ exist divided? Does the holy spirit speak with a forked tongue?

What then is “God’s overriding purpose”? How does the entirety of scripture carry that purpose through from Genesis to Revelation? It is one book, with one author.....what is it all about?

Why are we here in this life, on this tiny planet?
If angels were created to live in heaven where God resides, then why did he put humans on earth?

If this is a training ground for heaven, then why weren’t angels required to do their training here? They were in existence long before material creation was brought forth.

So what is a human’s purpose in being taken there? Who goes to heaven and what is the purpose of them being “born again”.......Can you tell me?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Can I ask you what was “preserved”? No two denominations in Christendom agree on anything but the core doctrines inherited from Roman Catholicism....if those core doctrines are in error due to the foretold apostasy, I have to ask, on what foundation is Christendom built? Does the Christ exist divided? Does the holy spirit speak with a forked tongue?

You make no effort to distinguish between "the core doctrines inherited from Roman Catholicism" from things you claim no two denominations agree on and have preserved. If all fundamental Christian truth, including the classic creeds, are considered to be "core doctrines inherited from Roman Catholicism, then what is the point in saying that no two denominations agree on anything?

As I said, the many copies from various traditions verify one another to a great extent. Small errors are hardly significant. Basic doctrines are preserved. The history is clear. The purpose of God is clearly spelled out in the Abrahamic Covenant.

 

[Netchaplain]

The older Alexandrian Text omits words, indicating that later versions may have *added* words to the original autographs.

Of course the detractors will make false accusations. It's the Majority Text in question, which consists of three-thousand plus manuscript copies, against two false witnesses, namely the Vaticanus and the Sianiticus manuscripts. Two (and sometimes three with the Alaxandrinus, which is very erroneous) manuscripts against thousands. This is a no brainer for me Brother.

The detractors want confusion in the Body of Christ by presenting much of what is too different from the Authorized version, and also different from one another.