Bible Problem

[Netchaplain]

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.

"God was manifest in the flesh" by natural birth (1Ti 3:16). "Manifested" here means Jesus was a presentation (not the Father Himself) of the Father as if it were the Father Himself. This is the truth of what is meant by Col 2:9: "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." He was not the Godhead (Father), but all that the Father is, says and does was fully His will. Hence "the fullness" or if you will, the same as if it were the Father Himself, showing us truth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

The Majority Text consists of documents preserved under the Byzantine tradition, which were likely homogenized, "corrected," and edited. How can we know this? All texts have errors of various kinds. The newest copies likely contained "fixes" for what were perceived to be inconsistencies between the many manuscripts. The only way to det"ermine this is by finding older versions which, if you exclude them as "erroneous and detracting," cease to function as correctives.

"Dogmatizing" the latest copies as more "authoritative" or "inspired" is nothing more than showing favoritism for one's own upbringing and preferred tradition, in my opinion. The "Received Version" of Erasmus was chalk full of typographical errors, and was "corrected" by others over time. And later it obtained more "corrections," leading to the KJV. Would you "dogmatize" Erasmus' 1st printed translation as the most "inspired?" If so, you should throw out the KJV itself as "uninspired, in error, and a detractor!"
T
Furthermore, did Erasmus himself narrow his chosen sources to the Majority Text? From this...
"The Textus Receptus was mainly established on a basis of manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, also called 'Majority text', and usually is identified with it by its followers. However, in addition, over many years, Erasmus had extensively annotated New Testament citations in early Fathers, such as Augustine and Ambrose, whose biblical quotations more frequently conformed to the Western text-type; and he drew extensively on these citations (and also on the Vulgate) in support of his choice of Greek readings."

 

[Netchaplain]

The Majority Text consists of documents preserved under the Byzantine tradition, which were likely homogenized, "corrected," and edited. How can we know this? All texts have errors of various kinds. The newest copies likely contained "fixes" for what were perceived to be inconsistencies between the many manuscripts. The only way to det"ermine this is by finding older versions which, if you exclude them as "erroneous and detracting," cease to function as correctives.

"Dogmatizing" the latest copies as more "authoritative" or "inspired" is nothing more than showing favoritism for one's own upbringing and preferred tradition, in my opinion. The "Received Version" of Erasmus was chalk full of typographical errors, and was "corrected" by others over time. And later it obtained more "corrections," leading to the KJV. Would you "dogmatize" Erasmus' 1st printed translation as the most "inspired?" If so, you should throw out the KJV itself as "uninspired, in error, and a detractor!"

Regardless Brother, I find more security in translations that use the Majority Text for the translation. It consists of three-thousand plus manuscripts, as opposed to the detractors three, but mainly two manuscripts, which were written by Gnostics and is why many of the hundreds of omitted Scriptures that refer to Christ's deity.

Couple of examples: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jhn 3:13). Here the omnipresence of Christ is shown, but the Gnostics omitted "who is in heaven."

"To make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ (Eph 3:9). the phrase "who created all things by Jesus Christ" is omitted. There are many passages that manifest Christ's creating power, but the problem is detracting from the Word.

It's not an essential problem that we disagree about translations, because it's not what will save us.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Regardless Brother, I find more security in translations that use the Majority Text for the translation. It consists of three-thousand plus manuscripts, as opposed to the detractors three, but mainly two manuscripts, which were written by Gnostics and is why many of the hundreds of omitted Scriptures that refer to Christ's deity.

Couple of examples: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jhn 3:13). Here the omnipresence of Christ is shown, but the Gnostics omitted "who is in heaven."

"To make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ (Eph 3:9). the phrase "who created all things by Jesus Christ" is omitted. There are many passages that manifest Christ's creating power, but the problem is detracting from the Word.

It's not an essential problem that we disagree about translations, because it's not what will save us.

Yes, the most important truths, which save us, are in both the Received Text and the other text types. The following article challenges the theory that Gnostics are responsible for the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts: Are Modern Versions based on “Gnosticized” Greek Manuscripts? My goodness, NO!

This article claims that these manuscripts are utterly incompatible with Gnostic beliefs. The author believes that the claim of Gnostic origins for these manuscripts is a "conspiracy theory" perpetuated through ignorance.

None of this is meant to be "fighting words." My interest is purely in preserving intellectual inquiry in the matter of considering any of the theories in this regard. We must remain free to examine any and all claims with respect to the Scriptural versions and their sources.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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

While it is true many of the more modern translations are somewhat weak, I have discovered they do not harm the principle doctrines of Scripture needed for one to grow and walk with the Lord.

1 JOhn 5:7 is not found in manuscripts until the textus receptus was written. Most believing scholars (not just plain scholars) , agree it was a side text that found its way into the TR.

I have used the KJV for over 40 years. I do not switchofor I am very comfortable using it and became accustomed tro teh Elizebethian English. Also there are more language tools keyed to the KJV than any other translation.

What bothers me more are the paraphrases and the dynamic translations which do contain more error.

 

[Netchaplain]

Yes, the most important truths, which save us, are in both the Received Text and the other text types. The following article challenges the theory that Gnostics are responsible for the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts: Are Modern Versions based on “Gnosticized” Greek Manuscripts? My goodness, NO!

This article claims that these manuscripts are utterly incompatible with Gnostic beliefs. The author believes that the claim of Gnostic origins for these manuscripts is a "conspiracy theory" perpetuated through ignorance.

None of this is meant to be "fighting words." My interest is purely in preserving intellectual inquiry in the matter of considering any of the theories in this regard. We must remain free to examine any and all claims with respect to the Scriptural versions and their sources.

I'm finding more all the time that many Christians are not concerned with translations that change and omits Scripture. That's because many Christians do not read the Word much.

 

[Netchaplain]

While it is true many of the more modern translations are somewhat weak, I have discovered they do not harm the principle doctrines of Scripture needed for one to grow and walk with the Lord.

1 JOhn 5:7 is not found in manuscripts until the textus receptus was written. Most believing scholars (not just plain scholars) , agree it was a side text that found its way into the TR.

I have used the KJV for over 40 years. I do not switchofor I am very comfortable using it and became accustomed tro teh Elizebethian English. Also there are more language tools keyed to the KJV than any other translation.

What bothers me more are the paraphrases and the dynamic translations which do contain more error.

I agree with much of your reply, but it's my opinion that one will not grow as much reading translations that mix true Scripture with the false readings, and esp. the omitted Scriptures; of which there are hundreds. For thirty years of my 47 years of studying the Bible I use to mark where I left off, then return there when I went back to read. I suppose I read the NT about 30 times and the OT three times. When I read a modern translation it didn't take long at all. I eventually found out why. There is much less Scripture in them than the Traditional Text. Hundreds of omissions (Mat 4:4). I can show you many if you like!

Thanks for the reply and God bless!

 

[Netchaplain]

1 John 5:7 is not found in manuscripts until the textus receptus was written.

Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to add to Scripture, but yet make the translation read correctly. Hence they italicized "the brother of" to show that there are no extant manuscripts that contain this phrase , due to scribal error. The almost all the modern translations retain the omission, and they read that "Elhanan killed goliath" which contradicts 1Chron 20:5, a reiteration that shows "Elhanan killed Lamhi, the brother of Goliath" (no italics here).

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm finding more all the time that many Christians are not concerned with translations that change and omits Scripture. That's because many Christians do not read the Word much.

I'm not sure that the Scriptures were readily available to Christians in their own tongue for most of Christian history? As you said earlier the important things are the doctrines that bring us into fellowship with God through Christ, indicating a changed life.

The many copies in more modern times is little different from a few versions in ancient times, as I see it. The many manuscripts constituting the Majority Text were ultimately based on fewer ancient manuscripts. The more manuscripts, the more we have indications of divergence from the original autographs.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I agree with much of your reply, but it's my opinion that one will not grow as much reading translations that mix true Scripture with the false readings, and esp. the omitted Scriptures; of which there are hundreds. For thirty years of my 47 years of studying the Bible I use to mark where I left off, then return there when I went back to read. I suppose I read the NT about 30 times and the OT three times. When I read a modern translation it didn't take long at all. I eventually found out why. There is much less Scripture in them than the Traditional Text. Hundreds of omissions (Mat 4:4). I can show you many if you like!

Thanks for the reply and God bless!

Well would appreciate what you have found are omissions. Also if you have the stated reasons why, that would be awesome.

I have read and listened to the NY over 200 times and done extensive studies in manuscript history.

I know the controversy between Alexandrian and Antiochian works. I also know about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Many of the omitted verses like 1 JOhn 5 and the end of Mark are due to their being inserted in too few manuscripts

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to add to Scripture, but yet make the translation read correctly. Hence they italicized "the brother of" to show that there are no extant manuscripts that contain this phrase , due to scribal error. The almost all the modern translations retain the omission, and they read that "Elhanan killed goliath" which contradicts 1Chron 20:5, a reiteration that shows "Elhanan killed Lamhi, the brother of Goliath" (no italics here).

Some do, some don't. Depending on the publisher and writers. the original translations had no "italics". Once again it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true, but not in enough reliable older manuscripts as to be inserted in more modern literal translations. Some add it as a footnote but then explain why it is not part of the text.

Most people do not realize that entire New Testament can be reproduced but 27 verses from the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

 

[Aunty Jane]

"God was manifest in the flesh" by natural birth (1Ti 3:16).

Again, we need to compare translations.....this verse does not say “God was manifest in the flesh”.
Even the KJV admits in a footnote that what is translated “God” is actually “who”. It is talking about Jesus.

NASB...
“Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.”

ESV....”Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.”

ASV...“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.”

It isn’t saying “the mystery of God” but “the mystery of godliness”.....and who was more “godly” that Jesus, who was the the perfect reflection of his Father....”the exact representation” (Heb 1:3) of the one who created him....God’s “firstborn”. (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14)

Heb 1:3....speaking of the son, says....
“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”. (KJV)
When you do not have indoctrination suggesting something else, you can read a verse like this as it was understood in the first century. No one believed that Jesus was anything but “the son of God”.....all worshipped the Father as their “one God”. Jewish monotheism. (1 Cor 8:5-6) All of the first Christians were Jewish. “God the Son” does not exist in scripture.....it was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church.

Only the KJV (and those who follow the same lead) translate “God” where it does not belong.

If translation bias is indicated in any verse, we will see it in others.....no more obvious than in John 1:18...
“No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (KJV)
The word “son” does not appear in the Greek.....”monogenes theos” means “only begotten god”, which leaves the translators in a bit of a dilemma....they have mistranslated John 1:1 by not recognising the use of the definite article in the first mention of “theos” but ignoring the omission of it is the second instance....and using capital letters where none exist in Greek. So to carry on that mistranslation, we see the use of words substituted to convey what the verse does not say.

If John 1:1 says what they translate, then John 1:18 is a lie.....”no man hath seen God at any time”.....yet how many people saw Jesus? And how can an immortal God be “begotten”? We get a bit of an idea of what happens when an agenda needs to be carried on in verses that do not accommodate it.

"Manifested" here means Jesus was a presentation (not the Father Himself) of the Father as if it were the Father Himself. This is the truth of what is meant by Col 2:9: "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

The word “godhead” does not appear in any verse of scripture....it was made up by the Catholic church.

He was not the Godhead (Father), but all that the Father is, says and does was fully His will. Hence "the fullness" or if you will, the same as if it were the Father Himself, showing us truth.

Since there is no “godhead” spoken about by anyone in the scriptures.....the “fullness” that dwells in Jesus is a reflection of all the qualities that makes the son an “image” of his God and Father.
Jehovah has always been the God of his son....and always will be. Rev 3:12 was written long after Jesus’ return to heaven, and yet he mentions Jehovah as “my God” four times in that one verse.

There is no way to prove that the son was anything but a “begotten son” since the beginning of his existence. (Rev 3:14) The fact that he is the only direct creation of his Father, makes him “only begotten”....a unique son among many other “sons of God”. Those who have been taken over by a doctrine that did not exist in the first century, will try to see what they want to see in their Bible translations, because the very foundation of their belief system depends on this one foundational doctrine......if it is false, then the whole religious structure collapses. Any wonder people fight to maintain it....

Sometimes the truth is hiding in plain sight.....but it becomes obvious to those who have had their eyes opened by God. (John 6:44, 65) Satan can blind all others. (2 Cor 4:3-4)

 

[Netchaplain]

1 John 5:7 is not found in manuscripts until the textus receptus was written.

Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to add to Scripture, but yet make the translation read correctly. Hence they italicized "the brother of" to show that there are no extant manuscripts that contain this phrase, due to scribal error. The almost all the modern translations retain the omission, and they read that "Elhanan killed goliath" which contradicts 1Chron 20:5, a reiteration that shows "Elhanan killed Lamhi, the brother of Goliath" (no italics here).

The many copies in more modern times is little different from a few versions in ancient times, as I see it. The many manuscripts constituting the Majority Text were ultimately based on fewer ancient manuscripts. The more manuscripts, the more we have indications of divergence from the original autographs.

The modern translations have about 3000 differences from the Traditional translations by the usage of omissions (most serious), transpositions and interpolations. There is much less Scripture in the modern translations. Most aren't aware that they are a plot to disunify the Body.

When we don't read the same Bible that has the entire Word, we won't learn as much. It can't affect our salvation, but severely affects growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 4:15); and the importance of increasing in the Lord Jesus' walk is so we can be used more by God to strengthen the saved and draw the lost!

 

[Netchaplain]

Again, we need to compare translations.....this verse does not say “God was manifest in the flesh”.

"God" is correctly used in the translation, for it is the Greek word "theos."

If one doesn't truly know that Christ, the Son of God did not came in the flesh, he is an antichrist (not suspecting you of course, unless you don't believe this truth -1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7).

 

[Netchaplain]

1 John 5:7 is not found in manuscripts until the textus receptus was written.

Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to add to Scripture, but yet make the translation read correctly. Hence they italicized "the brother of" to show that there are no extant manuscripts that contain this phrase , due to scribal error. The almost all the modern translations retain the omission, and they read that "Elhanan killed goliath" which contradicts 1Chron 20:5, a reiteration that shows "Elhanan killed Lamhi, the brother of Goliath" (no italics here).

I'm not sure that the Scriptures were readily available to Christians in their own tongue for most of Christian history? As you said earlier the important things are the doctrines that bring us into fellowship with God through Christ, indicating a changed life.

The many copies in more modern times is little different from a few versions in ancient times, as I see it. The many manuscripts constituting the Majority Text were ultimately based on fewer ancient manuscripts. The more manuscripts, the more we have indications of divergence from the original autographs.

The problems presented by these two manuscripts (Vaticanus -codex B and Sinaticus - codex aleph or A) were well known, not only to the translators of the King James but also to Erasmus . . . "Erasmus (originator of the manuscripts that the Traditional translations use), "rejected these varying readings of the Vatican manuscript (also the Saniticus and Alexandrian Texts) because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Received Text was correct. The problems presented by these two manuscripts (Vaticanus -codex B and Sinaticus - codex aleph or A) were well known, not only to the translators of the King James but also to Erasmus."-"Which Bible," by David Otis fuller, D.D., page 253

 

[Netchaplain]

Well would appreciate what you have found are omissions. Also if you have the stated reasons why, that would be awesome.

Many the omissions are due to the Gnostic writers of these manuscripts attempts to distort the Deity of Christ, e.g. discredits to Christ's omnipresence: the phrase "even the Son of man which is in heaven," showing He's present in heaven while on the earth, is omitted.

Eph 3:9 omits "who created all things by Jesus Christ." Though there are many other passages that teach Jesus is the Creator (God did it through the Word or Jesus) it is of no less significance to omit any Scripture, especially if it reiterates the Lord Jesus' Deified attributes.

There are hundreds of omissions. Very serious!

 

[Netchaplain]

Some do, some don't. Depending on the publisher and writers. the original translations had no "italics".

All translations have to use many words that were not found in the manuscripts (the translation isn't perfect but the Word of God in it is). The King James translators were laborious enough to indicate to the reader what were not in the manuscripts by italicization. A highly significant advantage!

 

[Grailhunter]

This is a good discussion and I see so much in it.
There are technical terms that will go over a lot of people’s head. To put it simply…..

There are people that think that the KJV is more or less a God. Or that God signed off on it. The Bible is not the Word of God, it is not holy. It is a book that we use to study the Holy Word of God, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are the Word of God.

For deep study you are looking for the most accurate Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and most of that was not discovered until relatively recently and also comparisons were discovered recently.

As a rule modern translations are far more accurate than older translations. For one, older translations like the KJV were using translations of translations of dubious texts. As it is, better more accurate copies of the biblical texts have been discovered relatively recently that were not available when the KJV was being put together.

Newer manuscripts usually include additional verses that the older manuscripts do not have. In other words people added or adjusted verses as time went on. We do not have the original texts, it is all copies of the original texts, the older the copy.....it is considered more accurate and in many instances it can be compared to other old copies that have been found.

There are a few good modern translations, but nothing is perfect. If you are doing deep study, you are doing a lot of comparison. Most of your older texts are in museums but you can view them online and practice your Hebrew or Greek. LOL Or rather your skills at doing word study and reference.

I recommend the New American Standard Bible, but there are others great translations that can be used for comparison and you can compare them online.

NRSV---ESV---NIV to name a few other good translations.

Then you have the Sacred Name Bibles that put the names of God the Father and God the Son back into the scriptures.

At one time God the Father’s name occurred in the Old Testament nearly 6,000 times, they have all been removed from translations. And God the Son’s name never appeared in the New Testament, they used a Greek word that meant healer. This is another point of humor for me....Do you think Christ's mother would give her Son a Greek name? LOL Christ was a Jew, His name is Yeshua. You would think people would notice this LOL

 

[amigo de christo]

I'm finding more all the time that many Christians are not concerned with translations that change and omits Scripture. That's because many Christians do not read the Word much.

BINGO .

 

[Grailhunter]

BINGO .

Yes but what Word are they reading?
People that change or add things to the scriptures should go to hell.

The KJV is full of that.....but also they were using translations of translations that came from modified manuscripts and inaccurate translations, so there was really no possibility of being real accurate.

I remember when the NIV came out people were screaming that it had removed scriptures. LOL No it was not including scriptures that were added after the biblical era. And it was correcting scriptures that the KJV had modified.

That is the difference between the NASB the KJV and the NIV.....the NASB is a whole a lot more accurate than the KJV but it includes those added scriptures but puts them in parentheses and notes they were not in earlier manuscripts.