RLT63
Well-Known Member
I respect your position. I don’t know why people argue about this everyone is free to choose what Bible they read. But I prefer to know what has been omitted and make my own mind up about it.
Bible Problem
- Thread starter Netchaplain
- 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!
It doesn't make sense to use a translation that actually omits much Scripture. That's the most important to me. I also notice that Church membership started dwindling (early to late 90's) not long after the modern translations were produced. I believe it's due to lack of unity in the Word, which most had before, but not possible now. I also believe that the Body is going to be at its lowest level of maturity when Christ returns. But that's ok, He will make up for all that we've been missing in Him.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I respect your position concerning modern translations but they started a long time before the 90s. I had The Living Bible not long after I learned how to read in the early 70s
Yes it took a little time for the modern translations to have an effect, from 1881 to the early 90's, little over a century.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Yes it does....and John 1:14 says that it was “the Word” who “became flesh”, not Jehovah.
God’s law demanded “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life”. The “last Adam” had to be the exact equivalent of the ‘first Adam’....a sinless life offered for the sinless life lost for the human race.
God’s “holy servant” was his “firstborn” son, (Acts 4:27) sent to earth to give his perfect life in sacrifice to buy back, (redeem) and to restore what Adam lost for his children.
I believe that is a mistranslation.
1 John 5:6-7 in the ASV reads....
“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.”
Translators can make their renderings imply whatever they want it to say, but there is no triune god mentioned by Jesus in any verse of the Bible.
And you ascertain that by what scripture?
In attempting to offer up his own son, Abraham showed that when God demanded that something be done, he would carry it out because of his trust in God’s will.
Paul wrote in Hebrews 11:17-19...
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way.”
We see here that Abraham’s trust was in the resurrection.....the illustration was pictorial of Jehovah’s willingness to sacrifice his own son, because the will of God required it. He knew that Isaac could be raised from the dead just as surely as God’s son was raised from the dead hundreds of years later.
An immortal God cannot die for a mortal man’s sin. Redemption required an exact amount to cancel the debt. Jesus was that mortal man, “sent” by his Father, but willing to take on the assignment, such is God’s love for mankind. (John 3:16)
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
The problem is in peoples understanding of history, ancient culture, inspiration and the influences the writers of what we deem today as scripture came to be. The problem is not the Bible.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well having walked with god for 49 years, I see the many errors.
I love the KJV and the TR.
But I also know that all the doctrines are well defended without the "omitted verses".
My big concern is not so much the "literal translations" out there, even if from the Alexandrian side, but the dynamic and paraphrase versions that really corrupt the word.
I do know that the construct of 1 JOhn 5:7-8 gives powerful evidence that verse 7 should be there, but it is also concerting that it is not found in the ante Nicene writings nor in older than the manuscripts past 1000AD
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well my translation of choice is the KJV. I am not too concerned with other "literal" translations, my concern is the greater danger from the dynamic translations and paraphrases. While mnay of the omissions show crucial doctrines, all can be thouroughly defended even if those verses are not in a Bible.
No explanations for detracting from the Word. I believe this is Satan's greatest smokescreen against spiritual growth in Christ.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I’m with you on the omissions and I like to know the difference in translations but I don’t feel the same way. Someone can read the NLT and know how to get saved
Yes, but you also need to grow "by every Word out of God's mouth" (Mat 4:4). They change much Scripture, without readers realizing it (because most haven't read enough frequently to see it), by omissions (worst), transpositions and interpolations. Many passages do not retain the original meaning of the texts.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
If they truly are detractions. We have no direct or even direct evidence these were intentional omissions, just beliefs and opinions. As I said, with or without those debated verses, the bible suffers no ill on any doctrine.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
It is true that we will know Him as well as He knows us now. However, many of those Scriptures with lost words by the Alexandrians could be the cause of the "falling away" right before the Antichrist is revealed. After all we have a huge cult in the Church right now! There are many itching ears that believe the doctrine of demons created from the shortened verses.
One of many changed, or forged doctrines is Phl 2:6: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Here, the language thought is that the Lord Jesus does not see it stealing from God (Father) to consider Himself to be equal with God, which He is in essence and power. Jesus confessed that the "Father is greater than I," but this in reference to authority only, and not power and essence, in which each of those in the Trinity are equal. This is seen in the creation power of the Word (Christ), and the power and authority of the Holy Spirit in Him being the Creator of our rebirth, and being the Author of the Word of God.
The corrupted version reads, "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." Here, the text is interpolating (entering foreign language - transposing is rearranging the order of the wording) the passage to mean that the Lord Jesus does not consider Himself to be equal with God. This is one of at least hundreds of significant doctrinal difference. Pretty serious, but not as bad as the omissions, which takes away readings from the Word.
I at least partly agree, because many loose their interest in a Bible that says many things that the Traditional Bibles say. It causes disunity with one another, and we loose interest with one another in spiritual truths.
The Alexandrian is so briefed in its test that it's more corrupted that the other two manuscripts that they use. Thus they primarily only use these three, 3-4th century briefed manuscripts.
The manuscripts used for the Traditional Translations use thousands of manuscripts:
"4,489 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Of these, 170 are papyrus fragments, dating from the 2nd-7th centuries; 212 are uncial (capital letter) manuscripts, dating from the 4th-10th centuries; 2429 are minuscule (small letter) manuscripts dating from the 9th-16th centuries; and 1678 are lectionaries (lesson books for public reading containing extracts from the New Testament). -David Otis Fuller, D.D., "Counterfeit Or Genuine", pg. 18, 2nd paragraph.
Behold
Well-Known Member
-
Is it possible to contradict the bible and Believe the bible. ??
Is it possible to say that the bible is filled with errors" and believe the bible. ??
Is it possible to teach that "they left stuff out that should be in there" and believe the bible.?
Is it possible to be filled with the Holy Spirit and come on a public forum, or use a pulpit to "correct" the bible.?
A.) Never.
AA.) Not ever.
Should a person teach the bible, if they do not believe it is truth and pure and holy?
That's a "no".
Should you reader, ever for one second, listen to some "teacher" who says the bible "has problems" or "is missing what should be in it'?
That's a "no"
Only listen to preachers and teachers who tell you that the bible is holy, righteous, and true, and is the final authority, and not the greek text, or the early church fathers.
Let me give you a clue reader, that you have not been shown before.
The DEVIL wants you to doubt the bible.
He does not want you to trust it.
Why?
Because then all you have left to believe, is your opinion., or the opinions of others.
Is it possible to contradict the bible and Believe the bible. ??
Is it possible to say that the bible is filled with errors" and believe the bible. ??
Is it possible to teach that "they left stuff out that should be in there" and believe the bible.?
Is it possible to be filled with the Holy Spirit and come on a public forum, or use a pulpit to "correct" the bible.?
A.) Never.
AA.) Not ever.
Should a person teach the bible, if they do not believe it is truth and pure and holy?
That's a "no".
Should you reader, ever for one second, listen to some "teacher" who says the bible "has problems" or "is missing what should be in it'?
That's a "no"
Only listen to preachers and teachers who tell you that the bible is holy, righteous, and true, and is the final authority, and not the greek text, or the early church fathers.
Let me give you a clue reader, that you have not been shown before.
The DEVIL wants you to doubt the bible.
He does not want you to trust it.
Why?
Because then all you have left to believe, is your opinion., or the opinions of others.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
If a matter is opaque in the original text and you were the interpreter, you would interpret it according to your paradigm.
The same principle applies to any who interpret. Is it any wonder there are misunderstandings by the readers?
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Shameless plug for new topic. All are invited.
www.christianityboard.com
DECONSTRUCTION - How far is too far?
This is somewhat of a follow-up to my previous topic from June 23, 2023: https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/is-there-a-cure-for-my-religious-upbringing-other-than-atheism-i-mean.56346/ Here's another video that talks specifically about the process of deconstruction that Sara Martin...
www.christianityboard.com
Similar threads
