Bible Problem

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

and this is a perfect example of either a paraphrase or dynamic translation. these I tell people to avoid for they are full of opinion and translators thoughts on how a verse should be read instead of it being written and read as it was originally.

As we draw closer to teh end, we can expect more and more corrupt translations to hit the market.

 

[Netchaplain]

and this is a perfect example of either a paraphrase or dynamic translation. these I tell people to avoid for they are full of opinion and translators thoughts on how a verse should be read instead of it being written and read as it was originally.

As we draw closer to teh end, we can expect more and more corrupt translations to hit the market.

Hi, and I agree. But the worst of all are the omissions, which without, one cannot grow as much (Mat 4:4).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Hi, and I agree. But the worst of all are the omissions, which without, one cannot grow as much (Mat 4:4).

I would disagree. I tell people that if they want the full impact of Scripture and grow to their fullest measure, they need to get into the Hebrew and Greek.

Most English translations do not corrupt doctrine and one can be a true disciple with using many English translations, but it is a translation and so many words in English lack the full impact of what was originally said or written.

 

[Netchaplain]

I would disagree. I tell people that if they want the full impact of Scripture and grow to their fullest measure, they need to get into the Hebrew and Greek.

I am just appealing to the fact that the Minority Text which the modern translations use are missing much of Scripture (Mat 4:4); and they change much of Scripture through interpolations (adding new words) and transpositions (changing the original order of the words).

 

[Jack]

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

Satan LOVES attacking our Bible!

2 Corinthians 11
Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness,

 

[Rockerduck]

By the Power of the Holy Spirit the devil will flee. Yes, there is corrupt bibles of the devils works, some subtle and some blatant., but claim righteousness. The Passion bible and the queer bible , to name two extremes.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I am just appealing to the fact that the Minority Text which the modern translations use are missing much of Scripture (Mat 4:4); and they change much of Scripture through interpolations (adding new words) and transpositions (changing the original order of the words).

Well missing verses, especially in light of older texts are controversial. I do not buy into conspiracies until I see evidence of a conspiracy. I do not see vaticanus and sinaiticus as some vast conspiracy to destroy the supremacy of all the doctrines we believe in.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

if they want the full impact of Scripture and grow to their fullest measure, they need to get into the Hebrew and Greek.

Thanks Be Unto God, He Preserved His Word Of Truth for me, in my own language, and
praise Him I don't have to be a multiple language expert to understand It, just:

A few Bible study Rules, And The Blessed Teacher (1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV).

"Simplicity In Christ!"

Amen.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thanks Be Unto God, He Preserved His Word Of Truth for me, in my own language, and
praise Him I don't have to be a multiple language expert to understand It, just:

A few Bible study Rules, And The Blessed Teacher (1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV).

"Simplicity In Christ!"

Amen.

Excellent rules. As I said, no one will suffer in their walk with god just reading in English. They can know a full deep rich relation with god.

but being able to go back to the original languages is like adding more wealth to a multibillionaire. It just deepens our appreciation.

One truth to remember. the original writings can be translated in to English correctly, but we cannot take any of the myriad English translations, translate them back to the original languages and be accurate in comparison.

 

[marks]

I am just appealing to the fact that the Minority Text which the modern translations use are missing much of Scripture (Mat 4:4); and they change much of Scripture through interpolations (adding new words) and transpositions (changing the original order of the words).

I also consider the fact that the Minority Manuscript is based on a few manuscripts that were not available for over 1000 years. If these few manuscripts - which differ as much as 25% from each other - are the true Word of God, that word was hidden in the sands of times for over 1000 years.

Yet the Psalmist wrote His Word is forever settled in heaven, and His faithfulness is to all generations. I believe the correct Bible is the one we've had continually, as shown in the Majority Manuscript, which is the consensus of 1000's of manuscripts, which show 99.5% agreement amongst themselves.

Much love!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

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

Interesting. I couldn’t understand not knowing all the translations. Which is it you prefer?

About Goliath. Then how is the following written in the translation you use? Concerning Goliaths sword? Is it Goliaths sword wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, or the brother of Goliath’s sword wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod? Or is it Goliath’s sword that killed Goliath’s brother wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod?

1 Samuel 21:9 Lexicon: Then the priest said, "The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the valley of Elah, behold, it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod; if you would take it for yourself, take it. For there is no other except it h

biblehub.com

 

[Netchaplain]

Satan LOVES attacking our Bible!

2 Corinthians 11
Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness,

Hi, and Amen! Where would an oppositional force against the Word of God come from? These false Bibles can't affect one's salvation, but only affect their growth in the Lord Jesus by not "living by every Word that proceedeth out from the mouth of God" (Mat 44). God bless!

 

[Netchaplain]

Well missing verses, especially in light of older texts are controversial. I do not buy into conspiracies until I see evidence of a conspiracy. I do not see vaticanus and sinaiticus as some vast conspiracy to destroy the supremacy of all the doctrines we believe in.

I think we either have Bibles with missing Scripture, or we don't. Thus, one of the differing manuscript sources (only 2 primary sources--the Majority Text or the Minority Text) are grievously in error; and why not, Satan has to attack the written Word to attemt to get to the living Word.

 

[Jack]

Hi, and Amen! Where would an oppositional force against the Word of God come from? These false Bibles can't affect one's salvation, but only affect their growth in the Lord Jesus by not "living by every Word that proceedeth out from the mouth of God" (Mat 44). God bless!

I have found that "false bibles" usually means 'I don't like what God said'.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

I have found that "false bibles" usually means 'I don't like what God said'.

As in the beginning, the 'liar' casts reflections on The ONE Truth, with:

1) Questioning: "Yeah, hath God Said?" But, he did not stop there, continuing with:

2) Adding To 3) Subtracting From, 4) watering down, and, Finally, 5) Denying It!

Sure has been a busy fella, Causing Massive ( over 100+ new versions ) Confusion, eh?

Amen.

 

[Netchaplain]

I also consider the fact that the Minority Manuscript is based on a few manuscripts that were not available for over 1000 years. If these few manuscripts - which differ as much as 25% from each other - are the true Word of God, that word was hidden in the sands of times for over 1000 years.

Yet the Psalmist wrote His Word is forever settled in heaven, and His faithfulness is to all generations. I believe the correct Bible is the one we've had continually, as shown in the Majority Manuscript, which is the consensus of 1000's of manuscripts, which show 99.5% agreement amongst themselves.

Much love!

Hi Brother, good to see you check in! Yes the Minority Text (Sinaiticus, codex B; the Vaticanus, codex Aleph, many do not count the Alexandrinus because it's worse than the other two) laid purdu for 1500 years, because the Greek scribes would not use them for copying due to numerous errors, and shortened passages. Thus they didn't ware out like most of the Majority manuscripts. The copyist would copy a worn out manuscript one more time and destroy it so it could not be misused. Which is why we only have copies of copies now.

God bless!

 

[Netchaplain]

Interesting. I couldn’t understand not knowing all the translations. Which is it you prefer?

About Goliath. Then how is the following written in the translation you use? Concerning Goliaths sword? Is it Goliaths sword wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, or the brother of Goliath’s sword wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod? Or is it Goliath’s sword that killed Goliath’s brother wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod?

Hi, and appreciate you reply! What we are discussing is 2Sam 21:19, which mistakenly says "Elhanan killed Goliath" in most of the modern translations. God bless!

 

[Jack]

As in the beginning, the 'liar' casts reflections on The ONE Truth, with:

1) Questioning: "Yeah, hath God Said?" But, he did not stop there, continuing with:

2) Adding To 3) Subtracting From, 4) watering down, and, Finally, 5) Denying It!

Sure has been a busy fella, Causing Massive ( over 100+ new versions ) Confusion, eh?

Amen.

There's a reason we have thousands of 'Christian' churches who nearly all believe differently. Satan is VERY religious! Many make a DRASTIC mistake going to 'church' first instead of studying the Bible first!

2 Corinthians 11
14 Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness,

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Hi, and appreciate you reply! What we are discussing is 2Sam 21:19, which mistakenly says "Elhanan killed Goliath" in most of the modern translations. God bless!

Ignore my comment then, I misunderstood. My mistake. I got caught confused at the part in the OP, at “who did David kill”

 

[Netchaplain]

Ignore my comment then, I misunderstood. My mistake. I got caught confused at the part in the OP, at “who did David kill”

That's ok! Also wanted you to know that the modern version omit much Scripture. Example: 1Jn 5:7 is entirely omitted. They say "For there are three that testify," and that's all. It is suppose to say, "For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these Three are one."

This is an example of many entirely omitted passages. But most of the omissions are partial phrases and words. Thus they do not contain the entire Word of God (Mat 4:4). The best is KJV or NKJV, which do retain the entire Word, which none of the modern translations do!