Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?

[Bob Estey]

Lets compare one verse in this study... 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"

So is it important, well lets look more closely at what scripture gives us on the 'antichrist' going back to 1 John 4:3..

1 John 4:3
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.

The antichrist has to deny Jesus came in the flesh. Let’s look up the Greek word “flesh” in the Greek Lexicon and see what it can mean..

Strong’s Hebrew/Greek Concordance:

sarx: Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): – carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

Thayer Definition:
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body 2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation 2c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature” 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

So what is our human nature, what are all human beings guilty of according to the bible. They are all guilty of sin, they have the propensity or that which opposes God. The bible teaches that although Jesus never sinned, he became sin for us.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus came through the line of David, and we see what David said...

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This means that the whole line of David was a lineage individuals with a nature to sin, including Jesus. This is how Jesus, being God, could be tempted to sin as we see in the wilderness with the devil, Because he became man, and being made into a man he had the same human nature as man, the ability to sin. But yet He didnt sin...

So, how does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Jesus did not come in the flesh (human nature)? Well when they teach that the Virgin Mary was sinless at her conception of the baby Jesus, they in essence teach that Jesus has not come in the flesh, because Jesus came through her lineage, and as David had a nature to sin, she also had a nature to sin. Here is from the Catechism:

491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of JESUS Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. -Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.

To say that Jesus came into the world this way, born of a virgin who was not of sinful “flesh” as we are all in our human nature, is to say he did not come in the “flesh” of sinful nature because he came through her lineage. That shows who is the spirit of antichrist and so its important which version of the Bible you have..

I doubt you'll find a perfect version of the Bible. I suspect some are better than others. I wouldn't know which is which, though. I stick with the Bible (RSV) I was given to me by my church as a child. I think the New King James Version might be my second choice.

 

[Athanasius377]

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"

Put the verse back into context:


Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 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.


The New International Version. Zondervan, 2011, p. 1 Jn 4:1–3.

The KJV reading is a textual variant found in several Old Latin manuscripts and one late 10th century Greek text in the margin at the earliest in the Greek manuscripts we possess. This is likely a marginal note that was incorporated into the text by a later scribe. It is not considered a reliable reading.

Citation, Neslte-Aland 28th edition Novum Testamentum Graece page 722.

So, how does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Jesus did not come in the flesh (human nature)? Well when they teach that the Virgin Mary was sinless at her conception of the baby Jesus, they in essence teach that Jesus has not come in the flesh, because Jesus came through her lineage, and as David had a nature to sin, she also had a nature to sin. Here is from the Catechism:

The Papal church does teach many errors in regards to Mary. However, the Papal church does not teach that Jesus did not come in the flesh. Quite the opposite:


II. The Incarnation


461 Taking up St. John’s expression, “The Word became flesh,” the Church calls “Incarnation” the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. In a hymn cited by St. Paul, the Church sings the mystery of the Incarnation: (653, 661; 449)


Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.


462 The Letter to the Hebrews refers to the same mystery:


Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.’ ”


463 Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.” Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings “the mystery of our religion”: “He was manifested in the flesh.”86 (90)


III. True God and True Man


Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Ed., United States Catholic Conference, 2000, pp. 116–17.


You should correct your errors in this post as they are easily debunked.

A.

 

[Hobie]

I doubt you'll find a perfect version of the Bible. I suspect some are better than others. I wouldn't know which is which, though. I stick with the Bible (RSV) I was given to me by my church as a child. I think the New King James Version might be my second choice.

Well you have tò check as they are changing the Word it appears in many Bibles.

 

[JohnDB]

Now here are a few tidbits of Westcott and Hort ideas...


1. Westcott's Views:
He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following:

"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

2. Hort's View:
…Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:


"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book
that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."


3. Hort's View:
He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.

"I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly
agrees."

4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.”
"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.”


5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
from his séance club he writes:

“As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
not in one form, but in many.”

Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions.

6. Hort believes in the Sacraments.
"I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of
F.J.A. Hort, p. 99)

7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts.
"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.
That time has happily gone by.”


8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend.
"I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1,
P. 233)

9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary.
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in
common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50)


10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith.
A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.”

B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as

expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.”

C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly

Father.”

D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.”

(The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p.428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co.,Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976).

You are completely mischaracterizing these gentlemen of the past.
Westcott was an expert in Ancient Near East literature especially among the Jewish writings and books. Hort was a financier of Westcott's writings.
Westcott wanted no part in translating the scriptures even though he was asked on numerous occasions. He also had to be very careful about where he went as certain factions/denominations wanted to force him to meet Jesus immediately. (They had a smear campaign that attacked his character claiming he was practicing witchcraft....which is where most of these false quotes stem from....the rest are isolated out of context)

Westcott's commentary on Hebrews is unmatched and unparalleled in comprehension. ALL commentaries on the book of Hebrews refer to Westcott's work extensively.

Is slander your only means of elevation?

 

[Athanasius377]

Well you have tò check as they are changing the Word it appears in many Bibles.

Changing the Word according to what standard? A 17th century Anglican translation for use in the Church of England? And who is the "they" you speak of?

 

[Gottservant]

I heard someone say, that there is a lot of "patterns of words" (or even "gematria") that doesn't work for any other translation but the NKJV.

 

[Runningman]

Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?​

Yes it matters. For starters, some Bibles are translated with bias and agenda. There are sponsors who hire translators to make a Bible a certain way.

There are some 100+ Bible translations and versions in English. There are also different base manuscripts from which the various Bibles are made and not all of the information is in agreement. The evidence is that some point after they started making copies of the original manuscripts that alterations were. Besides scribal errors there are also apparent deliberate alterations of the Biblical manuscripts over the years. Some have been discovered, but so much may be lost to time at this point.

I don't feel inclined to tell anyone which Bible version to read. All I can say is study carefully and don't be afraid to believe exactly what Jesus does about who his God is. If you get the foundation right then you'll be on the correct path to understand the rest.

 

[Deborah_]

I heard someone say, that there is a lot of "patterns of words" (or even "gematria") that doesn't work for any other translation but the NKJV.

Gematria won't work for any translation (except by pure serendipity) - only for the original Hebrew/Greek

 

[Hobie]

Yes it matters. For starters, some Bibles are translated with bias and agenda. There are sponsors who hire translators to make a Bible a certain way.

There are some 100+ Bible translations and versions in English. There are also different base manuscripts from which the various Bibles are made and not all of the information is in agreement. The evidence is that some point after they started making copies of the original manuscripts that alterations were. Besides scribal errors there are also apparent deliberate alterations of the Biblical manuscripts over the years. Some have been discovered, but so much may be lost to time at this point.

I don't feel inclined to tell anyone which Bible version to read. All I can say is study carefully and don't be afraid to believe exactly what Jesus does about who his God is. If you get the foundation right then you'll be on the correct path to understand the rest.

I have to say, finally a well thought out answer. So the next question is what has everyone found in the version they have, the good and the bad...

 

[Randy Kluth]

We find that Polycarp does include the phrase 'come in the flesh' when he quotes this passage in his letter to the Philippians so it was there. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)

It would be nice if you quote what particular sentences you are referring to. Your hyperlink includes a length that you could easily condense to save time. I do not see what you claim, that the Church Fathers diminished the physical flesh of Jesus in emphasizing Jesus' Deity.

Gnosticism....They mixed truth with falsehoods and Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth and the Gnostic sects develop the belief that Jesus was merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.

I know what Gnosticism was, although apparently much of their literature was lost or destroyed. It viewed Salvation as not by divine virtue empowering us but rather, by knowledge alone, sometimes combined with asceticism and at other times with permissiveness, or libertinism.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially strong in Egypt, but the one thing that they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the truth, and the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

You base this on what? Give me an example of Gnosticism mixed into biblical manuscripts? I'm not denying this happened--I just want to know where you're getting your info from?

Now as the movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially in Rome and Egypt, it gets interesting. From Egypt we get some of their ideas and beliefs that were put into corrupted manuscripts and years later two of these manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library and the other in a monastery in the Sinai. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language...

You base this on what? Vaticanus & Sinaiticus were Greek manuscripts.

And now it becomes even more interesting, as Anglicans Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language and the differences began to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark and gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time frame are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version , the New International Version , the New World Translation & many more picked up from the Gnostic corrupted manuscripts.... and now we know the rest of the story as they say...

I think most, if not all, modern Bible translations take note of Vaticanus & Sinaiticus. If you think they are insignificant or irrelevant, nearly all of the scholars today would disagree with you.

 

[Hobie]

It would be nice if you quote what particular sentences you are referring to. Your hyperlink includes a length that you could easily condense to save time. I do not see what you claim, that the Church Fathers diminished the physical flesh of Jesus in emphasizing Jesus' Deity.

I know what Gnosticism was, although apparently much of their literature was lost or destroyed. It viewed Salvation as not by divine virtue empowering us but rather, by knowledge alone, sometimes combined with asceticism and at other times with permissiveness, or libertinism.

You base this on what? Give me an example of Gnosticism mixed into biblical manuscripts? I'm not denying this happened--I just want to know where you're getting your info from?

You base this on what? Vaticanus & Sinaiticus were Greek manuscripts.

I think most, if not all, modern Bible translations take note of Vaticanus & Sinaiticus. If you think they are insignificant or irrelevant, nearly all of the scholars today would disagree with you.

As the saying goes, a Man convinced AGAINST his will is of the same opinion still. Many hate the truth and rather close their eyes than see it, but what can you do.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As the saying goes, a Man convinced AGAINST his will is of the same opinion still. Many hate the truth and rather close their eyes than see it, but what can you do.

Zero response to relevant points.

 

[Hobie]

Zero response to relevant points.

Because like the Pharisees even if some rose from the dead would they be convinced?? Have to see what is there with eyes that are open to truth, a mind ready to grasp what God told us would happen, but they instead turned from it..

 

[JohnDB]

 

[RedFan]

I think most, if not all, modern Bible translations take note of Vaticanus & Sinaiticus. If you think they are insignificant or irrelevant, nearly all of the scholars today would disagree with you.

Let me quote from Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (MacMillan & Co. 1930) at p. 31:

"The relation of our printed Greek Testaments and of the
English versions to the types of text found in the MSS. may be
summarily stated in a very few words. Erasmus was the first
to produce an edition of the Greek Testament in print ; a
subsequent revision of his edition by the Paris printer Stephanus,
1550, became the standard printed text or Textus Receptus.
Readings of this text are commonly cited by the abbreviation
T.R. or the Greek letter f:" ( = st). Since both Erasmus and
Stephanus used (all but exclusively) late Byzantine MSS., the
English Authorised Version, which was translated from the Textus
Receptus, represents a late stage of the Byzantine text. On the
other hand, in the great critical editions of Westcott and Hort
and Tischendorf the Byzantine tradition is entirely abandoned
and the text is based almost entirely on the two oldest MSS. of
all, B (Vaticanus) and N (Sinaiticus)-of which the first probably,
the second possibly, dates from the reign of Constantine
(d. A.D. 337). Where these two MSS. differ, Westcott and Hort
usually follow B; Tischendorf more often prefers N (Aleph), his
own discovery. The "Revisers' text," from which the Revised
Version was translated, and which is published by the Oxford
University Press, represents a compromise, on the whole a very
reasonable one, between the views of Hort, who championed a.
text based on B, and those of the more conservative members
of the Committee who defended the Byzantine text."

 

[Hobie]

Let me quote from Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (MacMillan & Co. 1930) at p. 31:

"The relation of our printed Greek Testaments and of the
English versions to the types of text found in the MSS. may be
summarily stated in a very few words. Erasmus was the first
to produce an edition of the Greek Testament in print ; a
subsequent revision of his edition by the Paris printer Stephanus,
1550, became the standard printed text or Textus Receptus.
Readings of this text are commonly cited by the abbreviation
T.R. or the Greek letter f:" ( = st). Since both Erasmus and
Stephanus used (all but exclusively) late Byzantine MSS., the
English Authorised Version, which was translated from the Textus
Receptus, represents a late stage of the Byzantine text. On the
other hand, in the great critical editions of Westcott and Hort
and Tischendorf the Byzantine tradition is entirely abandoned
and the text is based almost entirely on the two oldest MSS. of
all, B (Vaticanus) and N (Sinaiticus)-of which the first probably,
the second possibly, dates from the reign of Constantine
(d. A.D. 337). Where these two MSS. differ, Westcott and Hort
usually follow B; Tischendorf more often prefers N (Aleph), his
own discovery. The "Revisers' text," from which the Revised
Version was translated, and which is published by the Oxford
University Press, represents a compromise, on the whole a very
reasonable one, between the views of Hort, who championed a.
text based on B, and those of the more conservative members
of the Committee who defended the Byzantine text."

Check, all these 3 were Alexandrian codices and all had deletions and Gnostic influenced changes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Check, all these 3 were Alexandrian codices and all had deletions and Gnostic influenced changes.

How would you know these texts were not closer to the original texts, instead of "deletions?" Of course you've already refused to explain... And you've refused to prove any Gnostic influences in these texts. So who should take your word for any of this?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Stick with the King!

Authorized Version (King James)

 

[Runningman]

I have to say, finally a well thought out answer. So the next question is what has everyone found in the version they have, the good and the bad...

Thanks and I have to say the topic you've brought up is excellent because it's not only something thought provoking, but it's something many people feel passionately about, including myself.

So I actually read a lot of different Bibles just because it's so easy to do that online and most publishers give the Bible away for free (as they should) online anyway. There are way too many things to say about the Bible to keep this concise, but some of the main things that are good/bad between the many versions and translations is the grammar and naming.

There wasn't capitalization and punctuation in the Greek and Hebrew so anywhere you see something capitalized and all of the punctuation it's quite literally the translator's best guess. There are also many ways to interpret the Bible, as I am sure many have seen in Bible discussions. As a result, it seems the placement of capitalization and punctuation can sometimes be subjective.

For the naming, for example, it may not always be clear that if that word "Lord" is said that it isn't always the Son. The Father is also called Lord in the Bible. This has led some to misappropriate some things to one or the other when (in my opinion) they shouldn't have and has spawned a lot of unconventional theology.

I'm still not going to recommend a particular Bible version, but I would recommend someone begin with a solid foundation in the Old Testament before going to the New. That's how I began. I just started at Genesis 1:1 and moved forward. I made it a point to not even read Revelation until I felt comfortable with the rest.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Stick with the King!

Authorized Version (King James)

The New KJV makes references to all of the available texts, as I understand it? So you would see as "poisonous" any attempt to use the oldest references to the Greek NT Bible? You see, like Hobie, that the Alexandrian text is "Gnostic?"