One could say that God enabled the King James translators to make an extremely faithful English translation. Some call it "inspiration" but that term is only reserved for the originals. There were 47 outstanding scholars and devout Christians involved over a period of about seven years. The procedure they used ensured that personal biases would be addressed by having several men review each other's efforts.
KJV Only...which one!
- Thread starter Nancy
- 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!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's right. Most of us, including myself, are not able to read the original languages. So we lean on our Christian brothers and sisters who have studied and become proficient in them. One of my Bible teachers reads and understands the Greek New Testament quite well. Another of my Bible teachers reads and understands the Hebrew Scriptures. So I am confident in what these men say about the meanings of the text. But I also try, when I devote the time, to doing the hard work myself.
But let's turn this around now and let me say that I have all the confidence in the translations with which I grew up. (I can't speak for anything past the year 2000). NASB, NIV, ASV, and RSV. The KJV is not on my list, but it isn't because I think the KJV is a bad translation. It was a good translation for its time. But most of us don't understand 17th century King James English. For many of us, it remains a foreign language.
Zoe disagrees. In her opinion, most people can understand the KJV just fine. And so she would keep the KJV on her list. In fact, we often grab her Scofield Bible to quickly look up verses.
Bottom line is this. I think the body of Christ should continue to read the Bible with confidence and carefully consider which translation is the most reliable. I have listed some above that I wouldn't hesitate to purchase for myself or a loved one. I personally use the NASB, but I know good and honest, Christ-loving Christians who use the others I listed. And of course, Zoe prefers the KJV.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Where is all this hatred coming from? Why base your argument on character assassination?
Let me point something out that might have escaped your notice. Let's suppose that the Pope and the Catholic Church is as bad as you say. No, let's suppose that it is worse than you can imagine. (Just for the sake of argument.) Can we say, for certain, that there are no good, Christ-loving Christian believers among the Catholics? I can't. In fact, I am fairly confident that the Catholic church can count many true believers among them, dedicated to a holy, righteous, devout life, serving the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and spirit. Many of them would not agree with the leadership or the current direction of the church with regard to the abandonment of long held beliefs.
If I am right, then I can never know for certain that Westcott and Hort didn't work with such devoted, Christ-loving people. I am unwilling to assign guilt by association especially since I don't know these men personally or what took place. I am certain, however, that if anyone wanted to create a Greek Edition of the New Testament, they would need to visit the Vatican where the texts are stored. Working with the Vatican is to be expected.
You must know or suspect that such talk of the Vatican and the Catholic Pope comes from a deadly rivalry between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers. Given such a deep seated division, such talk of evil popes and Catholic Influences smacks of that hatred and rivalry. After all, for many years, Protestants referred to the RCC and the Pope as "the beast", "the antichrist" , "the one world religion" etc. Perhaps you didn't realize that this kind of talk is mere propaganda and "war-like" rhetoric intended to rally the troops against the enemy. It isn't necessarily true.
Such rhetoric is a tool of the enemy, who wants us to focus on the man rather than his ideas. The enemy will say things like "don't believe the pope because he is the antichrist", placing the focus on the man rather than his words. The children of God focus on the words; the words are either true or false, and it doesn't matter who says them.
Please, remain focused on the text, not on the supposed motives of those who collected them or those who translated them. The only valid questions in this context is "Does the Greek edition represent all the known manuscripts?" and "Does the translation convey the ideas found in those manuscripts?" The NASB has a high confidence level in my opinion.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
The problem with this line of thinking is that we do not see this concept in the Bible. When we read the Bible: God never required any of His people to look back to some more ancient difficult language that is foreign to them in order to understand His Word. What we do see is God making copies when the originals were destroyed.
(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).
(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).
(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).
In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.
“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).
Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.
Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).
2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.
So the belief of “Originals Onlyism” that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect (even though it does not exist), and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.
You said:
But this is based on humanistic thinking and not on what we read about in the Bible.
No it isn't because God at one point in history inspired Greek (Which was the world language at one time).
English now is the world language and we know God makes copies if the originals are destroyed.
We know by Psalms 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25 that the words of the Lord endure forever.
You said:
But there is no one set of God's Word that stands out that exists in the original languages. Not all Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts agree with each other exactly. For how would you even be sure that you have the right ones seeing nobody today truly knows what these dead languages truly say? The apostle Paul is not around to correct people on their Greek. Moses is not around to correct people on their Hebrew. Recent Hebrew/Greek to English dictionaries are by Revisers who departed from the Traditional Text and favored the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts (used in Modern bibles) that attacks the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the doctrine of fasting to cast out persistent demons, etcetera.
NO doctines have been affect in them, and they have NO dark origins!
The Nas and esv and Nkjv all had scholars just as good and faithful as the kjv translators!
the kjv is a good translation, but there have been big improvements in the various tools and reference sources available to translators today that they just did not have access to, and the person wanting to stay Kjv can use the Nkjv with confidence!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between hatred towards wrong beliefs and sins, vs. hatred towards people.
Do you believe everyone will be saved?
Do you not believe that certain false beliefs can keep even Christians out of God's kingdom? Take for example the belief in the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Do you believe self proclaiming Christians can reject the resurrection and be saved? Meaning, do you think they can claim to believe in Jesus as their Savior and reject the resurrection and be saved? What about the Trinity? Can a Christian reject the Trinity and be saved?
In other words, my hatred is against the false beliefs that runs contrary to the Bible and not the actual people themselves. So I hate Catholicism (the unbiblical belief or false way), and yet love the actual soul of the Catholic.
“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” (Psalms 119:104).
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil...” (Proverbs 8:13).
“...Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.” (Romans 12:9).
“Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.” (Psalms 97:10).
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34).
You said:
I am merely trying to see where you stand in your beliefs. If you side with Catholicism and do not see a problem with their practices, then that explains why you don't have a problem with any kind of Catholic influence upon the Scriptures.
You said:
If that is the case, then one can say that a person who is into the Buddha religion who is only seeking to love others and promote peace and who is dedicated to living a sacred holy life is also okay with God.
The point here is that one's love towards what they believe is God, and their love for others does not matter if it is misguided and not based on the actual truth.
For Jesus recognizes that those who are evil can love their own (like their own children by giving them gifts).
“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,...” (Matthew 7:11).
My point here is that there is a correct way to love and worship God and a false way in doing that.
We know God hates sin. Can we honestly say that Catholics are not going against many things in the Bible and sinning in God's eyes? Take for example their bowing down to statues. This would be considered idolatry according to the Bible because Daniel's three friends did not come up with a clever work around that Catholics do. For did Daniel's three friends bow down before a statue of the king and claim they were not really worshiping it (like Catholics say when they bow down to statues)? No, no. Most certainly not. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were willing to die instead of bowing down to a statue (i.e. idolatry). Then there is the whole praying to the dead saints belief. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever promote the idea that Christians can pray to dead saints or believers. Prayer has always been to God in the Bible, and any contact with the dead falls into the realm of Necromancy. The Bible forbids in contacting the dead. I could keep going but you get the idea. These things are sins or evils that God hates. Nobody can abide in sin and say they truly love God. Also, God cannot accept those who continue in sin and refuse to repent (seek forgiveness of those sins with the Lord Jesus Christ) and bring forth fruits of repentance (i.e. like doing good on God's terms and putting away evil out of their lives).
You said:
Hort called the Textus Receptus or Received Text as villainous and vile but he never really gave any real reason why.
Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.
You said:
No, Westcott and Hort held to Catholic beliefs.
Hort himself said:
“I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their causes and results.”
Source:
Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 81 - This was a letter written to Westcott on October 17, 1865.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Well, I am not exactly Protestant (See my post here to learn more about my brief view on salvation). I also believe in New Testament Non-Resistance and in loving our enemies (Yet exposing the errors of any false beliefs). So yes. I don't agree with violence and hatred of one's enemies that took place by Protestants. But there is a big difference between that and hating the false belief and correcting them in love and respect.
But to ignore the Catholic church & its dark spiritual influence, and its involvement during the End Times is to simply put on a blindfold to the truth.
One clearly see the marks of Rome as Mystery Babylon in Revelation 17-18. Rome is a great city of wealth and its state religion is world wide in many countries. It's economic collapse after the Antichrist destroys them lines up with the third seal of famine and poverty.
The whore is described as being clothed in scarlet and purple.
The RCC (Roman Catholic Church)'s bishops and cardinals are clothed with these colors in parades. It looks like a sea of scarlet and purple from afar.
She calls herself a “Queen.”
The RCC worships & calls Mary the “Queen of Heaven.”
There is a golden cup of abominations in her hand.
This is the RCC's pagan practice of the Eucharist (Which is an abomination to the Lord).
She is drunk with the blood of the saints.
Rome has killed more Christians than any other country could ever aspire to.
She sits upon 7 hills.
Granted, hills is a reference to nations or kingdoms, but it is odd that the Vatican is known for having 7 hills (of which they refer to such a thing themselves).
As for evil popes: Well, yes. There were evil popes. Granted, the practices of the Catholic church themselves are sinful and evil but there were popes who did even more evils that many will recognize as horrifying. Again, you don't seem to recognize this for some reason or you simply may not be aware of it. In either case, the Catholics used to kill their own people if they were caught possessing the Scriptures. Today, I believe they have simply changed tactics in taking the Word of God out of people's hands by getting them to doubt God's Word by setting up a religious system that tells men to believe in the scholar (priest) over what the Bible plainly says. For Catholics hate Sola Scriptura or the Bible Alone, and they will do anything at any cost to get people to shift the pattern of thinking away from that. They succeeded with Westcott and Hort and their Nestle and Aland Critical Text (Which is tied into the “Religion of Modern Scholarship” that gets people to hiss like the serpent in saying: “Yea, hath God said,...?”).
You said:
Yes, I agree the pope is not the antichrist or anything. But one cannot disassociate practiced sin from a person or people, though. For if such was not the case, then you must conclude the works of Hitler is somebody you could also study and learn from, too. For to look for the good in Hitler's life and say he was not all that bad of a guy is to discolor the facts of what happened in history. In fact, the New King James Bible used the Biblia Hebraica (1901) for the Old Testament (See here) which was translated by Rudolf (not the reindeer). Rudolf Kittel was an Anti-semite and his son went on to join the Nazi party (See here to learn more about him). In other words, if Hitler worked on a bible translation, I would be disturbed greatly if you thought that you could learn and study from such a translation as being good in any way. Why? Because he slaughtered tons of Jews because he thought they were an inferior race, and he wanted to take over the world with a pure race of German people. If that's not enough of a reason, I don't know what could do it for you? I mean, what if the devil himself made a bible translation? Would you still think it would be helpful and useful to study it? See, what you don't get is that there is a spirit of influence behind people doing what they do. People are not going to be truthful and unbiased if they are against the truths of God in a strong way.
You said:
The NASB is extremely problematic in many ways.
The Modern Bibles such as the NAS, and ESV also employ the words: divinity or divine nature, etcetera instead of using the word Godhead for Acts of the Apostles 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. Modern Bibles like the NAS and ESV in 1 Timothy 3:16 changes God was manifest to a He was revealed or manifest in the flesh instead. So we see a constant attack against the deity of Christ.
Unlike the KJB, the NAS has gone through thousands of words changed from its predecessors.
NASB 1995 / NASB 2020 - Every Change - John Dyer
In other words, if they keep it up, one hundred years from now, your NASB will be completely unrecognizable to the one you have now. In other words, it's a shapeshifter bible, and it's never settled.
There is no reverence for God's holy words. Revelation 22:18-19 warns against adding and taking away from God's words. With a Modern Bible: Nobody would even know if God's words were altered because they butcher up the Bible continually treating the text as if it was silly putty and not the very words of God. For not all manuscripts agree with each other. Yet, they try to say that they are coming out with new and better ones all the time. New and more exciting discoveries just around the corner. Sounds like a false sales pitch to me. Either God's Word is preserved by His hand today or it is not. It's that simple.
But I believe God's Word in that it is pure and it is preserved forever (See: Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, and 1 Peter 1:23-25).
In any event, may God's good ways be upon you
(even if we disagree upon this topic).
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
The technical theological term for believing the King James Bible is inspired along with believing the originals were inspired is called: “Double Inspiration.” The words of our Bible today are “in-Spirit-ed” (i.e. inspired).
We can point to it and say with confidence that it is indeed the Word of God because it has no errors within it.
There are those who are called TRO's that simply believe the Textus Receptus manuscripts were perfect or inspired (and there are even variations on this kind of belief) and they believe the KJB is the most faithful translation (although they think it is not perfect).
I believe the King James Bible is perfect and without error and the hand of God was upon it. I say this because if it was not perfect, then how do we determine which doctrines are true or false? Lexicons we have today come from the Revisers.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
If you were to click on the link you quoted from me, you would have gotten the answer.
Anyways, you do not need the TR Greek text because nobody on the planet truly knows Koine Greek with 100% accuracy. Such a language is gone and dead. Men are only guessing as to what this language says. God did all the heavy lifting for you. You just need the Bible in English to read and study and this would be the 1900 Cambridge King James Edition. You can read this version of the KJV at Biblehub.com (Provided by Bible Protector).
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I believe anyone who truly makes it their mission to know the history of the King James Bible will end up being KJB Only unless they are biased towards Westcott and Hort's Critical Text and in revising the Bible. In any event, as I pointed out before, I believe God can use men despite their beliefs and intentions. Joseph's brothers. Saul's men. Jonah. Note: When I say beliefs, I am not talking about men believing in extremely heretical things like say, devil worship or idolatry or something. Surely men who translate the Bible should be godly men and if they did hold to any questionable beliefs, those beliefs would have to be reigned in or suppressed by a double check system that would prevent them from influencing the text.
There are mistakes and errors ion both the Tr Greek text and the Kjv though, as the ONLY perfect and inspired texts were the Originals penned under inspiration of the Holy Spirit!
Think that there are NO doctrines and theology if one chooses to use MV such as the esv/nas and Nkjv!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Not true.
A List of Doctrines Changed in God's Word:
(Between the KJB and Modern Translations):
#1. Doctrine of The Trinity is Effected; For the Only Verse (1 John 5:7) That Point Blank Tells Us About the Trinity is Removed:
If I was on an island, and I had no clue about Christianity, the odds of my understanding the Trinity is better if I had a King James bible vs. a Modern Translation bible that removes this valuable truth on knowing the Trinity. So this proves that Modern Translations are less helpful for me to understand the Trinity by using the Bible alone.
#2. The Doctrine of Fasting So As To Cast Out Persistent Demons is Removed:
Matthew 17:21 that tells us that casting out persistent or really strong devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, Matthew 17:21 is oddly removed in Modern Translations. Mark 9:29 mentions that you can pray to remove these kinds of devils, but it does not mention fasting. So the key doctrine of fasting so as to cast out really strong demons is gone. So the enemy wins if a person only adheres to the Modern Translations and they have a hate on for the KJV. For if you ever encountered strong demonic activity like this before, you know that fasting does actually help greatly, and not just prayer alone.
#3. The Full Version of the Doctrine on Having "No Condemnation" According to Romans 8:1 is Removed:
Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no Condemnation: We have to (a) Be in Christ Jesus, AND: (b) Walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a water down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that they do not need to worry about sin destroying their soul.
#4. The Doctrine of Psalms 12:7 that the Lord will Preserve His Words Forever is Altered.
Psalms 12:6 says the words of the Lord are pure words, and in Psalms 12:7, the Psalmist says that the Lord will preserve them forever. It's kind of funny or odd that those who are against a perfect Bible existing in our world language today (i.e. the KJV) just so happen to favor Modern translations that remove and alter this very verse. Some do not even believe there is a perfect Bible out there. So who decides what words in the Bible are the true words of God? Do they decide? Now, some may say the perfect Word exists in the original languages. But Habakkuk 2:2 says write the words plainly so that he that reads it may run. So it's not going to be some gobbledygook language that nobody can understand (like biblical Hebrew, and biblical Greek). In fact, all we have today are copies of the original languages. This is not the case with the KJV. Meaning, His Word is preserved forever. His Word moved with the times. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. His Word does not exist perfectly in some dead language, but His Word exists in the English (Which is the world language of today).
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
#5. In Genesis 3:16, the ESV (Which is one of the most popular Modern Translations) Doctrinally Changes the Nature of the Truth in the KJV by Saying that Eve's (the wife's) Desire is Contrary To Her Husband.
#6. 2 Corinthians 3:12, and Habakkuk 2:2 is Altered by Modern Translations To Eliminate That God Uses Plainness of Speech.
This is important to understand because Modern Translation folk tend to prefer to look to the original languages to understand God's Word as their one and only go to source. This is not the plainness of speech that God employs. While God can speak in metaphor, or parables, He also speaks in plainness of speech, too. This has to be applicable to our life today in some way. Surely it is not a coincidence that these two key verses are eliminated in their favored Modern Translations (that influences their way of thinking).
#7. Philippians 2:7 Changes Doctrine by Removing an Aspect of the Deity of Christ During His Earthly Ministry.
Philippians 2:6-7 says correctly,
6 “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6-7).
King James correctly says that Christ made himself of no reputation.
Various different Modern Translations say that He “emptied himself,” and the NLT says that, “he gave up his divine privileges;” (Philippians 2:7). This is false and it is a denial of the deity of Christ. God cannot cease to become God. God cannot cut out an aspect of who He is at His core in having divine power and yet still be God. That would be a contradiction. The Modern Translations are teaching a gnostic heresy in denying that Jesus has power as God. Granted, Jesus had grown in wisdom (See: Luke 2:52), but I believe this was not an elimination of His divine powers as God, but it was a suppression of them (See: John 17:5, Habakkuk 2:14). For Jesus needed to be a like figure or type of Adam; For Adam also was limited in knowledge when He was in a right relationship with God before the Fall (See: 1 Corinthians 15:45-47). However, Jesus clearly had power as God as a man before the cross. For...
Jesus had power as God:
(during his earthly ministry):
Anyways, these are just a few of the red flags in Modern Translations.
But there are so many red flags in Modern Translations, it would make one think they were in a Russian airport.
#6. 2 Corinthians 3:12, and Habakkuk 2:2 is Altered by Modern Translations To Eliminate That God Uses Plainness of Speech.
This is important to understand because Modern Translation folk tend to prefer to look to the original languages to understand God's Word as their one and only go to source. This is not the plainness of speech that God employs. While God can speak in metaphor, or parables, He also speaks in plainness of speech, too. This has to be applicable to our life today in some way. Surely it is not a coincidence that these two key verses are eliminated in their favored Modern Translations (that influences their way of thinking).
#7. Philippians 2:7 Changes Doctrine by Removing an Aspect of the Deity of Christ During His Earthly Ministry.
Philippians 2:6-7 says correctly,
6 “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6-7).
King James correctly says that Christ made himself of no reputation.
Various different Modern Translations say that He “emptied himself,” and the NLT says that, “he gave up his divine privileges;” (Philippians 2:7). This is false and it is a denial of the deity of Christ. God cannot cease to become God. God cannot cut out an aspect of who He is at His core in having divine power and yet still be God. That would be a contradiction. The Modern Translations are teaching a gnostic heresy in denying that Jesus has power as God. Granted, Jesus had grown in wisdom (See: Luke 2:52), but I believe this was not an elimination of His divine powers as God, but it was a suppression of them (See: John 17:5, Habakkuk 2:14). For Jesus needed to be a like figure or type of Adam; For Adam also was limited in knowledge when He was in a right relationship with God before the Fall (See: 1 Corinthians 15:45-47). However, Jesus clearly had power as God as a man before the cross. For...
Jesus had power as God:
(during his earthly ministry):
#1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).
So Modern Translations are wrong. In fact, many Christians today think Jesus gave up His divine powers; This is because of the wrong teaching (or wrong doctrine) behind Modern Translations.
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).
So Modern Translations are wrong. In fact, many Christians today think Jesus gave up His divine powers; This is because of the wrong teaching (or wrong doctrine) behind Modern Translations.
Anyways, these are just a few of the red flags in Modern Translations.
But there are so many red flags in Modern Translations, it would make one think they were in a Russian airport.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
#8. Modern Bibles falsely teach Jesus had faith.
Hebrews 12:2 (NRSV)
“looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.”
The King James Bible correctly renders Hebrews 12:2.
Hebrews 12:2 (KJB)
“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Jesus is the author or the creator of our faith because He is God. God or Jesus gave us the words of eternal life so as to believe in Him. He created the faith for us to believe in Him, and to trust in Him for salvation and to trust in His words. Jesus is not the pioneer of our faith. That’s a false teaching from Modern Bibles that were influenced by Westcott, Hort, and Catholicism. Granted, if you believe in Westcott, Hort, and or Catholicism, I mean no offense. I just disagree with their beliefs, and I consider them to be unbiblical.
#9. The False Belief that Jesus is a second created god is taught in Modern Bibles:
Modern Bibles wrongfully teach the demi-god Jesus viewpoint in that they wrongfully imply the Eternal second PERSON of the Trinity (the Living Word) had a beginning point in time in being a created being. In John 1:18, in the King James Bible, it correctly says: “the only begotten Son,” but this is changed in corrupted Modern bibles to say: "The only begotten God" (LSV) (BLB) (AMP) (NAS1977) (NAS1995). In Micah 5:2, in the King James Bible, it correctly says of the Living Word (or the Messiah) is: “from everlasting,” but this is changed in the corrupted Modern bibles to: “from ancient times” or “from ancient days” or “distant past.” (Suggesting that the second person of the Trinity did not exist from eternity’s past but had a beginning).
Hebrews 12:2 (NRSV)
“looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.”
The King James Bible correctly renders Hebrews 12:2.
Hebrews 12:2 (KJB)
“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Jesus is the author or the creator of our faith because He is God. God or Jesus gave us the words of eternal life so as to believe in Him. He created the faith for us to believe in Him, and to trust in Him for salvation and to trust in His words. Jesus is not the pioneer of our faith. That’s a false teaching from Modern Bibles that were influenced by Westcott, Hort, and Catholicism. Granted, if you believe in Westcott, Hort, and or Catholicism, I mean no offense. I just disagree with their beliefs, and I consider them to be unbiblical.
#9. The False Belief that Jesus is a second created god is taught in Modern Bibles:
Modern Bibles wrongfully teach the demi-god Jesus viewpoint in that they wrongfully imply the Eternal second PERSON of the Trinity (the Living Word) had a beginning point in time in being a created being. In John 1:18, in the King James Bible, it correctly says: “the only begotten Son,” but this is changed in corrupted Modern bibles to say: "The only begotten God" (LSV) (BLB) (AMP) (NAS1977) (NAS1995). In Micah 5:2, in the King James Bible, it correctly says of the Living Word (or the Messiah) is: “from everlasting,” but this is changed in the corrupted Modern bibles to: “from ancient times” or “from ancient days” or “distant past.” (Suggesting that the second person of the Trinity did not exist from eternity’s past but had a beginning).
Similar threads
